The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
Its interesting that you consider not cooperating with the Police a good thing, or shutting down other people's viewpoints a way to succeed.
The reality is that the far left is allowed and facilitated to speak far more than the far right is. Communists and far left people like Corbyn et al can speak largely uninterrupted and almost never 'no platformed' while the far right are no platformed very often.
At University I became heavily involved in my Student Union which was almost unique across the major Universities in being apolitical on non-student issues (nobody was elected as "Labour" or "Conservative") and having a policy of Free Speech. The culture was encouraged and maintained at the University and the Union that free speech was the right way to tackle ignorance, and that University is a place for education and debate. I went to the NUS Conference in 2003 where we en-bloc voted in line with our Union's policy against No Platform and in favour of Free Speech, a viewpoint that was roundly defeated in the NUS hall as everyone else I could see stood up to vote for No Platform and I didn't see anyone else in the hall but us stand up as a group for free speech.
In line with the policy of free speech, the year after I graduated the Debating Union (not a far right organisation) invited BNP Leader Nick Griffin in for a debate. He would have been rigorously challenged by others speaking against him. Far from the Police encouraging this as you claim, the Police said it couldn't proceed without them providing "security" and demanded an exorbitant fee for "security" to be arranged, one the union couldn't afford, so the debate was regrettably cancelled.
Thankfully five years later the BBC did see fit to invite Griffin onto Question Time, where he was put in the spotlight against Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Baroness Warsi and Bonnie Greer . . . and he completely fell apart, was completely exposed and the rest is history. The BNP died after that.
Free speech is the way to tackle ignorance.
At university I had essentially the same view - I went to university at a time and place where the BNP had a dozen elected local councillors and believed that confronting that head on was the best strategy going forward. Then I learned about the history and efficacy of that strategy over deplatforming - and deplatforming worked better. When fascists are given a platform their views get more air time than they are worth, and lies are easier to say than they are to disprove. Yes, after Nick Griffin went on Question time the BNP fell apart - but would you really argue the far-right is weaker now in the UK than it was then?
Yes I 100% would.
We've gone from having BNP Councillors elected, BNP European Parliament members elected to having no elected far right parties or politicians in the country.
Deplatforming just shows you're too weak to face down the opponents in honest debate. Something utterly unnecessary since the far right have no valid arguments which is why they lose in honest debate.
Absolutely. The decline for the BNP started pretty much directly after Nick Griffin's lamentable performance on Question Time, as said above, and the Far Right have never recovered and just splintered.
Of course, and looking at the article and the impact of social media, we live in an era where people label those they disagree with as fascist. Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler.
Even on here parties that are demonstrably not fascist, just right wing, are labelled as such.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I haven't mentioned Zionism. Though for what it is worth Jewish people who support Zionism ought to feel safe in this country.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
Basically everyone has condemned what Hamas did on the 7th - do you need every protester to have to sign such a declaration before they are allowed to protest? Should we add this to all protests and counter protests?
I'm not saying that everyone needed such a placard but it would be nice if at least some of them did. Were there any? And not everyone HAS condemned what Hamas did. I seem to remember on the 7/8 October there were some small celebrations with people holding Palestinian flags.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
The claims that the chants of "jihad" were about internal religious moral struggles and "river to the sea" merely geographical descriptions are some of the most disingenuous rubbish I've heard. They were intended to intimidate and frighten, Jews especially, and judging by the reaction of my Jewish friends and relations that is exactly what has happened.
It may well be legal. But it is neither wise nor kind. The spewing of hate on the streets of our cities has been an awful response to real crimes. It reflects appallingly on those doing it, those justifying it and those turning a blind eye to it. Depressing to see.
Yes, they are disingenuous rubbish. Everyone knows what is meant, and how it will be taken.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
Its interesting that you consider not cooperating with the Police a good thing, or shutting down other people's viewpoints a way to succeed.
The reality is that the far left is allowed and facilitated to speak far more than the far right is. Communists and far left people like Corbyn et al can speak largely uninterrupted and almost never 'no platformed' while the far right are no platformed very often.
At University I became heavily involved in my Student Union which was almost unique across the major Universities in being apolitical on non-student issues (nobody was elected as "Labour" or "Conservative") and having a policy of Free Speech. The culture was encouraged and maintained at the University and the Union that free speech was the right way to tackle ignorance, and that University is a place for education and debate. I went to the NUS Conference in 2003 where we en-bloc voted in line with our Union's policy against No Platform and in favour of Free Speech, a viewpoint that was roundly defeated in the NUS hall as everyone else I could see stood up to vote for No Platform and I didn't see anyone else in the hall but us stand up as a group for free speech.
In line with the policy of free speech, the year after I graduated the Debating Union (not a far right organisation) invited BNP Leader Nick Griffin in for a debate. He would have been rigorously challenged by others speaking against him. Far from the Police encouraging this as you claim, the Police said it couldn't proceed without them providing "security" and demanded an exorbitant fee for "security" to be arranged, one the union couldn't afford, so the debate was regrettably cancelled.
Thankfully five years later the BBC did see fit to invite Griffin onto Question Time, where he was put in the spotlight against Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Baroness Warsi and Bonnie Greer . . . and he completely fell apart, was completely exposed and the rest is history. The BNP died after that.
Free speech is the way to tackle ignorance.
Up to a point. I think that when it comes to recurrent protests in a residential area then the residents should have some rights to go about their business without the intimidation and inconvenience that comes with extremist protesters. I don't live far from Honor Oak and the thought of a bunch of fascists regularly turning up in our neck of the woods to intimidate local people is horrific.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
Its interesting that you consider not cooperating with the Police a good thing, or shutting down other people's viewpoints a way to succeed.
The reality is that the far left is allowed and facilitated to speak far more than the far right is. Communists and far left people like Corbyn et al can speak largely uninterrupted and almost never 'no platformed' while the far right are no platformed very often.
At University I became heavily involved in my Student Union which was almost unique across the major Universities in being apolitical on non-student issues (nobody was elected as "Labour" or "Conservative") and having a policy of Free Speech. The culture was encouraged and maintained at the University and the Union that free speech was the right way to tackle ignorance, and that University is a place for education and debate. I went to the NUS Conference in 2003 where we en-bloc voted in line with our Union's policy against No Platform and in favour of Free Speech, a viewpoint that was roundly defeated in the NUS hall as everyone else I could see stood up to vote for No Platform and I didn't see anyone else in the hall but us stand up as a group for free speech.
In line with the policy of free speech, the year after I graduated the Debating Union (not a far right organisation) invited BNP Leader Nick Griffin in for a debate. He would have been rigorously challenged by others speaking against him. Far from the Police encouraging this as you claim, the Police said it couldn't proceed without them providing "security" and demanded an exorbitant fee for "security" to be arranged, one the union couldn't afford, so the debate was regrettably cancelled.
Thankfully five years later the BBC did see fit to invite Griffin onto Question Time, where he was put in the spotlight against Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Baroness Warsi and Bonnie Greer . . . and he completely fell apart, was completely exposed and the rest is history. The BNP died after that.
Free speech is the way to tackle ignorance.
At university I had essentially the same view - I went to university at a time and place where the BNP had a dozen elected local councillors and believed that confronting that head on was the best strategy going forward. Then I learned about the history and efficacy of that strategy over deplatforming - and deplatforming worked better. When fascists are given a platform their views get more air time than they are worth, and lies are easier to say than they are to disprove. Yes, after Nick Griffin went on Question time the BNP fell apart - but would you really argue the far-right is weaker now in the UK than it was then?
Yes I 100% would.
We've gone from having BNP Councillors elected, BNP European Parliament members elected to having no elected far right parties or politicians in the country.
Deplatforming just shows you're too weak to face down the opponents in honest debate. Something utterly unnecessary since the far right have no valid arguments which is why they lose in honest debate.
Absolutely. The decline for the BNP started pretty much directly after Nick Griffin's lamentable performance on Question Time, as said above, and the Far Right have never recovered and just splintered.
Of course, and looking at the article and the impact of social media, we live in an era where people label those they disagree with as fascist. Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler.
Even on here parties that are demonstrably not fascist, just right wing, are labelled as such.
IT is all a bit like Rik in the Young Ones.
Yes, I can support Bart's assessment that the far right is immeasurably weaker today than it was fourty years ago and a lot of that is down to confronting it publicly and showing the emptiness of its ideas.
A similar thing happened with McCarthyism in the USA. It started to go into decline as soon as Joe M began to appear in public. Many would-be supporters simply turned away in disgust.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
Its interesting that you consider not cooperating with the Police a good thing, or shutting down other people's viewpoints a way to succeed.
The reality is that the far left is allowed and facilitated to speak far more than the far right is. Communists and far left people like Corbyn et al can speak largely uninterrupted and almost never 'no platformed' while the far right are no platformed very often.
At University I became heavily involved in my Student Union which was almost unique across the major Universities in being apolitical on non-student issues (nobody was elected as "Labour" or "Conservative") and having a policy of Free Speech. The culture was encouraged and maintained at the University and the Union that free speech was the right way to tackle ignorance, and that University is a place for education and debate. I went to the NUS Conference in 2003 where we en-bloc voted in line with our Union's policy against No Platform and in favour of Free Speech, a viewpoint that was roundly defeated in the NUS hall as everyone else I could see stood up to vote for No Platform and I didn't see anyone else in the hall but us stand up as a group for free speech.
In line with the policy of free speech, the year after I graduated the Debating Union (not a far right organisation) invited BNP Leader Nick Griffin in for a debate. He would have been rigorously challenged by others speaking against him. Far from the Police encouraging this as you claim, the Police said it couldn't proceed without them providing "security" and demanded an exorbitant fee for "security" to be arranged, one the union couldn't afford, so the debate was regrettably cancelled.
Thankfully five years later the BBC did see fit to invite Griffin onto Question Time, where he was put in the spotlight against Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Baroness Warsi and Bonnie Greer . . . and he completely fell apart, was completely exposed and the rest is history. The BNP died after that.
Free speech is the way to tackle ignorance.
Up to a point. I think that when it comes to recurrent protests in a residential area then the residents should have some rights to go about their business without the intimidation and inconvenience that comes with extremist protesters. I don't live far from Honor Oak and the thought of a bunch of fascists regularly turning up in our neck of the woods to intimidate local people is horrific.
Yes, I think there's a line to be drawn between protest/free speech and harassment.
The harassment of people going to schools is another way where the line is crossed.
But there's a world of difference between a one off speech/protest and a sustained campaign of harassment.
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Do you not think that is a bit... dishonest?
What, talking about common interests instead of arguing over things we know we disagree on? You sound like easy going company!
I suppose you had just better hope he never finds out what you really think and have been hiding from him.
Do you honestly never hide political opinions with friends or colleagues when you know they will cause rancour?
This is basic human decency. My friendship group stretches from far left to hard right (and many wild places in between). Unless they start advocating violence I do not ever police their opinions (and they respond in kind) - but this only works as we have a tacit agreement not to go too far into areas of deep contention
With new people I am equally guarded, out of sheer politeness, and a hope that a friendship might grow - despite suspected differences
There’s a reason why political discussion groups attract a certain type of person - and those who are more… normal… often find themselves in bother
Some of my most rewarding friendships are with people with whom I fundamentally disagree on crucial issues. We simply don’t talk about them, and with one or two I’ve NEVER talked about these things
I’m not hiding anything. Nor are they. We both instinctively sense there’s no point. Life is short. We enjoy each other’s company talking about rugby/souffles/icelandic sagas and we entirely avoid trans/brexit/abortion
I come here for the hard political stuff. With people I’ve never met. Its best
Exactly
I fell out with a few people I’d previously worked with for years when twitter came along. But when we met up for a pint, it was like nothing had happened
In real life, you say “oh fuck off” and change the subject; on here you’d end up arguing the point for years.
Yes, years!
Well, there are some people in real life who can't help but talk about their "common sense" views, and you either find yourself arguing against their racism every single time, or you avoid them.
But difficult if they're family, of course, which is one reason Brexit was so fraught and painful for so many.
When the pandemic began, my sister was talking enthusiastically about the good job that Boris was doing and how lucky we were to have a leader who was following the science and bringing the country together. When I ventured my opinion at the time that he should perhaps not have waited so long to lock down, my sister was quick to express her disgust that I was playing politics with a serious matter. For her, unconditional support of Boris was simply common sense; any questioning was politics.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
Its interesting that you consider not cooperating with the Police a good thing, or shutting down other people's viewpoints a way to succeed.
The reality is that the far left is allowed and facilitated to speak far more than the far right is. Communists and far left people like Corbyn et al can speak largely uninterrupted and almost never 'no platformed' while the far right are no platformed very often.
At University I became heavily involved in my Student Union which was almost unique across the major Universities in being apolitical on non-student issues (nobody was elected as "Labour" or "Conservative") and having a policy of Free Speech. The culture was encouraged and maintained at the University and the Union that free speech was the right way to tackle ignorance, and that University is a place for education and debate. I went to the NUS Conference in 2003 where we en-bloc voted in line with our Union's policy against No Platform and in favour of Free Speech, a viewpoint that was roundly defeated in the NUS hall as everyone else I could see stood up to vote for No Platform and I didn't see anyone else in the hall but us stand up as a group for free speech.
In line with the policy of free speech, the year after I graduated the Debating Union (not a far right organisation) invited BNP Leader Nick Griffin in for a debate. He would have been rigorously challenged by others speaking against him. Far from the Police encouraging this as you claim, the Police said it couldn't proceed without them providing "security" and demanded an exorbitant fee for "security" to be arranged, one the union couldn't afford, so the debate was regrettably cancelled.
Thankfully five years later the BBC did see fit to invite Griffin onto Question Time, where he was put in the spotlight against Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Baroness Warsi and Bonnie Greer . . . and he completely fell apart, was completely exposed and the rest is history. The BNP died after that.
Free speech is the way to tackle ignorance.
At university I had essentially the same view - I went to university at a time and place where the BNP had a dozen elected local councillors and believed that confronting that head on was the best strategy going forward. Then I learned about the history and efficacy of that strategy over deplatforming - and deplatforming worked better. When fascists are given a platform their views get more air time than they are worth, and lies are easier to say than they are to disprove. Yes, after Nick Griffin went on Question time the BNP fell apart - but would you really argue the far-right is weaker now in the UK than it was then?
Also, the "Nick Griffin did badly on QT so we should give all these fringe groups airtime to hang themselves with" theory assumes that fascist leaders are never going to be eloquent or persuasive orators who can come out on top in a debate, which history suggests is not always true...
Absolutely. The decline for the BNP started pretty much directly after Nick Griffin's lamentable performance on Question Time, as said above, and the Far Right have never recovered and just splintered.
Of course, and looking at the article and the impact of social media, we live in an era where people label those they disagree with as fascist. Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler.
Even on here parties that are demonstrably not fascist, just right wing, are labelled as such.
IT is all a bit like Rik in the Young Ones.
Have you got a measurable timescale for 'pretty much directly after'?
You're not bothered about traffic in the opposite direction labelling people as commies, Stalinists, antisemites, Hamas supporters, useful idiots etc?
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
Its interesting that you consider not cooperating with the Police a good thing, or shutting down other people's viewpoints a way to succeed.
The reality is that the far left is allowed and facilitated to speak far more than the far right is. Communists and far left people like Corbyn et al can speak largely uninterrupted and almost never 'no platformed' while the far right are no platformed very often.
At University I became heavily involved in my Student Union which was almost unique across the major Universities in being apolitical on non-student issues (nobody was elected as "Labour" or "Conservative") and having a policy of Free Speech. The culture was encouraged and maintained at the University and the Union that free speech was the right way to tackle ignorance, and that University is a place for education and debate. I went to the NUS Conference in 2003 where we en-bloc voted in line with our Union's policy against No Platform and in favour of Free Speech, a viewpoint that was roundly defeated in the NUS hall as everyone else I could see stood up to vote for No Platform and I didn't see anyone else in the hall but us stand up as a group for free speech.
In line with the policy of free speech, the year after I graduated the Debating Union (not a far right organisation) invited BNP Leader Nick Griffin in for a debate. He would have been rigorously challenged by others speaking against him. Far from the Police encouraging this as you claim, the Police said it couldn't proceed without them providing "security" and demanded an exorbitant fee for "security" to be arranged, one the union couldn't afford, so the debate was regrettably cancelled.
Thankfully five years later the BBC did see fit to invite Griffin onto Question Time, where he was put in the spotlight against Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Baroness Warsi and Bonnie Greer . . . and he completely fell apart, was completely exposed and the rest is history. The BNP died after that.
Free speech is the way to tackle ignorance.
At university I had essentially the same view - I went to university at a time and place where the BNP had a dozen elected local councillors and believed that confronting that head on was the best strategy going forward. Then I learned about the history and efficacy of that strategy over deplatforming - and deplatforming worked better. When fascists are given a platform their views get more air time than they are worth, and lies are easier to say than they are to disprove. Yes, after Nick Griffin went on Question time the BNP fell apart - but would you really argue the far-right is weaker now in the UK than it was then?
Also, the "Nick Griffin did badly on QT so we should give all these fringe groups airtime to hang themselves with" theory assumes that fascist leaders are never going to be eloquent or persuasive orators who can come out on top in a debate, which history suggests is not always true...
At the time the BNP was not fringe, it was a political party with growing influence.
They are hardly the equivalent of Britain First in todays climate and, so what, if a fringe political leader is charismatic or a good orator. However good an orator they are if there is no substance to the policy then the policy will fall apart.
Problem is with the "let's deplatform those we disagree with brigade" is that everyone they disagree with is a fascist and you end up with mediocre stuff like "The Rest is Politics" and "News Agents" Podcasts that are essentially people who agree with each other debating finer points of areas they largely are at one on.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
The claims that the chants of "jihad" were about internal religious moral struggles and "river to the sea" merely geographical descriptions are some of the most disingenuous rubbish I've heard. They were intended to intimidate and frighten, Jews especially, and judging by the reaction of my Jewish friends and relations that is exactly what has happened.
It may well be legal. But it is neither wise nor kind. The spewing of hate on the streets of our cities has been an awful response to real crimes. It reflects appallingly on those doing it, those justifying it and those turning a blind eye to it. Depressing to see.
There were two separate pro-Palestinian demos. The 100,000 march, and the far smaller Hizb ut-Tahrir demo outside the Turkish embassy which was calling for Jihad in the sense of wanting Turkey and other Muslim countries to attack Israel. Conflating one with the other from the shores of Sicily helps no-one.
Absolutely. The decline for the BNP started pretty much directly after Nick Griffin's lamentable performance on Question Time, as said above, and the Far Right have never recovered and just splintered.
Of course, and looking at the article and the impact of social media, we live in an era where people label those they disagree with as fascist. Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler.
Even on here parties that are demonstrably not fascist, just right wing, are labelled as such.
IT is all a bit like Rik in the Young Ones.
Have you got a measurable timescale for 'pretty much directly after'?
You're not bothered about traffic in the opposite direction labelling people as commies, Stalinists, antisemites, Hamas supporters, useful idiots etc?
Am I ? I think you're confusing me for someone else and just picking an argument with a bit of irrelevant whataboutery.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
The claims that the chants of "jihad" were about internal religious moral struggles and "river to the sea" merely geographical descriptions are some of the most disingenuous rubbish I've heard. They were intended to intimidate and frighten, Jews especially, and judging by the reaction of my Jewish friends and relations that is exactly what has happened.
It may well be legal. But it is neither wise nor kind. The spewing of hate on the streets of our cities has been an awful response to real crimes. It reflects appallingly on those doing it, those justifying it and those turning a blind eye to it. Depressing to see.
There were people here, on PB, literally calling for ethnic cleansing, for crimes against humanity. I found that depressing to see.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
The claims that the chants of "jihad" were about internal religious moral struggles and "river to the sea" merely geographical descriptions are some of the most disingenuous rubbish I've heard. They were intended to intimidate and frighten, Jews especially, and judging by the reaction of my Jewish friends and relations that is exactly what has happened.
It may well be legal. But it is neither wise nor kind. The spewing of hate on the streets of our cities has been an awful response to real crimes. It reflects appallingly on those doing it, those justifying it and those turning a blind eye to it. Depressing to see.
There were people here, on PB, literally calling for ethnic cleansing, for crimes against humanity. I found that depressing to see.
It was something Farooq cited in his departing post. Which was sad to see.
Absolutely. The decline for the BNP started pretty much directly after Nick Griffin's lamentable performance on Question Time, as said above, and the Far Right have never recovered and just splintered.
Of course, and looking at the article and the impact of social media, we live in an era where people label those they disagree with as fascist. Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler.
Even on here parties that are demonstrably not fascist, just right wing, are labelled as such.
IT is all a bit like Rik in the Young Ones.
Have you got a measurable timescale for 'pretty much directly after'?
You're not bothered about traffic in the opposite direction labelling people as commies, Stalinists, antisemites, Hamas supporters, useful idiots etc?
Am I ? I think you're confusing me for someone else and just picking an argument with a bit of irrelevant whataboutery.
A question mark usually denotes a question, but thanks for answering indirectly anyway that you think the only impact of social media is people calling the right Nazis.
Absolutely. The decline for the BNP started pretty much directly after Nick Griffin's lamentable performance on Question Time, as said above, and the Far Right have never recovered and just splintered.
Of course, and looking at the article and the impact of social media, we live in an era where people label those they disagree with as fascist. Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler.
Even on here parties that are demonstrably not fascist, just right wing, are labelled as such.
IT is all a bit like Rik in the Young Ones.
Have you got a measurable timescale for 'pretty much directly after'?
You're not bothered about traffic in the opposite direction labelling people as commies, Stalinists, antisemites, Hamas supporters, useful idiots etc?
Am I ? I think you're confusing me for someone else and just picking an argument with a bit of irrelevant whataboutery.
A question mark usually denotes a question, but thanks for answering indirectly anyway that you think the only impact of social media is people calling the right Nazis.
You are free to assume what you like, however untrue, with irrelevant whataboutery. You don't debate you just pick arguments with people who you seem to have some grievance with. I pity that. Life is short. I won't waste my time. Enjoy your afternoon.
Absolutely. The decline for the BNP started pretty much directly after Nick Griffin's lamentable performance on Question Time, as said above, and the Far Right have never recovered and just splintered.
Of course, and looking at the article and the impact of social media, we live in an era where people label those they disagree with as fascist. Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler.
Even on here parties that are demonstrably not fascist, just right wing, are labelled as such.
IT is all a bit like Rik in the Young Ones.
Have you got a measurable timescale for 'pretty much directly after'?
You're not bothered about traffic in the opposite direction labelling people as commies, Stalinists, antisemites, Hamas supporters, useful idiots etc?
Am I ? I think you're confusing me for someone else and just picking an argument with a bit of irrelevant whataboutery.
A question mark usually denotes a question, but thanks for answering indirectly anyway that you think the only impact of social media is people calling the right Nazis.
You are free to assume what you like, however untrue, with irrelevant whataboutery. You don't debate you just pick arguments with people who you seem to have some grievance with. I pity that. Life is short. I won't waste my time. Enjoy your afternoon.
God, not an 'enjoy your afternoon', the ultimate huffery! I wasn't going to assume what I like, but now you've given me permission..
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
The claims that the chants of "jihad" were about internal religious moral struggles and "river to the sea" merely geographical descriptions are some of the most disingenuous rubbish I've heard. They were intended to intimidate and frighten, Jews especially, and judging by the reaction of my Jewish friends and relations that is exactly what has happened.
It may well be legal. But it is neither wise nor kind. The spewing of hate on the streets of our cities has been an awful response to real crimes. It reflects appallingly on those doing it, those justifying it and those turning a blind eye to it. Depressing to see.
There were two separate pro-Palestinian demos. The 100,000 march, and the far smaller Hizb ut-Tahrir demo outside the Turkish embassy which was calling for Jihad in the sense of wanting Turkey and other Muslim countries to attack Israel. Conflating one with the other from the shores of Sicily helps no-one.
Is the latter political speech, or a straightforward incitement to violence ?
It's repulsive, but likely the former under current laws. Should that be changed ?
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
Its interesting that you consider not cooperating with the Police a good thing, or shutting down other people's viewpoints a way to succeed.
The reality is that the far left is allowed and facilitated to speak far more than the far right is. Communists and far left people like Corbyn et al can speak largely uninterrupted and almost never 'no platformed' while the far right are no platformed very often.
At University I became heavily involved in my Student Union which was almost unique across the major Universities in being apolitical on non-student issues (nobody was elected as "Labour" or "Conservative") and having a policy of Free Speech. The culture was encouraged and maintained at the University and the Union that free speech was the right way to tackle ignorance, and that University is a place for education and debate. I went to the NUS Conference in 2003 where we en-bloc voted in line with our Union's policy against No Platform and in favour of Free Speech, a viewpoint that was roundly defeated in the NUS hall as everyone else I could see stood up to vote for No Platform and I didn't see anyone else in the hall but us stand up as a group for free speech.
In line with the policy of free speech, the year after I graduated the Debating Union (not a far right organisation) invited BNP Leader Nick Griffin in for a debate. He would have been rigorously challenged by others speaking against him. Far from the Police encouraging this as you claim, the Police said it couldn't proceed without them providing "security" and demanded an exorbitant fee for "security" to be arranged, one the union couldn't afford, so the debate was regrettably cancelled.
Thankfully five years later the BBC did see fit to invite Griffin onto Question Time, where he was put in the spotlight against Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Baroness Warsi and Bonnie Greer . . . and he completely fell apart, was completely exposed and the rest is history. The BNP died after that.
Free speech is the way to tackle ignorance.
At university I had essentially the same view - I went to university at a time and place where the BNP had a dozen elected local councillors and believed that confronting that head on was the best strategy going forward. Then I learned about the history and efficacy of that strategy over deplatforming - and deplatforming worked better. When fascists are given a platform their views get more air time than they are worth, and lies are easier to say than they are to disprove. Yes, after Nick Griffin went on Question time the BNP fell apart - but would you really argue the far-right is weaker now in the UK than it was then?
Also, the "Nick Griffin did badly on QT so we should give all these fringe groups airtime to hang themselves with" theory assumes that fascist leaders are never going to be eloquent or persuasive orators who can come out on top in a debate, which history suggests is not always true...
At the time the BNP was not fringe, it was a political party with growing influence.
They are hardly the equivalent of Britain First in todays climate and, so what, if a fringe political leader is charismatic or a good orator. However good an orator they are if there is no substance to the policy then the policy will fall apart.
Problem is with the "let's deplatform those we disagree with brigade" is that everyone they disagree with is a fascist and you end up with mediocre stuff like "The Rest is Politics" and "News Agents" Podcasts that are essentially people who agree with each other debating finer points of areas they largely are at one on.
I don't want to actively argue for deplatforming, but I do think "if there is no substance to the policy then the policy will fall apart" is over optimistic about how much attention voters pay to policy details. If the policy only falls apart when the fascists actually get into government that's a bit late...
Absolutely. The decline for the BNP started pretty much directly after Nick Griffin's lamentable performance on Question Time, as said above, and the Far Right have never recovered and just splintered.
Of course, and looking at the article and the impact of social media, we live in an era where people label those they disagree with as fascist. Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler.
Even on here parties that are demonstrably not fascist, just right wing, are labelled as such.
IT is all a bit like Rik in the Young Ones.
Have you got a measurable timescale for 'pretty much directly after'?
You're not bothered about traffic in the opposite direction labelling people as commies, Stalinists, antisemites, Hamas supporters, useful idiots etc?
Am I ? I think you're confusing me for someone else and just picking an argument with a bit of irrelevant whataboutery.
A question mark usually denotes a question, but thanks for answering indirectly anyway that you think the only impact of social media is people calling the right Nazis.
You are free to assume what you like, however untrue, with irrelevant whataboutery. You don't debate you just pick arguments with people who you seem to have some grievance with. I pity that. Life is short. I won't waste my time. Enjoy your afternoon.
God, not an 'enjoy your afternoon', the ultimate huffery! I wasn't going to assume what I like, but now you've given me permission..
You are free to not enjoy your afternoon if you so choose.
And still at least one poster has illusions about him being the Republican nominee. Trump can sell out a 80k stadium, Pence has somehow managed to empty out a branch of Paperchase.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
Its interesting that you consider not cooperating with the Police a good thing, or shutting down other people's viewpoints a way to succeed.
The reality is that the far left is allowed and facilitated to speak far more than the far right is. Communists and far left people like Corbyn et al can speak largely uninterrupted and almost never 'no platformed' while the far right are no platformed very often.
At University I became heavily involved in my Student Union which was almost unique across the major Universities in being apolitical on non-student issues (nobody was elected as "Labour" or "Conservative") and having a policy of Free Speech. The culture was encouraged and maintained at the University and the Union that free speech was the right way to tackle ignorance, and that University is a place for education and debate. I went to the NUS Conference in 2003 where we en-bloc voted in line with our Union's policy against No Platform and in favour of Free Speech, a viewpoint that was roundly defeated in the NUS hall as everyone else I could see stood up to vote for No Platform and I didn't see anyone else in the hall but us stand up as a group for free speech.
In line with the policy of free speech, the year after I graduated the Debating Union (not a far right organisation) invited BNP Leader Nick Griffin in for a debate. He would have been rigorously challenged by others speaking against him. Far from the Police encouraging this as you claim, the Police said it couldn't proceed without them providing "security" and demanded an exorbitant fee for "security" to be arranged, one the union couldn't afford, so the debate was regrettably cancelled.
Thankfully five years later the BBC did see fit to invite Griffin onto Question Time, where he was put in the spotlight against Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Baroness Warsi and Bonnie Greer . . . and he completely fell apart, was completely exposed and the rest is history. The BNP died after that.
Free speech is the way to tackle ignorance.
At university I had essentially the same view - I went to university at a time and place where the BNP had a dozen elected local councillors and believed that confronting that head on was the best strategy going forward. Then I learned about the history and efficacy of that strategy over deplatforming - and deplatforming worked better. When fascists are given a platform their views get more air time than they are worth, and lies are easier to say than they are to disprove. Yes, after Nick Griffin went on Question time the BNP fell apart - but would you really argue the far-right is weaker now in the UK than it was then?
Also, the "Nick Griffin did badly on QT so we should give all these fringe groups airtime to hang themselves with" theory assumes that fascist leaders are never going to be eloquent or persuasive orators who can come out on top in a debate, which history suggests is not always true...
At the time the BNP was not fringe, it was a political party with growing influence.
They are hardly the equivalent of Britain First in todays climate and, so what, if a fringe political leader is charismatic or a good orator. However good an orator they are if there is no substance to the policy then the policy will fall apart.
Problem is with the "let's deplatform those we disagree with brigade" is that everyone they disagree with is a fascist and you end up with mediocre stuff like "The Rest is Politics" and "News Agents" Podcasts that are essentially people who agree with each other debating finer points of areas they largely are at one on.
I don't want to actively argue for deplatforming, but I do think "if there is no substance to the policy then the policy will fall apart" is over optimistic about how much attention voters pay to policy details. If the policy only falls apart when the fascists actually get into government that's a bit late...
I just cannot see that happening, in spite of the tendency of some on social media to label everyone they disagree with as fascist, there is just not an appetite in the UK for fascist policies. In the seventies the NF were gaining in popularity however the 79 election campaign really neutered them and, if anything, that would be a time for the Far Right to really make strides.
I would also say if a policy genuinely would not fall apart then the politicians who are opposed to them should come up with a policy to neuter that.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
Its interesting that you consider not cooperating with the Police a good thing, or shutting down other people's viewpoints a way to succeed.
The reality is that the far left is allowed and facilitated to speak far more than the far right is. Communists and far left people like Corbyn et al can speak largely uninterrupted and almost never 'no platformed' while the far right are no platformed very often.
At University I became heavily involved in my Student Union which was almost unique across the major Universities in being apolitical on non-student issues (nobody was elected as "Labour" or "Conservative") and having a policy of Free Speech. The culture was encouraged and maintained at the University and the Union that free speech was the right way to tackle ignorance, and that University is a place for education and debate. I went to the NUS Conference in 2003 where we en-bloc voted in line with our Union's policy against No Platform and in favour of Free Speech, a viewpoint that was roundly defeated in the NUS hall as everyone else I could see stood up to vote for No Platform and I didn't see anyone else in the hall but us stand up as a group for free speech.
In line with the policy of free speech, the year after I graduated the Debating Union (not a far right organisation) invited BNP Leader Nick Griffin in for a debate. He would have been rigorously challenged by others speaking against him. Far from the Police encouraging this as you claim, the Police said it couldn't proceed without them providing "security" and demanded an exorbitant fee for "security" to be arranged, one the union couldn't afford, so the debate was regrettably cancelled.
Thankfully five years later the BBC did see fit to invite Griffin onto Question Time, where he was put in the spotlight against Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Baroness Warsi and Bonnie Greer . . . and he completely fell apart, was completely exposed and the rest is history. The BNP died after that.
Free speech is the way to tackle ignorance.
At university I had essentially the same view - I went to university at a time and place where the BNP had a dozen elected local councillors and believed that confronting that head on was the best strategy going forward. Then I learned about the history and efficacy of that strategy over deplatforming - and deplatforming worked better. When fascists are given a platform their views get more air time than they are worth, and lies are easier to say than they are to disprove. Yes, after Nick Griffin went on Question time the BNP fell apart - but would you really argue the far-right is weaker now in the UK than it was then?
Also, the "Nick Griffin did badly on QT so we should give all these fringe groups airtime to hang themselves with" theory assumes that fascist leaders are never going to be eloquent or persuasive orators who can come out on top in a debate, which history suggests is not always true...
At the time the BNP was not fringe, it was a political party with growing influence.
They are hardly the equivalent of Britain First in todays climate and, so what, if a fringe political leader is charismatic or a good orator. However good an orator they are if there is no substance to the policy then the policy will fall apart.
Problem is with the "let's deplatform those we disagree with brigade" is that everyone they disagree with is a fascist and you end up with mediocre stuff like "The Rest is Politics" and "News Agents" Podcasts that are essentially people who agree with each other debating finer points of areas they largely are at one on.
I don't want to actively argue for deplatforming, but I do think "if there is no substance to the policy then the policy will fall apart" is over optimistic about how much attention voters pay to policy details. If the policy only falls apart when the fascists actually get into government that's a bit late...
Not just fascists. Brexit was platformed to the hilt with substance as diaphanous as a startlet's negligee, yet here we are 7 years later and the best its advocates can say is that it's a can of worms that shouldn't be reopened and let's all move on. The idea that the media hold politicians' feet to the fire of versimiltude is perhaps one whose time has past.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
The claims that the chants of "jihad" were about internal religious moral struggles and "river to the sea" merely geographical descriptions are some of the most disingenuous rubbish I've heard. They were intended to intimidate and frighten, Jews especially, and judging by the reaction of my Jewish friends and relations that is exactly what has happened.
It may well be legal. But it is neither wise nor kind. The spewing of hate on the streets of our cities has been an awful response to real crimes. It reflects appallingly on those doing it, those justifying it and those turning a blind eye to it. Depressing to see.
There were two separate pro-Palestinian demos. The 100,000 march, and the far smaller Hizb ut-Tahrir demo outside the Turkish embassy which was calling for Jihad in the sense of wanting Turkey and other Muslim countries to attack Israel. Conflating one with the other from the shores of Sicily helps no-one.
Is the latter political speech, or a straightforward incitement to violence ?
It's repulsive, but likely the former under current laws. Should that be changed ?
Hizb ut-Tahrir is like Leon's XL bullys. Everyone knows they should be banned. The Prime Minister says they should be banned (Rishi for dogs; Cameron for HuT, and possibly Blair too). No ban ever reaches the statute books.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
The claims that the chants of "jihad" were about internal religious moral struggles and "river to the sea" merely geographical descriptions are some of the most disingenuous rubbish I've heard. They were intended to intimidate and frighten, Jews especially, and judging by the reaction of my Jewish friends and relations that is exactly what has happened.
It may well be legal. But it is neither wise nor kind. The spewing of hate on the streets of our cities has been an awful response to real crimes. It reflects appallingly on those doing it, those justifying it and those turning a blind eye to it. Depressing to see.
There were two separate pro-Palestinian demos. The 100,000 march, and the far smaller Hizb ut-Tahrir demo outside the Turkish embassy which was calling for Jihad in the sense of wanting Turkey and other Muslim countries to attack Israel. Conflating one with the other from the shores of Sicily helps no-one.
Is the latter political speech, or a straightforward incitement to violence ?
It's repulsive, but likely the former under current laws. Should that be changed ?
Hizb ut-Tahrir is like Leon's XL bullys. Everyone knows they should be banned. The Prime Minister says they should be banned (Rishi for dogs; Cameron for HuT, and possibly Blair too). No ban ever reaches the statute books.
Yes, what IS that about?! HIZB are banned across the western world. Yet not in the UK
Israel-Gaza latest news: Close gaps in law over 'jihad' chants, says Starmer ... The Government must address “gaps in the law” after police found that a pro-Palestine demonstrator who chanted “jihad” had committed no offence, Sir Keir Starmer has said. ... His comments came after footage from a demonstration by the Hizb ut-Tahrir group surfaced over the weekend in which one member of the crowd could be heard chanting “jihad, jihad”.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I haven't mentioned Zionism. Though for what it is worth Jewish people who support Zionism ought to feel safe in this country.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
Basically everyone has condemned what Hamas did on the 7th - do you need every protester to have to sign such a declaration before they are allowed to protest? Should we add this to all protests and counter protests?
No they haven't. For example ITV interviewed a woman who was complainging about life in Britain who described the hostages as "prisoners of war" and described the attack as a "homecoming".
This is just cowardice. I have next to no time for the Met, but here they are being put in an impossible position. Either change the law, or just let them get on with their job.
“Emergency services were called to Anderson Street at around 11.20am on Wednesday, October 18 following a reported of a dog having injured an 18-year-old man.
He was taken to hospital for treatment of his injuries. His condition is not known
Police confirmed the dog has since been euthanised.
An eyewitness told the Scottish Sun that the vicious canine, which they believed to be an XL Bully, attacked the teen as he lay on the ground while two men hit it with a mop and another object to try and stop it.
After the attack, the animal was seen tied up to a railing with its mouth and nose covered in blood.”
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I haven't mentioned Zionism. Though for what it is worth Jewish people who support Zionism ought to feel safe in this country.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
Basically everyone has condemned what Hamas did on the 7th - do you need every protester to have to sign such a declaration before they are allowed to protest? Should we add this to all protests and counter protests?
No they haven't. For example ITV interviewed a woman who was complainging about life in Britain who described the hostages as "prisoners of war" and described the attack as a "homecoming".
I didn't say literally, I said basically - there will always be a few who don't, but it is by no means anywhere near the majority of people. Whereas the mass destruction of Gaza and the acceptability of Palestinian civilian casualties seems to be most western states foreign policy. This is why this nitpicking is so annoying - you have the odd extremist actually defending Hamas, a handful of left wingers alongside many Muslims discussing the context and history from the Nakba to now, and then you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians there if it means "dealing" with Hamas (as if making a new generation of orphans will somehow combat extremist hatred of Israel)...
This is just cowardice. I have next to no time for the Met, but here they are being put in an impossible position. Either change the law, or just let them get on with their job.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I haven't mentioned Zionism. Though for what it is worth Jewish people who support Zionism ought to feel safe in this country.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
Basically everyone has condemned what Hamas did on the 7th - do you need every protester to have to sign such a declaration before they are allowed to protest? Should we add this to all protests and counter protests?
No they haven't. For example ITV interviewed a woman who was complainging about life in Britain who described the hostages as "prisoners of war" and described the attack as a "homecoming".
I didn't say literally, I said basically - there will always be a few who don't, but it is by no means anywhere near the majority of people. Whereas the mass destruction of Gaza and the acceptability of Palestinian civilian casualties seems to be most western states foreign policy. This is why this nitpicking is so annoying - you have the odd extremist actually defending Hamas, a handful of left wingers alongside many Muslims discussing the context and history from the Nakba to now, and then you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians there if it means "dealing" with Hamas (as if making a new generation of orphans will somehow combat extremist hatred of Israel)...
"you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians" - is the statement where you call everyone who disagrees with you a fascist. No-one is giving Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians. No-one.
Tory plans for changes to rental market eviction rules kicked into long grass because the courts are such a mess after 13 years of tory failure.
Hilarious.
Weak, weak, weak
Just not up to the job. That's me being generous. Woefully inept seems closer to the truth.
Once they get the Order of the Boot the Cons will have to reconstruct. I really doubt anyone in the current Cabinet is going to be able to establish any sort of credibility as an alternative to Starmer. Perhaps a really heavy defeat might remove a lot of the dead wood and enable a Cameron-style reconstruction. However, even that will take time. Maybe they will just get replaced from the right. That is certainly Tice's plan. He and Nigel must be licking their lips at the prospect of Braverman digging the Cons further into their hole
Its not Israel alone that are blockading Gaza, and considering that the government of Gaza is explicitly at war with Israel, a blockade is a completely legal and legitimate response.
Just to be clear - you genuinely think that it's legitimate to prevent a civilian population having water and food if a plurality of them some years ago elected a government with whom Israel is at war? Nobody sensible is arguing that Hamas should be allowed by Israel to import weapons.
This is just cowardice. I have next to no time for the Met, but here they are being put in an impossible position. Either change the law, or just let them get on with their job.
I am interested that the chap who thought it funny to mock a young deceased football fun gets fingered by the police, but someone calling for Jihad on the streets does not.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I haven't mentioned Zionism. Though for what it is worth Jewish people who support Zionism ought to feel safe in this country.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
Basically everyone has condemned what Hamas did on the 7th - do you need every protester to have to sign such a declaration before they are allowed to protest? Should we add this to all protests and counter protests?
No they haven't. For example ITV interviewed a woman who was complainging about life in Britain who described the hostages as "prisoners of war" and described the attack as a "homecoming".
I didn't say literally, I said basically - there will always be a few who don't, but it is by no means anywhere near the majority of people. Whereas the mass destruction of Gaza and the acceptability of Palestinian civilian casualties seems to be most western states foreign policy. This is why this nitpicking is so annoying - you have the odd extremist actually defending Hamas, a handful of left wingers alongside many Muslims discussing the context and history from the Nakba to now, and then you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians there if it means "dealing" with Hamas (as if making a new generation of orphans will somehow combat extremist hatred of Israel)...
What percentage of people on those marches do you think would say the attack wasn’t justified?
You omit to mention that they also make money (far, far more presumably, from current levels on installs) from selling gas to gas boiler owners - that is quite a big omission.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I haven't mentioned Zionism. Though for what it is worth Jewish people who support Zionism ought to feel safe in this country.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
Basically everyone has condemned what Hamas did on the 7th - do you need every protester to have to sign such a declaration before they are allowed to protest? Should we add this to all protests and counter protests?
No they haven't. For example ITV interviewed a woman who was complainging about life in Britain who described the hostages as "prisoners of war" and described the attack as a "homecoming".
I didn't say literally, I said basically - there will always be a few who don't, but it is by no means anywhere near the majority of people. Whereas the mass destruction of Gaza and the acceptability of Palestinian civilian casualties seems to be most western states foreign policy. This is why this nitpicking is so annoying - you have the odd extremist actually defending Hamas, a handful of left wingers alongside many Muslims discussing the context and history from the Nakba to now, and then you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians there if it means "dealing" with Hamas (as if making a new generation of orphans will somehow combat extremist hatred of Israel)...
"you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians" - is the statement where you call everyone who disagrees with you a fascist. No-one is giving Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians. No-one.
The conversation here last week devolved to the point where people were saying that if flattening city blocks was the only way to combat Hamas, they were fine with it. The line from essentially every mainstream politician when asked if Israel is committing war crimes by killing thousands of Palestinians is Israel has the right to defend itself and pivot to talking about the terrorism of Hamas. What about scenes like this is a reasonable or proportionate response:
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Do you not think that is a bit... dishonest?
Don't lots of social interactions involve lying to one degree or another, as a necessary part of getting along?
Someone you vaguely know greets you by asking "how you're doing?" and it really isn't an invitation to talk about the consistency of your latest bowel movement, the quality of your sex life or the despair you feel due to the long-running war in Yemen.
There will be people you feel more or less comfortable in openly discussing various things with, and others that you will be a bit more guarded about what you say.
As someone with ASD and a Quaker-adjacent upbringing, it's one of the things that makes me uncomfortable in social situations, but people seem to get really upset, or avoid you, if you don't edit yourself to some extent.
The idea of only taking to and associating with people you agree with 100% sounds utterly horrible.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I haven't mentioned Zionism. Though for what it is worth Jewish people who support Zionism ought to feel safe in this country.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
Basically everyone has condemned what Hamas did on the 7th - do you need every protester to have to sign such a declaration before they are allowed to protest? Should we add this to all protests and counter protests?
No they haven't. For example ITV interviewed a woman who was complainging about life in Britain who described the hostages as "prisoners of war" and described the attack as a "homecoming".
I didn't say literally, I said basically - there will always be a few who don't, but it is by no means anywhere near the majority of people. Whereas the mass destruction of Gaza and the acceptability of Palestinian civilian casualties seems to be most western states foreign policy. This is why this nitpicking is so annoying - you have the odd extremist actually defending Hamas, a handful of left wingers alongside many Muslims discussing the context and history from the Nakba to now, and then you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians there if it means "dealing" with Hamas (as if making a new generation of orphans will somehow combat extremist hatred of Israel)...
"you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians" - is the statement where you call everyone who disagrees with you a fascist. No-one is giving Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians. No-one.
The conversation here last week devolved to the point where people were saying that if flattening city blocks was the only way to combat Hamas, they were fine with it. The line from essentially every mainstream politician when asked if Israel is committing war crimes by killing thousands of Palestinians is Israel has the right to defend itself and pivot to talking about the terrorism of Hamas. What about scenes like this is a reasonable or proportionate response:
You omit to mention that they also make money (far, far more presumably, from current levels on installs) from selling gas to gas boiler owners - that is quite a big omission.
I suspect the issue is that while they make a tiny bit of money selling Gas to Gas consumers they would much rather make more money selling electricity to them.
Its not Israel alone that are blockading Gaza, and considering that the government of Gaza is explicitly at war with Israel, a blockade is a completely legal and legitimate response.
Just to be clear - you genuinely think that it's legitimate to prevent a civilian population having water and food if a plurality of them some years ago elected a government with whom Israel is at war? Nobody sensible is arguing that Hamas should be allowed by Israel to import weapons.
What do these famous rules of war say (held, no doubt, at the Bodleian and Library of Congress)? Such that they are worth the paper (microfiche?) they are printed on.
People are responding to this as though it is a terrorist act and hence any response should be in that light. AIUI Israel believes it is an act of war. I think that puts a different perspective on their response. Is it right? Was Iraq/Mosul/Falluja right? Easy to argue no. But that's war. Perhaps Israel feels it is more under threat and hence more legitimately fighting a war than we did in Iraq/Afghan.
What are your LFOI friends saying, Nick? I'm genuinely interested to know.
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I haven't mentioned Zionism. Though for what it is worth Jewish people who support Zionism ought to feel safe in this country.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
Basically everyone has condemned what Hamas did on the 7th - do you need every protester to have to sign such a declaration before they are allowed to protest? Should we add this to all protests and counter protests?
No they haven't. For example ITV interviewed a woman who was complainging about life in Britain who described the hostages as "prisoners of war" and described the attack as a "homecoming".
I didn't say literally, I said basically - there will always be a few who don't, but it is by no means anywhere near the majority of people. Whereas the mass destruction of Gaza and the acceptability of Palestinian civilian casualties seems to be most western states foreign policy. This is why this nitpicking is so annoying - you have the odd extremist actually defending Hamas, a handful of left wingers alongside many Muslims discussing the context and history from the Nakba to now, and then you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians there if it means "dealing" with Hamas (as if making a new generation of orphans will somehow combat extremist hatred of Israel)...
"you have essentially everyone from the centre to the right, including most state actors who actually have power, giving the state of Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians" - is the statement where you call everyone who disagrees with you a fascist. No-one is giving Israel carte blanche to eradicate Gaza and all the Palestinians. No-one.
The conversation here last week devolved to the point where people were saying that if flattening city blocks was the only way to combat Hamas, they were fine with it. The line from essentially every mainstream politician when asked if Israel is committing war crimes by killing thousands of Palestinians is Israel has the right to defend itself and pivot to talking about the terrorism of Hamas. What about scenes like this is a reasonable or proportionate response:
And this is not the same as eradicating Gaza and all the Palestinians. What should Israel do? Hamas declared war, no question. They are going after Hamas. They advised people in Gaza to go south. Israel is not deliberately targeting civilians. This is very different to Hamas who decided to attack an Israeli version of Glastonbury.
What is the long term solution? It surely isn't anything like where we are now, but I find it intolerable that the victim here, Israel, is now being turned into the villain. I have huge sympathy for the Gazan people. They are like the ordinary decent Germans in 1945. But ultimately you cannot have a situation where the government on Gaza has the express policy of exterminating Israel and all Jewish people.
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
I've heard a similar story on a Facebook forum. Essentially drove the car through flood water, drowned the battery, needs hefty repair. Same as if you drive your mechanical car through floor water and ingest water into the engine.
Basic rule - don't drive your car through flood water. The idea that they have driven through "rain" and that killed the battery is laughable. I get it - its a large bill. But them's the breaks...
This is just cowardice. I have next to no time for the Met, but here they are being put in an impossible position. Either change the law, or just let them get on with their job.
The Terrorism Act 2006 includes encouragement of Terrorism, the Public Order Act 1986 includes incitement of hatred on the grounds of race or religion.
The legislation is there, just the Met and CPS have decided to interpret calling for Jihad at an anti Israel demo as not falling under it for reasons beyond me
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
I've heard a similar story on a Facebook forum. Essentially drove the car through flood water, drowned the battery, needs hefty repair. Same as if you drive your mechanical car through floor water and ingest water into the engine.
Basic rule - don't drive your car through flood water. The idea that they have driven through "rain" and that killed the battery is laughable. I get it - its a large bill. But them's the breaks...
Yes, it did seem rather as if they’d driven it though a river, rather than simply in the rain. Difficult to know when you have only one side of the story.
As you say, no manufacturer will replace under warranty an engine with water in it either, but insurance would normally pay out in such circumstances.
If there’s actually a problem with heavy rain causing water ingestion to batteries, then there will quickly be insurance evaluations on the model. If it’s a one-off failure, then not so much.
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
I've heard a similar story on a Facebook forum. Essentially drove the car through flood water, drowned the battery, needs hefty repair. Same as if you drive your mechanical car through floor water and ingest water into the engine.
Basic rule - don't drive your car through flood water. The idea that they have driven through "rain" and that killed the battery is laughable. I get it - its a large bill. But them's the breaks...
Yes, it did seem rather as if they’d driven it though a river, rather than simply in the rain. Difficult to know when you have only one side of the story.
As you say, no manufacturer will replace under warranty an engine with water in it either, but insurance would normally pay out in such circumstances.
If there’s actually a problem with heavy rain causing water ingestion to batteries, then there will quickly be insurance evaluations on the model. If it’s a one-off failure, then not so much.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I haven't mentioned Zionism. Though for what it is worth Jewish people who support Zionism ought to feel safe in this country.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
Basically everyone has condemned what Hamas did on the 7th - do you need every protester to have to sign such a declaration before they are allowed to protest? Should we add this to all protests and counter protests?
No they haven't. For example ITV interviewed a woman who was complainging about life in Britain who described the hostages as "prisoners of war" and described the attack as a "homecoming".
Here is an example of why people do take issue. Of course a majority (you'd hope, and I think it's true) are marching for a peaceful resolution for everyone - but there are a prominent minority who aren't, and one isn't just talking about Hizb-ul-Tahir - but members of the PSC campaign, some of whom have given speeches from stalls celebrating the October 7 attacks as resistance. There's also those with significant social media followings (think the likes of Asa Winstanley) who are spreading conspiracy theories about attacks. Or the Novara crowd's shameful 'but were babies really beheaded' guff. There's a real problem there, beyond a few placards, and it's one you'd have thought those with genuinely good motivations would be determined to solve and make absolutely clear are not welcome. An additional problem is a denial of the nature of what Hamas and similar groups represent. Without wishing to go too much over old ground, one of the notable criticisms of Corbyn's back catalogue was calling Hamas a 'force for social justice'. That was shockingly misjudged when he made it (as Jewish groups complained about with little traction near the time), was hugely problematic, if not outright disqualifying for a leader, and now looks indicative of an attitude that is either dangerously deluded or accepting of extremes on their 'team'. Not to focus on him again - but the fact so many leapt to his defence over those remarks rather than consider why people found them offensive shows a problem. It's not new, but pretending there's not a significant minority - including some pretty significant voices - of those in these campaigns who either are dangerously misguided in their thinking or outright hold hateful views because they have a moral framework they think justifies them, helps no one. Not least of all Palestinians - as it is much easier for politicians to ignore campaigns made on their behalf that have a substantial and loud minority saying these things, as more interested in having a two minute hate at Israel, and in many cases Jews by proxy, than one whose anger needs to be listened to.
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
I've heard a similar story on a Facebook forum. Essentially drove the car through flood water, drowned the battery, needs hefty repair. Same as if you drive your mechanical car through floor water and ingest water into the engine.
Basic rule - don't drive your car through flood water. The idea that they have driven through "rain" and that killed the battery is laughable. I get it - its a large bill. But them's the breaks...
Yes, it did seem rather as if they’d driven it though a river, rather than simply in the rain. Difficult to know when you have only one side of the story.
As you say, no manufacturer will replace under warranty an engine with water in it either, but insurance would normally pay out in such circumstances.
If there’s actually a problem with heavy rain causing water ingestion to batteries, then there will quickly be insurance evaluations on the model. If it’s a one-off failure, then not so much.
If you trust Tesla, that is...
are you suggesting a company owned by that noble and selfless paragon of all the virtues, Elon Musk, might not be scrupulously honest?
How very dare you, sir?
You are sentenced to explaining to @TSE why pineapple is a good pizza topping, followed by a session explaining the benefit of HS2 to @Richard_Tyndall
Its not Israel alone that are blockading Gaza, and considering that the government of Gaza is explicitly at war with Israel, a blockade is a completely legal and legitimate response.
Just to be clear - you genuinely think that it's legitimate to prevent a civilian population having water and food if a plurality of them some years ago elected a government with whom Israel is at war? Nobody sensible is arguing that Hamas should be allowed by Israel to import weapons.
What do these famous rules of war say (held, no doubt, at the Bodleian and Library of Congress)? Such that they are worth the paper (microfiche?) they are printed on.
People are responding to this as though it is a terrorist act and hence any response should be in that light. AIUI Israel believes it is an act of war. I think that puts a different perspective on their response. Is it right? Was Iraq/Mosul/Falluja right? Easy to argue no. But that's war. Perhaps Israel feels it is more under threat and hence more legitimately fighting a war than we did in Iraq/Afghan.
What are your LFOI friends saying, Nick? I'm genuinely interested to know.
The Laws of War is a long, long list. I would presume that all the good libraries would have copies of all the treaties.
This is just cowardice. I have next to no time for the Met, but here they are being put in an impossible position. Either change the law, or just let them get on with their job.
The Terrorism Act 2006 includes encouragement of Terrorism, the Public Order Act 1986 includes incitement of hatred on the grounds of race or religion.
The legislation is there, just the Met and CPS have decided to interpret Jihad as not falling under it for reasons beyond me
Almost as if the mayor only cares about policing one half of the debate.
This is just cowardice. I have next to no time for the Met, but here they are being put in an impossible position. Either change the law, or just let them get on with their job.
The Terrorism Act 2006 includes encouragement of Terrorism, the Public Order Act 1986 includes incitement of hatred on the grounds of race or religion.
The legislation is there, just the Met and CPS have decided to interpret Jihad as not falling under it for reasons beyond me
Almost as if the mayor only cares about policing one half of the debate.
A document presented by Israeli President Isaac Herzog as proof that Hamas intended to develop chemical weapons is actually an amateur biography of 9/11 attacker Ramzi Yousef and contains no instructions on how to develop chemical weapons
I saw Sly News reporting what Herzog said as if it was fact this morning.
Israel aren't very good at lying can't they take advice from Boris and/or SKS
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
Blimey, that really doesn't sell a Tesla for me. My previous Peugeot went through headlights like Bilio, once some water I think got on the wires and it was solved with a bit of crimping to get the connections tight - just a tenner a time from Halfords to sort them normally.
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
I've heard a similar story on a Facebook forum. Essentially drove the car through flood water, drowned the battery, needs hefty repair. Same as if you drive your mechanical car through floor water and ingest water into the engine.
Basic rule - don't drive your car through flood water. The idea that they have driven through "rain" and that killed the battery is laughable. I get it - its a large bill. But them's the breaks...
Teslas have great wading depth as the battery and motors are very well sealed.
That probably completely trashed the interior though.
Driving an ICE car through deep water is most likely to immobilise it due to a stall from exhaust back pressure or killing a sensor like CPS or Lambda. It's almost impossible to get water into the engine via the intake as it's relatively high and the water has to get past the air filter, turbo and throttle body.
Entirely off-topic. My Tesla was off the road since the middle of last week. First the left side headlight unit failed, then the "low voltage" batter (15v, not the usual 12v) also failed. Would have been fixed on Friday had it not been for Storm Babet making a mess of things
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
I've heard a similar story on a Facebook forum. Essentially drove the car through flood water, drowned the battery, needs hefty repair. Same as if you drive your mechanical car through floor water and ingest water into the engine.
Basic rule - don't drive your car through flood water. The idea that they have driven through "rain" and that killed the battery is laughable. I get it - its a large bill. But them's the breaks...
Teslas have great wading depth as the battery and motors are very well sealed.
That probably completely trashed the interior though.
Driving an ICE car through deep water is most likely to immobilise it due to a stall from exhaust back pressure or killing a sensor like CPS or Lambda. It's almost impossible to get water into the engine via the intake as it's relatively high and the water has to get past the air filter, turbo and throttle body.
You sound disappointed. I take it when you tried to get water in the engine it failed?
Speaking of social media, Cricinfo seem to be trying to make their website unusable. Not only has the layout changed in weird and not very wonderful ways, and it doesn't work with the iPad horizontal, but every time you try to open a link it goes to their stupid app, which has never worked and indeed never has had rotation as a feature.
What are the silly buggers playing at? They're becoming the England cricket team of the internet.
Speaking of social media, Cricinfo seem to be trying to make their website unusable. Not only has the layout changed in weird and not very wonderful ways, and it doesn't work with the iPad horizontal, but every time you try to open a link it goes to their stupid app, which has never worked and indeed never has had rotation as a feature.
What are the silly buggers playing at? They're becoming the England cricket team of the internet.
It’s okay on the website on an ipad. Delete the app from the device to stop it trying to open links that way.
Its not Israel alone that are blockading Gaza, and considering that the government of Gaza is explicitly at war with Israel, a blockade is a completely legal and legitimate response.
Just to be clear - you genuinely think that it's legitimate to prevent a civilian population having water and food if a plurality of them some years ago elected a government with whom Israel is at war? Nobody sensible is arguing that Hamas should be allowed by Israel to import weapons.
What do these famous rules of war say (held, no doubt, at the Bodleian and Library of Congress)? Such that they are worth the paper (microfiche?) they are printed on.
People are responding to this as though it is a terrorist act and hence any response should be in that light. AIUI Israel believes it is an act of war. I think that puts a different perspective on their response. Is it right? Was Iraq/Mosul/Falluja right? Easy to argue no. But that's war. Perhaps Israel feels it is more under threat and hence more legitimately fighting a war than we did in Iraq/Afghan.
What are your LFOI friends saying, Nick? I'm genuinely interested to know.
It’s worse than an act of war. It’s a pogrom, the initiation of an attempted genocide
This is just cowardice. I have next to no time for the Met, but here they are being put in an impossible position. Either change the law, or just let them get on with their job.
The Terrorism Act 2006 includes encouragement of Terrorism, the Public Order Act 1986 includes incitement of hatred on the grounds of race or religion.
The legislation is there, just the Met and CPS have decided to interpret Jihad as not falling under it for reasons beyond me
Almost as if the mayor only cares about policing one half of the debate.
A document presented by Israeli President Isaac Herzog as proof that Hamas intended to develop chemical weapons is actually an amateur biography of 9/11 attacker Ramzi Yousef and contains no instructions on how to develop chemical weapons
I saw Sly News reporting what Herzog said as if it was fact this morning.
Israel aren't very good at lying can't they take advice from Boris and/or SKS
Er, do you mean take advice from the same Boris you were willing to vote for?
This is just cowardice. I have next to no time for the Met, but here they are being put in an impossible position. Either change the law, or just let them get on with their job.
The Terrorism Act 2006 includes encouragement of Terrorism, the Public Order Act 1986 includes incitement of hatred on the grounds of race or religion.
The legislation is there, just the Met and CPS have decided to interpret Jihad as not falling under it for reasons beyond me
Almost as if the mayor only cares about policing one half of the debate.
Looks like we are back to Israel has the right to do that with Mr liar
Middle East Eye @MiddleEastEye · 2h "A senior adviser to Starmer was asked how many Gazans have to die before Labour will call for a ceasefire. The reply came: 'As many it takes…'
Comments
Of course, and looking at the article and the impact of social media, we live in an era where people label those they disagree with as fascist. Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler.
Even on here parties that are demonstrably not fascist, just right wing, are labelled as such.
IT is all a bit like Rik in the Young Ones.
Which is why cutting off power is so drastic.
Some data here:
https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/gaza-water-desalination-plants-health-and-environmental-impact-factsheet-november-2022
A similar thing happened with McCarthyism in the USA. It started to go into decline as soon as Joe M began to appear in public. Many would-be supporters simply turned away in disgust.
The harassment of people going to schools is another way where the line is crossed.
But there's a world of difference between a one off speech/protest and a sustained campaign of harassment.
You're not bothered about traffic in the opposite direction labelling people as commies, Stalinists, antisemites, Hamas supporters, useful idiots etc?
They are hardly the equivalent of Britain First in todays climate and, so what, if a fringe political leader is charismatic or a good orator. However good an orator they are if there is no substance to the policy then the policy will fall apart.
Problem is with the "let's deplatform those we disagree with brigade" is that everyone they disagree with is a fascist and you end up with mediocre stuff like "The Rest is Politics" and "News Agents" Podcasts that are essentially people who agree with each other debating finer points of areas they largely are at one on.
I wasn't going to assume what I like, but now you've given me permission..
It's repulsive, but likely the former under current laws. Should that be changed ?
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-georgia-rally-low-turnout-b2045421.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-53126614
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/03/21/trump-supporters-blame-low-protest-turnout-on-fears-of-a-setup-by-law-enforcement/
https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-samsung-rvo1&source=android-browser&q=keir+starmer+octopus+energy#imgrc=RiyWoA7q7sAxpM&imgdii=tJw88z6CZG_TgM
I just cannot see that happening, in spite of the tendency of some on social media to label everyone they disagree with as fascist, there is just not an appetite in the UK for fascist policies. In the seventies the NF were gaining in popularity however the 79 election campaign really neutered them and, if anything, that would be a time for the Far Right to really make strides.
I would also say if a policy genuinely would not fall apart then the politicians who are opposed to them should come up with a policy to neuter that.
Brexit was platformed to the hilt with substance as diaphanous as a startlet's negligee, yet here we are 7 years later and the best its advocates can say is that it's a can of worms that shouldn't be reopened and let's all move on. The idea that the media hold politicians' feet to the fire of versimiltude is perhaps one whose time has past.
Hilarious.
...
The Government must address “gaps in the law” after police found that a pro-Palestine demonstrator who chanted “jihad” had committed no offence, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
...
His comments came after footage from a demonstration by the Hizb ut-Tahrir group surfaced over the weekend in which one member of the crowd could be heard chanting “jihad, jihad”.
The Met Police concluded that no offence took place during the demonstration, held in London on Saturday.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/23/israel-gaza-latest-news-updates-hamas-palestine-day-17-live/ (£££)
https://x.com/hurryupharry/status/1716394912936014208
- PB: 00:45: publishes article saying "let's get off social media and be nice to each othet"
- PB: 13:45: I HAVE SEEN THING ON SOCIAL MEDIA THAT DISGUSTS ME! EVERYBODY MUST AGREE WITH ME! YOU B******S!!!
(shakes head, looks downI have next to no time for the Met, but here they are being put in an impossible position. Either change the law, or just let them get on with their job.
Met must explain decision over ‘jihad’ chant at protest, says minister
Mark Harper says police should use full force of the law, as Met chief due to meet Suella Braverman
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/23/met-must-explain-decision-over-jihad-chant-at-protest-says-minister
“Emergency services were called to Anderson Street at around 11.20am on Wednesday, October 18 following a reported of a dog having injured an 18-year-old man.
He was taken to hospital for treatment of his injuries. His condition is not known
Police confirmed the dog has since been euthanised.
An eyewitness told the Scottish Sun that the vicious canine, which they believed to be an XL Bully, attacked the teen as he lay on the ground while two men hit it with a mop and another object to try and stop it.
After the attack, the animal was seen tied up to a railing with its mouth and nose covered in blood.”
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/23870939.teen-18-rushed-hospital-dog-attack-motherwell/
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sunday-telegraph/20231022/282424173897198
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1822733/suella-braverman-police-political-correctness
Once they get the Order of the Boot the Cons will have to reconstruct. I really doubt anyone in the current Cabinet is going to be able to establish any sort of credibility as an alternative to Starmer. Perhaps a really heavy defeat might remove a lot of the dead wood and enable a Cameron-style reconstruction. However, even that will take time. Maybe they will just get replaced from the right. That is certainly Tice's plan. He and Nigel must be licking their lips at the prospect of Braverman digging the Cons further into their hole
The conversation here last week devolved to the point where people were saying that if flattening city blocks was the only way to combat Hamas, they were fine with it. The line from essentially every mainstream politician when asked if Israel is committing war crimes by killing thousands of Palestinians is Israel has the right to defend itself and pivot to talking about the terrorism of Hamas. What about scenes like this is a reasonable or proportionate response:
https://twitter.com/bayanpalestine/status/1716065851596554469
A beige echo chamber of smugness.
People are responding to this as though it is a terrorist act and hence any response should be in that light. AIUI Israel believes it is an act of war. I think that puts a different perspective on their response. Is it right? Was Iraq/Mosul/Falluja right? Easy to argue no. But that's war. Perhaps Israel feels it is more under threat and hence more legitimately fighting a war than we did in Iraq/Afghan.
What are your LFOI friends saying, Nick? I'm genuinely interested to know.
The police are supposed to act within the law not according to the latest nonsense from the stain on humanity .
So, mobile technician come out, bit of diagnostics, unplug the failed headlight unit and the low voltage battery error clears. So he starts pulling the front end of the car apart to fit the new headlight.
And there it is. A stone chip - a big and deep one - right on the bottom of the unit where it meets the bumper. With a big crack under it which was only visible when you pull the bumper back. And an impressive amount of water sloshing about inside.
Had the stone hit a few mm below it would have been on the bumper. Or a few mm above and likely just a scratch. But it hit precisely the wrong place which allowed in water which wrecked the unit.
So, not a warranty repair. £1,300 inc VAT. OK so knock off the VAT and offset Corporation Tax and its *only £913. An annoying and expensive day so far. At least it didn't also kill the battery. They cost c. £2k...!
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/edinburgh-couple-fume-handed-17k-27906242
What is the long term solution? It surely isn't anything like where we are now, but I find it intolerable that the victim here, Israel, is now being turned into the villain. I have huge sympathy for the Gazan people. They are like the ordinary decent Germans in 1945. But ultimately you cannot have a situation where the government on Gaza has the express policy of exterminating Israel and all Jewish people.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/22/russian-anti-war-activist-dies-fall/
3 reasons why the Chesebro plea deal is a win for both sides
The Fulton County DA didn't make a deal because her case against Chesebro was weak; rather, she wisely decided to hold her cards for the bigger fish.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/cheseboro-plea-deal-fani-willis-trump-rcna121442O
Basic rule - don't drive your car through flood water. The idea that they have driven through "rain" and that killed the battery is laughable. I get it - its a large bill. But them's the breaks...
The legislation is there, just the Met and CPS have decided to interpret calling for Jihad at an anti Israel demo as not falling under it for reasons beyond me
Denmark: clean, efficient, regularly noted as one of the happiest places in the world, and a tax-to- GDP ratio of 46.9%.
As you say, no manufacturer will replace under warranty an engine with water in it either, but insurance would normally pay out in such circumstances.
If there’s actually a problem with heavy rain causing water ingestion to batteries, then there will quickly be insurance evaluations on the model. If it’s a one-off failure, then not so much.
How very dare you, sir?
You are sentenced to explaining to @TSE why pineapple is a good pizza topping, followed by a session explaining the benefit of HS2 to @Richard_Tyndall
Here’s the Met telling people waving England flags that they’re being racist, yesterday in London.
https://x.com/tpointuk/status/1716025663558156755?s=61
They should use the full force of the law while meeting Braverman.
I'm thinking ten years would about meet her case.
A document presented by Israeli President Isaac Herzog as proof that Hamas intended to develop chemical weapons is actually an amateur biography of 9/11 attacker Ramzi Yousef and contains no instructions on how to develop chemical weapons
I saw Sly News reporting what Herzog said as if it was fact this morning.
Israel aren't very good at lying can't they take advice from Boris and/or SKS
https://twitter.com/_LanJun/status/1418840039505731597
That probably completely trashed the interior though.
Driving an ICE car through deep water is most likely to immobilise it due to a stall from exhaust back pressure or killing a sensor like CPS or Lambda. It's almost impossible to get water into the engine via the intake as it's relatively high and the water has to get past the air filter, turbo and throttle body.
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 47% (=)
CON: 27% (=)
LDM: 10% (=)
RFM: 6% (+1)
GRN: 5% (-1)
SNP: 2% (=)
Via
@DeltapollUK
, 18-20 Oct.
Changes w/ 13-16 Oct.
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1716425124134486191?s=20
What are the silly buggers playing at? They're becoming the England cricket team of the internet.
Also Turning Point UK are a terrible organization.
Middle East Eye
@MiddleEastEye
·
2h
"A senior adviser to Starmer was asked how many Gazans have to die before Labour will call for a ceasefire. The reply came: 'As many it takes…'