Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
People are only being arrested for supporting Palestine Action because PA were specifically added to the list of proscribed groups. That was done rather quickly, arguably with insufficient legislative oversight. That's the sort of thing you often rail against.
When have I ever railed against a terrorist group who've engaged in terrorism under the law being added to the list of proscribed groups?
Under the law we have, PA absolutely are terrorists and should be on the list and the list doesn't require legislative oversight.
I'm all in favour of liberalising the law, but PA have been treated as the law says they should be and quite rightly too. Just the same as every other proscribed group.
If you want to repeal the proscribed list and laws like PREVENT then argue for that, but if today's law exists then PA should be on the list.
You have railed against hasty legislation is what I meant. Apologies for the confusion.
The list does require legislative action. A statutory instrument was voted on by Parliament on 2 July. This proscribed PA and two other groups (neo-Nazis) and parliamentarians complained as they were only allowed to vote for proscribing or not all 3 together.
So the provisions within the law were met.
What violence in the UK had the other 2 groups done? And were they more or less violent than PA? Violence includes damage to property as PA did.
Why aren't you whinging about all the other groups on the list who haven't killed people?
The Russian Imperial Movement has not been active in the UK, but has killed large numbers in Ukraine and elsewhere.
The Maniacs Murder Club has also not been active in the UK. They are estimated to have killed about 50 people.
I am making a point about the group that is in the news and that the discussion is about.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
You're close to having a point, those objecting to the rule of law, many of them passionate supporters of "the rule of law" otherwise are raging hypocrites driven by their antipathy to Israel.
I'm enjoying calling out their hypocrisy, yes. I'm not being inconsistent with my principles either, I'd entirely be comfortable with the law being liberalised so people can support terrorists whether they be Islamic, neo-Nazi or Palestinian despite the fact I oppose them all.
What I'm not OK with is authoritarian laws being applied to some but not others.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
Quite - BartholomewRoberts is trying to reconcile his usual strident defence of free speech with his hatred for anyone opposing Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza by hiding behind "it's the law bro".
I actually entirely agree with and follow his logic - Palestine Action are a terrorist group under the law as written, the Home Secretary was likely within her rights to proscribe them, and therefore support for them is a offence too.
But it's absurd. The people cutting down bus lane cameras in Edinburgh have caused serious and expensive criminal damage, motivated by their politics. They are therefore terrorists. The Home Secretary could proscribe them with no consultation with parliament. Anyone wearing a t-shirt with the name of that group, or defending their actions on facebook, could also be arrested under the Terrorism Act.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
People are only being arrested for supporting Palestine Action because PA were specifically added to the list of proscribed groups. That was done rather quickly, arguably with insufficient legislative oversight. That's the sort of thing you often rail against.
When have I ever railed against a terrorist group who've engaged in terrorism under the law being added to the list of proscribed groups?
Under the law we have, PA absolutely are terrorists and should be on the list and the list doesn't require legislative oversight.
I'm all in favour of liberalising the law, but PA have been treated as the law says they should be and quite rightly too. Just the same as every other proscribed group.
If you want to repeal the proscribed list and laws like PREVENT then argue for that, but if today's law exists then PA should be on the list.
You have railed against hasty legislation is what I meant. Apologies for the confusion.
The list does require legislative action. A statutory instrument was voted on by Parliament on 2 July. This proscribed PA and two other groups (neo-Nazis) and parliamentarians complained as they were only allowed to vote for proscribing or not all 3 together.
Yes, I think Blair's law was authoritarian and should be repealed, I said so.
Many of Blair's laws were authoritarian and he got his way many attempts that were defeated were even worse.
However his law was passed, decades ago now, and yes PA well and truly meet the definition. As much, if not more, than most other proscribed groups.
So campaign to repeal and liberalise the law. I have no qualms with liberalism.
Pretending the law was not broken or suggesting selective application of the law? That is worse.
The rule of law means these guys are terrorists and anyone supporting them is breaking the law too.
I'm not saying the law was not broken by today's protestors or is being selectively applied. I'm saying the statutory instrument was hastily passed with insufficient parliamentary oversight.
It wasn't though, it was passed as all such SIs are, as the law requires.
I'd be comfortable with the law being repealed, for all, but there was nothing unique, unusual or improper about its application here.
I'd add further adjectives to "surprising" - but yes it is.
I'd have guessed 15%.
it's 2025 and racism is in
Yep. But it's usually that 15%. The ones who 'strongly approve' of Donald Trump. That's a good cypher for how big the racist vote is here (since it's never self reported for obvious reasons).
So this 24% is a nasty surprise to me. Thought I had a handle on it. Haven't.
Given Reform are on 30% then virtually all of those 24% will be voting Reform unsurprisingly, which is why Farage cannot distance himself from Robinson too much even if he needs more than Robinson fans for Reform to win most seats
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
Quite - BartholomewRoberts is trying to reconcile his usual strident defence of free speech with his hatred for anyone opposing Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza by hiding behind "it's the law bro".
I actually entirely agree with and follow his logic - Palestine Action are a terrorist group under the law as written, the Home Secretary was likely within her rights to proscribe them, and therefore support for them is a offence too.
But it's absurd. The people cutting down bus lane cameras in Edinburgh have caused serious and expensive criminal damage, motivated by their politics. They are therefore terrorists. The Home Secretary could proscribe them with no consultation with parliament. Anyone wearing a t-shirt with the name of that group, or defending their actions on facebook, could also be arrested under the Terrorism Act.
No, I think the Home Secretary has to lay a statutory instrument before Parliament to add a group to the list.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
Quite - BartholomewRoberts is trying to reconcile his usual strident defence of free speech with his hatred for anyone opposing Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza by hiding behind "it's the law bro".
I actually entirely agree with and follow his logic - Palestine Action are a terrorist group under the law as written, the Home Secretary was likely within her rights to proscribe them, and therefore support for them is a offence too.
But it's absurd. The people cutting down bus lane cameras in Edinburgh have caused serious and expensive criminal damage, motivated by their politics. They are therefore terrorists. The Home Secretary could proscribe them with no consultation with parliament. Anyone wearing a t-shirt with the name of that group, or defending their actions on facebook, could also be arrested under the Terrorism Act.
No, I think the Home Secretary has to lay a statutory instrument before Parliament to add a group to the list.
Yes, you're right. Fair enough.
(I'd gently suggest that, with a huge majority, people on the right should not encourage the Labour Party to get a taste for proscribing political campaign groups).
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
Quite - BartholomewRoberts is trying to reconcile his usual strident defence of free speech with his hatred for anyone opposing Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza by hiding behind "it's the law bro".
I actually entirely agree with and follow his logic - Palestine Action are a terrorist group under the law as written, the Home Secretary was likely within her rights to proscribe them, and therefore support for them is a offence too.
But it's absurd. The people cutting down bus lane cameras in Edinburgh have caused serious and expensive criminal damage, motivated by their politics. They are therefore terrorists. The Home Secretary could proscribe them with no consultation with parliament. Anyone wearing a t-shirt with the name of that group, or defending their actions on facebook, could also be arrested under the Terrorism Act.
No, I think the Home Secretary has to lay a statutory instrument before Parliament to add a group to the list.
As was done in this case.
Following the same procedures that are followed in other cases too.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
People are only being arrested for supporting Palestine Action because PA were specifically added to the list of proscribed groups. That was done rather quickly, arguably with insufficient legislative oversight. That's the sort of thing you often rail against.
When have I ever railed against a terrorist group who've engaged in terrorism under the law being added to the list of proscribed groups?
Under the law we have, PA absolutely are terrorists and should be on the list and the list doesn't require legislative oversight.
I'm all in favour of liberalising the law, but PA have been treated as the law says they should be and quite rightly too. Just the same as every other proscribed group.
If you want to repeal the proscribed list and laws like PREVENT then argue for that, but if today's law exists then PA should be on the list.
You have railed against hasty legislation is what I meant. Apologies for the confusion.
The list does require legislative action. A statutory instrument was voted on by Parliament on 2 July. This proscribed PA and two other groups (neo-Nazis) and parliamentarians complained as they were only allowed to vote for proscribing or not all 3 together.
Yes, I think Blair's law was authoritarian and should be repealed, I said so.
Many of Blair's laws were authoritarian and he got his way many attempts that were defeated were even worse.
However his law was passed, decades ago now, and yes PA well and truly meet the definition. As much, if not more, than most other proscribed groups.
So campaign to repeal and liberalise the law. I have no qualms with liberalism.
Pretending the law was not broken or suggesting selective application of the law? That is worse.
The rule of law means these guys are terrorists and anyone supporting them is breaking the law too.
I'm not saying the law was not broken by today's protestors or is being selectively applied. I'm saying the statutory instrument was hastily passed with insufficient parliamentary oversight.
It wasn't though, it was passed as all such SIs are, as the law requires.
I'd be comfortable with the law being repealed, for all, but there was nothing unique, unusual or improper about its application here.
It was bundled with 2 other groups, which isn't, I think, what happens in most cases...?
Many in the Commons and the Lords voiced a view that this case was different. That makes it unusual. The vote still passed, but I think if lots of MPs and Lords are bothered, then that is of note. If the case for proscribing PA is strong, then what's the problem with unbundling it and letting the Commons spend a little bit more time on it?
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
You're close to having a point, those objecting to the rule of law, many of them passionate supporters of "the rule of law" otherwise are raging hypocrites driven by their antipathy to Israel.
I'm enjoying calling out their hypocrisy, yes. I'm not being inconsistent with my principles either, I'd entirely be comfortable with the law being liberalised so people can support terrorists whether they be Islamic, neo-Nazi or Palestinian despite the fact I oppose them all.
What I'm not OK with is authoritarian laws being applied to some but not others.
Hmm, I think you're backfilling. Putting retro logic around what was an emotional comment.
But I won't press the point since you've closed off its air supply.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
People are only being arrested for supporting Palestine Action because PA were specifically added to the list of proscribed groups. That was done rather quickly, arguably with insufficient legislative oversight. That's the sort of thing you often rail against.
When have I ever railed against a terrorist group who've engaged in terrorism under the law being added to the list of proscribed groups?
Under the law we have, PA absolutely are terrorists and should be on the list and the list doesn't require legislative oversight.
I'm all in favour of liberalising the law, but PA have been treated as the law says they should be and quite rightly too. Just the same as every other proscribed group.
If you want to repeal the proscribed list and laws like PREVENT then argue for that, but if today's law exists then PA should be on the list.
You have railed against hasty legislation is what I meant. Apologies for the confusion.
The list does require legislative action. A statutory instrument was voted on by Parliament on 2 July. This proscribed PA and two other groups (neo-Nazis) and parliamentarians complained as they were only allowed to vote for proscribing or not all 3 together.
Yes, I think Blair's law was authoritarian and should be repealed, I said so.
Many of Blair's laws were authoritarian and he got his way many attempts that were defeated were even worse.
However his law was passed, decades ago now, and yes PA well and truly meet the definition. As much, if not more, than most other proscribed groups.
So campaign to repeal and liberalise the law. I have no qualms with liberalism.
Pretending the law was not broken or suggesting selective application of the law? That is worse.
The rule of law means these guys are terrorists and anyone supporting them is breaking the law too.
I'm not saying the law was not broken by today's protestors or is being selectively applied. I'm saying the statutory instrument was hastily passed with insufficient parliamentary oversight.
It wasn't though, it was passed as all such SIs are, as the law requires.
I'd be comfortable with the law being repealed, for all, but there was nothing unique, unusual or improper about its application here.
It was bundled with 2 other groups, which isn't, I think, what happens in most cases...?
Many in the Commons and the Lords voiced a view that this case was different. That makes it unusual. The vote still passed, but I think if lots of MPs and Lords are bothered, then that is of note. If the case for proscribing PA is strong, then what's the problem with unbundling it and letting the Commons spend a little bit more time on it?
What was unusual other than that some MPs like Palestinian terrorists while disliking neo-Nazis and Islamists?
Bundles of groups being proscribed in a single SI has happened repeatedly before.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
Not my cup of tea, but not terrorism, unless you completely debase the meaning of the term.
That's the problem, isn't it really: the UK terrorism legislation debases the meaning of the term. 100% clear that what PA did meets the legal definition, but doesn't meet most people's assumption of what the definition would be
Strangely nobody seemed bothered when a load of far right wing groups got banned for racist social media activities under the same use of this law. Hizb ut-Tahrir are devotedly non-violent and also got banned it seems again mostly for spreading their ideology of an Islamic Caliphate and entryism.
Its far from the first time the government have used this legislation to proscribe troubling groups. But they weren't a load of middle class protestors having a go at playing as freedom fighters, which has included more than spraying paint.
I think it is a tricky case, as were the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir. One thing we don't know is the full extent of the intelligence the authorities have on PA, the Telegraph clearly have a mole and were in on meetings when they captured evidence that the organisers were discussing plans to repeat raids on a load of other military bases.
Which particular far right groups do you think should not be on the list? There aren't many far right groups in the list and those that are are in plotting-to-kill-a-police-officer territory.
People in AI community ripping the piss out of Sam Altman now e.g.
just one more gpt bro. I promise bro just one more gpt and it'll fix everything bro. bro, just one more gpt. please just one more, one more gpt and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro cmon just give me one more gpt i promise bro, bro bro please ! just need one more gpt
"Elon Musk's AI video generator has been accused of making "a deliberate choice" to create sexually explicit clips of Taylor Swift without prompting, says an expert in online abuse."
People in AI community ripping the piss out of Sam Altman now e.g.
just one more gpt bro. I promise bro just one more gpt and it'll fix everything bro. bro, just one more gpt. please just one more, one more gpt and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro cmon just give me one more gpt i promise bro, bro bro please ! just need one more gpt
"Elon Musk's AI video generator has been accused of making "a deliberate choice" to create sexually explicit clips of Taylor Swift without prompting, says an expert in online abuse."
That's the story from The Verge: one can add the "spicy" to pretty much any image you upload, and it will make videos that are... "spicy".
The problem is that means (a) this involves videos of Taylor Swift and Gal Gadot and (yes) Liz Truss ripping off their shirts and dancing topless... and (b) it was also quite willing (at first) to generate child pornography, using the faces of real children.
It appears they have mostly solved the second issue.
But I am unable to get those Liz Truss videos out of my mind
Before anybody hits the button to post something on the Internet they should ask themselves, "will the world be better for this, or at least not made worse?" Proceed only if the answer is yes.
A topless dancing Liz Truss (AI or not) would not pass that test imo. Nor anything of that ilk.
Tough wank.
I believe Leon confessed to a fancy for the Truss. I hope you’re not referring to him.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
Quite - BartholomewRoberts is trying to reconcile his usual strident defence of free speech with his hatred for anyone opposing Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza by hiding behind "it's the law bro".
I actually entirely agree with and follow his logic - Palestine Action are a terrorist group under the law as written, the Home Secretary was likely within her rights to proscribe them, and therefore support for them is a offence too.
But it's absurd. The people cutting down bus lane cameras in Edinburgh have caused serious and expensive criminal damage, motivated by their politics. They are therefore terrorists. The Home Secretary could proscribe them with no consultation with parliament. Anyone wearing a t-shirt with the name of that group, or defending their actions on facebook, could also be arrested under the Terrorism Act.
That's the law Blair passed, yes.
I've repeatedly railed against Blair's illiberalism and said I'd be comfortable with this law being repealed.
These guys 100% are terrorists under the law. What's hilarious is how many people, like kinabalu, who are objecting here are avid Blair fans and won't say a word against Blair otherwise or here either.
Repeal Blair's authoritarian law. Criticise it even. But the application of it here is entirely consistent with the law, rule of law and precedence.
People in AI community ripping the piss out of Sam Altman now e.g.
just one more gpt bro. I promise bro just one more gpt and it'll fix everything bro. bro, just one more gpt. please just one more, one more gpt and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro cmon just give me one more gpt i promise bro, bro bro please ! just need one more gpt
"Elon Musk's AI video generator has been accused of making "a deliberate choice" to create sexually explicit clips of Taylor Swift without prompting, says an expert in online abuse."
People in AI community ripping the piss out of Sam Altman now e.g.
just one more gpt bro. I promise bro just one more gpt and it'll fix everything bro. bro, just one more gpt. please just one more, one more gpt and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro cmon just give me one more gpt i promise bro, bro bro please ! just need one more gpt
"Elon Musk's AI video generator has been accused of making "a deliberate choice" to create sexually explicit clips of Taylor Swift without prompting, says an expert in online abuse."
That's the story from The Verge: one can add the "spicy" to pretty much any image you upload, and it will make videos that are... "spicy".
The problem is that means (a) this involves videos of Taylor Swift and Gal Gadot and (yes) Liz Truss ripping off their shirts and dancing topless... and (b) it was also quite willing (at first) to generate child pornography, using the faces of real children.
It appears they have mostly solved the second issue.
But I am unable to get those Liz Truss videos out of my mind
Before anybody hits the button to post something on the Internet they should ask themselves, "will the world be better for this, or at least not made worse?" Proceed only if the answer is yes.
A topless dancing Liz Truss (AI or not) would not pass that test imo. Nor anything of that ilk.
Tough wank.
I believe Leon confessed to a fancy for the Truss. I hope you’re not referring to him.
There are more than 80 proscribed groups. I only count 7 neo-Nazi groups. There are 14 related to Northern Ireland. Most of the rest are Islamist, with a smattering of others.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
Not my cup of tea, but not terrorism, unless you completely debase the meaning of the term.
That's the problem, isn't it really: the UK terrorism legislation debases the meaning of the term. 100% clear that what PA did meets the legal definition, but doesn't meet most people's assumption of what the definition would be
Strangely nobody seemed bothered when a load of far right wing groups got banned for racist social media activities under the same use of this law. Hizb ut-Tahrir are devotedly non-violent and also got banned it seems again mostly for spreading their ideology of an Islamic Caliphate and entryism.
Its far from the first time the government have used this legislation to proscribe troubling groups. But they weren't a load of middle class protestors having a go at playing as freedom fighters, which has included more than spraying paint.
I think it is a tricky case, as were the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir. One thing we don't know is the full extent of the intelligence the authorities have on PA, the Telegraph clearly have a mole and were in on meetings when they captured evidence that the organisers were discussing plans to repeat raids on a load of other military bases.
Which particular far right groups do you think should not be on the list? There aren't many far right groups in the list and those that are are in plotting-to-kill-a-police-officer territory.
I didn't say they shouldn't be. My point was there is a number that got banned for troubling racist social media activity without actually carrying out a violent act. You don't need to blow anything up to be proscribed. Hizb ut-Tahrir were / are also a very troubling group.
I imagine PA overstepped the mark in a way that JSO haven't by raiding a military base and there is evidence this was just the start.
I don't think PA should have been proscribed. But those that damaged the aircraft should be looking at life (and I do mean life) in prison.
There's a 10 year max sentence for criminal damage. Perhaps that should be extended if politically motivated.
Treason felony is available too, and that has a life sentence.
Whatever your view on the seriousness of the offence, there is no way on earth that it possibly meets the definition of treason felony, principally because we're not at war with Palestine, and nor is it likely to encourage them to invade the UK.
Not saying it's not a serious offence, but be realistic.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
Not my cup of tea, but not terrorism, unless you completely debase the meaning of the term.
That's the problem, isn't it really: the UK terrorism legislation debases the meaning of the term. 100% clear that what PA did meets the legal definition, but doesn't meet most people's assumption of what the definition would be
Strangely nobody seemed bothered when a load of far right wing groups got banned for racist social media activities under the same use of this law. Hizb ut-Tahrir are devotedly non-violent and also got banned it seems again mostly for spreading their ideology of an Islamic Caliphate and entryism.
Its far from the first time the government have used this legislation to proscribe troubling groups. But they weren't a load of middle class protestors having a go at playing as freedom fighters, which has included more than spraying paint.
I think it is a tricky case, as were the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir. One thing we don't know is the full extent of the intelligence the authorities have on PA, the Telegraph clearly have a mole and were in on meetings when they captured evidence that the organisers were discussing plans to repeat raids on a load of other military bases.
Which particular far right groups do you think should not be on the list? There aren't many far right groups in the list and those that are are in plotting-to-kill-a-police-officer territory.
I didn't say they shouldn't be. My point was there is a number that got banned for troubling racist social media activity without actually carrying out a violent act.
I am perusing the list. There are 7 neo-Nazi groups, I think. A couple haven't carried out violent acts, but were plotting violent acts, like National Action. But I take your point about some other non-Nazi groups on the list.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
You're close to having a point, those objecting to the rule of law, many of them passionate supporters of "the rule of law" otherwise are raging hypocrites driven by their antipathy to Israel.
I'm enjoying calling out their hypocrisy, yes. I'm not being inconsistent with my principles either, I'd entirely be comfortable with the law being liberalised so people can support terrorists whether they be Islamic, neo-Nazi or Palestinian despite the fact I oppose them all.
What I'm not OK with is authoritarian laws being applied to some but not others.
Hmm, I think you're backfilling. Putting retro logic around what was an emotional comment.
But I won't press the point since you've closed off its air supply.
I think it is you who are retrofitting. Bart has been entirely consistent in his absolute criticism of Blair's Terrorism laws and also insistent that as long as they exist they should be uniformly enforced. There is nothing contradictory or hypocritical in that.
Like Bart I don't think PA should be considered a terrorist organisation and I also think the laws that insist they are should be repealed. But as with my views on taxes (as an example) as long as the law says something and that was passed democratically then I am going to both comply and insist others do the same.
Your enemy here is not Bart or myself. It is the illiberal Governments passing fecking stupid laws.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
That's inaccurate.
It's a world where a Home Secretary can declare a group to be terrorists if a few if their members commit serious criminal damage.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
Quite - BartholomewRoberts is trying to reconcile his usual strident defence of free speech with his hatred for anyone opposing Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza by hiding behind "it's the law bro".
I actually entirely agree with and follow his logic - Palestine Action are a terrorist group under the law as written, the Home Secretary was likely within her rights to proscribe them, and therefore support for them is a offence too.
But it's absurd. The people cutting down bus lane cameras in Edinburgh have caused serious and expensive criminal damage, motivated by their politics. They are therefore terrorists. The Home Secretary could proscribe them with no consultation with parliament. Anyone wearing a t-shirt with the name of that group, or defending their actions on facebook, could also be arrested under the Terrorism Act.
That's the law Blair passed, yes.
I've repeatedly railed against Blair's illiberalism and said I'd be comfortable with this law being repealed.
These guys 100% are terrorists under the law. What's hilarious is how many people, like kinabalu, who are objecting here are avid Blair fans and won't say a word against Blair otherwise or here either.
Repeal Blair's authoritarian law. Criticise it even. But the application of it here is entirely consistent with the law, rule of law and precedence.
I do wonder how many people railing against arrests for people expressing support for PA are also railing against the idea that shoplifters should be prosecuted. The fact is the law is the law, it might seem unreasonable in various cases but it’s the law and so if you actively do something that breaks the law and you get nicked it’s sort of tough shit.
Whenever I have broken the law I accepted that if I get caught I’m in trouble but I weighed up the risk of being caught with the need or desire to do what I did. If I was to go and buy drugs and it turns out I’m buying off an undercover officer then it’s my problem. If I go and set fire to the treasury in a protest against VAT on public schools then I have to take the consequences however much I might feel it’s bad law/unjust.
There isn’t some special situation where you can say “but officer I’m morally correct”.
If enough people think the law is outrageous then ultimately it will be changed - the suffragettes knew this and took their punishments but they won. If the law isn’t considered outrageous then it’s going to stay and if most people think a law is ok then why should it be changed on the whim and mores of a few ideologues?
Change the law by argument and pressure but don’t complain if you take actions you believe will change it which are illegal, take it on the chin and feel virtuous.
I don't think PA should have been proscribed. But those that damaged the aircraft should be looking at life (and I do mean life) in prison.
There's a 10 year max sentence for criminal damage. Perhaps that should be extended if politically motivated.
Treason felony is available too, and that has a life sentence.
Whatever your view on the seriousness of the offence, there is no way on earth that it possibly meets the definition of treason felony, principally because we're not at war with Palestine, and nor is it likely to encourage them to invade the UK.
Not saying it's not a serious offence, but be realistic.
It definitely meets the definition of the Terrorism Act 2000, another Blair law, though. Which offers a 15 year maximum sentence.
I'd add further adjectives to "surprising" - but yes it is.
I'd have guessed 15%.
it's 2025 and racism is in
Yep. But it's usually that 15%. The ones who 'strongly approve' of Donald Trump. That's a good cypher for how big the racist vote is here (since it's never self reported for obvious reasons).
So this 24% is a nasty surprise to me. Thought I had a handle on it. Haven't.
Given Reform are on 30% then virtually all of those 24% will be voting Reform unsurprisingly, which is why Farage cannot distance himself from Robinson too much even if he needs more than Robinson fans for Reform to win most seats
I note approval is 20% for Badenoch, 15% for Jenrick. Stride doesn't seem to be rated.
I note this ranking is derived from the yougov ratings quickfire round that is optional at the end of their surveys, so I don't think is population weighted like their regular polls
I don't think PA should have been proscribed. But those that damaged the aircraft should be looking at life (and I do mean life) in prison.
There's a 10 year max sentence for criminal damage. Perhaps that should be extended if politically motivated.
Treason felony is available too, and that has a life sentence.
Whatever your view on the seriousness of the offence, there is no way on earth that it possibly meets the definition of treason felony, principally because we're not at war with Palestine, and nor is it likely to encourage them to invade the UK.
Not saying it's not a serious offence, but be realistic.
I was lifting this definition: to levy war against the sovereign "in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament"
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
Not my cup of tea, but not terrorism, unless you completely debase the meaning of the term.
That's the problem, isn't it really: the UK terrorism legislation debases the meaning of the term. 100% clear that what PA did meets the legal definition, but doesn't meet most people's assumption of what the definition would be
Strangely nobody seemed bothered when a load of far right wing groups got banned for racist social media activities under the same use of this law. Hizb ut-Tahrir are devotedly non-violent and also got banned it seems again mostly for spreading their ideology of an Islamic Caliphate and entryism.
Its far from the first time the government have used this legislation to proscribe troubling groups. But they weren't a load of middle class protestors having a go at playing as freedom fighters, which has included more than spraying paint.
I think it is a tricky case, as were the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir. One thing we don't know is the full extent of the intelligence the authorities have on PA, the Telegraph clearly have a mole and were in on meetings when they captured evidence that the organisers were discussing plans to repeat raids on a load of other military bases.
Which particular far right groups do you think should not be on the list? There aren't many far right groups in the list and those that are are in plotting-to-kill-a-police-officer territory.
I didn't say they shouldn't be. My point was there is a number that got banned for troubling racist social media activity without actually carrying out a violent act.
I am perusing the list. There are 7 neo-Nazi groups, I think. A couple haven't carried out violent acts, but were plotting violent acts, like National Action.
There is a couple who it was inferred they wanted to / were encouraging it by certain tweets (which is the reason given to ban them) but haven't actually done anything violent. Hizb ut-Tahrir are devotedly non-violent. PA have been violent. And raided a military base, with plans to do more.
I can see why both all have got banned under the legalisation. I am not going to bat for any of them.
If proscription of PA gets overturned, I can definitely see Hizb ut-Tahrir winning a legal challenge as well. And I imagine it will be harder to proscribe far right groups who don't undertake violence.
Picture too small? Slap the canvas on the wall and have someone paint more of it...
(Palazzo Reale, Genoa.)
Is that definitely added canvas and not part of the canvas that’s been distorted (I haven’t seen it personally) by being the excess that was “behind” the frame? If you were to steal Caravaggio’s Supper at Emaus and take it off its frame there would be a good amount of painted canvas that hasn’t been exposed to light, pollution, etc and have ridges if you displayed the whole canvas afterwards.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
That's inaccurate.
It's a world where a Home Secretary can declare a group to be terrorists if a few if their members commit serious criminal damage.
That is not the same thing at all.
That is the same thing.
Serious criminal damage falls within Blair's Terrorism laws.
I'd add further adjectives to "surprising" - but yes it is.
I'd have guessed 15%.
it's 2025 and racism is in
Yep. But it's usually that 15%. The ones who 'strongly approve' of Donald Trump. That's a good cypher for how big the racist vote is here (since it's never self reported for obvious reasons).
So this 24% is a nasty surprise to me. Thought I had a handle on it. Haven't.
Given Reform are on 30% then virtually all of those 24% will be voting Reform unsurprisingly, which is why Farage cannot distance himself from Robinson too much even if he needs more than Robinson fans for Reform to win most seats
I note approval is 20% for Badenoch, 15% for Jenrick. Stride doesn't seem to be rated.
I note this ranking is derived from the yougov ratings quickfire round that is optional at the end of their surveys, so I don't think is population weighted like their regular polls
Stride has a net approval of -18% compared to -35% for Badenoch, -44% for Starmer, -31% for Farage and -37% for Corbyn and -6% for Davey in the latest weighted Yougov favourability ratings survey
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
Quite - BartholomewRoberts is trying to reconcile his usual strident defence of free speech with his hatred for anyone opposing Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza by hiding behind "it's the law bro".
I actually entirely agree with and follow his logic - Palestine Action are a terrorist group under the law as written, the Home Secretary was likely within her rights to proscribe them, and therefore support for them is a offence too.
But it's absurd. The people cutting down bus lane cameras in Edinburgh have caused serious and expensive criminal damage, motivated by their politics. They are therefore terrorists. The Home Secretary could proscribe them with no consultation with parliament. Anyone wearing a t-shirt with the name of that group, or defending their actions on facebook, could also be arrested under the Terrorism Act.
That's the law Blair passed, yes.
I've repeatedly railed against Blair's illiberalism and said I'd be comfortable with this law being repealed.
These guys 100% are terrorists under the law. What's hilarious is how many people, like kinabalu, who are objecting here are avid Blair fans and won't say a word against Blair otherwise or here either.
Repeal Blair's authoritarian law. Criticise it even. But the application of it here is entirely consistent with the law, rule of law and precedence.
I do wonder how many people railing against arrests for people expressing support for PA are also railing against the idea that shoplifters should be prosecuted. The fact is the law is the law, it might seem unreasonable in various cases but it’s the law and so if you actively do something that breaks the law and you get nicked it’s sort of tough shit.
Whenever I have broken the law I accepted that if I get caught I’m in trouble but I weighed up the risk of being caught with the need or desire to do what I did. If I was to go and buy drugs and it turns out I’m buying off an undercover officer then it’s my problem. If I go and set fire to the treasury in a protest against VAT on public schools then I have to take the consequences however much I might feel it’s bad law/unjust.
There isn’t some special situation where you can say “but officer I’m morally correct”.
If enough people think the law is outrageous then ultimately it will be changed - the suffragettes knew this and took their punishments but they won. If the law isn’t considered outrageous then it’s going to stay and if most people think a law is ok then why should it be changed on the whim and mores of a few ideologues?
Change the law by argument and pressure but don’t complain if you take actions you believe will change it which are illegal, take it on the chin and feel virtuous.
That is what is happening. Those going on the protest today expect to be arrested, and perhaps charged.
They are still entirely entitled to complain about the fact.
Picture too small? Slap the canvas on the wall and have someone paint more of it...
(Palazzo Reale, Genoa.)
Is that definitely added canvas and not part of the canvas that’s been distorted (I haven’t seen it personally) by being the excess that was “behind” the frame? If you were to steal Caravaggio’ Supper at Emaus and take it off its frame there would be a good amount of painted canvas that hasn’t been exposed to light, pollution, etc and have ridges if you displayed the whole canvas afterwards.
It's one canvas and another. I can't say definitively that it wasn't cut down and later re-constituted, because the captions were in Italian. But the whole thing would be a very odd original composition with all the figures stuck in the middle of a too-big background.
I don't think PA should have been proscribed. But those that damaged the aircraft should be looking at life (and I do mean life) in prison.
There's a 10 year max sentence for criminal damage. Perhaps that should be extended if politically motivated.
Treason felony is available too, and that has a life sentence.
Whatever your view on the seriousness of the offence, there is no way on earth that it possibly meets the definition of treason felony, principally because we're not at war with Palestine, and nor is it likely to encourage them to invade the UK.
Not saying it's not a serious offence, but be realistic.
I was lifting this definition: to levy war against the sovereign "in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament"
It clearly isn't levying war. Not defending the criminal damage, but there is no way on earth they'd be charged with or convicted for a treason offence.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
Not my cup of tea, but not terrorism, unless you completely debase the meaning of the term.
That's the problem, isn't it really: the UK terrorism legislation debases the meaning of the term. 100% clear that what PA did meets the legal definition, but doesn't meet most people's assumption of what the definition would be
Strangely nobody seemed bothered when a load of far right wing groups got banned for racist social media activities under the same use of this law. Hizb ut-Tahrir are devotedly non-violent and also got banned it seems again mostly for spreading their ideology of an Islamic Caliphate and entryism.
Its far from the first time the government have used this legislation to proscribe troubling groups. But they weren't a load of middle class protestors having a go at playing as freedom fighters, which has included more than spraying paint.
I think it is a tricky case, as were the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir. One thing we don't know is the full extent of the intelligence the authorities have on PA, the Telegraph clearly have a mole and were in on meetings when they captured evidence that the organisers were discussing plans to repeat raids on a load of other military bases.
Which particular far right groups do you think should not be on the list? There aren't many far right groups in the list and those that are are in plotting-to-kill-a-police-officer territory.
I didn't say they shouldn't be. My point was there is a number that got banned for troubling racist social media activity without actually carrying out a violent act. You don't need to blow anything up to be proscribed. Hizb ut-Tahrir were / are also a very troubling group.
I imagine PA overstepped the mark in a way that JSO haven't by raiding a military base and there is evidence this was just the start.
I think you need to split into two questions
1) Do we think PA are a terrorist group? I think it's stretches the definition too far, and they should have been prosecuted for some sort of aggravated criminal damage or treason
2) Should supporting PA with a t-shirt of poster be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act? I think that's ridiculous, and entirely inconsistent with my understanding on free speech. What 2) does is highlight why 1) is a silly definition.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
Quite - BartholomewRoberts is trying to reconcile his usual strident defence of free speech with his hatred for anyone opposing Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza by hiding behind "it's the law bro".
I actually entirely agree with and follow his logic - Palestine Action are a terrorist group under the law as written, the Home Secretary was likely within her rights to proscribe them, and therefore support for them is a offence too.
But it's absurd. The people cutting down bus lane cameras in Edinburgh have caused serious and expensive criminal damage, motivated by their politics. They are therefore terrorists. The Home Secretary could proscribe them with no consultation with parliament. Anyone wearing a t-shirt with the name of that group, or defending their actions on facebook, could also be arrested under the Terrorism Act.
That's the law Blair passed, yes.
I've repeatedly railed against Blair's illiberalism and said I'd be comfortable with this law being repealed.
These guys 100% are terrorists under the law. What's hilarious is how many people, like kinabalu, who are objecting here are avid Blair fans and won't say a word against Blair otherwise or here either.
Repeal Blair's authoritarian law. Criticise it even. But the application of it here is entirely consistent with the law, rule of law and precedence.
I do wonder how many people railing against arrests for people expressing support for PA are also railing against the idea that shoplifters should be prosecuted. The fact is the law is the law, it might seem unreasonable in various cases but it’s the law and so if you actively do something that breaks the law and you get nicked it’s sort of tough shit.
Whenever I have broken the law I accepted that if I get caught I’m in trouble but I weighed up the risk of being caught with the need or desire to do what I did. If I was to go and buy drugs and it turns out I’m buying off an undercover officer then it’s my problem. If I go and set fire to the treasury in a protest against VAT on public schools then I have to take the consequences however much I might feel it’s bad law/unjust.
There isn’t some special situation where you can say “but officer I’m morally correct”.
If enough people think the law is outrageous then ultimately it will be changed - the suffragettes knew this and took their punishments but they won. If the law isn’t considered outrageous then it’s going to stay and if most people think a law is ok then why should it be changed on the whim and mores of a few ideologues?
Change the law by argument and pressure but don’t complain if you take actions you believe will change it which are illegal, take it on the chin and feel virtuous.
I think the point of this protest is to be arrested (thereby exposing the law as an ass) so these people are achieving their aim. No doubt they will make that point in court. In the past juries have tended to acquitted, using the ancient principle of jury nullification.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
Not my cup of tea, but not terrorism, unless you completely debase the meaning of the term.
That's the problem, isn't it really: the UK terrorism legislation debases the meaning of the term. 100% clear that what PA did meets the legal definition, but doesn't meet most people's assumption of what the definition would be
Strangely nobody seemed bothered when a load of far right wing groups got banned for racist social media activities under the same use of this law. Hizb ut-Tahrir are devotedly non-violent and also got banned it seems again mostly for spreading their ideology of an Islamic Caliphate and entryism.
Its far from the first time the government have used this legislation to proscribe troubling groups. But they weren't a load of middle class protestors having a go at playing as freedom fighters, which has included more than spraying paint.
I think it is a tricky case, as were the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir. One thing we don't know is the full extent of the intelligence the authorities have on PA, the Telegraph clearly have a mole and were in on meetings when they captured evidence that the organisers were discussing plans to repeat raids on a load of other military bases.
Which particular far right groups do you think should not be on the list? There aren't many far right groups in the list and those that are are in plotting-to-kill-a-police-officer territory.
I didn't say they shouldn't be. My point was there is a number that got banned for troubling racist social media activity without actually carrying out a violent act. You don't need to blow anything up to be proscribed. Hizb ut-Tahrir were / are also a very troubling group.
I imagine PA overstepped the mark in a way that JSO haven't by raiding a military base and there is evidence this was just the start.
I think you need to split into two questions
1) Do we think PA are a terrorist group? I think it's stretches the definition too far, and they should have been prosecuted for some sort of aggravated criminal damage or treason
2) Should supporting PA with a t-shirt of poster be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act? I think that's ridiculous, and entirely inconsistent with my understanding on free speech. What 2) does is highlight why 1) is a silly definition.
You don't like the law, change the law. 1) will be challenged shortly in court. In terms of 2), you can't pick and choice the laws you follow, the police should uphold the law as written.
I think a load of 20mph limits put in near me are ridiculous, especially outside of certain hours, there are no kids, very few houses i.e so no pedestrians. But if do 23mph in a 20mph, I fully expect to be prosecuted.
Turn up willy waving about supporting a terrorist group be it National Action or PA or Hizb ut-Tahrir, I expect you to be arrested.
And as I say, its a stupid hill to die on when a) there are legal challenges and b) the main issue people are protesting isn't being restricted.
I don't think PA should have been proscribed. But those that damaged the aircraft should be looking at life (and I do mean life) in prison.
There's a 10 year max sentence for criminal damage. Perhaps that should be extended if politically motivated.
Treason felony is available too, and that has a life sentence.
Whatever your view on the seriousness of the offence, there is no way on earth that it possibly meets the definition of treason felony, principally because we're not at war with Palestine, and nor is it likely to encourage them to invade the UK.
Not saying it's not a serious offence, but be realistic.
I was lifting this definition: to levy war against the sovereign "in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament"
It clearly isn't levying war. Not defending the criminal damage, but there is no way on earth they'd be charged with or convicted for a treason offence.
I'd have thought taking out an RAF jet, a warship would meet that criteria? Of do you need raise a land army or something?
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
You're close to having a point, those objecting to the rule of law, many of them passionate supporters of "the rule of law" otherwise are raging hypocrites driven by their antipathy to Israel.
I'm enjoying calling out their hypocrisy, yes. I'm not being inconsistent with my principles either, I'd entirely be comfortable with the law being liberalised so people can support terrorists whether they be Islamic, neo-Nazi or Palestinian despite the fact I oppose them all.
What I'm not OK with is authoritarian laws being applied to some but not others.
Hmm, I think you're backfilling. Putting retro logic around what was an emotional comment.
But I won't press the point since you've closed off its air supply.
I think it is you who are retrofitting. Bart has been entirely consistent in his absolute criticism of Blair's Terrorism laws and also insistent that as long as they exist they should be uniformly enforced. There is nothing contradictory or hypocritical in that.
Like Bart I don't think PA should be considered a terrorist organisation and I also think the laws that insist they are should be repealed. But as with my views on taxes (as an example) as long as the law says something and that was passed democratically then I am going to both comply and insist others do the same.
Your enemy here is not Bart or myself. It is the illiberal Governments passing fecking stupid laws.
I'm opining that his brusque oneliner "it's the law, if you don't like it change it" riposte to nico67 was driven by his ardent pro Israelism not his concern for the impartial application of a law he doesn't support. Could be wrong, think I'm right.
Q on this topic: If I were to publicly protest not support for PA but opposition to it being proscribed as a terrorist organisation, would I be committing a crime?
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
Not my cup of tea, but not terrorism, unless you completely debase the meaning of the term.
I have a feeling they'll get the Ponting treatment. I think they'd struggle to find 10 people to find them guilty whatever the law says. Sometimes the law particularly when set by Yvette Cooper is an ass.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
Not my cup of tea, but not terrorism, unless you completely debase the meaning of the term.
That's the problem, isn't it really: the UK terrorism legislation debases the meaning of the term. 100% clear that what PA did meets the legal definition, but doesn't meet most people's assumption of what the definition would be
Strangely nobody seemed bothered when a load of far right wing groups got banned for racist social media activities under the same use of this law. Hizb ut-Tahrir are devotedly non-violent and also got banned it seems again mostly for spreading their ideology of an Islamic Caliphate and entryism.
Its far from the first time the government have used this legislation to proscribe troubling groups. But they weren't a load of middle class protestors having a go at playing as freedom fighters, which has included more than spraying paint.
I think it is a tricky case, as were the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir. One thing we don't know is the full extent of the intelligence the authorities have on PA, the Telegraph clearly have a mole and were in on meetings when they captured evidence that the organisers were discussing plans to repeat raids on a load of other military bases.
Which particular far right groups do you think should not be on the list? There aren't many far right groups in the list and those that are are in plotting-to-kill-a-police-officer territory.
I didn't say they shouldn't be. My point was there is a number that got banned for troubling racist social media activity without actually carrying out a violent act. You don't need to blow anything up to be proscribed. Hizb ut-Tahrir were / are also a very troubling group.
I imagine PA overstepped the mark in a way that JSO haven't by raiding a military base and there is evidence this was just the start.
I think you need to split into two questions
1) Do we think PA are a terrorist group? I think it's stretches the definition too far, and they should have been prosecuted for some sort of aggravated criminal damage or treason
2) Should supporting PA with a t-shirt of poster be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act? I think that's ridiculous, and entirely inconsistent with my understanding on free speech. What 2) does is highlight why 1) is a silly definition.
I don't know about 2. I think the people turning up to these things explicitly supporting a banned organisation are as thick as mince. The banned group does not have a monopoly on support for the Palestinian cause. Weird hill to die on.
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
And you wonder, with many that do, how few generations of ancestors before them they had white working class people who worked hard to get subsequent generations “up” in the world to the point the current ones are in a financial/professional/social position to feel that they can look down on them.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
That's inaccurate.
It's a world where a Home Secretary can declare a group to be terrorists if a few if their members commit serious criminal damage.
That is not the same thing at all.
That is the same thing.
Serious criminal damage falls within Blair's Terrorism laws.
You miss the point completely.
Absent the Home Secretary's decision to turn them into terrorists, the law does not for a moment define them as terrorists.
That is the same for any number of organised pressure groups whose members have committed serious criminal damage. Who have not been so proscribed.
"Terrorism" is a heavily charged term, whose legal definition varies widely between jurisdictions. Our current law leans too far in the direction of that used in authoritarian states. And I think the Jone Secretary has got herself into a serious mess here.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
Not my cup of tea, but not terrorism, unless you completely debase the meaning of the term.
That's the problem, isn't it really: the UK terrorism legislation debases the meaning of the term. 100% clear that what PA did meets the legal definition, but doesn't meet most people's assumption of what the definition would be
Strangely nobody seemed bothered when a load of far right wing groups got banned for racist social media activities under the same use of this law. Hizb ut-Tahrir are devotedly non-violent and also got banned it seems again mostly for spreading their ideology of an Islamic Caliphate and entryism.
Its far from the first time the government have used this legislation to proscribe troubling groups. But they weren't a load of middle class protestors having a go at playing as freedom fighters, which has included more than spraying paint.
I think it is a tricky case, as were the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir. One thing we don't know is the full extent of the intelligence the authorities have on PA, the Telegraph clearly have a mole and were in on meetings when they captured evidence that the organisers were discussing plans to repeat raids on a load of other military bases.
Which particular far right groups do you think should not be on the list? There aren't many far right groups in the list and those that are are in plotting-to-kill-a-police-officer territory.
I didn't say they shouldn't be. My point was there is a number that got banned for troubling racist social media activity without actually carrying out a violent act. You don't need to blow anything up to be proscribed. Hizb ut-Tahrir were / are also a very troubling group.
I imagine PA overstepped the mark in a way that JSO haven't by raiding a military base and there is evidence this was just the start.
I think you need to split into two questions
1) Do we think PA are a terrorist group? I think it's stretches the definition too far, and they should have been prosecuted for some sort of aggravated criminal damage or treason
2) Should supporting PA with a t-shirt of poster be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act? I think that's ridiculous, and entirely inconsistent with my understanding on free speech. What 2) does is highlight why 1) is a silly definition.
I don't know about 2. I think the people turning up to these things explicitly supporting a banned organisation are as thick as mince. The banned group does not have a monopoly on support for the Palestinian cause. Weird hill to die on.
They all seem to be taking orders from an anonymous twitter account.
I'd add further adjectives to "surprising" - but yes it is.
I'd have guessed 15%.
it's 2025 and racism is in
Yep. But it's usually that 15%. The ones who 'strongly approve' of Donald Trump. That's a good cypher for how big the racist vote is here (since it's never self reported for obvious reasons).
So this 24% is a nasty surprise to me. Thought I had a handle on it. Haven't.
Given Reform are on 30% then virtually all of those 24% will be voting Reform unsurprisingly, which is why Farage cannot distance himself from Robinson too much even if he needs more than Robinson fans for Reform to win most seats
I note approval is 20% for Badenoch, 15% for Jenrick. Stride doesn't seem to be rated.
I note this ranking is derived from the yougov ratings quickfire round that is optional at the end of their surveys, so I don't think is population weighted like their regular polls
Stride has a net approval of -18% compared to -35% for Badenoch, -44% for Starmer, -31% for Farage and -37% for Corbyn and -6% for Davey in the latest weighted Yougov favourability ratings survey
Very naughty! Stride has the lowest favourable rating of any of them, at 6%. The only reason his net approval isn't so bad is because 70% haven't heard of him.
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
And you wonder, with many that do, how few generations of ancestors before them they had white working class people who worked hard to get subsequent generations “up” in the world to the point the current ones are in a financial/professional/social position to feel that they can look down on them.
On the contrary such people tend to exalt their working class roots. My right on friend (a professor of Gender Studies at a major university no less) self-identifies as working class because her grandparents were Welsh miners.
Looking down on Reform voters doesn't equate to looking down on the WWC, no matter how much people like Lee Andrrson tries to equate the two.
I don't think PA should have been proscribed. But those that damaged the aircraft should be looking at life (and I do mean life) in prison.
There's a 10 year max sentence for criminal damage. Perhaps that should be extended if politically motivated.
Treason felony is available too, and that has a life sentence.
Whatever your view on the seriousness of the offence, there is no way on earth that it possibly meets the definition of treason felony, principally because we're not at war with Palestine, and nor is it likely to encourage them to invade the UK.
Not saying it's not a serious offence, but be realistic.
I was lifting this definition: to levy war against the sovereign "in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament"
It clearly isn't levying war. Not defending the criminal damage, but there is no way on earth they'd be charged with or convicted for a treason offence.
I'd have thought taking out an RAF jet, a warship would meet that criteria? Of do you need raise a land army or something?
You would have to show that this was a deliberate "levying of war against the sovereign". It's a possibility, but it would highly contentious, might not succeed - and might create some sympathy for criminals who don't deserve it.
It would be far simpler just to prosecute these idiots for criminal damage, and bang them up for a decade.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
That's inaccurate.
It's a world where a Home Secretary can declare a group to be terrorists if a few if their members commit serious criminal damage.
That is not the same thing at all.
That is the same thing.
Serious criminal damage falls within Blair's Terrorism laws.
You miss the point completely.
Absent the Home Secretary's decision to turn them into terrorists, the law does not for a moment define them as terrorists.
That is the same for any number of organised pressure groups whose members have committed serious criminal damage. Who have not been so proscribed.
"Terrorism" is a heavily charged term, whose legal definition varies widely between jurisdictions. Our current law leans too far in the direction of that used in authoritarian states. And I think the Jone Secretary has got herself into a serious mess here.
The law defines their action as terrorism with or without the Home Secretary's involvement.
The group are proscribed terrorists because the Home Secretary proscribed them following their acts of terrorism but the actions of a terrorist are terrorism whether or not they are members of a proscribed terrorist group.
A lone wolf who engages in terrorism is a terrorist despite not being a member of any proscribed group. And PAs actions met Blair's law's definition of terrorism before the Home Secretary acted.
I'd add further adjectives to "surprising" - but yes it is.
I'd have guessed 15%.
it's 2025 and racism is in
Yep. But it's usually that 15%. The ones who 'strongly approve' of Donald Trump. That's a good cypher for how big the racist vote is here (since it's never self reported for obvious reasons).
So this 24% is a nasty surprise to me. Thought I had a handle on it. Haven't.
Given Reform are on 30% then virtually all of those 24% will be voting Reform unsurprisingly, which is why Farage cannot distance himself from Robinson too much even if he needs more than Robinson fans for Reform to win most seats
I note approval is 20% for Badenoch, 15% for Jenrick. Stride doesn't seem to be rated.
I note this ranking is derived from the yougov ratings quickfire round that is optional at the end of their surveys, so I don't think is population weighted like their regular polls
Stride has a net approval of -18% compared to -35% for Badenoch, -44% for Starmer, -31% for Farage and -37% for Corbyn and -6% for Davey in the latest weighted Yougov favourability ratings survey
Very naughty! Stride has the lowest favourable rating of any of them, at 6%. The only reason his net approval isn't so bad is because 70% haven't heard of him.
I'd add further adjectives to "surprising" - but yes it is.
I'd have guessed 15%.
it's 2025 and racism is in
Yep. But it's usually that 15%. The ones who 'strongly approve' of Donald Trump. That's a good cypher for how big the racist vote is here (since it's never self reported for obvious reasons).
So this 24% is a nasty surprise to me. Thought I had a handle on it. Haven't.
Given Reform are on 30% then virtually all of those 24% will be voting Reform unsurprisingly, which is why Farage cannot distance himself from Robinson too much even if he needs more than Robinson fans for Reform to win most seats
I note approval is 20% for Badenoch, 15% for Jenrick. Stride doesn't seem to be rated.
I note this ranking is derived from the yougov ratings quickfire round that is optional at the end of their surveys, so I don't think is population weighted like their regular polls
Stride has a net approval of -18% compared to -35% for Badenoch, -44% for Starmer, -31% for Farage and -37% for Corbyn and -6% for Davey in the latest weighted Yougov favourability ratings survey
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
And you wonder, with many that do, how few generations of ancestors before them they had white working class people who worked hard to get subsequent generations “up” in the world to the point the current ones are in a financial/professional/social position to feel that they can look down on them.
On the contrary such people tend to exalt their working class roots. My right on friend (a professor of Gender Studies at a major university no less) self-identifies as working class because her grandparents were Welsh miners.
Looking down on Reform voters doesn't equate to looking down on the WWC, no matter how much people like Lee Andrrson tries to equate the two.
Most WWC people don't support Reform. Most Reform supporters are not WWC.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
Quite - BartholomewRoberts is trying to reconcile his usual strident defence of free speech with his hatred for anyone opposing Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza by hiding behind "it's the law bro".
I actually entirely agree with and follow his logic - Palestine Action are a terrorist group under the law as written, the Home Secretary was likely within her rights to proscribe them, and therefore support for them is a offence too.
But it's absurd. The people cutting down bus lane cameras in Edinburgh have caused serious and expensive criminal damage, motivated by their politics. They are therefore terrorists. The Home Secretary could proscribe them with no consultation with parliament. Anyone wearing a t-shirt with the name of that group, or defending their actions on facebook, could also be arrested under the Terrorism Act.
No, I think the Home Secretary has to lay a statutory instrument before Parliament to add a group to the list.
Yes, you're right. Fair enough.
(I'd gently suggest that, with a huge majority, people on the right should not encourage the Labour Party to get a taste for proscribing political campaign groups).
Serious and expensive criminal damage is not quite the same as serious and expensive criminal damage done to our defensive capabilities. The latter is belongs to the area of sabotage and treason. I am not convinced that it makes the group a terror group either though. But I do think those involved specifically in those acts should have several books thrown at them.
I'd add further adjectives to "surprising" - but yes it is.
I'd have guessed 15%.
it's 2025 and racism is in
Yep. But it's usually that 15%. The ones who 'strongly approve' of Donald Trump. That's a good cypher for how big the racist vote is here (since it's never self reported for obvious reasons).
So this 24% is a nasty surprise to me. Thought I had a handle on it. Haven't.
Given Reform are on 30% then virtually all of those 24% will be voting Reform unsurprisingly, which is why Farage cannot distance himself from Robinson too much even if he needs more than Robinson fans for Reform to win most seats
I note approval is 20% for Badenoch, 15% for Jenrick. Stride doesn't seem to be rated.
I note this ranking is derived from the yougov ratings quickfire round that is optional at the end of their surveys, so I don't think is population weighted like their regular polls
Stride has a net approval of -18% compared to -35% for Badenoch, -44% for Starmer, -31% for Farage and -37% for Corbyn and -6% for Davey in the latest weighted Yougov favourability ratings survey
Very naughty! Stride has the lowest favourable rating of any of them, at 6%. The only reason his net approval isn't so bad is because 70% haven't heard of him.
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
Not me, I hold all members of the working classes in incredibly low regard.
Have you ever considered standing for political office?
I have in the past but realised my sense of humour would get me into trouble.
But think about all those freebie suits and shoes you could get.
But the politics of envy would kick in.
I'd get criticised for turning up to parliament or a constituency surgery wearing £700 Louis Vuitton shoes, £500 Turnbull & Asser shirt, and £3,500 bespoke suit, and that's me slumming it.
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
And you wonder, with many that do, how few generations of ancestors before them they had white working class people who worked hard to get subsequent generations “up” in the world to the point the current ones are in a financial/professional/social position to feel that they can look down on them.
On the contrary such people tend to exalt their working class roots. My right on friend (a professor of Gender Studies at a major university no less) self-identifies as working class because her grandparents were Welsh miners.
Looking down on Reform voters doesn't equate to looking down on the WWC, no matter how much people like Lee Andrrson tries to equate the two.
Most WWC people don't support Reform. Most Reform supporters are not WWC.
I had to look up what the f##k Truth+ was. It seems like it is just a bin fire of loads of nothing channels and also the "news" channels the Trump Cult love like Newsmax and Right Side Broadcasting.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
Quite - BartholomewRoberts is trying to reconcile his usual strident defence of free speech with his hatred for anyone opposing Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza by hiding behind "it's the law bro".
I actually entirely agree with and follow his logic - Palestine Action are a terrorist group under the law as written, the Home Secretary was likely within her rights to proscribe them, and therefore support for them is a offence too.
But it's absurd. The people cutting down bus lane cameras in Edinburgh have caused serious and expensive criminal damage, motivated by their politics. They are therefore terrorists. The Home Secretary could proscribe them with no consultation with parliament. Anyone wearing a t-shirt with the name of that group, or defending their actions on facebook, could also be arrested under the Terrorism Act.
No, I think the Home Secretary has to lay a statutory instrument before Parliament to add a group to the list.
Yes, you're right. Fair enough.
(I'd gently suggest that, with a huge majority, people on the right should not encourage the Labour Party to get a taste for proscribing political campaign groups).
Serious and expensive criminal damage is not quite the same as serious and expensive criminal damage done to our defensive capabilities. The latter belongs to the area of sabotage and treason. I am not convinced that it makes the group a terror group either. But I do think those involved specifically in those acts should have several books thrown at them.
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
And you wonder, with many that do, how few generations of ancestors before them they had white working class people who worked hard to get subsequent generations “up” in the world to the point the current ones are in a financial/professional/social position to feel that they can look down on them.
On the contrary such people tend to exalt their working class roots. My right on friend (a professor of Gender Studies at a major university no less) self-identifies as working class because her grandparents were Welsh miners.
Looking down on Reform voters doesn't equate to looking down on the WWC, no matter how much people like Lee Andrrson tries to equate the two.
I have met far too many people who are seriously rude about the “white working class” who are second generation “money”, and usually not much to shout about. They are desperate to pull on the supposed behaviours and attitudes of upper middle and upper classes to an almost comedic effect and their theatrical dislike of hoi polloi is grim. I know a chap, have done since we were 5, whose grandfather was from a Birmingham slum, sharp as fuck and made millions in arms deals, starting with buying excess British army boots and selling them for double the cost to the Middle East. If you met this chap you would think he was a grotesque character of a rude duke but his manners are all book learned. He’s an uneducated buffoon who is rude to waiting staff and the like. He’s one example of so many people like him who want people to think they aren’t anything to do with the WWF.
I have had, since university, idiots ask me why I’m such good friends with x and y because they are, you know, a bit common/rough, uneducated. Honestly it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad that people whose parents and grandparents worked their way “up” suddenly feel they have to mock or hate the WWC to make themselves feel better.
There is a subset who do, as you say, embrace their “real” roots to give them cred but many more are utter shits who knock others in an attempt to elevate themselves.
I'd add further adjectives to "surprising" - but yes it is.
I'd have guessed 15%.
it's 2025 and racism is in
Yep. But it's usually that 15%. The ones who 'strongly approve' of Donald Trump. That's a good cypher for how big the racist vote is here (since it's never self reported for obvious reasons).
So this 24% is a nasty surprise to me. Thought I had a handle on it. Haven't.
Given Reform are on 30% then virtually all of those 24% will be voting Reform unsurprisingly, which is why Farage cannot distance himself from Robinson too much even if he needs more than Robinson fans for Reform to win most seats
I note approval is 20% for Badenoch, 15% for Jenrick. Stride doesn't seem to be rated.
I note this ranking is derived from the yougov ratings quickfire round that is optional at the end of their surveys, so I don't think is population weighted like their regular polls
Stride has a net approval of -18% compared to -35% for Badenoch, -44% for Starmer, -31% for Farage and -37% for Corbyn and -6% for Davey in the latest weighted Yougov favourability ratings survey
Very naughty! Stride has the lowest favourable rating of any of them, at 6%. The only reason his net approval isn't so bad is because 70% haven't heard of him.
Big potential volatility here. Almost three quarters of the population have the experience of getting to know Mel Stride ahead of them.
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
Not me, I hold all members of the working classes in incredibly low regard.
Have you ever considered standing for political office?
I have in the past but realised my sense of humour would get me into trouble.
But think about all those freebie suits and shoes you could get.
But the politics of envy would kick in.
I'd get criticised for turning up to parliament or a constituency surgery wearing £700 Louis Vuitton shoes, £500 Turnbull & Asser shirt, and £3,500 bespoke suit, and that's me slumming it.
Well pair all that with a Rolex and then you will still able to claim man of the people status. Although now we know Rolex was founded by a Nazi spy might be some tricky questions about where your sympathises lie.
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
Not me, I hold all members of the working classes in incredibly low regard.
Have you ever considered standing for political office?
I have in the past but realised my sense of humour would get me into trouble.
But think about all those freebie suits and shoes you could get.
But the politics of envy would kick in.
I'd get criticised for turning up to parliament or a constituency surgery wearing £700 Louis Vuitton shoes, £500 Turnbull & Asser shirt, and £3,500 bespoke suit, and that's me slumming it.
Edit - And I haven't even mentioned the watches.
Not if you were the candidate in Kensington and Bayswater or Chelsea and Fulham, there you would still be considered underdressed and slovenly
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
Not me, I hold all members of the working classes in incredibly low regard.
Have you ever considered standing for political office?
I have in the past but realised my sense of humour would get me into trouble.
But think about all those freebie suits and shoes you could get.
But the politics of envy would kick in.
I'd get criticised for turning up to parliament or a constituency surgery wearing £700 Louis Vuitton shoes, £500 Turnbull & Asser shirt, and £3,500 bespoke suit, and that's me slumming it.
Edit - And I haven't even mentioned the watches.
Not if you were the candidate in Kensington and Bayswater or Chelsea and Fulham, there you would still be considered underdressed and slovenly
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
Quite - BartholomewRoberts is trying to reconcile his usual strident defence of free speech with his hatred for anyone opposing Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza by hiding behind "it's the law bro".
I actually entirely agree with and follow his logic - Palestine Action are a terrorist group under the law as written, the Home Secretary was likely within her rights to proscribe them, and therefore support for them is a offence too.
But it's absurd. The people cutting down bus lane cameras in Edinburgh have caused serious and expensive criminal damage, motivated by their politics. They are therefore terrorists. The Home Secretary could proscribe them with no consultation with parliament. Anyone wearing a t-shirt with the name of that group, or defending their actions on facebook, could also be arrested under the Terrorism Act.
No, I think the Home Secretary has to lay a statutory instrument before Parliament to add a group to the list.
Yes, you're right. Fair enough.
(I'd gently suggest that, with a huge majority, people on the right should not encourage the Labour Party to get a taste for proscribing political campaign groups).
Serious and expensive criminal damage is not quite the same as serious and expensive criminal damage done to our defensive capabilities. The latter is belongs to the area of sabotage and treason. I am not convinced that it makes the group a terror group either though. But I do think those involved specifically in those acts should have several books thrown at them.
It's an aggravating factor to any criminal damage charge. That's all it need be.
Keep it simple, avoid giving them some political martyrdom, and lock them up for being ordinary criminals.
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
Not me, I hold all members of the working classes in incredibly low regard.
Have you ever considered standing for political office?
I have in the past but realised my sense of humour would get me into trouble.
But think about all those freebie suits and shoes you could get.
But the politics of envy would kick in.
I'd get criticised for turning up to parliament or a constituency surgery wearing £700 Louis Vuitton shoes, £500 Turnbull & Asser shirt, and £3,500 bespoke suit, and that's me slumming it.
Edit - And I haven't even mentioned the watches.
Having more money than taste or talent didn't stop Sunak from becoming Prime Minister.
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
Not me, I hold all members of the working classes in incredibly low regard.
Have you ever considered standing for political office?
I have in the past but realised my sense of humour would get me into trouble.
But think about all those freebie suits and shoes you could get.
But the politics of envy would kick in.
I'd get criticised for turning up to parliament or a constituency surgery wearing £700 Louis Vuitton shoes, £500 Turnbull & Asser shirt, and £3,500 bespoke suit, and that's me slumming it.
Well pair all that with a Rolex and then you will still able to claim man of the people status. Although now we know Rolex was founded by a Nazi spy might be some tricky questions about where your sympathises lie.
I've never owned a Rolex, I think saw they made a million/sold watches last year, a bit too plebeian for my tastes.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
Quite - BartholomewRoberts is trying to reconcile his usual strident defence of free speech with his hatred for anyone opposing Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza by hiding behind "it's the law bro".
I actually entirely agree with and follow his logic - Palestine Action are a terrorist group under the law as written, the Home Secretary was likely within her rights to proscribe them, and therefore support for them is a offence too.
But it's absurd. The people cutting down bus lane cameras in Edinburgh have caused serious and expensive criminal damage, motivated by their politics. They are therefore terrorists. The Home Secretary could proscribe them with no consultation with parliament. Anyone wearing a t-shirt with the name of that group, or defending their actions on facebook, could also be arrested under the Terrorism Act.
No, I think the Home Secretary has to lay a statutory instrument before Parliament to add a group to the list.
Yes, you're right. Fair enough.
(I'd gently suggest that, with a huge majority, people on the right should not encourage the Labour Party to get a taste for proscribing political campaign groups).
Serious and expensive criminal damage is not quite the same as serious and expensive criminal damage done to our defensive capabilities. The latter is belongs to the area of sabotage and treason. I am not convinced that it makes the group a terror group either though. But I do think those involved specifically in those acts should have several books thrown at them.
It's an aggravating factor to any criminal damage charge. That's all it need be.
Keep it simple, avoid giving them some political martyrdom, and lock them up for being ordinary criminals.
Criminal damage doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. By rights, we should be asking why they weren't shot by security.
I'd add further adjectives to "surprising" - but yes it is.
I'd have guessed 15%.
it's 2025 and racism is in
Yep. But it's usually that 15%. The ones who 'strongly approve' of Donald Trump. That's a good cypher for how big the racist vote is here (since it's never self reported for obvious reasons).
So this 24% is a nasty surprise to me. Thought I had a handle on it. Haven't.
Given Reform are on 30% then virtually all of those 24% will be voting Reform unsurprisingly, which is why Farage cannot distance himself from Robinson too much even if he needs more than Robinson fans for Reform to win most seats
I note approval is 20% for Badenoch, 15% for Jenrick. Stride doesn't seem to be rated.
I note this ranking is derived from the yougov ratings quickfire round that is optional at the end of their surveys, so I don't think is population weighted like their regular polls
Stride has a net approval of -18% compared to -35% for Badenoch, -44% for Starmer, -31% for Farage and -37% for Corbyn and -6% for Davey in the latest weighted Yougov favourability ratings survey
Very naughty! Stride has the lowest favourable rating of any of them, at 6%. The only reason his net approval isn't so bad is because 70% haven't heard of him.
Big potential volatility here. Almost three quarters of the population have the experience of getting to know Mel Stride ahead of them.
'I'd like to talk to you about Mel Stride. Have you considered having a Mel Stride installed? Would you like a brochure detailing the optional extras that come with a Mel Stride? 6% of people who already have a Mel Stride like their Mel Stride, only 24% are dissatisfied with their Stride. Mel Stride!'
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
Most people think of terrorist groups as threatening the lives of the public not daubing paint on some military aircraft . They should be done for criminal damage , that’s it .
Not my cup of tea, but not terrorism, unless you completely debase the meaning of the term.
I have a feeling they'll get the Ponting treatment. I think they'd struggle to find 10 people to find them guilty whatever the law says. Sometimes the law particularly when set by Yvette Cooper is an ass.
we should start shipping this magic paint to Ukraine right?
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
Not me, I hold all members of the working classes in incredibly low regard.
Have you ever considered standing for political office?
I have in the past but realised my sense of humour would get me into trouble.
You could be a Cameroon populist who tells it like it is and who people would like to have a pint with.
I am not a populist, I am commendably/recklessly honest.
'His outfit costs more than my second home but he looks like a Nov 5th Guy in it' quipped backbencher Woolie
It's funny you mention that, main (of the many) reasons my father-in-law to be didn't like me was that I drove a vehicle that cost more than his house.
His view was that nobody normal needs to spend that much on a vehicle.
It was a mystery why a working class Scouse/Irish heritage guy didn't like me, this brash, privately educated Tory.
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
Not me, I hold all members of the working classes in incredibly low regard.
Have you ever considered standing for political office?
I have in the past but realised my sense of humour would get me into trouble.
You could be a Cameroon populist who tells it like it is and who people would like to have a pint with.
I am not a populist, I am commendably/recklessly honest.
'His outfit costs more than my second home but he looks like a Nov 5th Guy in it' quipped backbencher Woolie
It's funny you mention that, main (of the many) reasons my father-in-law to be didn't like me was that I drove a vehicle that cost more than his house.
His view was that nobody normal needs to spend that much on a vehicle.
It was a mystery why a working class Scouse/Irish heritage guy didn't like me, this brash, privately educated Tory.
I mean its an absolute mystery why you weren't more popular with him. You had so many characteristics famously so loved by scousers.
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
Not me, I hold all members of the working classes in incredibly low regard.
Have you ever considered standing for political office?
I have in the past but realised my sense of humour would get me into trouble.
You could be a Cameroon populist who tells it like it is and who people would like to have a pint with.
I am not a populist, I am commendably/recklessly honest.
'His outfit costs more than my second home but he looks like a Nov 5th Guy in it' quipped backbencher Woolie
It's funny you mention that, main (of the many) reasons my father-in-law to be didn't like me was that I drove a vehicle that cost more than his house.
His view was that nobody normal needs to spend that much on a vehicle.
It was a mystery why a working class Scouse/Irish heritage guy didn't like me, this brash, privately educated Tory.
I wear Amazon Essentials jeans. I know nothing bout nothing
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
Not me, I hold all members of the working classes in incredibly low regard.
Have you ever considered standing for political office?
I have in the past but realised my sense of humour would get me into trouble.
You could be a Cameroon populist who tells it like it is and who people would like to have a pint with.
I am not a populist, I am commendably/recklessly honest.
What about Welsh people who are not working class?
Asking for a friend.
I love all Welsh people, the Welsh rugby union team in recent months has given me so much material that I want to spend every waking moment with Welsh people.
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
Not me, I hold all members of the working classes in incredibly low regard.
Have you ever considered standing for political office?
I have in the past but realised my sense of humour would get me into trouble.
You could be a Cameroon populist who tells it like it is and who people would like to have a pint with.
I am not a populist, I am commendably/recklessly honest.
'His outfit costs more than my second home but he looks like a Nov 5th Guy in it' quipped backbencher Woolie
It's funny you mention that, main (of the many) reasons my father-in-law to be didn't like me was that I drove a vehicle that cost more than his house.
His view was that nobody normal needs to spend that much on a vehicle.
It was a mystery why a working class Scouse/Irish heritage guy didn't like me, this brash, privately educated Tory.
I mean its an absolute mystery why you weren't more popular with him. You had so many characteristics famously so loved by scousers.
It is strange, I have loads of scouse friends who have no issue with my background or education. Mind you, I’ve never tried to marry their daughters.
Ridiculous to see hundreds arrested for holding up a banner supporting Palestine Action . A total waste of police time and all caused by this moronic government labelling a group who might be guilty of criminal damage but in what world can they be labelled as a terrorist group .
A world in which they're terrorists as defined by law.
Change the law if you're unhappy with it.
A tall ask, that, for nico67.
And not your normal MO to say the letter of the law is the sole arbiter of what's right or wrong.
I never said anything about right or wrong, merely what the law is.
I'm entirely comfortable with people choosing to break the law if they are prepared to face the consequences for doing so. The consequences in this case are terrorism charges.
I'm also comfortable with campaigning to change and liberalise the law.
What I'm not comfortable with is authoritarian laws being passed on a nod and a wink that they won't be applied to people we like but will be applied to others instead. That's not on.
Under the law Blair passed these guys are absolutely 100% terrorists. Repeal Blair's law or campaign against it if it was wrong, don't act like the law doesnt exist or should be selectively applied.
Selective application of authoritarian laws is the worst of all worlds.
Sure. But your reaction was driven by your passionate support for Israel and corresponding antipathy to anything pro Palestine.
It'd be a bit like me getting pissed off with all the PB hating on the OSA and blurting, "It's the law. If you don’t like it change it."
Might do that actually, next time it crops up. Yes, you've sold me.
Quite - BartholomewRoberts is trying to reconcile his usual strident defence of free speech with his hatred for anyone opposing Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza by hiding behind "it's the law bro".
I actually entirely agree with and follow his logic - Palestine Action are a terrorist group under the law as written, the Home Secretary was likely within her rights to proscribe them, and therefore support for them is a offence too.
But it's absurd. The people cutting down bus lane cameras in Edinburgh have caused serious and expensive criminal damage, motivated by their politics. They are therefore terrorists. The Home Secretary could proscribe them with no consultation with parliament. Anyone wearing a t-shirt with the name of that group, or defending their actions on facebook, could also be arrested under the Terrorism Act.
No, I think the Home Secretary has to lay a statutory instrument before Parliament to add a group to the list.
Yes, you're right. Fair enough.
(I'd gently suggest that, with a huge majority, people on the right should not encourage the Labour Party to get a taste for proscribing political campaign groups).
Serious and expensive criminal damage is not quite the same as serious and expensive criminal damage done to our defensive capabilities. The latter is belongs to the area of sabotage and treason. I am not convinced that it makes the group a terror group either though. But I do think those involved specifically in those acts should have several books thrown at them.
It's an aggravating factor to any criminal damage charge. That's all it need be.
Keep it simple, avoid giving them some political martyrdom, and lock them up for being ordinary criminals.
Criminal damage doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. By rights, we should be asking why they weren't shot by security.
You can't apply that retrospectively.
But I'd be quite content for the increased defence budget to fund better armed security on RAF bases. With live ammo.
Passengers will also be asked a series of questions to confirm they have proof of accommodation, sufficient funds for the trip, medical insurance and a return or onward ticket. At most airports and ferry terminals passengers will complete the process at automated kiosks. Those who answer no to any questions are expected to be quizzed by a border officer, who has the power to refuse entry.
This going to catch out a load of people. There are definitely going to be stories of families screaming blue murder that they have been turned away because for breaching one of these conditions and pissing off some Spanish immigration officer.
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
Not me, I hold all members of the working classes in incredibly low regard.
Have you ever considered standing for political office?
I have in the past but realised my sense of humour would get me into trouble.
You could be a Cameroon populist who tells it like it is and who people would like to have a pint with.
I am not a populist, I am commendably/recklessly honest.
What about Welsh people who are not working class?
Asking for a friend.
I love all Welsh people, the Welsh rugby union team in recent months has given me so much material that I want to spend every waking moment with Welsh people.
Well you aren’t going to be sleeping around Welsh people, all that weird singing and moaning about the English.
Some people hold white working class people in incredibly low regard. Almost as if they're a different species.
Not me, I hold all members of the working classes in incredibly low regard.
Have you ever considered standing for political office?
I have in the past but realised my sense of humour would get me into trouble.
You could be a Cameroon populist who tells it like it is and who people would like to have a pint with.
I am not a populist, I am commendably/recklessly honest.
What about Welsh people who are not working class?
Asking for a friend.
I love all Welsh people, the Welsh rugby union team in recent months has given me so much material that I want to spend every waking moment with Welsh people.
Okkaaaaayyyyy...
Well, that wasn't quite the answer I was expecting.
What about Max Verstappen? Or is he working class because he works?
Comments
The Maniacs Murder Club has also not been active in the UK. They are estimated to have killed about 50 people.
I am making a point about the group that is in the news and that the discussion is about.
I'm enjoying calling out their hypocrisy, yes. I'm not being inconsistent with my principles either, I'd entirely be comfortable with the law being liberalised so people can support terrorists whether they be Islamic, neo-Nazi or Palestinian despite the fact I oppose them all.
What I'm not OK with is authoritarian laws being applied to some but not others.
I actually entirely agree with and follow his logic - Palestine Action are a terrorist group under the law as written, the Home Secretary was likely within her rights to proscribe them, and therefore support for them is a offence too.
But it's absurd. The people cutting down bus lane cameras in Edinburgh have caused serious and expensive criminal damage, motivated by their politics. They are therefore terrorists. The Home Secretary could proscribe them with no consultation with parliament. Anyone wearing a t-shirt with the name of that group, or defending their actions on facebook, could also be arrested under the Terrorism Act.
I'd be comfortable with the law being repealed, for all, but there was nothing unique, unusual or improper about its application here.
(I'd gently suggest that, with a huge majority, people on the right should not encourage the Labour Party to get a taste for proscribing political campaign groups).
Following the same procedures that are followed in other cases too.
Many in the Commons and the Lords voiced a view that this case was different. That makes it unusual. The vote still passed, but I think if lots of MPs and Lords are bothered, then that is of note. If the case for proscribing PA is strong, then what's the problem with unbundling it and letting the Commons spend a little bit more time on it?
But I won't press the point since you've closed off its air supply.
Bundles of groups being proscribed in a single SI has happened repeatedly before.
I've repeatedly railed against Blair's illiberalism and said I'd be comfortable with this law being repealed.
These guys 100% are terrorists under the law. What's hilarious is how many people, like kinabalu, who are objecting here are avid Blair fans and won't say a word against Blair otherwise or here either.
Repeal Blair's authoritarian law. Criticise it even. But the application of it here is entirely consistent with the law, rule of law and precedence.
Treason felony is available too, and that has a life sentence.
I imagine PA overstepped the mark in a way that JSO haven't by raiding a military base and there is evidence this was just the start.
https://x.com/archivetvmus71/status/1954180872753881110?s=61
Picture too small? Slap the canvas on the wall and have someone paint more of it...
(Palazzo Reale, Genoa.)
Gardener wrongly accused of school bomb threat after mix-up over Welsh accent
...
However his query as to whether the pupils would be ‘back home or in school’ was heard as a ‘bomb in school’ by the receptionist.
https://metro.co.uk/2025/08/09/welsh-gardeners-accent-behind-school-bomb-threat-misunderstanding-23872770/
Not saying it's not a serious offence, but be realistic.
Like Bart I don't think PA should be considered a terrorist organisation and I also think the laws that insist they are should be repealed. But as with my views on taxes (as an example) as long as the law says something and that was passed democratically then I am going to both comply and insist others do the same.
Your enemy here is not Bart or myself. It is the illiberal Governments passing fecking stupid laws.
It's a world where a Home Secretary can declare a group to be terrorists if a few if their members commit serious criminal damage.
That is not the same thing at all.
Whenever I have broken the law I accepted that if I get caught I’m in trouble but I weighed up the risk of being caught with the need or desire to do what I did. If I was to go and buy drugs and it turns out I’m buying off an undercover officer then it’s my problem. If I go and set fire to the treasury in a protest against VAT on public schools then I have to take the consequences however much I might feel it’s bad law/unjust.
There isn’t some special situation where you can say “but officer I’m morally correct”.
If enough people think the law is outrageous then ultimately it will be changed - the suffragettes knew this and took their punishments but they won. If the law isn’t considered outrageous then it’s going to stay and if most people think a law is ok then why should it be changed on the whim and mores of a few ideologues?
Change the law by argument and pressure but don’t complain if you take actions you believe will change it which are illegal, take it on the chin and feel virtuous.
I note this ranking is derived from the yougov ratings quickfire round that is optional at the end of their surveys, so I don't think is population weighted like their regular polls
I can see why both all have got banned under the legalisation. I am not going to bat for any of them.
If proscription of PA gets overturned, I can definitely see Hizb ut-Tahrir winning a legal challenge as well. And I imagine it will be harder to proscribe far right groups who don't undertake violence.
Serious criminal damage falls within Blair's Terrorism laws.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52586-political-favourability-ratings-july-2025
Those going on the protest today expect to be arrested, and perhaps charged.
They are still entirely entitled to complain about the fact.
1) Do we think PA are a terrorist group? I think it's stretches the definition too far, and they should have been prosecuted for some sort of aggravated criminal damage or treason
2) Should supporting PA with a t-shirt of poster be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act? I think that's ridiculous, and entirely inconsistent with my understanding on free speech. What 2) does is highlight why 1) is a silly definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
I think a load of 20mph limits put in near me are ridiculous, especially outside of certain hours, there are no kids, very few houses i.e so no pedestrians. But if do 23mph in a 20mph, I fully expect to be prosecuted.
Turn up willy waving about supporting a terrorist group be it National Action or PA or Hizb ut-Tahrir, I expect you to be arrested.
And as I say, its a stupid hill to die on when a) there are legal challenges and b) the main issue people are protesting isn't being restricted.
Almost as if they're a different species.
Q on this topic: If I were to publicly protest not support for PA but opposition to it being proscribed as a terrorist organisation, would I be committing a crime?
Absent the Home Secretary's decision to turn them into terrorists, the law does not for a moment define them as terrorists.
That is the same for any number of organised pressure groups whose members have committed serious criminal damage. Who have not been so proscribed.
"Terrorism" is a heavily charged term, whose legal definition varies widely between jurisdictions.
Our current law leans too far in the direction of that used in authoritarian states. And I think the Jone Secretary has got herself into a serious mess here.
Looking down on Reform voters doesn't equate to looking down on the WWC, no matter how much people like Lee Andrrson tries to equate the two.
It's a possibility, but it would highly contentious, might not succeed - and might create some sympathy for criminals who don't deserve it.
It would be far simpler just to prosecute these idiots for criminal damage, and bang them up for a decade.
The group are proscribed terrorists because the Home Secretary proscribed them following their acts of terrorism but the actions of a terrorist are terrorism whether or not they are members of a proscribed terrorist group.
A lone wolf who engages in terrorism is a terrorist despite not being a member of any proscribed group. And PAs actions met Blair's law's definition of terrorism before the Home Secretary acted.
Thats Mel whom to you.
I think I'm right in saying that?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/aug/09/trump-media-to-broadcast-gb-news-on-us-streaming-platform-truth
Blimey.
I'd get criticised for turning up to parliament or a constituency surgery wearing £700 Louis Vuitton shoes, £500 Turnbull & Asser shirt, and £3,500 bespoke suit, and that's me slumming it.
Edit - And I haven't even mentioned the watches.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/voting-intention?crossBreak=c2de
I have had, since university, idiots ask me why I’m such good friends with x and y because they are, you know, a bit common/rough, uneducated. Honestly it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad that people whose parents and grandparents worked their way “up” suddenly feel they have to mock or hate the WWC to make themselves feel better.
There is a subset who do, as you say, embrace their “real” roots to give them cred but many more are utter shits who knock others in an attempt to elevate themselves.
Keep it simple, avoid giving them some political martyrdom, and lock them up for being ordinary criminals.
His view was that nobody normal needs to spend that much on a vehicle.
It was a mystery why a working class Scouse/Irish heritage guy didn't like me, this brash, privately educated Tory.
Asking for a friend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
A look that’s as old as time.
But I'd be quite content for the increased defence budget to fund better armed security on RAF bases. With live ammo.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/ees-british-eu-travel-border-force-2025-c0jpmlb62#:~:text=The European Union will begin,answer a series of questions.
This going to catch out a load of people. There are definitely going to be stories of families screaming blue murder that they have been turned away because for breaching one of these conditions and pissing off some Spanish immigration officer.
Well, that wasn't quite the answer I was expecting.
What about Max Verstappen? Or is he working class because he works?