(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
The decision by MPs of both parties to defer the choice of PM to party members must rank among the most stupid in our recent political history.
I'm not sure Rayner would cope with it. And at a time like now with the threats we are facing.........
O/T was Pakistan prepared for India's military response to the terrorist attack?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
If approaching the next GE, Labour look as if they are going to lose to Reform, Rayner is the obvious choice to appeal to potential Reform voters.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
If approaching the next GE, Labour look as if they are going to lose to Reform, Rayner is the obvious choice to appeal to potential Reform voters.
Why? If Reform are winning, it is because the voters are rejecting everything Rayner is seen as having inflicted on the country.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
The decision by MPs of both parties to defer the choice of PM to party members must rank among the most stupid in our recent political history.
I'm not sure Rayner would cope with it. And at a time like now with the threats we are facing.........
O/T was Pakistan prepared for India's military response to the terrorist attack?
Never thought I’d see the day Pakistan made bitches of the Indian Army.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
If approaching the next GE, Labour look as if they are going to lose to Reform, Rayner is the obvious choice to appeal to potential Reform voters.
Axing Latin, pulling up drawbridges. The Telegraph determined that the Tories appeal to a more youthful market.
I seem to recall, from my long, long ago education, that when I considered switching from aiming for a medical/scientific career to aiming for a career in law that O level, at least, Latin was essential. Which put me off. Sometimes, though, I wonder …….
The party of working people who voted against more workers rights . Whose last manifesto meant huge cuts to public services . Reform are a one trick pony .
We've already seen Reform present different policies to different sets of voters. And remember a lot of people don't pay much attention to the news - it's very plausible that Reform can target voters with something that looks good to working class workers because the consequences of the full manifesto aren't made clear to people.
See as a prime example Trump last year...
The danger is it turns Trump like where Reform inclined voters start calling any criticisms fake news and become so delusional that Farage could threaten to cull the old and they still vote for him.
Fanatics will do as they will.
But a party needs more than fanatics to win, it also needs those who want some competence and moderation.
So it needs to display some competence and moderation, or at least more of it than the alternative parties do.
Trump waves hello.
Look at Trump's electoral record.
Its not impressive is it.
If the Dems had run a competent and moderate candidate last year they would have won.
Instead the stupid party offered Senile Joe, useless Harris and a platform of unrestricted immigration and unlimited wokery.
THey did run such a candidate, and they offered no such programme. Merely because you don't like HArris and Biden is no reason to invent stuff about them.
Trump claims otherwise but Trump is clearly extremely senile, as well as a known forger and liar.
The fact is he's won twice by acting in a way you say is impossible. That's a pretty shocking indictment of the US electoral system (and the courts, who should have locked the fat old traitor up) but he still won without anyone competent around him.
Yep, the truth is that Biden was a very successful President who ran a very competent administration through difficult times. Sadly, he lost his marbles. Harris was a more than capable replacement, a good speaker with an excellent record of public service. She wiped the floor with Trump in their only debate. He ran away from a rematch.
And Trump still won.
It is frankly fantasy that a generic Democrat would somehow have won. To pretend that is the case simply fails to recognise the problems that democracy has in the age of social media (otherwise known as wall to wall lies). It fails to recognise the same gaps between working class people and middle class professionals that bedevil Labour. It fails to acknowledge that millions of Americans do not think that the system works for them and are willing to roll the dice. It pretends that this is a simple problem. It isn't.
I think the problem Starmer's Labour is illustrated by the widely mocked photo from the front of Labour's manifesto showing a black-and-white image of a glum looking Starmer with the word "Change" in red letters.
They were clearly trying to copy the "Hope and Change" slogan from Obama's campaign, but they totally forget about the "Hope" part from "Hope and Change".
Starmer is just unable to sell the public a hopeful vision of the country's future. He talks about going "further and faster", but doesn't vividly explain how things will get better for the country at the end of this journey where he's going further & faster.
Compare that with Farage's slogan that "Reform will fix it", which at least sells hope to the country that things will get better once Reform is in charge.
Biden & Harris suffered from the same problem as Starmer. Harris was unable to sell a positive vision for how the country would improve once she was President. She was talking about preserving institutions & had a laundry list of relatively small changes that she wanted to see implemented, such as codifying Roe v Wade in federal legislation, but presented no vision of how things would get better for the average American. Trump, in contrast, was able to sell a vision, for example, about how grocery prices would come down, starting from "Day 1".
How do we distinguish "selling a vision" from lying?
Why is lying merely about vision....we were told in july they had sorted the doctors strikes....less than a year later doctors are balloting on strike action over pay
Sure, it's an annual negotiation, and the employers are still refusing to make any offer at all for the financial year that started 6 weeks ago. The ballot is to encourage management to the negotiating table.
So you doctors want more pay at the same time the nhs is warning of savage cuts due to budget
People deserve to be paid properly regardless. Why should employees bear the brunt of government decisions to allocate less money for an area than the work being done requires?
Sure: but if there isn't the money, there isn't the money.
What money is available is a choice. We could choose to pay French levels of taxation.
Anyway, I'd like to recommend the new Asterix & Obelix series on Netflix. Best TV show I've watched this year.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
The decision by MPs of both parties to defer the choice of PM to party members must rank among the most stupid in our recent political history.
I'm not sure Rayner would cope with it. And at a time like now with the threats we are facing.........
O/T was Pakistan prepared for India's military response to the terrorist attack?
Never thought I’d see the day Pakistan made bitches of the Indian Army.
It’s possibly an example of hubris on the Indian side. We are bigger therefore we will be better. They also have loads of Russian kit which as we’ve seen isn’t always optimal. We’ve seen countless times that bigger doesn’t mean better: Russia v Afghanistan, US v N Vietnam, Ukraine v Russia, USA v Greenland.
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
Rayner is unique in the firmament at the moment, and has the potential to be pretty good. She has some Boris qualities - will it matter if she doesn't, for example, know the difference between debt and deficit, or thinks lower inflation = lower prices? (I have no idea, but quite possible). There is some charisma there, and she's funny, and some quite traditionalist people warm to her back story - which neither involves toolmaking nor Eton/Balliol/Harvard/Guards/Goldman Sachs.
But for box office: PMQs, Rayner v Farage. I suppose we are all dreaming, but it cannot actually be put in the file labelled 'Cannot possibly happen'.
Axing Latin, pulling up drawbridges. The Telegraph determined that the Tories appeal to a more youthful market.
You don't appeal to the young by lowest common denominator politics, the state schools Latin programme was actually popular and Mary Beard a big champion of it
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
Rayner is unique in the firmament at the moment, and has the potential to be pretty good. She has some Boris qualities - will it matter if she doesn't, for example, know the difference between debt and deficit, or thinks lower inflation = lower prices? (I have no idea, but quite possible). There is some charisma there, and she's funny, and some quite traditionalist people warm to her back story - which neither involves toolmaking nor Eton/Balliol/Harvard/Guards/Goldman Sachs.
But for box office: PMQs, Rayner v Farage. I suppose we are all dreaming, but it cannot actually be put in the file labelled 'Cannot possibly happen'.
I suspect the Tories and LDs would be pleased if Rayner replaced Starmer and Farage wouldn't.
She would go down better than Starmer in the redwall and Wales but worse than Sir Keir in London and the South.
Burnham would be Labour's best bet, indeed as with the Tories and Boris both the Tories and Labour's best prospective leaders are currently not MPs
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
AIUI they had announced their intention, several of them had experience and a track record and this was several meetings into the planning…
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
I’m. It sure if Rayner appeals to the working class but she certainly appeals to middle class centrists as their ideal of what a working class hero should be. How dare the genuine working class not worship her.
Yes, I don’t see the evidence that working class people favour working class politicians. Farage, Boris & Corbyn all did/do well with those voters, & none of them had a working class upbringing.
I think Corbyn did well with Working class, am I misremembering?
In "not everything is shite" news, phoned 111 at 6pm last night, GP phoned me at 8pm, prescription ready at 9.30am this morning, follow up GP appointment Monday at 3pm.
10/10. I did mention it was affecting my marathon training which seemed to energise the process.
Good grief, that's a pleasant surprise.
I can't get an appointment with my GP at all. Phone up and they're always fully booked, get told to do the 8am lottery. A few days of that gets a spot on the day's triage list, the guardian of which always concludes my issues are not serious enough to require being seen that day, so no appointment.
My last visit to A&E was definitively called by my gp at the time back in 2009. When I got to a&e the receptionist didn't even take my details she just got me straight in to treatment as apparently I was turning blue as couldn't breathe. The taxi driver that got me there more or less carried me in.
Why? I have asthma, my coat was stolen with my inhaler in. My gp said they couldn't issue a prescription as I was due a lung function test before they would issue a new prescription....heres a date you can come in which was 18 days away. 2 days later had a bad attack
On a scale of clinical need, breathing rates quite high.
I wonder though however how much that visit to a&e cost the national health vs how much it would have cost the gp to say....there will be a repeat prescription at reception but you need to attend this consultation in 3 weeks for a lung function test.....would have absolutely removed the a&e visit
Yes, but when you told this tale before you did concede that you weren't registered with a local GP, and hadn't attended for previous reviews.
Not true,,,,I am no longer registered with a local gp as I moved 3 years back....in 2009 I was registered with a gp and had attended them.
I am not registered now because frankly they make it almost impossible to register
Also and its you doctors fault on this...if I register with a gp they get paid for having me on their books but seem to have no actual repercussions if you never bother
GPs are paid in a completely different way to hospital doctors.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
The decision by MPs of both parties to defer the choice of PM to party members must rank among the most stupid in our recent political history.
I'm not sure Rayner would cope with it. And at a time like now with the threats we are facing.........
O/T was Pakistan prepared for India's military response to the terrorist attack?
Never thought I’d see the day Pakistan made bitches of the Indian Army.
Surely the key point is the support they've got from China. Who are also providing essential support to Russia and apparently the Houthis.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
I’m. It sure if Rayner appeals to the working class but she certainly appeals to middle class centrists as their ideal of what a working class hero should be. How dare the genuine working class not worship her.
Yes, I don’t see the evidence that working class people favour working class politicians. Farage, Boris & Corbyn all did/do well with those voters, & none of them had a working class upbringing.
I think Corbyn did well with Working class, am I misremembering?
In "not everything is shite" news, phoned 111 at 6pm last night, GP phoned me at 8pm, prescription ready at 9.30am this morning, follow up GP appointment Monday at 3pm.
10/10. I did mention it was affecting my marathon training which seemed to energise the process.
Good grief, that's a pleasant surprise.
I can't get an appointment with my GP at all. Phone up and they're always fully booked, get told to do the 8am lottery. A few days of that gets a spot on the day's triage list, the guardian of which always concludes my issues are not serious enough to require being seen that day, so no appointment.
My last visit to A&E was definitively called by my gp at the time back in 2009. When I got to a&e the receptionist didn't even take my details she just got me straight in to treatment as apparently I was turning blue as couldn't breathe. The taxi driver that got me there more or less carried me in.
Why? I have asthma, my coat was stolen with my inhaler in. My gp said they couldn't issue a prescription as I was due a lung function test before they would issue a new prescription....heres a date you can come in which was 18 days away. 2 days later had a bad attack
On a scale of clinical need, breathing rates quite high.
I wonder though however how much that visit to a&e cost the national health vs how much it would have cost the gp to say....there will be a repeat prescription at reception but you need to attend this consultation in 3 weeks for a lung function test.....would have absolutely removed the a&e visit
Yes, but when you told this tale before you did concede that you weren't registered with a local GP, and hadn't attended for previous reviews.
Not true,,,,I am no longer registered with a local gp as I moved 3 years back....in 2009 I was registered with a gp and had attended them.
I am not registered now because frankly they make it almost impossible to register
Also and its you doctors fault on this...if I register with a gp they get paid for having me on their books but seem to have no actual repercussions if you never bother
GPs are paid in a completely different way to hospital doctors.
Wheelbarrows full of cash?
I thought they were all paid in gold through oral transmission (quote A. Bevan).
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
After reaching Quillan yesterday I decided to scale back my walking on this holiday. I believe the ballaching boomers here yesterday, moaning about their aches and pains may be at least partly to blame
The past few days I've been getting a pain just above my ankle, at the front of my leg. I think I've overdone the distances a few times, even though I've been about ten percent slower than last year
So I've decided to walk just to Perpignan, and have a more normal holiday after; and to split the walk to Perpignan to three days, rather than the two I'd sort of planned
Today, just after leaving Quillan - when my leg had already started hurting - I had to enter the forbidden tunnel
There was a sign just inside that said ACCES INTERDIT - DANGER
I had to ignore it, or add about four miles to my journey, so I ventured in.. it wasn’t too bad; there were bats, lots of long dark bits, and the fear that the other end might be closed, but I made it through sans danger
I’ve made it to a really beautiful hotel. The owners converted it from an abandoned winery
Lucie, one of the owners, has brought me cream and pills for my pains. She's also served me up two bottles of beer from her favourite local brewery, and she's cooking me dinner
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
The decision by MPs of both parties to defer the choice of PM to party members must rank among the most stupid in our recent political history.
I'm not sure Rayner would cope with it. And at a time like now with the threats we are facing.........
O/T was Pakistan prepared for India's military response to the terrorist attack?
Never thought I’d see the day Pakistan made bitches of the Indian Army.
Surely the key point is the support they've got from China. Who are also providing essential support to Russia and apparently the Houthis.
China are neutral on Ukraine, they abstained on the UN vote condemning Russia's invasion
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
Rayner is unique in the firmament at the moment, and has the potential to be pretty good. She has some Boris qualities - will it matter if she doesn't, for example, know the difference between debt and deficit, or thinks lower inflation = lower prices? (I have no idea, but quite possible). There is some charisma there, and she's funny, and some quite traditionalist people warm to her back story - which neither involves toolmaking nor Eton/Balliol/Harvard/Guards/Goldman Sachs.
But for box office: PMQs, Rayner v Farage. I suppose we are all dreaming, but it cannot actually be put in the file labelled 'Cannot possibly happen'.
I suspect the Tories and LDs would be pleased if Rayner replaced Starmer and Farage wouldn't.
She would go down better than Starmer in the redwall and Wales but worse than Sir Keir in London and the South.
Burnham would be Labour's best bet, indeed as with the Tories and Boris both the Tories and Labour's best prospective leaders are currently not MPs
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
I’m. It sure if Rayner appeals to the working class but she certainly appeals to middle class centrists as their ideal of what a working class hero should be. How dare the genuine working class not worship her.
Yes, I don’t see the evidence that working class people favour working class politicians. Farage, Boris & Corbyn all did/do well with those voters, & none of them had a working class upbringing.
I think Corbyn did well with Working class, am I misremembering?
As someone who considers himself working class I feel I can stick my oar in here
I don't care where the person went to school, what social class they are in, not even if they studied latin. What I do care about is they don't talk absolute bollocks with nothing soundbites, they actually have a vison of where they want to get to, a plan of how to get there and that both seem plausible and worthwhile. If the vision is good I don't even mind if the plan says this will hurt for a bit.
I suspect this is not merely my viewpoint, a working class viewpoint but an everyone viewpoint. Now we certainly won't all agree on the vision but currently our two main parties
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
The decision by MPs of both parties to defer the choice of PM to party members must rank among the most stupid in our recent political history.
I'm not sure Rayner would cope with it. And at a time like now with the threats we are facing.........
O/T was Pakistan prepared for India's military response to the terrorist attack?
Never thought I’d see the day Pakistan made bitches of the Indian Army.
Surely the key point is the support they've got from China. Who are also providing essential support to Russia and apparently the Houthis.
China are neutral on Ukraine, they abstained on the UN vote condemning Russia's invasion
Oh well, if there was a UN vote that confirms it..........
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
Rayner is unique in the firmament at the moment, and has the potential to be pretty good. She has some Boris qualities - will it matter if she doesn't, for example, know the difference between debt and deficit, or thinks lower inflation = lower prices? (I have no idea, but quite possible). There is some charisma there, and she's funny, and some quite traditionalist people warm to her back story - which neither involves toolmaking nor Eton/Balliol/Harvard/Guards/Goldman Sachs.
But for box office: PMQs, Rayner v Farage. I suppose we are all dreaming, but it cannot actually be put in the file labelled 'Cannot possibly happen'.
I suspect the Tories and LDs would be pleased if Rayner replaced Starmer and Farage wouldn't.
She would go down better than Starmer in the redwall and Wales but worse than Sir Keir in London and the South.
Burnham would be Labour's best bet, indeed as with the Tories and Boris both the Tories and Labour's best prospective leaders are currently not MPs
I expect you have polling to back that up, but it doesn't strike me as instinctively obvious that she'd go down well in the red wall - middle class lefties seem to like her, but I'm red-wall-adjacent and all the actual working class people I know think she's a fucking idiot.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
I’m. It sure if Rayner appeals to the working class but she certainly appeals to middle class centrists as their ideal of what a working class hero should be. How dare the genuine working class not worship her.
Yes, I don’t see the evidence that working class people favour working class politicians. Farage, Boris & Corbyn all did/do well with those voters, & none of them had a working class upbringing.
I think Corbyn did well with Working class, am I misremembering?
They all voted for Johnson in 2019.
The most working class voters voted for Corbyn in 2017, Johnson in 2019, Starmer in 2024 and are now backing Farage,
Boris was the first (and maybe last) Conservative leader ever to win unskilled working class and unemployed DE voters in 2019
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
There’s always been the concept of “fighting words.”
Someone who burns a Koran, in the presence of a bunch of boneheads is not inciting a riot. Someone who does it outside a mosque most certainly is.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
Rayner is unique in the firmament at the moment, and has the potential to be pretty good. She has some Boris qualities - will it matter if she doesn't, for example, know the difference between debt and deficit, or thinks lower inflation = lower prices? (I have no idea, but quite possible). There is some charisma there, and she's funny, and some quite traditionalist people warm to her back story - which neither involves toolmaking nor Eton/Balliol/Harvard/Guards/Goldman Sachs.
But for box office: PMQs, Rayner v Farage. I suppose we are all dreaming, but it cannot actually be put in the file labelled 'Cannot possibly happen'.
I suspect the Tories and LDs would be pleased if Rayner replaced Starmer and Farage wouldn't.
She would go down better than Starmer in the redwall and Wales but worse than Sir Keir in London and the South.
Burnham would be Labour's best bet, indeed as with the Tories and Boris both the Tories and Labour's best prospective leaders are currently not MPs
I expect you have polling to back that up, but it doesn't strike me as instinctively obvious that she'd go down well in the red wall - middle class lefties seem to like her, but I'm red-wall-adjacent and all the actual working class people I know think she's a fucking idiot.
Not relative to Farage but relative to Starmer she would do better in the redwall now.
In North London and the South however she would do worse than Starmer
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
There are going to be some Ukrainians having fun at India's expense, after the shit they have had to endure in the Indian media. Perhaps India should give up several provinces to Pakistan to stop the war?
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
You can't have it both ways, it either has to be lawful or unlawful.
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
They charged under the Public Order Act and have changed the charged to causing 'harassment, alarm or distress' to a person within the vicinity who would be offended by burning the Koran.
Though whether they would use the same charge against someone burning the Union Jack or cross of St George or a Bible remains to be seen
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Are you allowed to protest against socialism if you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn das kapital as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against fascism as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn mein kampf as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against Salman Rushdie as you see his book as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the satanic verses as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against christianity as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the bible as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against islam as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the quran as part of the protest
If you don't answer the same to both parts of each question for all of them please explain why its different
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
They charged under the Public Order Act and have changed the charged to causing 'harassment, alarm or distress' to a person within the vicinity who would be offended by burning the Koran.
Though whether they would use the same charge against someone burning the Union Jack or cross of St George or a Bible remains to be seen
Perhaps I've missed something but where is the specific law on causing offence?
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Are you allowed to protest against socialism if you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn das kapital as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against fascism as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn mein kampf as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against Salman Rushdie as you see his book as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the satanic verses as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against christianity as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the bible as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against islam as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the quran as part of the protest
If you don't answer the same to both parts of each question for all of them please explain why its different
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Are you allowed to protest against Salman Rushdie as you see his book as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the satanic verses as part of the protest
In a funny way that rather makes the case for book burning being legal. Far better for someone to burn a book in a cathartic exercise than threaten violence against a person.
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
They charged under the Public Order Act and have changed the charged to causing 'harassment, alarm or distress' to a person within the vicinity who would be offended by burning the Koran.
Though whether they would use the same charge against someone burning the Union Jack or cross of St George or a Bible remains to be seen
Perhaps I've missed something but where is the specific law on causing offence?
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Are you allowed to protest against Salman Rushdie as you see his book as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the satanic verses as part of the protest
In a funny way that rather makes the case for book burning being legal. Far better for someone to burn a book in a cathartic exercise than threaten violence against a person.
Of course in Rushdies case the book burning was a prelude to the fatwa
There are going to be some Ukrainians having fun at India's expense, after the shit they have had to endure in the Indian media. Perhaps India should give up several provinces to Pakistan to stop the war?
They've lost a war and Virat Kohli on the same day.
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Are you allowed to protest against socialism if you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn das kapital as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against fascism as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn mein kampf as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against Salman Rushdie as you see his book as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the satanic verses as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against christianity as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the bible as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against islam as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the quran as part of the protest
If you don't answer the same to both parts of each question for all of them please explain why its different
And the right to offend is quite important.
I'm late to this discussion but feel that, on balance and all things considered, we should probably criminalise kids who don't at any point in their teenage years sit around plotting the overthrow of capitalism.
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Are you allowed to protest against socialism if you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn das kapital as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against fascism as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn mein kampf as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against Salman Rushdie as you see his book as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the satanic verses as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against christianity as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the bible as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against islam as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the quran as part of the protest
If you don't answer the same to both parts of each question for all of them please explain why its different
And the right to offend is quite important.
The right to offend in protest is certainly important, none of those actions threaten lives, properties, injuries they just signal a I don't just mildly disagree I vehemently disagree
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Are you allowed to protest against socialism if you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn das kapital as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against fascism as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn mein kampf as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against Salman Rushdie as you see his book as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the satanic verses as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against christianity as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the bible as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against islam as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the quran as part of the protest
If you don't answer the same to both parts of each question for all of them please explain why its different
And the right to offend is quite important.
I'm late to this discussion but feel that, on balance and all things considered, we should probably criminalise kids who don't at any point in their teenage years sit around plotting the overthrow of capitalism.
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
Of course it is a blasphemy law. You can't offend a "religious institution" any other way than by blaspheming, and thanks to militant Islam and a craven, pathetic Establushment, this law is creeping from de facto - the Batley teacher - to de jure - the Koran burner
Anyone who argues otherwise is a liar and probably a coward
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Are you allowed to protest against socialism if you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn das kapital as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against fascism as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn mein kampf as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against Salman Rushdie as you see his book as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the satanic verses as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against christianity as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the bible as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against islam as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the quran as part of the protest
If you don't answer the same to both parts of each question for all of them please explain why its different
As I hope I made clear, I wish I knew, and I hope what I wrote is a tiny contribution to answering your unanswerable questions. I think there are reasons for drawing a conceptual distinction between protest and blasphemy. Incidentally, what are your answers?
I think our law struggles in similar ways to me, so i don't think I am alone.
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Are you allowed to protest against socialism if you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn das kapital as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against fascism as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn mein kampf as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against Salman Rushdie as you see his book as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the satanic verses as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against christianity as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the bible as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against islam as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the quran as part of the protest
If you don't answer the same to both parts of each question for all of them please explain why its different
As I hope I made clear, I wish I knew, and I hope what I wrote is a tiny contribution to answering your unanswerable questions. I think there are reasons for drawing a conceptual distinction between protest and blasphemy. Incidentally, what are your answers?
I think our law struggles in similar ways to me, so i don't think I am alone.
The questions are not unanswerable
The answer to each of the two parts for all of them is yes....see I just answered it easily
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Are you allowed to protest against socialism if you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn das kapital as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against fascism as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn mein kampf as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against Salman Rushdie as you see his book as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the satanic verses as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against christianity as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the bible as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against islam as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the quran as part of the protest
If you don't answer the same to both parts of each question for all of them please explain why its different
As I hope I made clear, I wish I knew, and I hope what I wrote is a tiny contribution to answering your unanswerable questions. I think there are reasons for drawing a conceptual distinction between protest and blasphemy. Incidentally, what are your answers?
I think our law struggles in similar ways to me, so i don't think I am alone.
The questions are not unanswerable
The answer to each of the two parts for all of them is yes....see I just answered it easily
My problem would come if someone answered mostly yes but no for a couple of the second parts of each question to be honest.
Either all books of ideology are sacred or none are
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
Of course it is a blasphemy law. You can't offend a "religious institution" any other way than by blaspheming, and thanks to militant Islam and a craven, pathetic Establushment, this law is creeping from de facto - the Batley teacher - to de jure - the Koran burner
Anyone who argues otherwise is a liar and probably a coward
It's worth pointing out that we only got rid of blasphemy law in 2007 when we also introduced the racial and religious hatred act.
I believe the last successful prosecution was by Mary Whitehouse against Gay News.
After reaching Quillan yesterday I decided to scale back my walking on this holiday. I believe the ballaching boomers here yesterday, moaning about their aches and pains may be at least partly to blame
The past few days I've been getting a pain just above my ankle, at the front of my leg. I think I've overdone the distances a few times, even though I've been about ten percent slower than last year
So I've decided to walk just to Perpignan, and have a more normal holiday after; and to split the walk to Perpignan to three days, rather than the two I'd sort of planned
Today, just after leaving Quillan - when my leg had already started hurting - I had to enter the forbidden tunnel
There was a sign just inside that said ACCES INTERDIT - DANGER
I had to ignore it, or add about four miles to my journey, so I ventured in.. it wasn’t too bad; there were bats, lots of long dark bits, and the fear that the other end might be closed, but I made it through sans danger
I’ve made it to a really beautiful hotel. The owners converted it from an abandoned winery
Lucie, one of the owners, has brought me cream and pills for my pains. She's also served me up two bottles of beer from her favourite local brewery, and she's cooking me dinner
Didn't you say you were regularly doing 17km, or maybe it was even 17 miles, per day?
That's an insane amount of walking, and you will do yourself a mischief. Slow down, admire France in the spring, sniff the maquis, enjoy
Doesn't BL walk for a living? Even 17 miles isn't too bad, as long as you get about 2/3rds in by lunch. Walking holidays generate lots of time because you're not doing any transport.
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
Of course it is a blasphemy law. You can't offend a "religious institution" any other way than by blaspheming, and thanks to militant Islam and a craven, pathetic Establushment, this law is creeping from de facto - the Batley teacher - to de jure - the Koran burner
Anyone who argues otherwise is a liar and probably a coward
It's worth pointing out that we only got rid of blasphemy law in 2007 when we also introduced the racial and religious hatred act.
I believe the last successful prosecution was by Mary Whitehouse against Gay News.
There is getting rid of a law against blasphemy and introducing one by the back door declaring certain actions may cause alarm or distress to a particular ethos
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
Of course it is a blasphemy law. You can't offend a "religious institution" any other way than by blaspheming, and thanks to militant Islam and a craven, pathetic Establushment, this law is creeping from de facto - the Batley teacher - to de jure - the Koran burner
Anyone who argues otherwise is a liar and probably a coward
The thing that always gets me is that if you really believe in your religion then people critiquing, slagging, mocking etc should be water off a duck’s back - you should have the confidence that you are right and they will burn in hell etc. ignore and rise above.
Crying and calling offense suggests a little bit of insecurity over whether you are right and your god isn’t going to smite the mockers.
If you have to force people with threats of retribution for taking the piss then clearly there is something in your religion that doesn’t sit right and maybe you need to question it.
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Are you allowed to protest against socialism if you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn das kapital as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against fascism as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn mein kampf as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against Salman Rushdie as you see his book as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the satanic verses as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against christianity as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the bible as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against islam as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the quran as part of the protest
If you don't answer the same to both parts of each question for all of them please explain why its different
As I hope I made clear, I wish I knew, and I hope what I wrote is a tiny contribution to answering your unanswerable questions. I think there are reasons for drawing a conceptual distinction between protest and blasphemy. Incidentally, what are your answers?
I think our law struggles in similar ways to me, so i don't think I am alone.
No, you're a pitiful coward
The right to mock, abhor, parody and spit on religion - NON-violently - was incedibly hard won. It took centuries, from the first inklings in the Renaissance, through the Enlightenment, to the final triumph in the 20th century. Many many died in the fight, literally. And I am religious! - yet I defend the right of anyone to scorn and laugh at my beliefs, and to urinate on any "book" which I elevate to the status of sacred object
I am free to worship a book; they are free to put it down a toilet
This is such a fundamental part of what the West is, and why the West is - or was - great - it is astonishing how quickly feeble-minded fools like you will throw it away in the interest of "community cohesion"
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
Of course it is a blasphemy law. You can't offend a "religious institution" any other way than by blaspheming, and thanks to militant Islam and a craven, pathetic Establushment, this law is creeping from de facto - the Batley teacher - to de jure - the Koran burner
Anyone who argues otherwise is a liar and probably a coward
The thing that always gets me is that if you really believe in your religion then people critiquing, slagging, mocking etc should be water off a duck’s back - you should have the confidence that you are right and they will burn in hell etc. ignore and rise above.
Crying and calling offense suggests a little bit of insecurity over whether you are right and your god isn’t going to smite the mockers.
If you have to force people with threats of retribution for taking the piss then clearly there is something in your religion that doesn’t sit right and maybe you need to question it.
Islam is, intrinsically, DEEPLY insecure. Hence the threat of death against all apostates
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
Of course it is a blasphemy law. You can't offend a "religious institution" any other way than by blaspheming, and thanks to militant Islam and a craven, pathetic Establushment, this law is creeping from de facto - the Batley teacher - to de jure - the Koran burner
Anyone who argues otherwise is a liar and probably a coward
The thing that always gets me is that if you really believe in your religion then people critiquing, slagging, mocking etc should be water off a duck’s back - you should have the confidence that you are right and they will burn in hell etc. ignore and rise above.
Crying and calling offense suggests a little bit of insecurity over whether you are right and your god isn’t going to smite the mockers.
If you have to force people with threats of retribution for taking the piss then clearly there is something in your religion that doesn’t sit right and maybe you need to question it.
I have made no secret of being someone of a religous persuasion, even I make jokes and mock my own faith at times and I have certainly never had a go at anyone here for mocking my beliefs
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
Of course it is a blasphemy law. You can't offend a "religious institution" any other way than by blaspheming, and thanks to militant Islam and a craven, pathetic Establushment, this law is creeping from de facto - the Batley teacher - to de jure - the Koran burner
Anyone who argues otherwise is a liar and probably a coward
The thing that always gets me is that if you really believe in your religion then people critiquing, slagging, mocking etc should be water off a duck’s back - you should have the confidence that you are right and they will burn in hell etc. ignore and rise above.
Crying and calling offense suggests a little bit of insecurity over whether you are right and your god isn’t going to smite the mockers.
If you have to force people with threats of retribution for taking the piss then clearly there is something in your religion that doesn’t sit right and maybe you need to question it.
Islam is, intrinsically, DEEPLY insecure. Hence the threat of death against all apostates
They just need to learn to say “whatever, we love that people have independent thought, hopefully you will one day see we have a good way of life and come to the true faith.” and will be much less combative.
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
Of course it is a blasphemy law. You can't offend a "religious institution" any other way than by blaspheming, and thanks to militant Islam and a craven, pathetic Establushment, this law is creeping from de facto - the Batley teacher - to de jure - the Koran burner
Anyone who argues otherwise is a liar and probably a coward
The thing that always gets me is that if you really believe in your religion then people critiquing, slagging, mocking etc should be water off a duck’s back - you should have the confidence that you are right and they will burn in hell etc. ignore and rise above.
Crying and calling offense suggests a little bit of insecurity over whether you are right and your god isn’t going to smite the mockers.
If you have to force people with threats of retribution for taking the piss then clearly there is something in your religion that doesn’t sit right and maybe you need to question it.
I have made no secret of being someone of a religous persuasion, even I make jokes and mock my own faith at times and I have certainly never had a go at anyone here for mocking my beliefs
I’m a terrible godless heathen, probably completely amoral if not sometimes immoral.
Sometimes I’m jealous of people who have religion but until religions completely unshackle from power and control I’m not interested.
I quite like the Quakers except for their rejection of violence as it’s sometimes very necessary but I like the way they worship.
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
Of course it is a blasphemy law. You can't offend a "religious institution" any other way than by blaspheming, and thanks to militant Islam and a craven, pathetic Establushment, this law is creeping from de facto - the Batley teacher - to de jure - the Koran burner
Anyone who argues otherwise is a liar and probably a coward
The thing that always gets me is that if you really believe in your religion then people critiquing, slagging, mocking etc should be water off a duck’s back - you should have the confidence that you are right and they will burn in hell etc. ignore and rise above.
Crying and calling offense suggests a little bit of insecurity over whether you are right and your god isn’t going to smite the mockers.
If you have to force people with threats of retribution for taking the piss then clearly there is something in your religion that doesn’t sit right and maybe you need to question it.
I have made no secret of being someone of a religous persuasion, even I make jokes and mock my own faith at times and I have certainly never had a go at anyone here for mocking my beliefs
I’m a terrible godless heathen, probably completely amoral if not sometimes immoral.
Sometimes I’m jealous of people who have religion but until religions completely unshackle from power and control I’m not interested.
I quite like the Quakers except for their rejection of violence as it’s sometimes very necessary but I like the way they worship.
Maybe she will call you then I will tell her about you next time she drops in to drink my tequila
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
Of course it is a blasphemy law. You can't offend a "religious institution" any other way than by blaspheming, and thanks to militant Islam and a craven, pathetic Establushment, this law is creeping from de facto - the Batley teacher - to de jure - the Koran burner
Anyone who argues otherwise is a liar and probably a coward
The thing that always gets me is that if you really believe in your religion then people critiquing, slagging, mocking etc should be water off a duck’s back - you should have the confidence that you are right and they will burn in hell etc. ignore and rise above.
Crying and calling offense suggests a little bit of insecurity over whether you are right and your god isn’t going to smite the mockers.
If you have to force people with threats of retribution for taking the piss then clearly there is something in your religion that doesn’t sit right and maybe you need to question it.
The problem is that Islam is supposed to be the route to glory yet the modern world doesn't really suggest this.
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
Of course it is a blasphemy law. You can't offend a "religious institution" any other way than by blaspheming, and thanks to militant Islam and a craven, pathetic Establushment, this law is creeping from de facto - the Batley teacher - to de jure - the Koran burner
Anyone who argues otherwise is a liar and probably a coward
The thing that always gets me is that if you really believe in your religion then people critiquing, slagging, mocking etc should be water off a duck’s back - you should have the confidence that you are right and they will burn in hell etc. ignore and rise above.
Crying and calling offense suggests a little bit of insecurity over whether you are right and your god isn’t going to smite the mockers.
If you have to force people with threats of retribution for taking the piss then clearly there is something in your religion that doesn’t sit right and maybe you need to question it.
Islam is, intrinsically, DEEPLY insecure. Hence the threat of death against all apostates
They just need to learn to say “whatever, we love that people have independent thought, hopefully you will one day see we have a good way of life and come to the true faith.” and will be much less combative.
Which they won't because the most militant Muslims believe all non Muslims are apostate and the whole world should really convert to Islam
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
Of course it is a blasphemy law. You can't offend a "religious institution" any other way than by blaspheming, and thanks to militant Islam and a craven, pathetic Establushment, this law is creeping from de facto - the Batley teacher - to de jure - the Koran burner
Anyone who argues otherwise is a liar and probably a coward
The thing that always gets me is that if you really believe in your religion then people critiquing, slagging, mocking etc should be water off a duck’s back - you should have the confidence that you are right and they will burn in hell etc. ignore and rise above.
Crying and calling offense suggests a little bit of insecurity over whether you are right and your god isn’t going to smite the mockers.
If you have to force people with threats of retribution for taking the piss then clearly there is something in your religion that doesn’t sit right and maybe you need to question it.
The problem is that Islam is supposed to be the route to glory yet the modern world doesn't really suggest this.
In its glory days the islamic world was a lot more relaxed in many ways, they have almost done the opposite of christianity which went from religously anal to more relaxed about stuff, islam started a lot more relaxed and now has in many cases( not all)religously anal
Imagine if Keir Starmer managed to get real wages growing, immigration dropping fast, interest rates back down, NHS waiting lists down...
Oh wait... you don't have to imagine, all of those things are happening.
I am not convinced that "deliverism" can deliver, because the public always want more, and faster.
We are not longer a society that values delayed gratification.
Obviously less so than, say, the 1950s.
But Starmer barely tries to sell his policies. The public can be forgiven for assuming he doesn’t have any.
Can you supply a list of his policies because I live here and the only policy I can see is we ain't tories
Well, we're for the compulsory serving of asparagus at breakfast, free corsets for the under fives, and the abolition of slavery.
Why would anyone eat breakfast its not like as a country we are not obese, same therefore with corsets it just hides the problem. As to abolition of slavery well in 2015 we had 3263 referals when the modern slavery act was enacted now in the latest figures I can find 16938 in 2022 a 33% increase on 2021
You need to watch more Blackadder.
You deny modern slavery is rising despite the figures?
Dunny-on-the-Wold is a tuppenny- ha'penny place.
Half an acre of sodden marshland in the Suffolk Fens with an empty town hall on it. Population: three rather mangy cows, a dachshund named Colin, and a small hen in its late forties.
No idea now what you are talking about , I quoted stats you quoted gibberish
I now call on the Leader of the Opposition to test me on my Latin vocab.
Possibly the only good reason to Bring Boris Back.
Apart from starmer doesn't speak latin he is the son of a toolmaker dont you know
'Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of “pulling up the drawbridge behind him” by axing a Latin programme for state schools despite studying the ancient language himself.... Sir Keir is understood to be among several Cabinet ministers to have studied Latin at school.
He has no qualifications in latin nor can I find a non telegraph quote (which means its highly dubious) to suggest he ever even studied latin. Now aubrey scrase was indeed a latin teacher at school....didn't mean the only subject he taught....most teachers in my experience and I come from a similar age group taught more than one subject even if they were known as a teacher of x
The son of a toolmaker understands the mechanics to raise a drawbridge from the outside with a pulley,
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h On Angela Rayner. People can debate whether she’d be the right person to appeal to the voters [I think she’d prove more popular than many people think]. But if Starmer goes whilst in Government the voters don’t get a say. Labour members do. And at the moment, she’s nailed on.
She's 10 for leader on BF
I’m. It sure if Rayner appeals to the working class but she certainly appeals to middle class centrists as their ideal of what a working class hero should be. How dare the genuine working class not worship her.
Yes, I don’t see the evidence that working class people favour working class politicians. Farage, Boris & Corbyn all did/do well with those voters, & none of them had a working class upbringing.
I think Corbyn did well with Working class, am I misremembering?
They all voted for Johnson in 2019.
The most working class voters voted for Corbyn in 2017, Johnson in 2019, Starmer in 2024 and are now backing Farage,
Boris was the first (and maybe last) Conservative leader ever to win unskilled working class and unemployed DE voters in 2019
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
Of course it is a blasphemy law. You can't offend a "religious institution" any other way than by blaspheming, and thanks to militant Islam and a craven, pathetic Establushment, this law is creeping from de facto - the Batley teacher - to de jure - the Koran burner
Anyone who argues otherwise is a liar and probably a coward
"The proposed ban on incitement to "religious hatred" makes no sense unless it involves a ban on the Koran itself; and that would be pretty absurd, when you consider that the Bill's intention is to fight Islamophobia." - Boris in the Daily Telegraph, 21 July 2005
This is all very strange. 'Cos you know how we dispose of all our literature when it is out of date or superceded, or just old and unwanted? That's right. We burn it. It's considered respectful.
I just emailed you re: that Kirklees piece we mentioned yesterday evening.
Hasn't turned up in my dm's yet will take a look when it does
I sent it to your email.
Just checked inbox junk and spam no sight of it maybe just dm it here
Now copied via a DM.
Thanks for the comment back.
btw just realised why I never got the email as is my common practise created a throwaway email to sign up here probably couldnt even remember the password if I tried
I couldn't go out on the streets and knock-up for the Conservatives today because what I thought they stood for - competent government, fiscal balance, business, strong defence, effective on crime and justice, controlled borders, low taxes and a country built on strong families and communities - doesn't appear to be the case.
Instead they became a byword for self-indulgence, venality and incompetence and seemed to be heavily aroused by infighting.
So why would I?
The Conservatives’ pool of talent ran out, at some point in the early years of this century, and since then, they’ve been running on fumes.
I look at Hampshire Tory MPs like Sir George Young and James Arbuthnot who were around until the last 10 years and...
There's simply no-one who comes close now.
I suspect that Boris' purge had something to do with it. So, if he were to return the situation at and near the top would be worse, not better.
It did not help, but the only real first rater among the purged was Kenneth Clarke,
Gauke was a first rater. Among the others, Letwin and Stewart were both very interesting characters and Grieve was highly competent.
Was he? What did he do that you find first rate?
Consistently the most eloquent and confident media performer of the Cameron years, so much so that he was wheeled out to cover topics that weren’t officially his remit.
Universally popular amongst the civil service departments and SPAds who worked for him as an attentive, motivating and fair boss who was on top of his brief.
Probably the politician in the last 2 decades with the deepest technical understanding of the tax system and how tax actually works, impressive enough that I got him on to a podcast to talk international tax last year and he was as on top of the details as many of my colleagues.
Similar diligence in his role in justice that the current government decided to bring him in to help on justice policy.
A thoroughly nice man into the bargain.
So nothing then.
And that isn't me being flippantly dismissive - what you've listed here doesn't contain a single achievement.
Indeed taken as a whole, your summary paints a picture of someone being able, but for whatever reason, more interested in being a political insider than actually improving anyone's lot.
As for his 'help on justice policy' for Starmer, that was a gimmick to make the Tory Party look ridiculous, and that Gauke was willing to participate in such a gimmick simply underlines why the party is better off without him.
Almost immediately after the post you were replying to and before your dismissive wave of the hands above, I added another, with what to me included some pretty important things that most in the fiscal world see as big achievements. But nobody seems to have replied to that.
I do think ideology has got the better of too many conservative or erstwhile conservative posters in their view of people they see as traitors. It’s the equivalent of the momentumites claiming Blair never achieved anything for the poor.
It has nothing to do with ideology - Gauke and many other of his follow travellers are traitors, in his case repeatedly, and with considerable gusto. If someone in the Liberal Democrats had behaved the way he has, which is with utter contempt for his chosen party, you would have zero time for him. You are only defending him due to ideology - that is to say because his aligns with yours.
I couldn't go out on the streets and knock-up for the Conservatives today because what I thought they stood for - competent government, fiscal balance, business, strong defence, effective on crime and justice, controlled borders, low taxes and a country built on strong families and communities - doesn't appear to be the case.
Instead they became a byword for self-indulgence, venality and incompetence and seemed to be heavily aroused by infighting.
So why would I?
The Conservatives’ pool of talent ran out, at some point in the early years of this century, and since then, they’ve been running on fumes.
I look at Hampshire Tory MPs like Sir George Young and James Arbuthnot who were around until the last 10 years and...
There's simply no-one who comes close now.
I suspect that Boris' purge had something to do with it. So, if he were to return the situation at and near the top would be worse, not better.
It did not help, but the only real first rater among the purged was Kenneth Clarke,
Gauke was a first rater. Among the others, Letwin and Stewart were both very interesting characters and Grieve was highly competent.
Was he? What did he do that you find first rate?
Consistently the most eloquent and confident media performer of the Cameron years, so much so that he was wheeled out to cover topics that weren’t officially his remit.
Universally popular amongst the civil service departments and SPAds who worked for him as an attentive, motivating and fair boss who was on top of his brief.
Probably the politician in the last 2 decades with the deepest technical understanding of the tax system and how tax actually works, impressive enough that I got him on to a podcast to talk international tax last year and he was as on top of the details as many of my colleagues.
Similar diligence in his role in justice that the current government decided to bring him in to help on justice policy.
A thoroughly nice man into the bargain.
So nothing then.
And that isn't me being flippantly dismissive - what you've listed here doesn't contain a single achievement.
Indeed taken as a whole, your summary paints a picture of someone being able, but for whatever reason, more interested in being a political insider than actually improving anyone's lot.
As for his 'help on justice policy' for Starmer, that was a gimmick to make the Tory Party look ridiculous, and that Gauke was willing to participate in such a gimmick simply underlines why the party is better off without him.
Almost immediately after the post you were replying to and before your dismissive wave of the hands above, I added another, with what to me included some pretty important things that most in the fiscal world see as big achievements. But nobody seems to have replied to that.
I do think ideology has got the better of too many conservative or erstwhile conservative posters in their view of people they see as traitors. It’s the equivalent of the momentumites claiming Blair never achieved anything for the poor.
It has nothing to do with ideology - Gauke and many other of his follow travellers are traitors, in his case repeatedly, and with considerable gusto. If someone in the Liberal Democrats had behaved the way he has, which is with utter contempt for his chosen party, you would have zero time for him. You are only defending him due to ideology - that is to say because his aligns with yours.
Blair did things for the poor but more to stop a rebellion than because they were poor. Minimum wage being an example once he realised how many eastern europeans he had unleashed he had to do something to stop them driving wages into the ground.
Russia is the largest country on earth and also has the largest reserves of natural resources - valued at $75 Trillion. Russia only has a population of 140m. NATO members have a population of 973m. Ask yourself why would Russia attack us? Why might some want us to attack Russia?
Russia is the largest country on earth and also has the largest reserves of natural resources - valued at $75 Trillion. Russia only has a population of 140m. NATO members have a population of 973m. Ask yourself why would Russia attack us? Why might some want us to attack Russia?
Gauke and many other of his follow travellers are traitors
Nope
Country before party...
Irregular thingummy. He is a traitor. I am bravely putting country before party. They are snivelling sacks of sh*t who would sell their granny for a mess of pottage.
Russia is the largest country on earth and also has the largest reserves of natural resources - valued at $75 Trillion. Russia only has a population of 140m. NATO members have a population of 973m. Ask yourself why would Russia attack us? Why might some want us to attack Russia?
Russia has a history of attacking its neighbours and stealing its resources, including people.
Ask yourself, why might Russia want to attack us?
Also who estimated the resources at 75 trillion was it russia, I merely ask as apparently on reason to invade ukraine was they wanted its natural resources...hardly the actions of a country actually sitting on 75 trillions worth
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
Of course it is a blasphemy law. You can't offend a "religious institution" any other way than by blaspheming, and thanks to militant Islam and a craven, pathetic Establushment, this law is creeping from de facto - the Batley teacher - to de jure - the Koran burner
Anyone who argues otherwise is a liar and probably a coward
There is no law against offending a religious institution.
You told us that Putin was the world's leading authority on the decay of the west and all things woke, but desecrating the Koran is a crime in Russia according to Putin himself. People have been jailed in Russia for burning the Koran. Does this diminish your love for Putin a little?
I couldn't go out on the streets and knock-up for the Conservatives today because what I thought they stood for - competent government, fiscal balance, business, strong defence, effective on crime and justice, controlled borders, low taxes and a country built on strong families and communities - doesn't appear to be the case.
Instead they became a byword for self-indulgence, venality and incompetence and seemed to be heavily aroused by infighting.
So why would I?
The Conservatives’ pool of talent ran out, at some point in the early years of this century, and since then, they’ve been running on fumes.
I look at Hampshire Tory MPs like Sir George Young and James Arbuthnot who were around until the last 10 years and...
There's simply no-one who comes close now.
I suspect that Boris' purge had something to do with it. So, if he were to return the situation at and near the top would be worse, not better.
It did not help, but the only real first rater among the purged was Kenneth Clarke,
Gauke was a first rater. Among the others, Letwin and Stewart were both very interesting characters and Grieve was highly competent.
Was he? What did he do that you find first rate?
Consistently the most eloquent and confident media performer of the Cameron years, so much so that he was wheeled out to cover topics that weren’t officially his remit.
Universally popular amongst the civil service departments and SPAds who worked for him as an attentive, motivating and fair boss who was on top of his brief.
Probably the politician in the last 2 decades with the deepest technical understanding of the tax system and how tax actually works, impressive enough that I got him on to a podcast to talk international tax last year and he was as on top of the details as many of my colleagues.
Similar diligence in his role in justice that the current government decided to bring him in to help on justice policy.
A thoroughly nice man into the bargain.
So nothing then.
And that isn't me being flippantly dismissive - what you've listed here doesn't contain a single achievement.
Indeed taken as a whole, your summary paints a picture of someone being able, but for whatever reason, more interested in being a political insider than actually improving anyone's lot.
As for his 'help on justice policy' for Starmer, that was a gimmick to make the Tory Party look ridiculous, and that Gauke was willing to participate in such a gimmick simply underlines why the party is better off without him.
Almost immediately after the post you were replying to and before your dismissive wave of the hands above, I added another, with what to me included some pretty important things that most in the fiscal world see as big achievements. But nobody seems to have replied to that.
I do think ideology has got the better of too many conservative or erstwhile conservative posters in their view of people they see as traitors. It’s the equivalent of the momentumites claiming Blair never achieved anything for the poor.
It has nothing to do with ideology - Gauke and many other of his follow travellers are traitors, in his case repeatedly, and with considerable gusto. If someone in the Liberal Democrats had behaved the way he has, which is with utter contempt for his chosen party, you would have zero time for him. You are only defending him due to ideology - that is to say because his aligns with yours.
Blair did things for the poor but more to stop a rebellion than because they were poor. Minimum wage being an example once he realised how many eastern europeans he had unleashed he had to do something to stop them driving wages into the ground.
I am not really sure how much the minimum wage has ended up doing for the poor.
Russia is the largest country on earth and also has the largest reserves of natural resources - valued at $75 Trillion. Russia only has a population of 140m. NATO members have a population of 973m. Ask yourself why would Russia attack us? Why might some want us to attack Russia?
Andrew Bridgen has the smallest brain on earth and also has the largest reserves of bullshit - valued at $0. Bridgen only has an IQ of 9.73. Ask yourself why we would listen? Why is anyone sharing his thoughts?
Russia is the largest country on earth and also has the largest reserves of natural resources - valued at $75 Trillion. Russia only has a population of 140m. NATO members have a population of 973m. Ask yourself why would Russia attack us? Why might some want us to attack Russia?
Russia has a history of attacking its neighbours and stealing its resources, including people.
Ask yourself, why might Russia want to attack us?
Also who estimated the resources at 75 trillion was it russia, I merely ask as apparently on reason to invade ukraine was they wanted its natural resources...hardly the actions of a country actually sitting on 75 trillions worth
Russia is the largest country on earth and also has the largest reserves of natural resources - valued at $75 Trillion. Russia only has a population of 140m. NATO members have a population of 973m. Ask yourself why would Russia attack us? Why might some want us to attack Russia?
Russia has a history of attacking its neighbours and stealing its resources, including people.
Ask yourself, why might Russia want to attack us?
Also who estimated the resources at 75 trillion was it russia, I merely ask as apparently on reason to invade ukraine was they wanted its natural resources...hardly the actions of a country actually sitting on 75 trillions worth
A retired special constable was arrested and detained over a social media post warning about the threat of anti-Semitism in Britain, The Telegraph can reveal.
Julian Foulkes, from Gillingham in Kent, was handcuffed at his home by six officers from Kent Police – the force he had served for a decade – after challenging a supporter of pro-Palestinian marches on X.
Police body-worn camera footage captured officers scrutinising the 71-year-old’s collection of books by authors such as Douglas Murray, a Telegraph contributor, and issues of The Spectator, pointing to what they described as “very Brexity things”.
I couldn't go out on the streets and knock-up for the Conservatives today because what I thought they stood for - competent government, fiscal balance, business, strong defence, effective on crime and justice, controlled borders, low taxes and a country built on strong families and communities - doesn't appear to be the case.
Instead they became a byword for self-indulgence, venality and incompetence and seemed to be heavily aroused by infighting.
So why would I?
The Conservatives’ pool of talent ran out, at some point in the early years of this century, and since then, they’ve been running on fumes.
I look at Hampshire Tory MPs like Sir George Young and James Arbuthnot who were around until the last 10 years and...
There's simply no-one who comes close now.
I suspect that Boris' purge had something to do with it. So, if he were to return the situation at and near the top would be worse, not better.
It did not help, but the only real first rater among the purged was Kenneth Clarke,
Gauke was a first rater. Among the others, Letwin and Stewart were both very interesting characters and Grieve was highly competent.
Was he? What did he do that you find first rate?
Consistently the most eloquent and confident media performer of the Cameron years, so much so that he was wheeled out to cover topics that weren’t officially his remit.
Universally popular amongst the civil service departments and SPAds who worked for him as an attentive, motivating and fair boss who was on top of his brief.
Probably the politician in the last 2 decades with the deepest technical understanding of the tax system and how tax actually works, impressive enough that I got him on to a podcast to talk international tax last year and he was as on top of the details as many of my colleagues.
Similar diligence in his role in justice that the current government decided to bring him in to help on justice policy.
A thoroughly nice man into the bargain.
So nothing then.
And that isn't me being flippantly dismissive - what you've listed here doesn't contain a single achievement.
Indeed taken as a whole, your summary paints a picture of someone being able, but for whatever reason, more interested in being a political insider than actually improving anyone's lot.
As for his 'help on justice policy' for Starmer, that was a gimmick to make the Tory Party look ridiculous, and that Gauke was willing to participate in such a gimmick simply underlines why the party is better off without him.
Almost immediately after the post you were replying to and before your dismissive wave of the hands above, I added another, with what to me included some pretty important things that most in the fiscal world see as big achievements. But nobody seems to have replied to that.
I do think ideology has got the better of too many conservative or erstwhile conservative posters in their view of people they see as traitors. It’s the equivalent of the momentumites claiming Blair never achieved anything for the poor.
It has nothing to do with ideology - Gauke and many other of his follow travellers are traitors, in his case repeatedly, and with considerable gusto. If someone in the Liberal Democrats had behaved the way he has, which is with utter contempt for his chosen party, you would have zero time for him. You are only defending him due to ideology - that is to say because his aligns with yours.
Blair did things for the poor but more to stop a rebellion than because they were poor. Minimum wage being an example once he realised how many eastern europeans he had unleashed he had to do something to stop them driving wages into the ground.
I am not really sure how much the minimum wage has ended up doing for the poor.
Indirectly stopped a lot of low-wage immigration, I'd guess.
A retired special constable was arrested and detained over a social media post warning about the threat of anti-Semitism in Britain, The Telegraph can reveal.
Julian Foulkes, from Gillingham in Kent, was handcuffed at his home by six officers from Kent Police – the force he had served for a decade – after challenging a supporter of pro-Palestinian marches on X.
Police body-worn camera footage captured officers scrutinising the 71-year-old’s collection of books by authors such as Douglas Murray, a Telegraph contributor, and issues of The Spectator, pointing to what they described as “very Brexity things”.
What clowns. Had to laugh at the shipping list bit. Any chance they’ll be censured?
As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.
This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:
Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.
There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.
Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Yeah but the wording of the CPS charge 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' appears to have no basis in law. And it is hard for it to be read as anything other than a blasphemy charge.
Of course it is a blasphemy law. You can't offend a "religious institution" any other way than by blaspheming, and thanks to militant Islam and a craven, pathetic Establushment, this law is creeping from de facto - the Batley teacher - to de jure - the Koran burner
Anyone who argues otherwise is a liar and probably a coward
The thing that always gets me is that if you really believe in your religion then people critiquing, slagging, mocking etc should be water off a duck’s back - you should have the confidence that you are right and they will burn in hell etc. ignore and rise above.
Crying and calling offense suggests a little bit of insecurity over whether you are right and your god isn’t going to smite the mockers.
If you have to force people with threats of retribution for taking the piss then clearly there is something in your religion that doesn’t sit right and maybe you need to question it.
The problem is that Islam is supposed to be the route to glory yet the modern world doesn't really suggest this.
In its glory days the islamic world was a lot more relaxed in many ways, they have almost done the opposite of christianity which went from religously anal to more relaxed about stuff, islam started a lot more relaxed and now has in many cases( not all)religously anal
If you’re going to be anal, best to be relaxed as well. I’m told.
A retired special constable was arrested and detained over a social media post warning about the threat of anti-Semitism in Britain, The Telegraph can reveal.
Julian Foulkes, from Gillingham in Kent, was handcuffed at his home by six officers from Kent Police – the force he had served for a decade – after challenging a supporter of pro-Palestinian marches on X.
Police body-worn camera footage captured officers scrutinising the 71-year-old’s collection of books by authors such as Douglas Murray, a Telegraph contributor, and issues of The Spectator, pointing to what they described as “very Brexity things”.
2-tier Keir!
Oh wait he was arrested in 2023.
For posting “One step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals…” which police misinterpreted as being antisemitic.
A retired special constable was arrested and detained over a social media post warning about the threat of anti-Semitism in Britain, The Telegraph can reveal.
Julian Foulkes, from Gillingham in Kent, was handcuffed at his home by six officers from Kent Police – the force he had served for a decade – after challenging a supporter of pro-Palestinian marches on X.
Police body-worn camera footage captured officers scrutinising the 71-year-old’s collection of books by authors such as Douglas Murray, a Telegraph contributor, and issues of The Spectator, pointing to what they described as “very Brexity things”.
Comments
I'm not sure Rayner would cope with it. And at a time like now with the threats we are facing.........
O/T was Pakistan prepared for India's military response to the terrorist attack?
The Telegraph determined that the Tories appeal to a more youthful market.
Presumably, since he didn't he'd be a hypocrite to allow any learning on any device by the Telegraph's logic.
https://x.com/johnrentoul/status/1921274581030986212?s=61
"Britain Elects
@BritainElects
One week on from #LE2025
Our local election forecast was a disaster. It understated Reform in every quarter. Here's what we learned:
https://newstatesman.com/politics/polling/2025/05/reforms-locals-victory-was-no-fluke"
https://x.com/BritainElects/status/1921115833381576960
Which put me off. Sometimes, though, I wonder …….
Anyway, I'd like to recommend the new Asterix & Obelix series on Netflix. Best TV show I've watched this year.
Anyway, wouldn’t have happened under the Raj.
I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.
Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.
But for box office: PMQs, Rayner v Farage. I suppose we are all dreaming, but it cannot actually be put in the file labelled 'Cannot possibly happen'.
She would go down better than Starmer in the redwall and Wales but worse than Sir Keir in London and the South.
Burnham would be Labour's best bet, indeed as with the Tories and Boris both the Tories and Labour's best prospective leaders are currently not MPs
I think Corbyn did well with Working class, am I misremembering?
I mean, lol
You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.
Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.
Didn't you say you were regularly doing 17km, or maybe it was even 17 miles, per day?
That's an insane amount of walking, and you will do yourself a mischief. Slow down, admire France in the spring, sniff the maquis, enjoy
Is anyone in a position to compare?
I don't care where the person went to school, what social class they are in, not even if they studied latin. What I do care about is they don't talk absolute bollocks with nothing soundbites, they actually have a vison of where they want to get to, a plan of how to get there and that both seem plausible and worthwhile. If the vision is good I don't even mind if the plan says this will hurt for a bit.
I suspect this is not merely my viewpoint, a working class viewpoint but an everyone viewpoint. Now we certainly won't all agree on the vision but currently our two main parties
No vision
No plan how to get there
Boris was the first (and maybe last) Conservative leader ever to win unskilled working class and unemployed DE voters in 2019
Someone who burns a Koran, in the presence of a bunch of boneheads is not inciting a riot. Someone who does it outside a mosque most certainly is.
In North London and the South however she would do worse than Starmer
Though whether they would use the same charge against someone burning the Union Jack or cross of St George or a Bible remains to be seen
Are you allowed to protest against fascism as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn mein kampf as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against Salman Rushdie as you see his book as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the satanic verses as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against christianity as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the bible as part of the protest
Are you allowed to protest against islam as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the quran as part of the protest
If you don't answer the same to both parts of each question for all of them please explain why its different
Not a good day for Narendra Modi.
Very sad. For Modi...
What, I might ask, is youth for if not for that?
Anyone who argues otherwise is a liar and probably a coward
I think our law struggles in similar ways to me, so i don't think I am alone.
The answer to each of the two parts for all of them is yes....see I just answered it easily
Either all books of ideology are sacred or none are
I believe the last successful prosecution was by Mary Whitehouse against Gay News.
Up at 6, walking done by 3, beer and wine.
Crying and calling offense suggests a little bit of insecurity over whether you are right and your god isn’t going to smite the mockers.
If you have to force people with threats of retribution for taking the piss then clearly there is something in your religion that doesn’t sit right and maybe you need to question it.
The right to mock, abhor, parody and spit on religion - NON-violently - was incedibly hard won. It took centuries, from the first inklings in the Renaissance, through the Enlightenment, to the final triumph in the 20th century. Many many died in the fight, literally. And I am religious! - yet I defend the right of anyone to scorn and laugh at my beliefs, and to urinate on any "book" which I elevate to the status of sacred object
I am free to worship a book; they are free to put it down a toilet
This is such a fundamental part of what the West is, and why the West is - or was - great - it is astonishing how quickly feeble-minded fools like you will throw it away in the interest of "community cohesion"
Sometimes I’m jealous of people who have religion but until religions completely unshackle from power and control I’m not interested.
I quite like the Quakers except for their rejection of violence as it’s sometimes very necessary but I like the way they worship.
Thanks for the comment back.
- Boris in the Daily Telegraph, 21 July 2005
'Cos you know how we dispose of all our literature when it is out of date or superceded, or just old and unwanted?
That's right. We burn it.
It's considered respectful.
Country before party...
@ABridgen
Russia is the largest country on earth and also has the largest reserves of natural resources - valued at $75 Trillion. Russia only has a population of 140m. NATO members have a population of 973m. Ask yourself why would Russia attack us? Why might some want us to attack Russia?
https://x.com/ABridgen/status/1921153575905825088
Ask yourself, why might Russia want to attack us?
He is a traitor.
I am bravely putting country before party.
They are snivelling sacks of sh*t who would sell their granny for a mess of pottage.
You told us that Putin was the world's leading authority on the decay of the west and all things woke, but desecrating the Koran is a crime in Russia according to Putin himself. People have been jailed in Russia for burning the Koran. Does this diminish your love for Putin a little?
A retired special constable was arrested and detained over a social media post warning about the threat of anti-Semitism in Britain, The Telegraph can reveal.
Julian Foulkes, from Gillingham in Kent, was handcuffed at his home by six officers from Kent Police – the force he had served for a decade – after challenging a supporter of pro-Palestinian marches on X.
Police body-worn camera footage captured officers scrutinising the 71-year-old’s collection of books by authors such as Douglas Murray, a Telegraph contributor, and issues of The Spectator, pointing to what they described as “very Brexity things”.
No degree? No problem. Why employers are choosing non-graduates
A university education is losing its hold on prospective employers, who say talent, ambition and real-world skills now matter more
https://www.thetimes.com/article/d60e3855-bd41-419c-9ec2-abc592b3460a?shareToken=8ca2fc7ced6afa55b4ac349f37a3d1ec
I’m told.
Oh wait he was arrested in 2023.
For posting “One step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals…” which police misinterpreted as being antisemitic.