Agreed, they all lie. It's called politics. It's wrong but hate speech, or not condemning it certainly won't help.
If we sacked every politician who had lied house would be empty. Almost.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
If we sacked every politician who had lied house would be empty. Almost.
Don't talk rubbish.
Its you putting forward calling folk scum, fascists etc as being an answer.
And you are doing exact same now. Because I point out Boris isn't a fascist you decide I love him. It's actually quite pathetic.
Carry on hating, see where it gets you.
And you mentioning blindness on here is ironic.
Good day Woosh.
No - not everyone lies as continually as Johnson.
He really is the one who is the obvious fit for the old joke about how you tell if someone is lying. They open their mouth.
Yep, and he lights cigars infront of homeless with fivers. He, s fascist scum.
I give up.
I may dislike BJ and disagree with a few MPs but it's just politics, have never called anyone scum.
I can appreciate the desperate attempts to avoid scrutiny of what tory mp's are and have been doing. And rationalizing the corruption of the conservative government. Having voted them into power could well, I imagine, go with screaming lalala whith ones hands over ones ears.
I dont agree with it. I think it's a kind of psychotic act of denial and collusion to label it impolite to call out behaviour like those of tory mp's in the donor debacle.
But more significantly, reality will bite you much harder (than it will anyway) if you follow jonson further down his rabbit hole in this way.
Exactly what is to be expected of a Fascist.
Making excuses for their behaviour is exactly how they worm their way in.
They pretend to come as friends, but
"We do not come as friends, but as predators, “‘This will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy—that it gave its deadly enemies the means by which it was destroyed.’
Goebbels
As usual Zlatan is incapable of actually understanding what others are actually saying.
His own version always differs
You brought in fascist comment... I believe policies you were talking about were on either David Cameron or Theresa May's watch.
. Not exactly accurate or helpful.
And, I have never defended Boris' lies or inept Tory policy. The only thing I have criticised is "hate speech" which is prevalent and especially so on here from certain individuals.
Tories got my vote because of the total ineptitude of Labour's manifesto around defence.. And a few other aspects making them (IMO) unviable. Now look back at the names I, ve been called for doing so.
Then tell me there is no hate speech in here. Its full of it.
Some can't post without it. What's surprising is events of last Friday have no way curtailed it, simply brought around more justifications for words such as scum, fascist and the people using them.
Last edited:
do you understand the European Conventions on Human Rights? If you do, then let's talk about why Raab wants to pull us out of there.
It has less to do with sending back refugees than giving the state the power to decide against those who seek to use the act to make a claim against the state.
It's like the Official Secret Act. The state now has the power to decide what is secret and what's not case by case.
Last edited:
Raab is only carrying out pledges in Tory manifesto. Your opinion that those changes warrant a fascist label is purely that, your subjective opinion.
By all means explain the planned changes you dislike and what they mean. The devil is in the detail. Simple fact is you have no idea what Raab or BJ plans to do with changes, who they will affect and why,so you label the whole group fascist.
Its exactly the attitude than spirals out of control and can lead to violence. Just labelling Tories "fascist" is dehumanising and generalising. It's just as bad as scum and equally provocative.
To be honest I, ve been amazed last few days.
A decent Tory MP was stabbed to death on Friday and people on here on Monday are calling Tories scum, fascists and liars. And defending hateful language from MPs (actually deputy Labour leader) who should know better.
Give it a rest Woosh.
We don't have a fascist government, tories are not scum. Yep, no way perfect and plenty of faults.
Brexiteers are not idiots. Remainers are not traitors. BJ didn't light a cigar with a fiver.
And contrary to OG's claims I am capable of understanding. He can't post without insult can he.
This place is a microcosm of society. Everybody thinks everyone else should change but refuse to change in slightest way themselves.
We really all should leave out generalisations, insults and hate speech. Seems many can't.
Last edited:
Quote:
Footage of Raab uncovered by the office of the shadow justice secretary, David Lammy, from 2009 shows Raab, then a backbench MP, looking into the camera and saying: “I don’t support the Human Rights Act and I don’t believe in economic and social rights.”
Labour fears Dominic Raab will target rights act in new justice post
Justice secretary called this year for government to be more ambitious as it seeks to reform act
www.theguardian.com
He's now the Justice Secretary and he is going to reform the very Act that thousands rely on every year to defend themselves against the State.
Let's swap points of view. Would you say Raab deserves to be head of Justice in this country?
Read again your posts and mine. Since when and where did I insult anyone?
There is some legitimacy in the expression fascist in reference to someone wanting to get rid of the Human Rights Act as Raab and the right wing of the Tory party want to.
Winston Churchil, a Conservative, shocked by how the Nazis had abused human rights, decided we need a Human Rights Act and commissioned British lawyers to produce it and thus ensure we would never go down that same route as the Nazis.
It was universally acclaimed as excellent law, yet successive governments refused to introduce it. Eventually when the EU decided it to wanted such an act, they decided to use the British act since it was so perfect for the job. So as EU members we became subject to it whether we liked it or not, poetic justice.
From the 1980s on the Tory governments disliked it since it made some of their behaviours illegal. As examples, the politically motivated police behaviours against the miners at Orgreave etc and the introduction of illegal laws in the 1990s and in 2003, still in force.
David Cameron was the first Tory to reveal his true colours by saying he wanted to get rid of the human rights act and replace it with a Bill of Rights, using the totally untrue excuse that the HR act prevented deportation of undesirables. It was blindingly obvious that his motivation was to get rid of a law that could prevent abuse of persons and prevent legalisation of that abuse.
That is the position of Cameron, Raab and indeed Tony Blair as well. They wish to continue with abusive laws that the EU courts have already condemned and continue down an avenue that could allow the return of the fascist practices of the Nazis.
No-one is saying that is their final intention, but they know beyond any reasonable doubt that is possible. Given that their stated reasons for the intended change are dishonest and untrue, their motives dishonourable, there is no gain for the population, and the only gain is for them to continue abusing, they should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
.
Last edited:
Your very first post re the Changes made the fascist claim.Quote:
Footage of Raab uncovered by the office of the shadow justice secretary, David Lammy, from 2009 shows Raab, then a backbench MP, looking into the camera and saying: “I don’t support the Human Rights Act and I don’t believe in economic and social rights.”
Labour fears Dominic Raab will target rights act in new justice post
Justice secretary called this year for government to be more ambitious as it seeks to reform act
He's now the Justice Secretary and he is going to reform the very Act that thousands rely on every year to defend themselves against the State.
Let's swap points of view. Would you say Raab deserves to be head of Justice in this country?
Read again your posts and mine. Since when and where did I insult anyone?
I, m not sure but think Tony Blair carried out similar reforms in 2005.(Constitutional Reform Act).. Was he described as a Fascist for doing so..
Besides the changes were planned in 2019 Manifesto... (might even have been earlier).. At which time I believe Theresa May was in charge.. Is she a fascist then Woosh? Or it it just Raab.
I can't comment on planned changes... Dont think they have been decided upon. The usual suspects are printing usual drivel from both ends of perspectives.
Good Post flecc, but no I don't think that warrants term fascist especially so in current climate.
The motives, changes and consequences need studying first.
Are changes to punish legislature for not supporting Government when they wanted to close house or are they for genuine altruistic reasons. Unfortunately nobody knows.
But, I, ll repeat... A good post. No generalisations, no insults, no labelling.. Well explained opinion.
Last edited:
OK. What did I say to offend anyone?
Are you sure that the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act tried to get us out of the ECHR?
Quote:
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was an Act of the UK Parliament that was divided into three parts. The first reformed the office of Lord Chancellor, the second created and set the framework for a UK Supreme Court and the third regulates the appointment of Judges.
Lawyers fear Tories are planning ‘revenge’ against Supreme Court | Financial Times
Legal experts raise concern that constitutional review could be used to punish judges for overturning prorogation
www.ft.com
A reasoned explanation.
We are no longer part of ECHR, we have integrated it into our legislation... As such Tony Blair carried out changes to same Authority.
Raab is presenting changes as required to remove control instigated from Strasbourg in the now ingrained parts in UK law.
And by the way to answer your previous question. You were the first poster to level the accusation of anyone attacking ECHR as Fascists.
Its an inaccurate generalisation.Because someone questions certain aspects of the now UK legislation being inappropriate does not mean they are fascists. As I said earlier Cameron, May and a good few before posed questions regarding aspects of ECHR, are they Fascists for doing so?
Thank you Zlatan. The snag for anyone wanting to get rid of an act that is expressly designed to prevent the abuses of fascistically inclined governments is that they are inadvertantly supporting said fascist governments actions. Their position is therefore foolish, especially when their intentions are dishonest.
The real reason Cameron and co want to get rid of the year 2000 adoption of the HR act is that it makes their abusive laws illegal. For example:
Since 1994, the fundamental British concept that one is innocent until proven guilty is more a wishful concept than fact.
In theory an accused person does not have to prove innocence, the onus is supposed to be on the prosecution to prove guilt. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 means the scales of justice have been tipped against you. Unless you can prove your innocence you WILL be convicted. The Prosecution don’t even have to try.
When the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act was introduced in 1996, its aim was to – ‘effectively bring about acquittal of the innocent and conviction of the guilty, whilst ensuring efficiency in focusing on key issues at trial and fairness towards all those affected’. This is the law that demands a statement from the defendant before any extra disclosures are made which might undermine the prosecution case. In reality this is the law that allows the prosecution to withhold or misplace any sensitive evidence that may damage their case.
Prior to 2004, the Home Office stated in its own bulletin that it was aware of 3000 wrongfully convicted people being put in prison every year, while allowing the guilty to walk free (Naylor L.A 2004).
It's now believed by those well informed that an average of 60 persons a week are being wrongly imprisoned, some for historic offences that never occurred. The legal profession are doing nothing to fight these injustices, and all the small groups pushing for change seem to be following personal agendas. What is needed is for all of these groups and professionals to join forces, which might raise a shout so loud that the government realise that wrongs in our legislation must be remedied now. Until then 60 more people every week will be wrongfully imprisoned, some of them for historic offences that never happened.
Getting rid of the European Court of Justice, the Human Rights Court and the Human Rights Act are all part of the same trend to make us all potential victims of injustice whenever it suits the authorities. Yet they dare criticise Russian and Chinese human rights while wanting to have the same abilities to abuse us.
.
Are you claiming that Johnson is NOT a liar?
I can think of no other reason I should not call him a liar. It really is, or by now was, his choice entirely as to whether I consider him a liar to be called out or not. The odd exaggeration or economy with the truth might have ranked him alongside others.
Doesn't a city need a cathedral to qualify? Or am I recalling incorrectly?
Sir David Amess: Southend to become a city in honour of MP
Boris Johnson announces the town will be awarded the coveted status that the MP campaigned for.
www.bbc.co.uk