UK Politics & Brexit Discussion

[Dr. Gonzo]

On 17/06/2022 at 20:56, Spike said:

Your cunts in charge  are putting another Australian to death extraditing him to the USA

If Assange wanted to truly use the "I'm a journalist" defense, he probably should have done things that journalists do like scrub names of people in the documents he was releasing so he wouldn't be putting people in harms way. Instead he just released documents without a care in the world for the people that were named in those documents, and many - like the human rights workers in Turkey that were listed - ended up getting killed.

His part in helping Chelsea Manning be a whistleblower is commendable, but a lot of the other stuff he did while in charge of Wikileaks was dangerously reckless at best.

Do I think he should be charged for espionage? Probably not, based off what little I know about him and Wikileaks... but I do think he's an arsehole that got people killed, so I do think he's getting a bit of karma coming back to bite him on the arse.

[Spike]

40 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If Assange wanted to truly use the "I'm a journalist" defense, he probably should have done things that journalists do like scrub names of people in the documents he was releasing so he wouldn't be putting people in harms way. Instead he just released documents without a care in the world for the people that were named in those documents, and many - like the human rights workers in Turkey that were listed - ended up getting killed.

His part in helping Chelsea Manning be a whistleblower is commendable, but a lot of the other stuff he did while in charge of Wikileaks was dangerously reckless at best.

Do I think he should be charged for espionage? Probably not, based off what little I know about him and Wikileaks... but I do think he's an arsehole that got people killed, so I do think he's getting a bit of karma coming back to bite him on the arse.

I cannot find a single source on this. Only scaremongering on American right wing websites and the BBC fellating the USA government by reprinting an article every few years to the affect of 'Did Wikileaks Kill people? Read on to find out [the answer is no]'

No matter what keyword combo I enter I find no information on any human rights workers in Turkey dieing, nor anything related to Wikileaks.

[Dr. Gonzo]

8 minutes ago, Spike said:

I cannot find a single source on this. Only scaremongering on American right wing websites and the BBC fellating the USA government by reprinting an article every few years to the affect of 'Did Wikileaks Kill people? Read on to find out [the answer is no]'

No matter what keyword combo I enter I find no information on any human rights workers in Turkey dieing, nor anything related to Wikileaks.

I think I must have remembered the story wrong, apologies - I can't find anything that he got human rights workers killed either.

I did find this though: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html which is a pretty shitty thing for Wikileaks to have done. It included whether the women were AKP members, which could be pretty deadly for them in all honesty. But I guess we won't know if that got any of them killed or not.

[Rucksackfranzose]

45 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think I must have remembered the story wrong, apologies - I can't find anything that he got human rights workers killed either.

I did find this though: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html which is a pretty shitty thing for Wikileaks to have done. It included whether the women were AKP members, which could be pretty deadly for them in all honesty. But I guess we won't know if that got any of them killed or not.

Out of interest: What's the nymag's political leaning? Asking because I read it was owned by Rupert Murdoch until 1991, which makes me suspicious about its journalist standards and independance?

Edited June 21, 2022 by Rucksackfranzose

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Out of interest: What's the nymag's political leaning? Asking because I read it was owned by Rupert Murdoch until 1991, which makes me suspicious about its journalist standards and independance?

Good question, I have no idea… lemme check.

It was owned by Murdoch until 91, like you say - it was sold to some company I’ve never heard of called K-III until the 2000s, when it was sold to a “financier” named Bruce Wasserman. He’s dead but his family owned it until 2019.

Now it’s owned by Vox media. They also own Vox, The Verge, SB Nation, Eater, & Polygon.

They seem pretty left leaning, by American standards. So they’re pretty firmly in the centre by normal standards, imo.

[Waylander]

19 hours ago, Reluctant Striker said:

Not sure how the topic got here.. but, the 1s you refer to would basically be the right wing working class. The lost red wall voters. The 1s that feel done over by the perceived white European immigrant influx.

Labour was originally about representing the under represented. i.e. A political party for the working class. And obviously minority groups would have perhaps easily found home with the more socially left parties.

The slightly odd thing I tend to notice is that MPs like Rishi Sunak & Priti Patel are derided as some kind of race traitors, which seems to me equally as odd as anything the apparently anti minorities, right wing inclined, white working class could do.

While the Lib Dems, as the much more clearly defined middle to upper class regions left option vs the Conservative right, do seem mostly white Brits. Oddly more so than the allegedly racist Conservatives.

I think a lot of the white working class feel that they have been ignored and see probably asylum seekers getting accommodation when there kids can't get council homes as unfair. It is not just about immigration though it is also the recent progressive aspect being pushed with the LGBT agenda with most being comfortable with some yet not all categories and then the push for choosing your sexuality and how you want to be addressed? For many this is off the wall and outlandish.

The other thing these days is not so much the blue collar working class yet white collar working class with the 6 monthly diversity, ethics and other courses that are mandatory which they have to take. They feel it is a major overkill  I know from my own contacts it runs through banking, insurance and college jobs and I expect many more. It feels like brainwashing as there is no debate you are just presented with the way to think. Winston Smith might not approve.

 

 

 

[OrangeKhrush]

the British Empire falls by cultural dilution and woke brits fanning their self righteousness while foreigners take over.   

wokism is the dopamine addiction that kills the west

[RandoEFC+]

What British empire? 

We get a special treat today as the Tories get an absolute hammering by Labour in Wakefield and probably also lose in Tiverton to the Lib Dems, breaking the record for the biggest majority lost between a general election and a by election. World beating Boris in action again. Gets things done.

[Waylander]

He has sufficient time to turn it around and would not surprise me if he did.

Where I live a lot of crime has dropped since Boris got in and that will play well with many.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

3 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

the British Empire falls

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/mar/14/past.education1

happened already mate

[Devil-Dick Willie]

2 hours ago, Waylander said:

He has sufficient time to turn it around and would not surprise me if he did.

Where I live a lot of crime has dropped since Boris got in and that will play well with many.

 

You know how the bottom 3 'can turn it around' every season, but don't? Whereas a team like Spurs or Chelsea can fall away from top 4, can 'turn it around' and often will? 

Well it's because the bottom 3 are shite, and everything they do and try is shite. Boris (and the tories) are the bottom 3 in this analogy. 
Apparently shoplifting in the UK has shifted from items of value, to food, and local police don't want to criminally charge people who are stealing to eat, and the police Commissioner does want them to. 
Your country is so fucked, and all you're going to get even more fucked if you keep the tories (and they'll devour Boris if things keep sliding and you'll get a man who can't even use eftpos). 

More austerity, more famine, more poverty, more violations of international agreements ect ect. 

[RandoEFC+]

 

Lol that's an absolute spit roast. Boris is such a winner and electoral asset. 

[Stan]

Great news to wake up to. 

Tory power being etched away bit by bit.

[Danny]

If you have a big problem with “Muslim grooming gangs” but you don’t carry the same energy for other grooming gangs or individuals then I don’t think it’s victims of child abuse that you really care about.

[OrangeKhrush]

Boris was a walking disaster, he was basically Joe Biden, just slightly better

[OrangeKhrush]

the only move left is to step down, get out of the fire and save a little dignity.

 

[Reluctant Striker]

It's amazing to think such a large Brexit General Election majority could be lost & we get Unity PM Keir Starmer, at the very next election.

I don't think too many Brexit voters were expecting the Boris Johnson government to sign up to a deal. Then decide it was not the right deal. And be trying to break international treaty law. Again.

Make no mistake, we are essentially teetering around the edge of being treated & thought of barely a notch or 2 above how most nations are treating Russia. And the longer that goes on, the more people will vote for anything else, because I don't there is any sort of desire for that.

But having said all the good stuff, I will risk alienating half the population of this forum, as there is a flip side, to ponder all the non English political & societal dislike for the Conservatives. Are they actually in some way geared up just purely to see the UK or Britain as bad, or wrong. And in itself a horrible English 'right wing' concept. Perhaps because it has a token monarchy, or because it's 1 person 1 vote, similar to the fiercely Independent USA. Rather than 1 flag 1 vote, as in the EU. Which obviously sells extremely well to smaller nations & those who favour keeping the smaller nations extra sweet. It's European Influence that is I feel undeniably far more divisive than anything Russia or China could muster. The 1s we're supposed to have been concerned about for that sort of reason. And I can not lie, Deputy PM Ian Blackford would turn my stomach. He is a smiling Scottish right winger, who feels he's utterly untouchable because of the Scottish bit.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Reluctant Striker

[RandoEFC+]

It's disappointing that Labour aren't excelling quite enough to have a great chance of a majority, although I do think they could bag a slim one at this rate. Starmer's strategy of moderate rhetoric and picking his moment has worked quite well at times but it's also seen him miss a number of open goals that have left a lot of people uncertain about him. I've personally been disappointed in how spineless he's been over the RMT strikes. In a sense, maybe he's stopped the Tory/Mail/Murdoch axis from calling him a Marxist but at some point you have to put principle ahead of the risk averse approach that has served him to an extent and you still make a strategic net gain.

The good thing about Starmer electorally is that soft Tories that won't vote Labour but would consider the Lib Dems will actually switch now because he doesn't scare them as much as Corbyn. Basically all of the minor opposition parties would rather prop up a Labour government than a Conservative one at this point so all it really takes is the Tories to lose their majority to put Starmer in Downing Street, provided that he doesn't end up having to resign over this silly Durham thing. It could be perfect timing for Labour actually if they added a more inspiring leader to the current picture on top of the Tory death spiral.

I'm still hoping Labour have some decent policies held back for the next general election campaign but I'm not expecting much. Starmer is so paranoid about being associated with Corbyn in any way that he's dropped most of the policies that he was going to keep from that era which I'm really not sure about because some of them were broadly quite popular. I also don't know whether Labour have any ideas on how to change the conversation on Brexit and create the political breathing space to stop or undo some of its most damaging aspects. Returning to the single market if possible and re-establishing free movement are no-brainers. Still, even an underwhelming and disappointing Labour government would be a huge improvement on what we've got at the moment.

[Bluebird Hewitt]

Been a while since I posted in here, but fuck me, we have a cracker from the Welsh Government. I knew our lot were absolutely useless and either piss money up the wall or think of ridiculous ideas (remember, we're the government that decided what is and isn't essential to buy), but this might just take top prize.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/under-16s-wales-could-banned-24310930

But remember that this is Labour and Labour can do no wrong.

[Devil-Dick Willie]

5 hours ago, Bluebird Hewitt said:

Been a while since I posted in here, but fuck me, we have a cracker from the Welsh Government. I knew our lot were absolutely useless and either piss money up the wall or think of ridiculous ideas (remember, we're the government that decided what is and isn't essential to buy), but this might just take top prize.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/under-16s-wales-could-banned-24310930

But remember that this is Labour and Labour can do no wrong.

An initiative to get rid of energy drinks is bad? 

[Bluebird Hewitt]

8 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

An initiative to get rid of energy drinks is bad? 

The energy drink part is fine. It's the part where they're thinking of extending it to tea and coffee (due to high caffeine) that makes me laugh, especially as they're happy for high sugar fizzy drinks (which I'd imagine are much worse) to still be sold to under 16's.

[Devil-Dick Willie]

2 hours ago, Bluebird Hewitt said:

The energy drink part is fine. It's the part where they're thinking of extending it to tea and coffee (due to high caffeine) that makes me laugh, especially as they're happy for high sugar fizzy drinks (which I'd imagine are much worse) to still be sold to under 16's.

"The topic was discussed on the Lorraine show on Friday morning with resident GP Amir Kahn saying: "There is no real evidence for long-term damage from caffeine in tea and coffee so let us be proportionate – a ban is probably not necessary." The consultation will run until September 1, 2022."

You've been bamboozled by a headline. They are almost certainly not going to action that. 

[Devil-Dick Willie]

So in the end you end up winding people up over a headline on an article that is actually about the Labour gov making a GOOD move (restricting dangerous caffeine level beverages to kids) and turning it into an "oh my god what nonsense" headline designed to rile up conservative and moderate voters in their 30s-50s. 

[Bluebird Hewitt]

32 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

"The topic was discussed on the Lorraine show on Friday morning with resident GP Amir Kahn saying: "There is no real evidence for long-term damage from caffeine in tea and coffee so let us be proportionate – a ban is probably not necessary." The consultation will run until September 1, 2022."

You've been bamboozled by a headline. They are almost certainly not going to action that. 

Means nothing really. Just because a GP mentions it on a morning TV show doesn't mean our lot won't do it, though I admit that it's unlikely to happen just because of how stupid it is (though in saying that, this is a government that dictated to its own people what is and isn't essential and banned them from buying anything they deemed non essential).

If they somehow do go ahead with this, it will pass as they have the nationalists on board to basically pass through anything.

30 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

So in the end you end up winding people up over a headline on an article that is actually about the Labour gov making a GOOD move (restricting dangerous caffeine level beverages to kids) and turning it into an "oh my god what nonsense" headline designed to rile up conservative and moderate voters in their 30s-50s. 

I've already said before that the restriction of energy drinks is a good thing. However, as per the same article:

'Banning the sale of tea and coffee to under-16s in Wales is something being considered as part of plans to make young people healthier and stop rising obesity rates'.

The part in bold is important because, as I mentioned previously, if we're banning tea and coffee (which you yourself have highlighted that 'there's no real evidence for long term damage from caffeine in tea and coffee'), why has the banning of fizzy drinks not been considered (which has been proven to cause damage due to the high level of sugar), but they're considering a tea and coffee ban instead?

Who knows, maybe they have considered it for fizzy drinks and you may very well be right that the headline is purely focusing on that just to piss people off. However, I'll say that if Boris did the same, he'd be rightly ridiculed.

[Devil-Dick Willie]

40 minutes ago, Bluebird Hewitt said:

Means nothing really. Just because a GP mentions it on a morning TV show doesn't mean our lot won't do it, though I admit that it's unlikely to happen just because of how stupid it is (though in saying that, this is a government that dictated to its own people what is and isn't essential and banned them from buying anything they deemed non essential).

If they somehow do go ahead with this, it will pass as they have the nationalists on board to basically pass through anything.

I've already said before that the restriction of energy drinks is a good thing. However, as per the same article:

'Banning the sale of tea and coffee to under-16s in Wales is something being considered as part of plans to make young people healthier and stop rising obesity rates'.

The part in bold is important because, as I mentioned previously, if we're banning tea and coffee (which you yourself have highlighted that 'there's no real evidence for long term damage from caffeine in tea and coffee'), why has the banning of fizzy drinks not been considered (which has been proven to cause damage due to the high level of sugar), but they're considering a tea and coffee ban instead?

Who knows, maybe they have considered it for fizzy drinks and you may very well be right that the headline is purely focusing on that just to piss people off. However, I'll say that if Boris did the same, he'd be rightly ridiculed.

Wrong, it means everything. It won't happen, but just the thought is burning people up. 

You're right that fizzy drinks are bad for you and tea isn't (and coffee barely is) but I don't think there's any basis for removing fizzy drinks from the free market. Even a can of coke a day, which is awful for you, won't fuck a kid up the way a fat red bull can a day will. Both on sugar and caffeine basis. I don't think kids under 12 or so should drink coffee, but that's a different kettle of fish. 

Removing fizzy drinks is only a step away from banning maccas and the like. Whereas Mother, Red Bull and V are fucking poison, and marketed at kids. Every online influencer has their own energy drink FFS