Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Johnson appears to be doing what Gordon Brown did in the summe

1246

Comments

  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,190
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:
    Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
    Not much bloody point stopping and searching and arresting and then the cases either not going to court at all or taking a year or more to go to court. How popular is that going to be, do you think?

    People don't think about that kind of thing generally. It wasn't a point about effectivness, it was a point about popularity - would you dispute promising such moves would be popular?

    Enough to affect peoples' votes is different.
    Well, I am stupidly old-fashioned enough to think that policies should try and be effective. Popular policies which don’t work is a pretty stupid way to go. IMO. Even if this seems to be the current M.O. of both major parties.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,952
    viewcode said:



    Scott_P said:
    I'm not sure why Boris is being praised for this. He's the tory pm. The tories are in government, so why doesn't he just do it? It doesn't need an act of parliament to enforce sentencing guidelines surely?
    Trump playbook. Run against THEM! You know, THEM! The reason why things are so shit these days. THOSE people!

    THEM! isalways unspecified, of course... :(
    Trump makes it very explicit who THEY are.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,182

    At least we all knew where we stood with the term SJW

    But 'SJW' is an out and out insult. 'Woke' is a compliment - albeit sometimes used as an insult by those who are not.

    For example, I like to be called woke - indeed it's a way to my heart - but I would be displeased if referred to as a SJW.
  • Options
    blueblueblueblue Posts: 875

    I’d like to see an update of Yougov’s seat model.

    My instinct is that the Conservatives would lose further seats in London to Labour, and some surprising big swings in the Home Counties would lead it losing a number of safe seats to the LDs.

    Meanwhile, only a handful of gains in the Midlands and the North would materialise.

    So, i could see Boris on 250-260 seats and LoTO in rather short order.

    If you're right, could you please tell me why in the name of holy **** we're doing Brexit (as Conservatives)? If we're going to break the economy, and the Union, and lose the next election anyway! What a disaster for the ages!
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914
    Yorkcity said:

    No just the opposite.
    Johnson will own it for good or bad.
    Amongst the general public he certainly will. Amongst the Labour membership Corbyn might have a few issues if it was the intransigence (They might say rightly so !) of the Lab front bench insisting any other ptoential PM had to be Corbyn.

    Voters = Johnson owning
    Lab membership = Issue for Corbs.
  • Options
    DruttDrutt Posts: 1,093
    kinabalu said:

    If 'woke' and 'wokeness' are now acceptable terms, then one is needed for those who use it derogatorily.

    I'll stick with 'scum'.

    It's not an insult, rather the opposite. It means being possessed of the ability and the inclination to recognize and call out racism in Western society against people who are not white.

    So if I call you 'woke', a suitable response would be to shrug and go, "Not so sure about that, but I do my best." Perhaps with a self-deprecating grin.

    But please note that it does NOT imply any other great qualities. You can be woke and yet an utter plonker, and you can be a terrific guy/gal who is not at all woke.

    Also important is that the condition of wokeness is a destination and the journey is one way. Thus if you are not woke, you can awake and become so. But once woke, that is it, you will never revert to not being. You will be woke until the grave.

    Which makes sense if you think about it. Once a person sheds their ignorance and/or relaxed tolerance of racism they will not (and will not want to) rediscover it. It would be like deliberately wearing your old over-sized clothes after successfully losing three stones.
    Don't be so sure. I once put my whole self into being woke but adequately removed my whole self from wokeness moments later.

    The wokey cokey. That's what it's all about.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,119

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:
    Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
    I can see both sides of this. Repeatedly being stopped and searched whilst going about my lawful business would get intensely annoying, and should be avoided.

    On the other hand, we do have a significant problem with knife and other crimes, and stop and search is probably a helpful tool to reduce it.

    The question is how to get the benefits of the latter whilst reducing the former.
    That involves trusting the police’s judgment. Now look at Operation Midland and ask yourself if you want police with that level of judgment deciding whether to stop and search repeatedly your sons on their nights out.
    It is worse than that. Suppose PC Dixon is quite right to stop and search young Winston. All by the book. Everyone is happy. Winston goes on his way.

    Whatever it was about Winston that triggered that perfectly correct search is still there.

    He will be stopped by every copper he meets on his way home from the table tennis tournament at the church youth club.

    And half a dozen perfectly reasonable and entirely lawful searches later, Winston is just about ready to torch Scotland Yard.
    I don't see why.

    I went through a few months when I got pulled over by the Police for a breathalyser test on an almost weekly basis. Nothing suspicious or different with my driving, though I worked nights - and had done for years - but kept getting checked then going on my way.

    Never made me want to be aggressive with the Police. I'd rather be inconvenienced with a breathalyser than in a collision with a drunk.
    You're saying innocent people are just as likely to be stopped and searched as black people?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052
    Yorkcity said:

    No just the opposite.
    Johnson will own it for good or bad.
    It's not necessarily either/or. The last time something consequential happened on Brexit - the extension - it damaged both main parties.
  • Options
    Chris said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:
    Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
    I can see both sides of this. Repeatedly being stopped and searched whilst going about my lawful business would get intensely annoying, and should be avoided.

    On the other hand, we do have a significant problem with knife and other crimes, and stop and search is probably a helpful tool to reduce it.

    The question is how to get the benefits of the latter whilst reducing the former.
    That involves trusting the police’s judgment. Now look at Operation Midland and ask yourself if you want police with that level of judgment deciding whether to stop and search repeatedly your sons on their nights out.
    It is worse than that. Suppose PC Dixon is quite right to stop and search young Winston. All by the book. Everyone is happy. Winston goes on his way.

    Whatever it was about Winston that triggered that perfectly correct search is still there.

    He will be stopped by every copper he meets on his way home from the table tennis tournament at the church youth club.

    And half a dozen perfectly reasonable and entirely lawful searches later, Winston is just about ready to torch Scotland Yard.
    I don't see why.

    I went through a few months when I got pulled over by the Police for a breathalyser test on an almost weekly basis. Nothing suspicious or different with my driving, though I worked nights - and had done for years - but kept getting checked then going on my way.

    Never made me want to be aggressive with the Police. I'd rather be inconvenienced with a breathalyser than in a collision with a drunk.
    You're saying innocent people are just as likely to be stopped and searched as black people?
    Whoooooa - slow down there Mr Woke

    The anecdote stand for itself. Personally, I wrote a similar anecdote, my stance is now anti-police.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Nigel Farage attacks 'Prince of Wokeness' Harry and Meghan Markle and 'Charlie Boy' for their 'irrelevant' environmental campaigns and brands late Queen Mother an 'overweight, chain-smoking gin drinker'"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7348067/Nigel-Farage-attacks-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-irrelevant-environmental-campaigns.html
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,976
    Miss Cyclefree, said it before, but it's largely down our media being inept. They're sensationalist jesters with short attention spans, mostly, with a fixation on politicians and a lack of understanding of and interest in policies.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,956

    https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1160917046181453826

    Ah, yes, those two titans of world trade expertise exchanging views on tariffs.

    We are lucky to have them.

    err right

    like Obama or god help us George W Bush were just brilliant at all such issues
    At least the latter Presidents tried to increase international trade rather than starting ill judged trade wars..
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,119

    Chris said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:
    Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
    I can see both sides of this. Repeatedly being stopped and searched whilst going about my lawful business would get intensely annoying, and should be avoided.

    On the other hand, we do have a significant problem with knife and other crimes, and stop and search is probably a helpful tool to reduce it.

    The question is how to get the benefits of the latter whilst reducing the former.
    That involves trusting the police’s judgment. Now look at Operation Midland and ask yourself if you want police with that level of judgment deciding whether to stop and search repeatedly your sons on their nights out.
    It is worse than that. Suppose PC Dixon is quite right to stop and search young Winston. All by the book. Everyone is happy. Winston goes on his way.

    Whatever it was about Winston that triggered that perfectly correct search is still there.

    He will be stopped by every copper he meets on his way home from the table tennis tournament at the church youth club.

    And half a dozen perfectly reasonable and entirely lawful searches later, Winston is just about ready to torch Scotland Yard.
    I don't see why.

    I went through a few months when I got pulled over by the Police for a breathalyser test on an almost weekly basis. Nothing suspicious or different with my driving, though I worked nights - and had done for years - but kept getting checked then going on my way.

    Never made me want to be aggressive with the Police. I'd rather be inconvenienced with a breathalyser than in a collision with a drunk.
    You're saying innocent people are just as likely to be stopped and searched as black people?
    Whoooooa - slow down there Mr Woke

    The anecdote stand for itself. Personally, I wrote a similar anecdote, my stance is now anti-police.
    Sorry - of course I misspoke.

    What I meant to say was white people are just as likely to be stopped and searched as criminals.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,182
    Drutt said:

    Don't be so sure. I once put my whole self into being woke but adequately removed my whole self from wokeness moments later.

    The wokey cokey. That's what it's all about.

    :smile:

    I know it lends itself to piss-taking and why not.

    But by its actual meaning everyone should aspire to being woke. Or it's only 'wrong uns' who would not, let's say.
  • Options
    blueblueblueblue Posts: 875
    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
    Johnson has started well on home issues. When Labour came out with the whole "might damage community relations vis a vis stop & search I thought to myself my Corbyn just can't resist a bloody big elephant trap can he ?
    Sticking Patel into bat there was a deeply clever move - she'll make Labour look very soft on crime.
    To be fair to him, the first few weeks of Boris' premiership have shown that he has homed in on an electoral strategy that is infinitely more effective than May's blundering - go left on the economy, go right on law and order, and you have a huge constituency ready to be swept up. Clever targetting of wedge issues is a crucial tactic that has allowed US Republicans to win elections even in the face of demographic disadvantage and general unloveability.
  • Options
    JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    edited August 2019
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:
    Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
    I can see both sides of this. Repeatedly being stopped and searched whilst going about my lawful business would get intensely annoying, and should be avoided.

    On the other hand, we do have a significant problem with knife and other crimes, and stop and search is probably a helpful tool to reduce it.

    The question is how to get the benefits of the latter whilst reducing the former.
    That involves trusting the police’s judgment. Now look at Operation Midland and ask yourself if you want police with that level of judgment deciding whether to stop and search repeatedly your sons on their nights out.
    It is worse than that. Suppose PC Dixon is quite right to stop and search young Winston. All by the book. Everyone is happy. Winston goes on his way.

    Whatever it was about Winston that triggered that perfectly correct search is still there.

    He will be stopped by every copper he meets on his way home from the table tennis tournament at the church youth club.

    And half a dozen perfectly reasonable and entirely lawful searches later, Winston is just about ready to torch Scotland Yard.
    I don't see why.

    I went through a few months when I got pulled over by the Police for a breathalyser test on an almost weekly basis. Nothing suspicious or different with my driving, though I worked nights - and had done for years - but kept getting checked then going on my way.

    Never made me want to be aggressive with the Police. I'd rather be inconvenienced with a breathalyser than in a collision with a drunk.
    You're saying innocent people are just as likely to be stopped and searched as black people?
    Whoooooa - slow down there Mr Woke

    The anecdote stand for itself. Personally, I wrote a similar anecdote, my stance is now anti-police.
    Sorry - of course I misspoke.

    What I meant to say was white people are just as likely to be stopped and searched as criminals.
    I think we're on the same side??? We don't like stop and search because it makes "being black in a public space" a crime. But that's no need to attack PT
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,293
    edited August 2019
    Some time ago I had the pleasure of listening to a radio interview with the former head of the NYPD, who oversaw the dramatic and famous decline of violence in NY under the then Mayor (Guiliani, I think.)

    He was specifically asked about Stop and Search. He wasn't entirely dismissive and suggested it depended how it was done, but in his experience it caused more problems than it solved. He had a simpler and novel remedy. More money. Huge funds were poured into dealing with the problem, and at all levels - from more police to better probation and after care for released prisoners, as well as an improvement in the justice system generally.

    Sounded reasonable to me.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Hong Kong airport departures page. Mostly cancelled.

    https://www.hongkongairport.com/en/flights/departures/passenger.page
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,952
    Chris said:

    Scott_P said:
    Let's just hope that includes upper-class users of hard drugs!
    Would be amusing, and satisfying, were the crackdown to begin with a rolling series of raids on newspapers, City trading houses and the BBCs Christmas parties.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,119

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:
    Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
    I can see both sides of this. Repeatedly being stopped and searched whilst going about my lawful business would get intensely annoying, and should be avoided.

    On the other hand, we do have a significant problem with knife and other crimes, and stop and search is probably a helpful tool to reduce it.

    The question is how to get the benefits of the latter whilst reducing the former.
    That involves trusting the police’s judgment. Now look at Operation Midland and ask yourself if you want police with that level of judgment deciding whether to stop and search repeatedly your sons on their nights out.
    It is worse than that. Suppose PC Dixon is quite right to stop and search young Winston. All by the book. Everyone is happy. Winston goes on his way.

    Whatever it was about Winston that triggered that perfectly correct search is still there.

    He will be stopped by every copper he meets on his way home from the table tennis tournament at the church youth club.

    And half a dozen perfectly reasonable and entirely lawful searches later, Winston is just about ready to torch Scotland Yard.
    I don't see why.

    I went through a few months when I got pulled over by the Police for a breathalyser test on an almost weekly basis. Nothing suspicious or different with my driving, though I worked nights - and had done for years - but kept getting checked then going on my way.

    Never made me want to be aggressive with the Police. I'd rather be inconvenienced with a breathalyser than in a collision with a drunk.
    You're saying innocent people are just as likely to be stopped and searched as black people?
    Whoooooa - slow down there Mr Woke

    The anecdote stand for itself. Personally, I wrote a similar anecdote, my stance is now anti-police.
    Sorry - of course I misspoke.

    What I meant to say was white people are just as likely to be stopped and searched as criminals.
    I think we're on the same side??? We don't like stop and search because it makes "being black in a public space" a crime. But that's no need to attack PT
    I am getting just to be on the side of the satirists. Attempts at serious debate seem pointless somehow.
  • Options
    blueblue said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_P said:
    Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
    Johnson has started well on home issues. When Labour came out with the whole "might damage community relations vis a vis stop & search I thought to myself my Corbyn just can't resist a bloody big elephant trap can he ?
    Sticking Patel into bat there was a deeply clever move - she'll make Labour look very soft on crime.
    To be fair to him, the first few weeks of Boris' premiership have shown that he has homed in on an electoral strategy that is infinitely more effective than May's blundering - go left on the economy, go right on law and order, and you have a huge constituency ready to be swept up. Clever targetting of wedge issues is a crucial tactic that has allowed US Republicans to win elections even in the face of demographic disadvantage and general unloveability.
    Not to mention the helpful assistance of Cambridge Analytica.

    Btw, who does Cummings use now, since CA went into liquidation a while back?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181

    Some time ago I had the pleasure of listening to a radio interview with the former head of the NYPD, who oversaw the dramatic and famous decline of violence in NY under the then Mayor (Guiliani, I think.)

    He was specifically asked about Stop and Search. He wasn't entirely dismissive and suggested it depended how it was done, but in his experience it caused more problems than it solved. He had a simpler and novel remedy. More money. Huge funds were poured into dealing with the problem, and at all levels - from more police to better probation and after care for released prisoners, as well as an improvement in the justice system generally.

    Sounded reasonable to me.

    Yes. If only it really was a simple and novel remedy.

    There is almost no problem connected to government that can't be solved by increased funding. For example, if spending per pupil tripled we could eliminate malnutrition, teacher shortages, poor exam results and most of our school behaviour problems. Or if we spent £112 billion a year on the railways, we could have fast trains every five minutes that were free at the point of use so an end to road accidents. Similarly, as Cyclefree noted a couple of days ago there are major problems in the justice system here caused by underfunding.

    But unfortunately money is not unlimited. In fact, it's extremely limited and getting more is not as easy as those who have never worked for the government (e.g. Corbyn, McDonnell) seem to think.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    eek said:

    https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1160917046181453826

    Ah, yes, those two titans of world trade expertise exchanging views on tariffs.

    We are lucky to have them.

    err right

    like Obama or god help us George W Bush were just brilliant at all such issues
    At least the latter Presidents tried to increase international trade rather than starting ill judged trade wars..
    Ah yes, that drive to close down industries and transfer jobs to China with nothing to put in their place but gig economy paycuts and CEO bonus hikes worked so well.

    Therein lie the roots of Trump and Farage, you reap what you sow.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,850
    Dont BAME me!!!


    Caroline Lucas
    2 hrs ·
    Thank you for all the comments on my proposal. I wanted to start a debate, and that’s certainly happened. But I know that it’s thrown up important questions about who is on this list, why all women and why no people of colour.

    An all-white list of women isn’t right. I should have reached out further and thought more deeply about who, and what kind of politics, an all-white list represents. I apologise.
  • Options

    Dont BAME me!!!


    Caroline Lucas
    2 hrs ·
    Thank you for all the comments on my proposal. I wanted to start a debate, and that’s certainly happened. But I know that it’s thrown up important questions about who is on this list, why all women and why no people of colour.

    An all-white list of women isn’t right. I should have reached out further and thought more deeply about who, and what kind of politics, an all-white list represents. I apologise.

    Ha Ha - how Unwoke of her
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Some time ago I had the pleasure of listening to a radio interview with the former head of the NYPD, who oversaw the dramatic and famous decline of violence in NY under the then Mayor (Guiliani, I think.)

    He was specifically asked about Stop and Search. He wasn't entirely dismissive and suggested it depended how it was done, but in his experience it caused more problems than it solved. He had a simpler and novel remedy. More money. Huge funds were poured into dealing with the problem, and at all levels - from more police to better probation and after care for released prisoners, as well as an improvement in the justice system generally.

    Sounded reasonable to me.

    Just need to look at the reduction of funding for youth facilities to find the real reason for street crime.
  • Options
    ZephyrZephyr Posts: 438
    AndyJS said:

    Hong Kong airport departures page. Mostly cancelled.

    https://www.hongkongairport.com/en/flights/departures/passenger.page

    The opposition groups in Honk Kong haven’t a clue who is leading the protests. It’s not that the traditional opposition are too moderate or weak, but storming the parliament, and ratcheting up aggression and violence, just not a sensible way to achieve progress on your aims. The original proposal that sparked it off was withdrawn weeks ago.

    Chinese black ops cannot be ruled out. If you roll this forward, unless the escalating disturbances suddenly stop, there can only be one clear winner.
  • Options
    PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    blueblue said:

    I’d like to see an update of Yougov’s seat model.
    My instinct is that the Conservatives would lose further seats in London to Labour, and some surprising big swings in the Home Counties would lead it losing a number of safe seats to the LDs.
    Meanwhile, only a handful of gains in the Midlands and the North would materialise. So, i could see Boris on 250-260 seats and LoTO in rather short order.

    If you're right, could you please tell me why in the name of holy **** we're doing Brexit (as Conservatives)? If we're going to break the economy, and the Union, and lose the next election anyway! What a disaster for the ages!
    For the sake of the tax dodgers, of course. The next election is going to be about People & Parliament versus Tax-Dodgers, Cheats and Fraudsters. The dreadful Cummings really does not know what he is doing. Tories are going to be trounced.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,710
    dixiedean said:

    Chris said:

    Scott_P said:
    Let's just hope that includes upper-class users of hard drugs!
    Would be amusing, and satisfying, were the crackdown to begin with a rolling series of raids on newspapers, City trading houses and the BBCs Christmas parties.
    Rich. Brits. Don't. Get. Arrested.

    :(
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    PClipp said:

    blueblue said:

    I’d like to see an update of Yougov’s seat model.
    My instinct is that the Conservatives would lose further seats in London to Labour, and some surprising big swings in the Home Counties would lead it losing a number of safe seats to the LDs.
    Meanwhile, only a handful of gains in the Midlands and the North would materialise. So, i could see Boris on 250-260 seats and LoTO in rather short order.

    If you're right, could you please tell me why in the name of holy **** we're doing Brexit (as Conservatives)? If we're going to break the economy, and the Union, and lose the next election anyway! What a disaster for the ages!
    For the sake of the tax dodgers, of course. The next election is going to be about People & Parliament versus Tax-Dodgers, Cheats and Fraudsters. The dreadful Cummings really does not know what he is doing. Tories are going to be trounced.
    lol

    of course each side believes the other is the tax dodgers cheats and fraudsters,
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    Yorkcity said:

    No just the opposite.
    Johnson will own it for good or bad.
    Corbyn on the latest Yougov will vote the lowest Labour voteshare since 1918 and the lowest Labour seat total since 1935, so yes No Deal could be the end of Corbyn too if the LDs replace Labour as the main party of the centre left which is possible if Corbynism retains its hold over Labour
  • Options
    ZephyrZephyr Posts: 438
    nichomar said:

    Some time ago I had the pleasure of listening to a radio interview with the former head of the NYPD, who oversaw the dramatic and famous decline of violence in NY under the then Mayor (Guiliani, I think.)

    He was specifically asked about Stop and Search. He wasn't entirely dismissive and suggested it depended how it was done, but in his experience it caused more problems than it solved. He had a simpler and novel remedy. More money. Huge funds were poured into dealing with the problem, and at all levels - from more police to better probation and after care for released prisoners, as well as an improvement in the justice system generally.

    Sounded reasonable to me.

    Just need to look at the reduction of funding for youth facilities to find the real reason for street crime.
    Actually, reducing the number of school exclusions is my first act on becoming prime minister. There isn’t one magic bullet that can solve this, but school exclusions is gasoline to the fire.
  • Options
    houndtanghoundtang Posts: 450
    i can't read the comments on my smartphone (used to be able to) - any ideas what might be causing this? ta!
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,850
    A summary of Lucas’ full statement: I’ve exposed myself as a racist sham by digging a hole for myself. I’ve no idea how to get out of this hole, so I’ll just keep digging myself in deeper.

    "Austerity loving Jo and Anna are my new chums"
  • Options
    rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That’s because the sentencing guidelines already say that people convicted of offences of violence or serious sexual offences should not be released unless they are judged no longer a danger to the public. So the PM is restating what is currently the law or perhaps he does not understand what the current law or, possibly, he’s just doing some PR bollocks to disguise the fact that he’s not actually doing the stuff that needs to be done to make sure the criminal justice system works as effectively as it should.

    He is saying that 'yer criminals' should be banged up for longer. Less of this parole and early release nonsense, that's for softies. Let em rot in there.

    Alf Garnett lives.

    Wonder if Alf would be up for some No Deal? Sense he would.
    But in Alf's day the leading Tories were Heath, Maudling et al who had some humanity, similar views to Gauke and Stewart. As I think Richard Nabavi of this parish said, Stewart's a standard pre-1979 Tory.

    I think Alf's children will vote UKIP or Bxt. Sadly there is a 'market' for a racist, 'send the darkies home, hang 'em, flog 'em, castrate rapists, etc' party but strangely for one that believes in the NHS and a welfare state for the 'deserving poor'.

    Aaargh ... the answer is educate, educate, educate but it never seems to be enough.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,590
    kle4 said:

    If 'woke' and 'wokeness' are now acceptable terms, then one is needed for those who use it derogatorily.

    I'll stick with 'scum'.

    I dont know that I have seen it used unironically or not derogatorily. I assumed it was made up.
    kinabalu said:

    If 'woke' and 'wokeness' are now acceptable terms, then one is needed for those who use it derogatorily.

    I'll stick with 'scum'.

    It's not an insult, rather the opposite. It means being possessed of the ability and the inclination to recognize and call out racism in Western society against people who are not white.

    So if I call you 'woke', a suitable response would be to shrug and go, "Not so sure about that, but I do my best." Perhaps with a self-deprecating grin.

    But please note that it does NOT imply any other great qualities. You can be woke and yet an utter plonker, and you can be a terrific guy/gal who is not at all woke.

    Also important is that the condition of wokeness is a destination and the journey is one way. Thus if you are not woke, you can awake and become so. But once woke, that is it, you will never revert to not being. You will be woke until the grave.

    Which makes sense if you think about it. Once a person sheds their ignorance and/or relaxed tolerance of racism they will not (and will not want to) rediscover it. It would be like deliberately wearing your old over-sized clothes after successfully losing three stones.
    An erudite explanation, and I do think it fair for Prince Harry to be decribed as "The Prince of Wokeness" by Farage. Harry is the very definition of the term, evolving from Nazi fancy dress and using the P word about a fellow officer to his present enlightened state. The treatment of Meghan both before and after the wedding by the British press and a fair share of the public is the sort of clanging alarm clock that would wake the deepest sleep.

    Woke is a term that has been around for a long time, but more recently gone mainstream. There is a useful article on the history of Woke here:

    https://www.bustle.com/articles/134893-what-does-woke-mean-theres-more-to-the-slang-term-than-you-think
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    edited August 2019
    blueblue said:

    I’d like to see an update of Yougov’s seat model.

    My instinct is that the Conservatives would lose further seats in London to Labour, and some surprising big swings in the Home Counties would lead it losing a number of safe seats to the LDs.

    Meanwhile, only a handful of gains in the Midlands and the North would materialise.

    So, i could see Boris on 250-260 seats and LoTO in rather short order.

    If you're right, could you please tell me why in the name of holy **** we're doing Brexit (as Conservatives)? If we're going to break the economy, and the Union, and lose the next election anyway! What a disaster for the ages!
    As if the Tories do not do Brexit the Brexit Party will wipe them out. Even 260 seats would be 100 more than the Tories got in 1997, if the Tories don't do Brexit they would be lucky to get 60 seats

    Plus we have had scaremongering on the economy before and only 46% of Scots back independence on the Ashcroft poll including Don't Knows
  • Options
    mattmatt Posts: 3,789

    kle4 said:

    It’s very concerning.

    Of course, we’ll do precisely nothing about it.
    Of course we wont. What do you want us to do? Even stern words against China is pushing it for us these days and they know it.
    Coordinated economic and political pressure amongst all Western countries through backchannels into China. Public won’t work as they’re all about face.

    Make clear if the Bill isn’t dropped a few deals and trading arrangements will be dropped, and a few other Chinese visas and investments dropped.
    I despair of the level of political and historical ignorance generally and specifically here. What anniversary is celebrated on 1 October and how might it affect Xi thought? The final point is of course and oxymoron but an important one.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    viewcode said:

    dixiedean said:

    Chris said:

    Scott_P said:
    Let's just hope that includes upper-class users of hard drugs!
    Would be amusing, and satisfying, were the crackdown to begin with a rolling series of raids on newspapers, City trading houses and the BBCs Christmas parties.
    Rich. Brits. Don't. Get. Arrested.

    :(
    Archer, Aitken, Harris and Clifford beg to differ
  • Options
    Chris said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:
    Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
    I can see both sides of this. Repeatedly being stopped and searched whilst going about my lawful business would get intensely annoying, and should be avoided.

    On the other hand, we do have a significant problem with knife and other crimes, and stop and search is probably a helpful tool to reduce it.

    The question is how to get the benefits of the latter whilst reducing the former.
    That involves trusting the police’s judgment. Now look at Operation Midland and ask yourself if you want police with that level of judgment deciding whether to stop and search repeatedly your sons on their nights out.
    It is worse than that. Suppose PC Dixon is quite right to stop and search young Winston. All by the book. Everyone is happy. Winston goes on his way.

    Whatever it was about Winston that triggered that perfectly correct search is still there.

    He will be stopped by every copper he meets on his way home from the table tennis tournament at the church youth club.

    And half a dozen perfectly reasonable and entirely lawful searches later, Winston is just about ready to torch Scotland Yard.
    I don't see why.

    I went through a few months when I got pulled over by the Police for a breathalyser test on an almost weekly basis. Nothing suspicious or different with my driving, though I worked nights - and had done for years - but kept getting checked then going on my way.

    Never made me want to be aggressive with the Police. I'd rather be inconvenienced with a breathalyser than in a collision with a drunk.
    You're saying innocent people are just as likely to be stopped and searched as black people?
    WTAF? Have you no shame?
  • Options
    houndtanghoundtang Posts: 450

    A summary of Lucas’ full statement: I’ve exposed myself as a racist sham by digging a hole for myself. I’ve no idea how to get out of this hole, so I’ll just keep digging myself in deeper.

    "Austerity loving Jo and Anna are my new chums"

    Woke-dom is an arms-race with no victors.
  • Options

    Dont BAME me!!!


    Caroline Lucas
    2 hrs ·
    Thank you for all the comments on my proposal. I wanted to start a debate, and that’s certainly happened. But I know that it’s thrown up important questions about who is on this list, why all women and why no people of colour.

    An all-white list of women isn’t right. I should have reached out further and thought more deeply about who, and what kind of politics, an all-white list represents. I apologise.

    Excluding 18% of the population - unacceptable, I apologise.
    Excluding 50% of the population - acceptable, that was deliberate.
  • Options
    ZephyrZephyr Posts: 438
    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That’s because the sentencing guidelines already say that people convicted of offences of violence or serious sexual offences should not be released unless they are judged no longer a danger to the public. So the PM is restating what is currently the law or perhaps he does not understand what the current law or, possibly, he’s just doing some PR bollocks to disguise the fact that he’s not actually doing the stuff that needs to be done to make sure the criminal justice system works as effectively as it should.

    He is saying that 'yer criminals' should be banged up for longer. Less of this parole and early release nonsense, that's for softies. Let em rot in there.

    Alf Garnett lives.

    Wonder if Alf would be up for some No Deal? Sense he would.
    Ignore the polling, Bojo flagging this up is not a vote winner for him. In the first week of an autumn GE it will explode in his face. Quite simply, which party has been in power since 2010, what have they promised on law and order and funding every year since 2010, what have they actually done in spite of that rhetoric and promises every year since 2010.

    It’s much like the NHS, which done for the Tories in 97, on this one your party’s promises and rhetoric are meaningless, you will be judged at the GE on your party’s record Bojo
  • Options
    mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    Zephyr said:

    nichomar said:

    Some time ago I had the pleasure of listening to a radio interview with the former head of the NYPD, who oversaw the dramatic and famous decline of violence in NY under the then Mayor (Guiliani, I think.)

    He was specifically asked about Stop and Search. He wasn't entirely dismissive and suggested it depended how it was done, but in his experience it caused more problems than it solved. He had a simpler and novel remedy. More money. Huge funds were poured into dealing with the problem, and at all levels - from more police to better probation and after care for released prisoners, as well as an improvement in the justice system generally.

    Sounded reasonable to me.

    Just need to look at the reduction of funding for youth facilities to find the real reason for street crime.
    Actually, reducing the number of school exclusions is my first act on becoming prime minister. There isn’t one magic bullet that can solve this, but school exclusions is gasoline to the fire.
    Perhaps, except if your children are at a school where education is compromised by a requirement to keep the disruptors around.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,590

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That’s because the sentencing guidelines already say that people convicted of offences of violence or serious sexual offences should not be released unless they are judged no longer a danger to the public. So the PM is restating what is currently the law or perhaps he does not understand what the current law or, possibly, he’s just doing some PR bollocks to disguise the fact that he’s not actually doing the stuff that needs to be done to make sure the criminal justice system works as effectively as it should.

    He is saying that 'yer criminals' should be banged up for longer. Less of this parole and early release nonsense, that's for softies. Let em rot in there.

    Alf Garnett lives.

    Wonder if Alf would be up for some No Deal? Sense he would.
    But in Alf's day the leading Tories were Heath, Maudling et al who had some humanity, similar views to Gauke and Stewart. As I think Richard Nabavi of this parish said, Stewart's a standard pre-1979 Tory.

    I think Alf's children will vote UKIP or Bxt. Sadly there is a 'market' for a racist, 'send the darkies home, hang 'em, flog 'em, castrate rapists, etc' party but strangely for one that believes in the NHS and a welfare state for the 'deserving poor'.

    Aaargh ... the answer is educate, educate, educate but it never seems to be enough.
    As I remember it Alf Garnetts daughter married a hippie softie who may well be contemporaneous with Corbyn. Indeed most of the supposed "Comedy" came from their clash of values.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,189
    Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?
  • Options
    ZephyrZephyr Posts: 438
    HYUFD said:
    Already been posted when you were having a screen break, HY. And my post at 6.34 dismantles that spin.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,954
    Stop & Search is like Grammar Schools. It's an idea that is popular in the abstract.

    You see, grammar schools are great when your kids go to grammar schools. But when they end up at a secondary mod, then suddenly you don't like grammar schools any more.

    Stop & search is the same. If it's other people being searched, that's good, and that's crime being prevented. When it's you and your mates being stopped by the police, then suddenly it's not so much fun.

    Like all these things, there'll be a pendulum. In two years, we'll be moaning about police harrasment. And then we'll swing back, probably too far, the other way.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,304
    matt said:

    kle4 said:

    It’s very concerning.

    Of course, we’ll do precisely nothing about it.
    Of course we wont. What do you want us to do? Even stern words against China is pushing it for us these days and they know it.
    Coordinated economic and political pressure amongst all Western countries through backchannels into China. Public won’t work as they’re all about face.

    Make clear if the Bill isn’t dropped a few deals and trading arrangements will be dropped, and a few other Chinese visas and investments dropped.
    I despair of the level of political and historical ignorance generally and specifically here. What anniversary is celebrated on 1 October and how might it affect Xi thought? The final point is of course and oxymoron but an important one.
    What do you suggest we do?
  • Options
    tlg86 said:

    Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?

    No, I gave my anecdote downthread
  • Options
    ZephyrZephyr Posts: 438

    Dont BAME me!!!


    Caroline Lucas
    2 hrs ·
    Thank you for all the comments on my proposal. I wanted to start a debate, and that’s certainly happened. But I know that it’s thrown up important questions about who is on this list, why all women and why no people of colour.

    An all-white list of women isn’t right. I should have reached out further and thought more deeply about who, and what kind of politics, an all-white list represents. I apologise.

    Excluding 18% of the population - unacceptable, I apologise.
    Excluding 50% of the population - acceptable, that was deliberate.
    She’s trashed her share price in my eyes. And probably many others taking a different look at her too.
  • Options
    mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    edited August 2019
    H

    matt said:

    kle4 said:

    It’s very concerning.

    Of course, we’ll do precisely nothing about it.
    Of course we wont. What do you want us to do? Even stern words against China is pushing it for us these days and they know it.
    Coordinated economic and political pressure amongst all Western countries through backchannels into China. Public won’t work as they’re all about face.

    Make clear if the Bill isn’t dropped a few deals and trading arrangements will be dropped, and a few other Chinese visas and investments dropped.
    I despair of the level of political and historical ignorance generally and specifically here. What anniversary is celebrated on 1 October and how might it affect Xi thought? The final point is of course and oxymoron but an important one.
    What do you suggest we do?
    Threaten them personally. Xi’s family is, I understand, surprisingly wealthy given his bureaucrat background. In the current anti-corruption drive, wide-ranging and detailed exposure would be embarrassing.

    Edit- my comment wasn’t aimed at you per se. It’s the 70th anniversary of the CCP coming to power on 1/October. If people think that they will tolerate threats, they are fools. In the medium term HK is fuck*d, as is Taiwan.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,304
    blueblue said:

    I’d like to see an update of Yougov’s seat model.

    My instinct is that the Conservatives would lose further seats in London to Labour, and some surprising big swings in the Home Counties would lead it losing a number of safe seats to the LDs.

    Meanwhile, only a handful of gains in the Midlands and the North would materialise.

    So, i could see Boris on 250-260 seats and LoTO in rather short order.

    If you're right, could you please tell me why in the name of holy **** we're doing Brexit (as Conservatives)? If we're going to break the economy, and the Union, and lose the next election anyway! What a disaster for the ages!
    It’s a good question.

    Boxed into a corner by idiots on both sides, I guess.
  • Options
    Zephyr said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That’s because the sentencing guidelines already say that people convicted of offences of violence or serious sexual offences should not be released unless they are judged no longer a danger to the public. So the PM is restating what is currently the law or perhaps he does not understand what the current law or, possibly, he’s just doing some PR bollocks to disguise the fact that he’s not actually doing the stuff that needs to be done to make sure the criminal justice system works as effectively as it should.

    He is saying that 'yer criminals' should be banged up for longer. Less of this parole and early release nonsense, that's for softies. Let em rot in there.

    Alf Garnett lives.

    Wonder if Alf would be up for some No Deal? Sense he would.
    Ignore the polling, Bojo flagging this up is not a vote winner for him. In the first week of an autumn GE it will explode in his face. Quite simply, which party has been in power since 2010, what have they promised on law and order and funding every year since 2010, what have they actually done in spite of that rhetoric and promises every year since 2010.

    It’s much like the NHS, which done for the Tories in 97, on this one your party’s promises and rhetoric are meaningless, you will be judged at the GE on your party’s record Bojo
    Disagreed. Under May that was a bigger issue since before being PM she was Home Secretary so she was responsible for law and order for all 9 years.

    The public will quite rightly recognise that Boris is not May/Cameron and neither is Patel. Plus the opposition is Corbyn and Abbott.

    I think if the public look at Patel and Abbott they will see clear differences on law and order.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,256
    tlg86 said:

    Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?

    No, I was, behind Kings Cross Station (after the redevelopment, I hasten to add). When I asked why, the PC told me he needed some white people to balance the numbers.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,304
    matt said:

    H

    matt said:

    kle4 said:

    It’s very concerning.

    Of course, we’ll do precisely nothing about it.
    Of course we wont. What do you want us to do? Even stern words against China is pushing it for us these days and they know it.
    Coordinated economic and political pressure amongst all Western countries through backchannels into China. Public won’t work as they’re all about face.

    Make clear if the Bill isn’t dropped a few deals and trading arrangements will be dropped, and a few other Chinese visas and investments dropped.
    I despair of the level of political and historical ignorance generally and specifically here. What anniversary is celebrated on 1 October and how might it affect Xi thought? The final point is of course and oxymoron but an important one.
    What do you suggest we do?
    Threaten them personally. Xi’s family is, I understand, surprisingly wealthy given his bureaucrat background. In the current anti-corruption drive, exposure would be embarrassing.
    Personal economic sanctions aren’t a bad idea and have worked well with Russia.

    I’d suggest the West deleverages its strategic dependence on China for manufactured goods and funding over a 10-20 year period as well.

    It’s going to be a very long game.
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    HYUFD said:

    Yorkcity said:

    No just the opposite.
    Johnson will own it for good or bad.
    Corbyn on the latest Yougov will vote the lowest Labour voteshare since 1918 and the lowest Labour seat total since 1935, so yes No Deal could be the end of Corbyn too if the LDs replace Labour as the main party of the centre left which is possible if Corbynism retains its hold over Labour
    Big if ?
    Swinson has more centre right credentials with her coalition past.
    I would not say the Lib Dems under her leadership are centre left.
    What policies suggest she is centre left ?
  • Options
    HYUFD said:
    I must be missing the point. Harris is passing on best wishes to Muslims celebrating a day special to them, she isn't claiming to be one herself. There's no reason you can't say that, then an hour later was down a pork chop with a glass of wine.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,850
    tlg86 said:

    Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?

    PB is almost as Pale and Stale as a Caroline Lucas Cabinet
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    Zephyr said:

    HYUFD said:
    Already been posted when you were having a screen break, HY. And my post at 6.34 dismantles that spin.
    We had a liberal government from 2010 to 2015 that was conservative on economics, we had a slightly conservative government from 2015 to 2019, only now are we going to get a conservative government prepared to get tough on crime
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,189

    tlg86 said:

    Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?

    No, I gave my anecdote downthread
    Your experience sounds quite different to mine. To be fair to the police they had reasonable grounds as I happened to be the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. This was the crime (it wasn't me):

    https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/man-arrested-over-post-office-4824486

    My biggest complaint is on the form they give you they put my height at 5'9'' when I'm 6'1''!
  • Options
    FlannerFlanner Posts: 408
    HYUFD said:

    blueblue said:

    I’d like to see an update of Yougov’s seat model.

    My instinct is that the Conservatives would lose further seats in London to Labour, and some surprising big swings in the Home Counties would lead it losing a number of safe seats to the LDs.

    Meanwhile, only a handful of gains in the Midlands and the North would materialise.

    So, i could see Boris on 250-260 seats and LoTO in rather short order.

    If you're right, could you please tell me why in the name of holy **** we're doing Brexit (as Conservatives)? If we're going to break the economy, and the Union, and lose the next election anyway! What a disaster for the ages!
    As if the Tories do not do Brexit the Brexit Party will wipe them out. Even 260 seats would be 100 more than the Tories got in 1997, if the Tories don't do Brexit they would be lucky to get 60 seats

    Plus we have had scaremongering on the economy before and only 46% of Scots back independence on the Ashcroft poll including Don't Knows
    "if the Tories do not do Brexit, the Brexit Party will wipe them out"

    Like they wiped out Labour at Peterborough and the LibDems in Brecon and Gloucester Town? All places that voted Leave, remember.

    When will you people learn? Farage - like his sidekick Tice - is plain incompetent in real elections. Great at rabble-rousing in glorified opinion polls: but when it comes to selecting councillors or MPs to represent a constituency's interests in a real legislature, he's useless.

    It's one thing to want to destroy our economy and the United Kingdon because you're all too arrogantly up yourselves - and too removed from the real world - to realise the damage No Deal will do. But to do it because you're frightened of a posturing ninny who couldn't win Peterborough against a proven liar a week after the Euros?

    Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first strip of all political judgement...

  • Options
    ZephyrZephyr Posts: 438

    Zephyr said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That’s because the sentencing guidelines already say that people convicted of offences of violence or serious sexual offences should not be released unless they are judged no longer a danger to the public. So the PM is restating what is currently the law or perhaps he does not understand what the current law or, possibly, he’s just doing some PR bollocks to disguise the fact that he’s not actually doing the stuff that needs to be done to make sure the criminal justice system works as effectively as it should.

    He is saying that 'yer criminals' should be banged up for longer. Less of this parole and early release nonsense, that's for softies. Let em rot in there.

    Alf Garnett lives.

    Wonder if Alf would be up for some No Deal? Sense he would.
    Ignore the polling, Bojo flagging this up is not a vote winner for him. In the first week of an autumn GE it will explode in his face. Quite simply, which party has been in power since 2010, what have they promised on law and order and funding every year since 2010, what have they actually done in spite of that rhetoric and promises every year since 2010.

    It’s much like the NHS, which done for the Tories in 97, on this one your party’s promises and rhetoric are meaningless, you will be judged at the GE on your party’s record Bojo
    Disagreed. Under May that was a bigger issue since before being PM she was Home Secretary so she was responsible for law and order for all 9 years.

    The public will quite rightly recognise that Boris is not May/Cameron and neither is Patel. Plus the opposition is Corbyn and Abbott.

    I think if the public look at Patel and Abbott they will see clear differences on law and order.
    Lol 😆. You are trying to get away with there has already been a change of government. The records wiped clean.

    No chance 😂
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,304
    tlg86 said:

    Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?


    I’ve been pulled over at night whilst driving with a friend on a Saturday night when I was much younger.

    Wasn’t breathalysed or anything. He looked like he was trying to catch me out on licence, insurance and road tax to me.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    Zephyr said:

    Zephyr said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That’s because the sentencing guidelines already say that people convicted of offences of violence or serious sexual offences should not be released unless they are judged no longer a danger to the public. So the PM is restating what is currently the law or perhaps he does not understand what the current law or, possibly, he’s just doing some PR bollocks to disguise the fact that he’s not actually doing the stuff that needs to be done to make sure the criminal justice system works as effectively as it should.

    He is saying that 'yer criminals' should be banged up for longer. Less of this parole and early release nonsense, that's for softies. Let em rot in there.

    Alf Garnett lives.

    Wonder if Alf would be up for some No Deal? Sense he would.
    Ignore the polling, Bojo flagging this up is not a vote winner for him. In the first week of an autumn GE it will explode in his face. Quite simply, which party has been in power since 2010, what have they promised on law and order and funding every year since 2010, what have they actually done in spite of that rhetoric and promises every year since 2010.

    It’s much like the NHS, which done for the Tories in 97, on this one your party’s promises and rhetoric are meaningless, you will be judged at the GE on your party’s record Bojo
    Disagreed. Under May that was a bigger issue since before being PM she was Home Secretary so she was responsible for law and order for all 9 years.

    The public will quite rightly recognise that Boris is not May/Cameron and neither is Patel. Plus the opposition is Corbyn and Abbott.

    I think if the public look at Patel and Abbott they will see clear differences on law and order.
    Lol 😆. You are trying to get away with there has already been a change of government. The records wiped clean.

    No chance 😂
    Swings to the Tories from Labour in all the latest polls beg to differ
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,189

    tlg86 said:

    Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?


    I’ve been pulled over at night whilst driving with a friend on a Saturday night when I was much younger.

    Wasn’t breathalysed or anything. He looked like he was trying to catch me out on licence, insurance and road tax to me.
    I regularly drive my dad and his friends to and from the pub on Friday nights. In 15 years of driving I have not once been pulled over by the police. To be honest, I hardly ever see them around where I live.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,181
    HYUFD said:
    Does some thick as pig shit aide like Cummings Johnson mean 'ignore the result?'

    You can't cancel an event that's taken place,
  • Options
    ZephyrZephyr Posts: 438
    HYUFD said:

    Zephyr said:

    Zephyr said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That’s because the sentencing guidelines already say that people convicted of offences of violence or serious sexual offences should not be released unless they are judged no longer a danger to the public. So the PM is restating what is currently the law or perhaps he does not understand what the current law or, possibly, he’s just doing some PR bollocks to disguise the fact that he’s not actually doing the stuff that needs to be done to make sure the criminal justice system works as effectively as it should.

    He is saying that 'yer criminals' should be banged up for longer. Less of this parole and early release nonsense, that's for softies. Let em rot in there.

    Alf Garnett lives.

    Wonder if Alf would be up for some No Deal? Sense he would.
    Ignore the polling, Bojo flagging this up is not a vote winner for him. In the first week of an autumn GE it will explode in his face. Quite simply, which party has been in power since 2010, what have they promised on law and order and funding every year since 2010, what have they actually done in spite of that rhetoric and promises every year since 2010.

    It’s much like the NHS, which done for the Tories in 97, on this one your party’s promises and rhetoric are meaningless, you will be judged at the GE on your party’s record Bojo
    Disagreed. Under May that was a bigger issue since before being PM she was Home Secretary so she was responsible for law and order for all 9 years.

    The public will quite rightly recognise that Boris is not May/Cameron and neither is Patel. Plus the opposition is Corbyn and Abbott.

    I think if the public look at Patel and Abbott they will see clear differences on law and order.
    Lol 😆. You are trying to get away with there has already been a change of government. The records wiped clean.

    No chance 😂
    Swings to the Tories from Labour in all the latest polls beg to differ
    Boris and his cabinet need to be there two years. They need to deliver on this rhetoric, and then they stand a chance of calling a general election that won’t blow up in their faces.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,304

    Dont BAME me!!!


    Caroline Lucas
    2 hrs ·
    Thank you for all the comments on my proposal. I wanted to start a debate, and that’s certainly happened. But I know that it’s thrown up important questions about who is on this list, why all women and why no people of colour.

    An all-white list of women isn’t right. I should have reached out further and thought more deeply about who, and what kind of politics, an all-white list represents. I apologise.

    She’s still digging then.

  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,590
    tlg86 said:

    Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?

    I have been.

    Also wrongly threatened with arrest. Both times the police changed completely when they learned I was a doctor.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    Yorkcity said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yorkcity said:

    No just the opposite.
    Johnson will own it for good or bad.
    Corbyn on the latest Yougov will vote the lowest Labour voteshare since 1918 and the lowest Labour seat total since 1935, so yes No Deal could be the end of Corbyn too if the LDs replace Labour as the main party of the centre left which is possible if Corbynism retains its hold over Labour
    Big if ?
    Swinson has more centre right credentials with her coalition past.
    I would not say the Lib Dems under her leadership are centre left.
    What policies suggest she is centre left ?
    It would probably take Umunna as LD leader to complete the process, though Swinson has started it.

    Remember Chuka was part of Ed Miliband's Shadow Cabinet when the Coalition was pursuing austerity so has more reach to Labour voters than Swinson beyond diehard Remainers
  • Options
    surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    Zephyr said:

    AndyJS said:

    Hong Kong airport departures page. Mostly cancelled.

    https://www.hongkongairport.com/en/flights/departures/passenger.page

    The opposition groups in Honk Kong haven’t a clue who is leading the protests. It’s not that the traditional opposition are too moderate or weak, but storming the parliament, and ratcheting up aggression and violence, just not a sensible way to achieve progress on your aims. The original proposal that sparked it off was withdrawn weeks ago.

    Chinese black ops cannot be ruled out. If you roll this forward, unless the escalating disturbances suddenly stop, there can only be one clear winner.
    It will be like Prague 1968. I hope it won't be bloody. Prague '68 thankfully wasn't very bloody.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,952
    tlg86 said:

    Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?

    Three times.
  • Options

    tlg86 said:

    Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?


    I’ve been pulled over at night whilst driving with a friend on a Saturday night when I was much younger.

    Wasn’t breathalysed or anything. He looked like he was trying to catch me out on licence, insurance and road tax to me.
    Wow you've only been pulled over once?

    I've not been pulled over in a few years [since I stopped working nights], but I was probably stopped 20-30 times over a decade [and almost weekly over a few month period].

    I think it depends how professionally its done as well. If the officer concerned is polite and professional then its going to go down a lot better than if they're rude and confrontational and treating you as presumed guilty before they find anything.
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    This morning we witnessed what I would describe as a coordinated attack on one of our thread authors, cyclefree with collateral attacks on Alister Meeks by two or three, relatively new posters. The site I believe welcomes alternative views but could the detractors try writing thread headers explaining why their version of no deal etc will be brilliant or take the trouble to explain how WTO brexit will pan out so we can discuss it. They could also explain why they support disaster capitalists who want to hide their wealth from the tax authorities. If that’s not enough ideas maybe they could tell us why the people in the NE will be better off after brexit.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,182
    IanB2 said:

    No, I was, behind Kings Cross Station (after the redevelopment, I hasten to add). When I asked why, the PC told me he needed some white people to balance the numbers.

    LOL - classic.

    Good job you weren't carrying.

    I have never been stopped and searched here but I once was in Belgium. And that involved a hand up where the sun does not shine. They really took my civil liberties.
  • Options
    Zephyr said:

    Zephyr said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That’s because the sentencing guidelines already say that people convicted of offences of violence or serious sexual offences should not be released unless they are judged no longer a danger to the public. So the PM is restating what is currently the law or perhaps he does not understand what the current law or, possibly, he’s just doing some PR bollocks to disguise the fact that he’s not actually doing the stuff that needs to be done to make sure the criminal justice system works as effectively as it should.

    He is saying that 'yer criminals' should be banged up for longer. Less of this parole and early release nonsense, that's for softies. Let em rot in there.

    Alf Garnett lives.

    Wonder if Alf would be up for some No Deal? Sense he would.
    Ignore the polling, Bojo flagging this up is not a vote winner for him. In the first week of an autumn GE it will explode in his face. Quite simply, which party has been in power since 2010, what have they promised on law and order and funding every year since 2010, what have they actually done in spite of that rhetoric and promises every year since 2010.

    It’s much like the NHS, which done for the Tories in 97, on this one your party’s promises and rhetoric are meaningless, you will be judged at the GE on your party’s record Bojo
    Disagreed. Under May that was a bigger issue since before being PM she was Home Secretary so she was responsible for law and order for all 9 years.

    The public will quite rightly recognise that Boris is not May/Cameron and neither is Patel. Plus the opposition is Corbyn and Abbott.

    I think if the public look at Patel and Abbott they will see clear differences on law and order.
    Lol 😆. You are trying to get away with there has already been a change of government. The records wiped clean.

    No chance 😂
    You think the public concerned with Laura Norder are going to swing behind Diane Abbott? 😂😂😂😂

    How did you do that emoji, I just copied and pasted yours.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,952
    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That’s because the sentencing guidelines already say that people convicted of offences of violence or serious sexual offences should not be released unless they are judged no longer a danger to the public. So the PM is restating what is currently the law or perhaps he does not understand what the current law or, possibly, he’s just doing some PR bollocks to disguise the fact that he’s not actually doing the stuff that needs to be done to make sure the criminal justice system works as effectively as it should.

    He is saying that 'yer criminals' should be banged up for longer. Less of this parole and early release nonsense, that's for softies. Let em rot in there.

    Alf Garnett lives.

    Wonder if Alf would be up for some No Deal? Sense he would.
    But in Alf's day the leading Tories were Heath, Maudling et al who had some humanity, similar views to Gauke and Stewart. As I think Richard Nabavi of this parish said, Stewart's a standard pre-1979 Tory.

    I think Alf's children will vote UKIP or Bxt. Sadly there is a 'market' for a racist, 'send the darkies home, hang 'em, flog 'em, castrate rapists, etc' party but strangely for one that believes in the NHS and a welfare state for the 'deserving poor'.

    Aaargh ... the answer is educate, educate, educate but it never seems to be enough.
    As I remember it Alf Garnetts daughter married a hippie softie who may well be contemporaneous with Corbyn. Indeed most of the supposed "Comedy" came from their clash of values.
    That was Cherie Blairs Dad!
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    edited August 2019
    Flanner said:

    HYUFD said:

    blueblue said:

    I’d like to see an update of Yougov’s seat model.

    My instinct is that the Conservatives would lose further seats in London to Labour, and some surprising big swings in the Home Counties would lead it losing a number of safe seats to the LDs.

    Meanwhile, only a handful of gains in the Midlands and the North would materialise.

    So, i could see Boris on 250-260 seats and LoTO in rather short order.

    If you're right, could you please tell me why in the name of holy **** we're doing Brexit (as Conservatives)? If we're going to break the economy, and the Union, and lose the next election anyway! What a disaster for the ages!
    As if the Tories do not do Brexit the Brexit Party will wipe them out. Even 260 seats would be 100 more than the Tories got in 1997, if the Tories don't do Brexit they would be lucky to get 60 seats

    Plus we have had scaremongering on the economy before and only 46% of Scots back independence on the Ashcroft poll including Don't Knows
    "if the Tories do not do Brexit, the Brexit Party will wipe them out"

    Like they wiped out Labour at Peterborough and the LibDems in Brecon and Gloucester Town? All places that voted Leave, remember.

    When will you people learn? Farage - like his sidekick Tice - is plain incompetent in real elections. Great at rabble-rousing in glorified opinion polls: but when it comes to selecting councillors or MPs to represent a constituency's interests in a real legislature, he's useless.

    It's one thing to want to destroy our economy and the United Kingdon because you're all too arrogantly up yourselves - and too removed from the real world - to realise the damage No Deal will do. But to do it because you're frightened of a posturing ninny who couldn't win Peterborough against a proven liar a week after the Euros?

    Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first strip of all political judgement...

    The Brexit Party beat the Tories in Peterborough and the European elections under May remember, Brecon was under Boris committed to deliver Brexit even with No Deal.

    If we listened to diehard Remainers like you the Tories could collapse back to the 9% they got in the European Parliament elections and as I said there is no clear evidence both the economy and the Union cannot survive No Deal
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,854

    Dont BAME me!!!


    Caroline Lucas
    2 hrs ·
    Thank you for all the comments on my proposal. I wanted to start a debate, and that’s certainly happened. But I know that it’s thrown up important questions about who is on this list, why all women and why no people of colour.

    An all-white list of women isn’t right. I should have reached out further and thought more deeply about who, and what kind of politics, an all-white list represents. I apologise.

    Excluding 18% of the population - unacceptable, I apologise.
    Excluding 50% of the population - acceptable, that was deliberate.
    Is 18% of women being non white not a bit high of an estimate , serious question.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,590
    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?

    No, I was, behind Kings Cross Station (after the redevelopment, I hasten to add). When I asked why, the PC told me he needed some white people to balance the numbers.
    My brother had that once in suit with briefcase. When stopped he asked the PC if he really matched the description of the alleged villain. The PC went rather bashful.

    It is not just a race thing, ask white working class youths and you find many have been on the receiving end, though less so than their BME peers.

    I have little doubt it will be popular with older white voters wanting populist solutions to vote for, and that is the intention.
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Xtrain said:

    IanB2 said:

    eek said:

    Xtrain said:

    Surely he must be tempted to go sooner while Corbyn is still in post and the opposition is split. I can't see BP being much of a threat if he is advocating WTO Brexit.

    The tories will lose most of their 13 Scottish seats and a few in the home counties.

    Where do they get their new seats from?
    Bolsover.
    Start with some of the 28 gains Labour made from the Cons last time. Maybe not the London seats but Canterbury, Stockton South and many Lab/Con marginals should all be easy with a modest resurgence in the Libs vote.
    Those MPs can reasonably expect a first term incumbency boost. On the basis of the latest Opinium poll very few would be lost - and would be more than offset by Tory losses to the LibDems and SNP.
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,298
    With his massive spending commitments and populist, draconian crime policies, Boris is clearly aiming to turn the Tories into a latterday New Labour with him as Tone. He’s doing his Iraq, namely Brexit, early on in the piece though, in the hope that it’ll be forgotten.
  • Options
    ZephyrZephyr Posts: 438
    HYUFD said:

    Zephyr said:

    HYUFD said:
    Already been posted when you were having a screen break, HY. And my post at 6.34 dismantles that spin.
    We had a liberal government from 2010 to 2015 that was conservative on economics, we had a slightly conservative government from 2015 to 2019, only now are we going to get a conservative government prepared to get tough on crime
    Nice story. Elements of truth. But not how it works HY. 😁
  • Options
    malcolmg said:

    Dont BAME me!!!


    Caroline Lucas
    2 hrs ·
    Thank you for all the comments on my proposal. I wanted to start a debate, and that’s certainly happened. But I know that it’s thrown up important questions about who is on this list, why all women and why no people of colour.

    An all-white list of women isn’t right. I should have reached out further and thought more deeply about who, and what kind of politics, an all-white list represents. I apologise.

    Excluding 18% of the population - unacceptable, I apologise.
    Excluding 50% of the population - acceptable, that was deliberate.
    Is 18% of women being non white not a bit high of an estimate , serious question.
    Good question. I just Googled "what percentage of the UK is white" and the answer came back 81.9% which I rounded.

    I don't know if there is a gender split on ethnicities, I would assume any split there is would be relatively minor - though I imagine if any it would be more BAME men and fewer women. But I doubt it will vary far from 18%
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052

    eek said:

    https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1160917046181453826

    Ah, yes, those two titans of world trade expertise exchanging views on tariffs.

    We are lucky to have them.

    err right

    like Obama or god help us George W Bush were just brilliant at all such issues
    At least the latter Presidents tried to increase international trade rather than starting ill judged trade wars..
    Ah yes, that drive to close down industries and transfer jobs to China with nothing to put in their place but gig economy paycuts and CEO bonus hikes worked so well.

    Therein lie the roots of Trump and Farage, you reap what you sow.
    Your own children had vastly more opportunities in life than you did and you seem to have made it your mission to take aware those opportunities from other people's children.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,854

    malcolmg said:

    Dont BAME me!!!


    Caroline Lucas
    2 hrs ·
    Thank you for all the comments on my proposal. I wanted to start a debate, and that’s certainly happened. But I know that it’s thrown up important questions about who is on this list, why all women and why no people of colour.

    An all-white list of women isn’t right. I should have reached out further and thought more deeply about who, and what kind of politics, an all-white list represents. I apologise.

    Excluding 18% of the population - unacceptable, I apologise.
    Excluding 50% of the population - acceptable, that was deliberate.
    Is 18% of women being non white not a bit high of an estimate , serious question.
    Good question. I just Googled "what percentage of the UK is white" and the answer came back 81.9% which I rounded.

    I don't know if there is a gender split on ethnicities, I would assume any split there is would be relatively minor - though I imagine if any it would be more BAME men and fewer women. But I doubt it will vary far from 18%
    I am amazed it is 18% though that may just be ignorance due to it being seriously lower in Scotland at 4%.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    edited August 2019
    justin124 said:

    Xtrain said:

    IanB2 said:

    eek said:

    Xtrain said:

    Surely he must be tempted to go sooner while Corbyn is still in post and the opposition is split. I can't see BP being much of a threat if he is advocating WTO Brexit.

    The tories will lose most of their 13 Scottish seats and a few in the home counties.

    Where do they get their new seats from?
    Bolsover.
    Start with some of the 28 gains Labour made from the Cons last time. Maybe not the London seats but Canterbury, Stockton South and many Lab/Con marginals should all be easy with a modest resurgence in the Libs vote.
    Those MPs can reasonably expect a first term incumbency boost. On the basis of the latest Opinium poll very few would be lost - and would be more than offset by Tory losses to the LibDems and SNP.
    Why should first term Tory MPs in Scotland not also get an incumbency boost? Plus most of the top Tory target seats from Labour were not won by Labour only in 2017
  • Options
    ZephyrZephyr Posts: 438

    Zephyr said:

    Zephyr said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That’s because the sentencing guidelines already say that people convicted of offences of violence or serious sexual offences should not be released unless they are judged no longer a danger to the public. So the PM is restating what is currently the law or perhaps he does not understand what the current law or, possibly, he’s just doing some PR bollocks to disguise the fact that he’s not actually doing the stuff that needs to be done to make sure the criminal justice system works as effectively as it should.

    He is saying that 'yer criminals' should be banged up for longer. Less of this parole and early release nonsense, that's for softies. Let em rot in there.

    Alf Garnett lives.

    Wonder if Alf would be up for some No Deal? Sense he would.
    Ignore the polling, Bojo flagging this up is not a vote winner for him. In the first week of an autumn GE it will explode in his face. Quite simply, which party has been in power since 2010, what have they promised on law and order and funding every year since 2010, what have they actually done in spite of that rhetoric and promises every year since 2010.

    It’s much like the NHS, which done for the Tories in 97, on this one your party’s promises and rhetoric are meaningless, you will be judged at the GE on your party’s record Bojo
    Disagreed. Under May that was a bigger issue since before being PM she was Home Secretary so she was responsible for law and order for all 9 years.

    The public will quite rightly recognise that Boris is not May/Cameron and neither is Patel. Plus the opposition is Corbyn and Abbott.

    I think if the public look at Patel and Abbott they will see clear differences on law and order.
    Lol 😆. You are trying to get away with there has already been a change of government. The records wiped clean.

    No chance 😂
    You think the public concerned with Laura Norder are going to swing behind Diane Abbott? 😂😂😂😂

    How did you do that emoji, I just copied and pasted yours.
    There’s options other than Diane to switch from the Tory record and comedian prime minister on voting day
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    edited August 2019

    eek said:

    https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1160917046181453826

    Ah, yes, those two titans of world trade expertise exchanging views on tariffs.

    We are lucky to have them.

    err right

    like Obama or god help us George W Bush were just brilliant at all such issues
    At least the latter Presidents tried to increase international trade rather than starting ill judged trade wars..
    Ah yes, that drive to close down industries and transfer jobs to China with nothing to put in their place but gig economy paycuts and CEO bonus hikes worked so well.

    Therein lie the roots of Trump and Farage, you reap what you sow.
    Your own children had vastly more opportunities in life than you did and you seem to have made it your mission to take aware those opportunities from other people's children.
    au contraire

    my children only had opprtiunities because I worked my way up, if I still had the same social station I had at 16 theyd be screwed.

    and as for opportunities, they got ripped off on uni fees and cant afford to buy a house without parental assitance.

    its the Fred Kites like yourself who cant see the crap youve dumped on the younger geberation

  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,854
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Dont BAME me!!!


    Caroline Lucas
    2 hrs ·
    Thank you for all the comments on my proposal. I wanted to start a debate, and that’s certainly happened. But I know that it’s thrown up important questions about who is on this list, why all women and why no people of colour.

    An all-white list of women isn’t right. I should have reached out further and thought more deeply about who, and what kind of politics, an all-white list represents. I apologise.

    Excluding 18% of the population - unacceptable, I apologise.
    Excluding 50% of the population - acceptable, that was deliberate.
    Is 18% of women being non white not a bit high of an estimate , serious question.
    Good question. I just Googled "what percentage of the UK is white" and the answer came back 81.9% which I rounded.

    I don't know if there is a gender split on ethnicities, I would assume any split there is would be relatively minor - though I imagine if any it would be more BAME men and fewer women. But I doubt it will vary far from 18%
    I am amazed it is 18% though that may just be ignorance due to it being seriously lower in Scotland at 4%.
    Seems to be a few different opinions on google , just saw one that gave it as 13%
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,304

    tlg86 said:

    Am I the only PBer who's been stopped and searched?


    I’ve been pulled over at night whilst driving with a friend on a Saturday night when I was much younger.

    Wasn’t breathalysed or anything. He looked like he was trying to catch me out on licence, insurance and road tax to me.
    Wow you've only been pulled over once?

    I've not been pulled over in a few years [since I stopped working nights], but I was probably stopped 20-30 times over a decade [and almost weekly over a few month period].

    I think it depends how professionally its done as well. If the officer concerned is polite and professional then its going to go down a lot better than if they're rude and confrontational and treating you as presumed guilty before they find anything.
    Yes, just the once.

    I think some of the trouble with it is that it can easily seem very personal, unless the officer takes great trouble to explain that it is not so.
  • Options
    ZephyrZephyr Posts: 438

    HYUFD said:
    I must be missing the point. Harris is passing on best wishes to Muslims celebrating a day special to them, she isn't claiming to be one herself. There's no reason you can't say that, then an hour later was down a pork chop with a glass of wine.
    Probably not doing herself any harm with the anti Muslim vote.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,850
    edited August 2019
    malcolmg said:

    Dont BAME me!!!


    Caroline Lucas
    2 hrs ·
    Thank you for all the comments on my proposal. I wanted to start a debate, and that’s certainly happened. But I know that it’s thrown up important questions about who is on this list, why all women and why no people of colour.

    An all-white list of women isn’t right. I should have reached out further and thought more deeply about who, and what kind of politics, an all-white list represents. I apologise.

    Excluding 18% of the population - unacceptable, I apologise.
    Excluding 50% of the population - acceptable, that was deliberate.
    Is 18% of women being non white not a bit high of an estimate , serious question.
    She just said 18% to empahise with DA?
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    HYUFD said:

    Yorkcity said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yorkcity said:

    No just the opposite.
    Johnson will own it for good or bad.
    Corbyn on the latest Yougov will vote the lowest Labour voteshare since 1918 and the lowest Labour seat total since 1935, so yes No Deal could be the end of Corbyn too if the LDs replace Labour as the main party of the centre left which is possible if Corbynism retains its hold over Labour
    Big if ?
    Swinson has more centre right credentials with her coalition past.
    I would not say the Lib Dems under her leadership are centre left.
    What policies suggest she is centre left ?
    It would probably take Umunna as LD leader to complete the process, though Swinson has started it.

    Remember Chuka was part of Ed Miliband's Shadow Cabinet when the Coalition was pursuing austerity so has more reach to Labour voters than Swinson beyond diehard Remainers
    Yes , I would agree with that.
    Chuka has more string to his bow, than just remain.
    Nevertheless , he pulled out of the Labour leadership for personal reasons.So I do not know if he can stand the heat of leadership.
    Also if he can win his current seat , under a different banner.
This discussion has been closed.