UK Politics V - Have We Got News For You

[Takhisis]

So Iceland (the supermarket, not the country) is now selling hot cross buns that have a tick mark instead of a cross and of course a bunch of loons i.e. Jacob ‘I won't read any mail that's not on paper’ Rees-Mogg and the Reform UK Party are moaning about ‘virtue signalling’.

I for one would've loved it if they'd also offered ones with little circles on them so as to be able to play noughts and crosses with them and get… noughty.

 

[Theov]

Everywhere:
* become tolerant for other views
* accept other views
* ban other views

 

[Zardnaar]

So Iceland (the supermarket, not the country) is now selling hot cross buns that have a tick mark instead of a cross and of course a bunch of loons i.e. Jacob ‘I won't read any mail that's not on paper’ Rees-Mogg and the Reform UK Party are moaning about ‘virtue signalling’.

I for one would've loved it if they'd also offered ones with little circles on them so as to be able to play noughts and crosses with them and get… noughty.

Pretty much sold year round here without the cross.

With cross I've seen then on sale in December and into June/July iirc.

 

[innonimatu]

Craig Murray running for parliament. Brits can't say they won't have choices when the election comes. Labour is now fully owned by Tony Blair and his ilk again. But if you want left-wing MP, you have choices. Some of you do, at least.

 

[Gorbles]

Galloway and Murray really are a poisoned chalice, ya know?

 

[Kyriakos]

Corbyn should run too.

 

[innonimatu]

Galloway and Murray really are a poisoned chalice, ya know?

Believing that is what makes you not have nice things. You fall for the propaganda, and see everyone else falling too.

Corbyn wasn't defeated by "anti-semitism" smears or his euroskeptic position, he was defeated for not assuming his actual positions resolutely and shoving aside all the "critics". Weak politicans get no public support. That suits the estabelishment well, they want to keep things as they are, want passive politics, a passive public. It does not suit anyone who wishes to stop this decadence.

 

[Gorbles]

Believing that is what makes you not have nice things. You fall for the propaganda, and see everyone else falling too.

No, I'm just left-leaning on both axes, instead of just one. I wouldn't expect you to understand

 

[innonimatu]

No, I'm just left-leaning on both axes, instead of just one. I wouldn't expect you to understand

I do. But I see priorities.

 

[Gorbles]

You and me both. I'm the one actually voting over here, and all that matters is that the Tories get out. As much as I dislike Starmer and his Labour, stuff comes secondary to that. If I can vote for a more morally-palettable candidate (e.g. if my vote doesn't matter for the seat in question), I always have done.

Do I dislike that that's where we're at? Yes. But you can't simultaneously be pro-priorities and against tactical voting against the Tories. It doesn't work that way.

 

[EvaDK]

What the UK needs is a total overhaul of its political system.

The two-party system has run its course; it's permanently broken. I don't think there is any political will to change it though, because the two-party system will always deposit the power to rule with the strongest party and the strongest party has no motivation to change the status quo.

 

[innonimatu]

You and me both. I'm the one actually voting over here, and all that matters is that the Tories get out. As much as I dislike Starmer and his Labour, stuff comes secondary to that. If I can vote for a more morally-palettable candidate (e.g. if my vote doesn't matter for the seat in question), I always have done.

Do I dislike that that's where we're at? Yes. But you can't simultaneously be pro-priorities and against tactical voting against the Tories. It doesn't work that way.

So who beat the tories (and the blairites)even put together, in the last by-election, do you recall?

 

[Gorbles]

So who beat the tories (and the blairites)even put together, in the last by-election, do you recall?

A by-election is a by-election. What do you even want me to say? I didn't pick Galloway's name out of a hat, yeah?

I was putting him into the post before I'd even got to his name in the article.

 

[Nick723]

On the 1st April in Scotland a new Act will come into force around Hate Crimes.

This article is a bit jumbled but it’s the best I could find of a summary in the press (do let me know if you have a better!)

Hate crime law: Force for good or recipe for disaster?

The new law comes into force next month but already concerns are raised around how it will be enforced.

www.bbc.co.uk

Whatever side of the political debate you’re on, I struggle to see how this is a good idea. In fact I find it fairly chilling as a potential means to shut down debate.
And equally importantly - this for me is the killer line:
Police Scotland has pledged to investigate every hate crime complaint it receives, even though last week the force said it would no longer investigate every "low level" crime in Scotland, including some cases of theft.

What do people think?

 

[Gorbles]

Anything where Joanna Cherry is mentioned, but her own involvement with trans activitists is not detailed, immediately causes me to raise my eyebrow r.e. the impartiality of the piece.

With regards to the law itself, I don't know enough about the facts of the matter north of the border. Petty theft is a low-level crime, which means prioritising a real case of hate crime over it would make sense. I'd imagine if you (the generic you, not aimed at anyone) didn't believe in, say, hate crimes, the balance would be different to you. But raising it merely confirms the slant of the piece to me.

For this thread, all I'll say is "hate crimes" aren't "debate", and that using the law as it exists to intimidate others is a longstanding tactic the police will simply have to rule out on a case by case basis, the same as they already do for any kind of charge that can be similarly abused.

 

[Kyriakos]

Why on the 1st of April?

 

[Nick723]

Anything where Joanna Cherry is mentioned, but her own involvement with trans activitists is not detailed, immediately causes me to raise my eyebrow r.e. the impartiality of the piece.

With regards to the law itself, I don't know enough about the facts of the matter north of the border. Petty theft is a low-level crime, which means prioritising a real case of hate crime over it would make sense. I'd imagine if you (the generic you, not aimed at anyone) didn't believe in, say, hate crimes, the balance would be different to you. But raising it merely confirms the slant of the piece to me.

For this thread, all I'll say is "hate crimes" aren't "debate", and that using the law as it exists to intimidate others is a longstanding tactic the police will simply have to rule out on a case by case basis, the same as they already do for any kind of charge that can be similarly abused.

This is a fair response. I’ll admit I have a higher threshold for ‘hate crimes’ than some.

I take your point about other laws being used to intimidate, but I would say that I think Hate Crime laws are particularly well suited to this purpose because a) they are by nature subjective (hard to prove someone’s motivation) and b) they are career / social life ending (you become a pariah if convicted)

 

[Nick723]

Why on the 1st of April?

Scottish government has a wicked sense of humour?!

 

[Gorbles]

I take your point about other laws being used to intimidate, but I would say that I think Hate Crime laws are particularly well suited to this purpose because a) they are by nature subjective (hard to prove someone’s motivation) and b) they are career / social life ending (you become a pariah if convicted)

Certain folk online would have us believe rape allegations are similarly career-ending, and yet in reality they're not. Smears are generally worked out as smears, and only in the case of an excessively high-profile case are you going to see the magnifying effect of the media cause negative ripples.

I keep on using "you" and "certain folk" and honestly this isn't a dig at anyone here on CFC. It's just that the Internet contains multitudes and being Excessively Online, I know from experience that some of those multitudes are, well, bad faith to say the least!

 

[EnglishEdward]

On the 1st April in Scotland a new Act will come into force around Hate Crimes.

This article is a bit jumbled but it’s the best I could find of a summary in the press (do let me know if you have a better!)

Hate crime law: Force for good or recipe for disaster?

The new law comes into force next month but already concerns are raised around how it will be enforced.

www.bbc.co.uk

Whatever side of the political debate you’re on, I struggle to see how this is a good idea. In fact I find it fairly chilling as a potential means to shut down debate.
And equally importantly - this for me is the killer line:
Police Scotland has pledged to investigate every hate crime complaint it receives, even though last week the force said it would no longer investigate every "low level" crime in Scotland, including some cases of theft.

What do people think?

The Scottish legislation appears to date back to 2021,

Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021

An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision about the aggravation of offences by prejudice; to make provision about an offence of racially aggravated harassment; to make provision about offences relating to stirring up hatred against a group of persons; to abolish the common law offence...

www.legislation.gov.uk

but there was subsequent legislative regulatory activity undertaken regarding Commencement and Transitional regulations

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 (Commencement and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2024

These Regulations commence the provisions of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 (“the 2021 Act”), to the extent that they are not already in force. The Bill for the 2021 Act received Royal Assent on 23 April 2021. Sections 17, 21 and 22 came into force the following day.

www.legislation.gov.uk