A Political Thread pt. 2

[Which Tyler]

I wonder if the thugs are emboldened by the reports that the prison system is on the verge of collapse and feel if enough of them break the law, they won't all be punished as severely as needed? If it is true that we can't deal with them because of the prison crisis, that's another thing the Tories need to answer for for letting it get to that state.

Biby Stockholm?
Despite all it's problems, it's too good for immigrants, according to these rioters.

A wider conversation sounds good but unfortunately they are not behaving like people who want to sit down and have a conversation. Many of them are racist thugs and bigots. They are refusing to give the newly elected Govt an opportunity to fix a lot of things you mention. They should be accepting the election result and giving the new Govt a chance. Seems to me that the end goal of the ringleaders and inciters is full scale civil unrest

The people who failed them are the same people who have conned them with their three word slogans. Brexit was a massive protest vote because they were repeatedly told that the EU and EU citizens coming to the UK were the issue. Leaving the EU hasn't solved a thing.

Why would they give the new government a chance? In part, they're rioting BECAUSE theres a new government. These thugs have had decades of having their racism, and their fear of the other fed by misinformation (being charitable) from the likes of Farage and Lennon. They then felt validated by Brexit, and enabled by the last decade+ of home secretaries.

Their enablers have just lost an election, at the same time as their validator was elected into Parliament - so they were just waiting for an excuse to kick off.

Speculation and lies surrounding the stabbing provided that "excuse".

The likes of Johnson, May, Patel, Badenoch etc need to hang their heads in shame (and if they were capable of shame, they wouldn't be who they are).
Lennon needs to be in jail, along with the ringleaders of these riots. The other rioters need various other punishments like travel bans, electronic monitoring, fines etc etc, and some of them imprisoned as well.
Farage needs to be made to realise that he's an MP now, and there's a difference between taking a shit outside of the tent, to taking that same shit inside it.


This whole build up of tension is the result of lies from people who absolutely do know better, over decades. It's preying on feelings that absolutely do not stand up to factual analysis, in order to gain or keep personal power - or just to sell newspapers or garner clicks.

 

[General Melchett]

Why would they give the new government a chance? In part, they're rioting BECAUSE theres a new government. These thugs have had decades of having their racism, and their fear of the other fed by misinformation (being charitable) from the likes of Farage and Lennon. They then felt validated by Brexit, and enabled by the last decade+ of home secretaries.

I said they 'should' because they believe in democracy when the result at the ballot box suits them. It disgusts me when they carry around union jacks and claim they are doing this to protect children.

 

[Which Tyler]

'This should alarm us': Elections expert says Trump revealed a 'preview of his strategy'

Donald Trump gave a rally speech on Saturday, during which he attacked local Georgia GOP officials and slurred some words. He also revealed an "alarming" part of his November strategy, according to an elections expert. Max Flugrath, director of communications for Fair Fight Action, a voting...

www.rawstory.com

"Trump praised the Georgia State Election Board, a government body overseeing its election rules," he wrote. "Trump thanked three of the Georgia State Election Board's members specifically for their efforts to change Georgia's certification rules. This is odd. Trump doesn't usually concern himself with details this in-the-weeds."

Flugrath went on to say that the Georgia State Election Board members Trump thanked and singled out were "recently appointed."

"Janice Johnston Rick Jeffares Janelle King," he wrote. "Trump called them 'pitbulls fighting for honesty, transparency, and victory.' So, what exactly are they fighting for?"

Flugrath explained, "The Trump-aligned GA election board members are working to change the state's election rules with less than 100 days until the election. They recently held a meeting, unlawfully noticed and carried out, where they advanced changes to Georgia's election certification process."

"After a lawsuit, the election board is holding another vote on some of the proposed election rule changes, on Tuesday, August 6. The new rules they're trying to pass can be used to sow doubt in the results and delay certification of the the 2024 election," according to the expert's analysis. "One proposed rule change would give authority to local election officials to slow down or refuse to certify the 2024 election results. With election deniers holding local election positions in Georgia, this should alarm us all."

 

[Which Tyler]

Elevenses: Musk

From the newsletter: Elon Musk just responded to the threat posed by the far-right on his channel in the worst possible way.

www.thelondoneconomic.com

Musk responded on X by posting two exclamation marks underneath a post put out on his platform not by the prime minister of the United Kingdom but by none other than Tommy Robinson himself, who claimed (incorrectly) that the Labour leader was branding everyone upset about the murder of three little girls as "thugs". With the prospect of more than a dozen protests across the country in the coming days, the reality of a world without social media guardrails have been thrust into the spotlight, and in Musk, we are starting to see the consequences of a man with the keys to one of the biggest social media platforms in the world who can't distinguish between free speech and hate speech.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Elevenses: Musk

From the newsletter: Elon Musk just responded to the threat posed by the far-right on his channel in the worst possible way.

www.thelondoneconomic.com

Americans don't really do hate speech to be fair.

 

[McTallshort]

Elevenses: Musk

From the newsletter: Elon Musk just responded to the threat posed by the far-right on his channel in the worst possible way.

www.thelondoneconomic.com

Always wonder why Elon has lurched so much to the right. Does he think red cap wearing hillbillies and EDL pond life are the kind of people who buy Tesla's?

 

[Which Tyler]

Question for the audience.
By my understanding, a riot is a relatively spontaneous eruption of violence, usually (but not exclusively) starting as non-violent protest getting worked up and spilling over.
I'm seeing ever more reports (variety of MSM) that these are organised, and often the same people travelling from one town to another to go rioting and looting. Hardly a spontaneous eruption from within previously peaceful protest.

By my understanding, terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation to create fear/terror amongst civilians, usually (but not exclusively) in the pursuit of political aims.

At what point does organised rioting become domestic terrorism?
Or have I got my interpretations all wrong? (entirely possible)

 

[ncurd]

Always wonder why Elon has lurched so much to the right. Does he think red cap wearing hillbillies and EDL pond life are the kind of people who buy Tesla's?

A couple of things.

People realised he isn't the super genius behind SpaceX and Tesla technology. Just the dude with money.

He called someone a peado and got rightly sued.

So the only people who worship are MAGA tech bros. People who think they'll be the next big thing in tech but don't actually create anything of note rather than work in industry.

 

[Welsh Exile]

He also said his daughter (he would say son) was killed by "The Woke Mind Virus".

 

[Saintjay]

He also said his daughter (he would say son) was killed by "The Woke Mind Virus".

No woke mind virus is getting past my tin foil hat i tell ya......

 

[Which Tyler]

No woke mind virus is getting past my tin foil hat i tell ya......

Tin foil kills viruses - no wonder all the COVID deniers survived (apart from the ones that didn't, of course - they were probably using aluminium instead, and risking Alzheimer's)

 

[Reiser99]

Question for the audience.
By my understanding, a riot is a relatively spontaneous eruption of violence, usually (but not exclusively) starting as non-violent protest getting worked up and spilling over.
I'm seeing ever more reports (variety of MSM) that these are organised, and often the same people travelling from one town to another to go rioting and looting. Hardly a spontaneous eruption from within previously peaceful protest.

By my understanding, terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation to create fear/terror amongst civilians, usually (but not exclusively) in the pursuit of political aims.

At what point does organised rioting become domestic terrorism?
Or have I got my interpretations all wrong? (entirely possible)

It's a good point. Would take a very brave government though to arrest British people at a violent protest for terrorism. Depends on exactly how the law is worded, but a few ring leaders sentenced for terrorism might give those idiots joining in pause for thought. Other risk is making a martyr out of someone.

 

[Saintjay]

Question for the audience.
By my understanding, a riot is a relatively spontaneous eruption of violence, usually (but not exclusively) starting as non-violent protest getting worked up and spilling over.
I'm seeing ever more reports (variety of MSM) that these are organised, and often the same people travelling from one town to another to go rioting and looting. Hardly a spontaneous eruption from within previously peaceful protest.

By my understanding, terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation to create fear/terror amongst civilians, usually (but not exclusively) in the pursuit of political aims.

At what point does organised rioting become domestic terrorism?
Or have I got my interpretations all wrong? (entirely possible)

I think Labour are more about making the EDL a banned group and not the rioters as such. I am wary of using legislation for not it's intended purpose. You had calls to make Just Stop Oil a prescribed group for inciting crimes. How can you decide on which is terrorism based on the cause, reasons for behaviour. You have got to look at encitement and the organisers i guess. But are JSO or Nigel Farage terrorists. A riot is a riot regardless of the cause so I'm not sure how they could be seperated.

Could a government potentially use it for future equivalents of riots in 2011 or the Poll Tax riots, even strike action like at the battle of Orgreave.

Tbh i think you have enough laws in place so it's a matter of using the appropriate ones. Crim Damage, Arson, Riot, Affray etc.

 

[Becca]

I think Labour are more about making the EDL a banned group and not the rioters as such. I am wary of using legislation for not it's intended purpose. You had calls to make Just Stop Oil a prescribed group for inciting crimes. How can you decide on which is terrorism based on the cause, reasons for behaviour. You have got to look at encitement and the organisers i guess. But are JSO or Nigel Farage terrorists. A riot is a riot regardless of the cause so I'm not sure how they could be seperated.

Could a government potentially use it for future equivalents of riots in 2011 or the Poll Tax riots, even strike action like at the battle of Orgreave.

Tbh i think you have enough laws in place so it's a matter of using the appropriate ones. Crim Damage, Arson, Riot, Affray etc.

The EDL was disbanded years ago.

 

[General Melchett]

This might sound odd but I think political slogans like "Enough is enough" are dangerous and inflammatory especially when talking about highly sensitive subjects like asylum seekers and immigration. The thugs could easily construe that as a final straw / starter gun to kick off the violence and criminality. I also recall Farage saying something along the lines of "things are going to get a whole lot worse in the weeks and months to come" just before the election. Almost like he knew something was being planned for after the election. The laws around encitement definitely need looking at IMO.

 

[Which Tyler]

I think Labour are more about making the EDL a banned group and not the rioters as such. I am wary of using legislation for not it's intended purpose. You had calls to make Just Stop Oil a prescribed group for inciting crimes. How can you decide on which is terrorism based on the cause, reasons for behaviour. You have got to look at encitement and the organisers i guess. But are JSO or Nigel Farage terrorists. A riot is a riot regardless of the cause so I'm not sure how they could be seperated.

Could a government potentially use it for future equivalents of riots in 2011 or the Poll Tax riots, even strike action like at the battle of Orgreave.

Tbh i think you have enough laws in place so it's a matter of using the appropriate ones. Crim Damage, Arson, Riot, Affray etc.

Err... What?

I can confidently say that labour aren't looking to do anything with the EDL, on the principle that they don't exist.
Wary of using what legislation for what intended purpose?
I'm pretty sure terrorism is already about cause (and use of violence/intimidation) - but thats part of my question.
JSO aren't terrorists, from the very definition that they don't incite terror or use violence or intimidation. Farage keeps plenty enough distance between himself and nothing that could be called terrorism to be name checked.

A riot is a riot... As far as I can tell, until it becomes organised in advance. Again, this was my question.

Who's talking about new laws? And why would applying old laws to old issues come out any differently?

Probbably worth re-stati g my question - At what point does organised rioting become domestic terrorism?

 

[Saintjay]

Err... What?

I can confidently say that labour aren't looking to do anything with the EDL, on the principle that they don't exist.
Wary of using what legislation for what intended purpose?
I'm pretty sure terrorism is already about cause (and use of violence/intimidation) - but thats part of my question.
JSO aren't terrorists, from the very definition that they don't incite terror or use violence or intimidation. Farage keeps plenty enough distance between himself and nothing that could be called terrorism to be name checked.

A riot is a riot... As far as I can tell, until it becomes organised in advance. Again, this was my question.

Who's talking about new laws? And why would applying old laws to old issues come out any differently?

My point was my concerns of using terror law to cover riots or what started as peaceful protest. The terror laws are pretty new post 2000, the older laws 1950's etc

Angela Raynor stated the home sec would be looking at banning the EDL. I agree they don't exist but someone should perhaps tell the dep PM that. So dispite them not existing it was a suggestion of using terror law for probably not it's intended purpose.

Certain elements of the Tory party certainly suggested using the prescribed groups list to ban JSO.

I don't think you need to use violence for something to be classed as terrorism. Just damage to property or risking health and safety of the public can be. From looking at the terrorism act anyway. I could be wrong. So in theory rioting could be terrorism by using violence to achieve a political aim but i would not want terrorism laws used.

That was my point on using laws that don't fit or not there purpose.

Riots don't need to be organised in advance that's for certain. It can be either Leeds a month ago being an example.

The police until recently were regularly accused of using counter terror laws to police peaceful protests.

 

[Which Tyler]

At what point does organised rioting become domestic terrorism?

 

[Reiser99]

My point was my concerns of using terror law to cover riots or what started as peaceful protest. The terror laws are pretty new post 2000, the older laws 1950's etc

Angela Raynor stated the home sec would be looking at banning the EDL. I agree they don't exist but someone should perhaps tell the dep PM that. So dispite them not existing it was a suggestion of using terror law for probably not it's intended purpose.

Certain elements of the Tory party certainly suggested using the prescribed groups list to ban JSO.

I don't think you need to use violence for something to be classed as terrorism. Just damage to property or risking health and safety of the public can be. From looking at the terrorism act anyway. I could be wrong. So in theory rioting could be terrorism by using violence to achieve a political aim but i would not want terrorism laws used.

That was my point on using laws that don't fit or not there purpose.

Riots don't need to be organised in advance that's for certain. It can be either Leeds a month ago being an example.

The police until recently were regularly accused of using counter terror laws to police peaceful protests.

Were the IRA bombs terrorism?

 

[Welsh Exile]

At what point does organised rioting become domestic terrorism?

For me, who you're targeting is an important factor. If Tommy Robinson and his gang wanted to get together and have a pop at the government by targeting the police and government buildings and what not I'd call them "rebels" (with a few expletives before and after that word) and even "freedom fighters" if I agreed with their cause.

If their main target are the public, or a specific group of people, I'd call them terrorists or *****