A Political Thread pt. 2

[Saintjay]

It's got f all to do with her being a woman and you know it.

I agree with everything you've said regarding her role as PM.

However I'm not naive enough to think that Truss or even the likes of May, Raynor etc only ever receive abuse because of there role and competence. Not because there women. In Truss's case she has brought a lot of the abuse on herself i don't doubt that.

There was no bothering, there was no hassling, there was no harassing.

I'd suggest that if yourself or NBS want to discuss different incidents to the incident under discussion - you should bring them in, not mention them in passing.

We clearly have different views on what is harassment. Being in the public domain or out in public shouldn't make a difference.

There's more than enough information out there and articles to reference sexism and misogyny directed towards female PM's and MP's including Truss. I'd suggest i don't need to expand on the comment "Doesn't change the fact some of the abuse directed at her is based on misogyny not necessarily this incident"

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Abuse directed at her for being a woman is wrong. Abuse if she's trying to just live her own life in private is wrong. Abuse as she is swanning around supporting far right criminals, constantly banging on about some "lefty agenda" and generally keeping a very public and confrontational attitude definitely makes her fair game.

She's not trying to take herself out of the public spotlight, she has decided she didn't get anywhere near enough if it and it's taking every opportunity she can to get her mug back in front of a camera.

 

[Reiser99]

Also on Truss. She had zero mandate to implement her mini budget. She was elected by the Tory membership, not in a general election and (although I personally think it's still ********) she should have stuck to the 2019 manifesto. If she wanted to implement such a drastic change she should have put it to the public instead of forcing that nonsense on them.

 

[Amiga500]

Yeah I'm not sure. If elected to office then it's more fine, but ultimately it's not productive in the slightest in reg to actual policy discussion and probably feeds into the culture that puts people off getting involved in politics.

********.

Once elected, far too many in Westminster think they have a free lunch. Then produce a rake of lies a few months out from the next election to try and fool idiots into voting them back onto the gravy train.

Truss made mad and irresponsible decisions that almost certainly killed scores of people through stress over cost-of-living... and did it knowing it was wrong - we know that as she kept the OBR in the dark.

And your not sure if people should call her out on it.

Get a grip.

 

[Amiga500]

As for the last sentence, that's what elections are for - random groups "deterring" politicians from doing things they don't like isn't in this manner isn't actually great for our democratic representation imo.

Remind me who voted for Truss' manifesto?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

BBC News - Woman wins payout after 'sexsomnia' rape case dropped

Sexsomnia: Woman awarded ‘rare’ payout after rape case dropped

Jade McCrossen-Nethercott has received £35,000 in damages from the Crown Prosecution Service.

www.bbc.com

You can understand why women don't come forward with rape cases when this sort of thing happens.

 

[Gavin]

Highly recommend people go and listen to this interview.

The conversation about Brexit and how much David Davis did not understand world trade etc is staggering.

Considering he was such a prominent figure in UK politics at a pivotal time is incredible.

 

[Which Tyler]

2 good news articles today

Doing something not-contemptuous whilst in not-court isn't contempt of court after all

Government drops appeal over climate activist who held sign outside UK court

Judge had thrown out case against Trudi Warner, whose sign told jurors they had a right to acquit ‘according to conscience’

www.theguardian.com

Rioting bad

Boy, 15, is first person charged with riot over recent English disorder

Move comes as more are jailed, including a self-styled ‘paedophile hunter’ who racially abused rival protesters

www.theguardian.com

 

[Reiser99]

2 good news articles today

Doing something not-contemptuous whilst in not-court isn't contempt of court after all

Government drops appeal over climate activist who held sign outside UK court

Judge had thrown out case against Trudi Warner, whose sign told jurors they had a right to acquit ‘according to conscience’

www.theguardian.com

Rioting bad

Boy, 15, is first person charged with riot over recent English disorder

Move comes as more are jailed, including a self-styled ‘paedophile hunter’ who racially abused rival protesters

www.theguardian.com

On the second article, I'm surprised that the boy is the first person to be charged with rioting. Rioting carries a longer jail term and I'm sure some of those already prosecuted could have been convicted under it. Maybe they just wanted a speedy sentence and so went with the lesser crime as it has a lower threshold. Hopefully other, like those who attacked the hotel are convicted under rioting.

 

[Which Tyler]

Agreed - some of the others must be thanking their lucky stars.
It reads to me like the CPS were playing it safe until a judge suggested they actually bump up the charges.
Presumably, better to secure the conviction ASAP to damp down the riots, than to get the longer sentences and risk longer trials and findings of Not Guilty

 

[Saintjay]

It could be because the police and the crime commissioners can be charged cost of damages if it's declared a 'riot'. My understanding is if there's a break down of law and order "riots" potentially the police are liable for failing to do there jobs. Where if it's violent disorder they don't . It's why you'll very rarely hear the Police use the term riot if at all.

Not sure if that factors into the CPS, Police, Government decision making on charging or not tbh. Even when it's clearly a riot more than violent disorder.

 

[General Melchett]

My understanding is if there's a break down of law and order "riots" potentially the police are liable for failing to do there jobs. Where if it's violent disorder they don't . It's why you'll very rarely hear the Police use the term riot if at all.

Seems a bit harsh to me especially when you consider that those politicians inciting riots and those who cut police funding while they were in power due to their incompetence and economic mismanagement get away scot-free.

 

[Which Tyler]

A Fox News Host Claimed That A Man Who Votes For A Woman "Transitions Into A Woman," And The Backlash From Men Is Why I Love The Internet

Every day, the news gets weirder and weirder.

www.yahoo.com

"And I heard the scientists say the other day that when a man votes for a woman, he actually transitions into a woman."

Must be annoying for all the trans women out there who spent years/decades and,10s/100s of thousands, and often sacrificing their mental health (hopefully temporarily) on the process, to now find out that all they needed to do was find a woman running for office, and vote for them.

 

[Reiser99]

A Fox News Host Claimed That A Man Who Votes For A Woman "Transitions Into A Woman," And The Backlash From Men Is Why I Love The Internet

Every day, the news gets weirder and weirder.

www.yahoo.com

Must be annoying for all the trans women out there who spent years/decades and,10s/100s of thousands, and often sacrificing their mental health (hopefully temporarily) on the process, to now find out that all they needed to do was find a woman running for office, and vote for them.

There's stupid, then there's this.

 

[Which Tyler]

You can bet he worships Thatcher, and wishes Truss we're American

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Again showing how utterly insane and misogynistic these nutters are.

As has been said, these people are weird and that's being nice. Completely off the rails would be more apt.

 

[Which Tyler]

It could be because the police and the crime commissioners can be charged cost of damages if it's declared a 'riot'. My understanding is if there's a break down of law and order "riots" potentially the police are liable for failing to do there jobs. Where if it's violent disorder they don't . It's why you'll very rarely hear the Police use the term riot if at all.

Have a reference for that? Because it fails the sniff test by quite a long way.
Of course, if you're right, then it would be far from the first time that the law was an ass.

 

[Saintjay]

Have a reference for that? Because it fails the sniff test by quite a long way.
Of course, if you're right, then it would be far from the first time that the law was an ass.

Your tests broke - but in brief.

Until 2016 you had the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. A requirement under this was the local Police area payed compensation for any loss or damages due to riot. It was partly based on the requirement of the police to maintain law and order.

Due to the high costs of the 2011 riots
you had a Independent review of the Act by Neil Kinghan (Sep 2013). - One consequence of the riots was to put the spotlight on the Riot (Damages) Act which requires the police to pay compensation to those whose property is damaged in a riot
In the consultation - some responses also expressed some concerns about Police and Crime Commissioners' taking decisions on the declaration of riot at all, citing potential for conflict of interests.

The Act was replaced by the Riot Compensation Act 2016.
Section (8) of this - The appropriate local policing body must pay to the claimant the amount of compensation decided under this section.

Household and business riot damage claims to police could reach £1m

Under UK law, victims of criminal damage to property and possessions during a riot are entitled to claim for losses.

www.independent.co.uk

Police 101 - Don't mention riot.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

H

Your tests broke - but in brief.

Until the 2016 you had the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. A requirement under this was the local Police area payed compensation for any loss or damages due to riot. It was partly based on the requirement of the police to maintain law and order.

Due to the high costs of the 2011 riots
you had a Independent review of the Act by Neil Kinghan (Sep 2013). - One consequence of the riots was to put the spotlight on the Riot (Damages) Act which requires the police to pay compensation to those whose property is damaged in a riot
In the consultation - some responses also expressed some concerns about Police and Crime Commissioners' taking decisions on the declaration of riot at all, citing potential for conflict of interests.

The Act was replaced by the Riot Compensation Act 2016.
Section (8) of this - The appropriate local policing body must pay to the claimant the amount of compensation decided under this section.

Household and business riot damage claims to police could reach £1m

Under UK law, victims of criminal damage to property and possessions during a riot are entitled to claim for losses.

www.independent.co.uk

Holy ****. Which lord got a horse killed during a 19th century riot.

It feels like this is what insurance is for.

 

[Which Tyler]

TY.
Yup, that's the law being an ass alright.