The UK General Politics Thread Page 43

  • Page

    of 807 First / Last

  • disusedgenius 19 Sep 2012 20:24:25 8,513 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    It doesn't bother me in extreme cases, but then you shouldn't necessarily betray your principles for such one-offs anyway. So meh.
  • Deleted user 19 September 2012 20:31:44
    No, ever.
  • Deleted user 19 September 2012 20:32:34
    :)

    Cheery old LB!
  • Rusty_M 19 Sep 2012 20:33:26 6,698 posts
    Seen 22 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    The biggest problem I have with the death penalty is that some people will be put to death, then later found to be not guilty. At least people can be released from jail.

    We can't yet un-dead them.
  • RobTheBuilder 20 Sep 2012 10:06:56 6,976 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2012/09/20/nick-clegg-says-sorry-the-autotune-remix/

    Just great.
  • Deleted user 20 September 2012 10:09:12
    That link is spreading like wildfire but deservedly so. Superb.

    Terrifies me the speed at which people get things like that done.
  • RobTheBuilder 20 Sep 2012 10:12:31 6,976 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    @kalel Must be a day of solid work to tie it up with the video!
  • brokenkey 20 Sep 2012 10:13:42 9,081 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    The return of the death sentence: yes or no?

    Renewed discussion of the subject following the apparently pre-meditated murders of those two policewomen. Can't help but feel Hammurabi might have had the right idea, and that this cunt should be pushed into a cell and have a hand-grenade chucked in with him.
    How was it pre-meditated? I've not seen that mentioned before.
  • RobTheBuilder 20 Sep 2012 10:16:08 6,976 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Well, from the sound of it he has killed police before, and was ready with a loaded weapon amd grenade to fire at them the second they arrived.

    We cannot use this as an excuse to bring back the death penalty or arm our police, that would just be the total wrong reaction.
  • Deleted user 20 September 2012 10:18:52
    Death penalty will never come back. It's a can of worms that is a no-win situation to open for any political party. The cost implications alone would kill it.
  • RobTheBuilder 20 Sep 2012 10:27:01 6,976 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Thank god.
  • Deleted user 24 September 2012 23:27:00
    Anyone see the Newsnight take on LibDem shenanigans this evening? They seem to be suggesting that the Tories are supporting Vince Cable -with particular attention to his 'Cable Bank'- in the hope that the LibDems will get rid of Cleggy and replace him with Vince! Some other stuff about buggering up Labour's scheming to get Vince on board too.

    I don't get it. Why would Tories seek to support their most ideological opponent? Shome mishtake shurely? Or is it shenanigans within shenanigans within shenanigans?.
  • mal 25 Sep 2012 02:59:14 28,487 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    It's getting more and more like The Thick Of It every day.
  • Psychotext 25 Sep 2012 13:49:52 62,013 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    As expected, Mitchell lied and Cameron (and the police for that matter) are doing their best to hush it up:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9564688/David-Cameron-accused-of-cover-up-over-Andrew-Mitchell-police-rant.html

    What a shower of wankers they all are.
  • MetalDog 25 Sep 2012 13:59:13 24,080 posts
    Seen 3 weeks ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    After a few months of research and interaction with police officers, I get the distinct impression that the force could be radically improved by replacing a significant portion of the top ranking officers. The fish really does seem to rot from the head in this instance.
  • MrDigital 25 Sep 2012 13:59:56 1,885 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    In all fairness, all we have to judge this situation is someone's word against another person's word. I agree completely that if what was claimed to have been said had been said, that it is entirely unacceptable, but we're just going on the officers words, are we not? And it's far from impossible that he could be lying.
  • X201 25 Sep 2012 14:04:43 18,218 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    Anyone see the Newsnight take on LibDem shenanigans this evening? They seem to be suggesting that the Tories are supporting Vince Cable -with particular attention to his 'Cable Bank'- in the hope that the LibDems will get rid of Cleggy and replace him with Vince! Some other stuff about buggering up Labour's scheming to get Vince on board too.

    I don't get it. Why would Tories seek to support their most ideological opponent? Shome mishtake shurely? Or is it shenanigans within shenanigans within shenanigans?.
    Divide and conquer.

    (Not that that will be needed with the Lib Dems come the next election when their vote collapses.)
  • Mr_Sleep 25 Sep 2012 14:08:46 21,307 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    You're all fucking plebs!

    I guess I'd better resign from Eurogamer now.
  • Psychotext 25 Sep 2012 14:18:56 62,013 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Geesh wrote:
    ...but we're just going on the officers words, are we not? And it's far from impossible that he could be lying.
    Two officers, so no... it doesn't seem particularly likely.

    Besides, if the cop had really wanted to cause shit he'd have just arrested him, he'd have been within his rights.

    Edited by Psychotext at 14:19:54 25-09-2012
  • RichDC 25 Sep 2012 14:52:08 7,550 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Two officers and members of the public as well. Hogan-Howe does not represent 'the police' in this and hopefully the Federation will continue to demand the truth.
  • Deleted user 25 September 2012 14:54:30
    The Andrew Mitchell affair is such a non story it boils down to a toff nosed bellend calling a couple of jobsworths "plebs".

    That is the summation of the story, it has only got so many colunm inches because on the day it happened Cameron was giving a speech up in manchester declaring he was going to support the police "no matter what" after the two PCs got shot.

    I saw no one calling for Ed Balls to be sacked when he used the death of a child to instigate a witch hunt against an under resourced social services department in order to furthur his own political carrer.
  • Deleted user 25 September 2012 14:54:35
    The Andrew Mitchell affair is such a non story it boils down to a toff nosed bellend calling a couple of jobsworths "plebs".

    That is the summation of the story, it has only got so many colunm inches because on the day it happened Cameron was giving a speech up in manchester declaring he was going to support the police "no matter what" after the two PCs got shot.

    I saw no one calling for Ed Balls to be sacked when he used the death of a child to instigate a witch hunt against an under resourced social services department in order to furthur his own political carrer.
  • jamievilla 25 Sep 2012 15:56:23 832 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    To be fair it would have been a non story if he hadn't (or seemingly so) lied twice about what happened. If he'd just apologised for swearing and calling the guy a pleb then it would have blown over by now.

    The problem now its the word of the Police against him - him saying he didn't use the word plebs or swearing (although he appears to have admitted that now) and the Police, and this leaked log saying otherwise.

    I don't see the correlation between this and Baby P though (if that's what you are referring to), that just seems to be a false argument to try and deflect from this one.

    He's made it worse on himself. Apologise, be truthful and move on. Simple.
  • chopsen 25 Sep 2012 16:17:16 19,937 posts
    Seen 59 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I think the point being made is that something irrelevant yet tabloidy as some posh tory bloke calling people plebs get so much attention while a genuine amoral exploitation of power gets glossed over reflects badly on the media and how it reports politics, not that the two stories had anything in common.

    Edited by Chopsen at 16:17:50 25-09-2012
  • Deleted user 25 September 2012 16:23:38
    jamievilla wrote:
    To be fair it would have been a non story if he hadn't (or seemingly so) lied twice about what happened. If he'd just apologised for swearing and calling the guy a pleb then it would have blown over by now.

    The problem now its the word of the Police against him - him saying he didn't use the word plebs or swearing (although he appears to have admitted that now) and the Police, and this leaked log saying otherwise.

    I don't see the correlation between this and Baby P though (if that's what you are referring to), that just seems to be a false argument to try and deflect from this one.

    He's made it worse on himself. Apologise, be truthful and move on. Simple.
    I was just highlighting the Baby P case to show that the press reaction to Mithchell is dispropianate in that it has cast him as some abhorrent monster who should be placed in the stocks and be flogged for commiting the crime of insulting a police officer. I find what Balls did with Baby P far more sicking that if Mitchell had used the John Terry defence.

    I agree that in a sane and rational world he would simply apologise and a line would be drawn under it. The problem is that if he admitted that he was in the wrong then labour would jump on it and say that Cameron was "proteting him" and should be sacked, while folding it into the wider narrative of tories not caring about "brave" public sector workers.

    Mitchell is sticking to the first rule of surviving a media political shit storm "never apologise, never explain"
  • disusedgenius 25 Sep 2012 16:27:01 8,513 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    The problem was more that he did apologise but in a rather snide way which insinuated that the guy he had a go as was a liar, no?
  • Deleted user 25 September 2012 16:32:45
    I haven't read the apology so can not comment on it's veracity.
  • jamievilla 25 Sep 2012 16:45:37 832 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    whatfruit wrote:
    jamievilla wrote:
    To be fair it would have been a non story if he hadn't (or seemingly so) lied twice about what happened. If he'd just apologised for swearing and calling the guy a pleb then it would have blown over by now.

    The problem now its the word of the Police against him - him saying he didn't use the word plebs or swearing (although he appears to have admitted that now) and the Police, and this leaked log saying otherwise.

    I don't see the correlation between this and Baby P though (if that's what you are referring to), that just seems to be a false argument to try and deflect from this one.

    He's made it worse on himself. Apologise, be truthful and move on. Simple.
    I was just highlighting the Baby P case to show that the press reaction to Mithchell is dispropianate in that it has cast him as some abhorrent monster who should be placed in the stocks and be flogged for commiting the crime of insulting a police officer. I find what Balls did with Baby P far more sicking that if Mitchell had used the John Terry defence.

    I agree that in a sane and rational world he would simply apologise and a line would be drawn under it. The problem is that if he admitted that he was in the wrong then labour would jump on it and say that Cameron was "proteting him" and should be sacked, while folding it into the wider narrative of tories not caring about "brave" public sector workers.

    Mitchell is sticking to the first rule of surviving a media political shit storm "never apologise, never explain"
    Oh I understood why you were doing it, just seemed a bit of a naive understanding of the media and how they work. They're there to sell newspapers, not be the moral crusaders. You could compare one of a million non-stories against the issues that should be reported on and your argument would be as equally valid, yet pointless. I agree that the Ed Balls situation was abhorrent, but then all politicans exist to point score at the expense of someone else (look at the situation in the US with the Libya ambassador).

    I still maintain if he'd just admitted being an arsey sod and not tried to fudge the issue or give a weasely apology it would probably be forgotten about (or at least a low priority byline) and we'd be focusing on Vince Cable's stand up routine instead.

    (Edit - typos)

    Edited by jamievilla at 16:46:43 25-09-2012
  • Psychotext 25 Sep 2012 16:52:08 62,013 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Aye, it's basically that everyone is so desperate for the story to go away which makes the press even more ravenous.

    Mitchell wants it dead because he's an arse and because he lied.
    Cameron wants it dead because it makes the tories look out of touch, and that he appoints idiots.
    Police want it dead because someone leaked the information in the first place, which is a huge no-no.
  • Page

    of 807 First / Last

Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.