Reform

silvertop said:
I am bothered if it is e.g. the Graham Linehan incident.

However, when the Mail lump such "offences" together with genuinely malicious crimes like revenge p-o-r-n or death threats, I am entitled to attack the bogus stats they are peddling.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of us have an issue with the separation you are talking about.

We are right to be angry at the Police policing offence via jokes or just opinions....Just as we are with the Politicians who passed those laws.....Which I might add that Wisbech supports, so it's not as though people argue with him for nothing.

Obviously there is a line for everything and death threats and revenge sexual uploads and malicious communications designed to harm people (stalking, conspiracy and so on) other than hurty words or opinions that you might hear in a pub.

The Police used to have people in charge who understood the difference.
 
CPFCSaturn said:
And if ever the proof was needed that you're really arguing against an imaginary leftist in your head...

Literally inventing quotes, as well as inventing a way the made-up quotes were delivered in your imagination (EIGHTY TWO!!!!) 🤣

It's amazing how prevalent this sort of thing is on the right.
Click to expand...

It's satire u doughnut
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
The point being made is that in reacting as they did they made things worse. This was naked political opportunism and not remotely genuine concern.

As both Polanski and the police have said everyone should condemn anything that puts public figures at risk. In doing this they have put Polanski at risk. It was beyond stupid. It was totally irresponsible. You can read the police’s conclusions here:-

Click to expand...

The problem here is one of consistency.

Zack Polanski is a politician who talks about openness, tolerance and respect. Yet he shared an image featuring a guillotine and the slogan “Making Plans for Nigel”, directed at Nigel Farage. Whether he intended it or not, the symbolism is obvious.

Now flip it around. Imagine Nigel Farage had shared an image with a guillotine and a slogan aimed at immigrants or another group the left supports. The outrage would have been immediate and relentless. It would have dominated the news cycle for days and there would have been uproar.

Your whole argument has been that politicians are elected to represent the electorate and should be trusted to make important decisions on our behalf, including things like Brexit. If that’s the case, do you really want a politician exercising that level of judgement who either didn’t understand the implications of what they were sharing, or understood them perfectly well and shared it anyway? Neither reflects particularly well on someone seeking high office.

I’ve got no intention of voting Green or Reform. You couldn’t pay me to vote for either of them. That’s not the point. The point is that the people of Clacton elected Nigel Farage, and they have every right to expect that their elected MP is treated with the respect that Parliament should afford any democratically elected representative. Equally, Zack Polanski should be afforded that same respect.

Challenge politicians on their policies, by all means. Criticise them relentlessly if you disagree with them. But once we start excusing imagery that appears to glorify political violence simply because it’s aimed at someone we don’t like, we’ve abandoned the very standards we’re claiming to defend. The fact is he doesn’t share it - this debate doesn’t happen.

Either the standard applies to everyone, or it doesn’t.
 
Nutmegyeti said:
The problem here is one of consistency.

Zack Polanski is a politician who talks about openness, tolerance and respect. Yet he shared an image featuring a guillotine and the slogan “Making Plans for Nigel”, directed at Nigel Farage. Whether he intended it or not, the symbolism is obvious.

Now flip it around. Imagine Nigel Farage had shared an image with a guillotine and a slogan aimed at immigrants or another group the left supports. The outrage would have been immediate and relentless. It would have dominated the news cycle for days and there would have been uproar.

Your whole argument has been that politicians are elected to represent the electorate and should be trusted to make important decisions on our behalf, including things like Brexit. If that’s the case, do you really want a politician exercising that level of judgement who either didn’t understand the implications of what they were sharing, or understood them perfectly well and shared it anyway? Neither reflects particularly well on someone seeking high office.

I’ve got no intention of voting Green or Reform. You couldn’t pay me to vote for either of them. That’s not the point. The point is that the people of Clacton elected Nigel Farage, and they have every right to expect that their elected MP is treated with the respect that Parliament should afford any democratically elected representative. Equally, Zack Polanski should be afforded that same respect.

Challenge politicians on their policies, by all means. Criticise them relentlessly if you disagree with them. But once we start excusing imagery that appears to glorify political violence simply because it’s aimed at someone we don’t like, we’ve abandoned the very standards we’re claiming to defend. The fact is he doesn’t share it - this debate doesn’t happen.

Either the standard applies to everyone, or it doesn’t.
Click to expand...

Polanski says it best!
 

Attachments

  • HOQ2xLIXkAA5SIj.webp
    HOQ2xLIXkAA5SIj.webp
    44.3 KB · Views: 14
Nutmegyeti said:
The problem here is one of consistency.

Zack Polanski is a politician who talks about openness, tolerance and respect. Yet he shared an image featuring a guillotine and the slogan “Making Plans for Nigel”, directed at Nigel Farage. Whether he intended it or not, the symbolism is obvious.

Now flip it around. Imagine Nigel Farage had shared an image with a guillotine and a slogan aimed at immigrants or another group the left supports. The outrage would have been immediate and relentless. It would have dominated the news cycle for days and there would have been uproar.

Your whole argument has been that politicians are elected to represent the electorate and should be trusted to make important decisions on our behalf, including things like Brexit. If that’s the case, do you really want a politician exercising that level of judgement who either didn’t understand the implications of what they were sharing, or understood them perfectly well and shared it anyway? Neither reflects particularly well on someone seeking high office.

I’ve got no intention of voting Green or Reform. You couldn’t pay me to vote for either of them. That’s not the point. The point is that the people of Clacton elected Nigel Farage, and they have every right to expect that their elected MP is treated with the respect that Parliament should afford any democratically elected representative. Equally, Zack Polanski should be afforded that same respect.

Challenge politicians on their policies, by all means. Criticise them relentlessly if you disagree with them. But once we start excusing imagery that appears to glorify political violence simply because it’s aimed at someone we don’t like, we’ve abandoned the very standards we’re claiming to defend. The fact is he doesn’t share it - this debate doesn’t happen.

Either the standard applies to everyone, or it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
Polanski is not a respectable politician. He's a sensationalist whose party have drifted far from Green issues and deal mainly in minority identity politics. The loony fringe as it were. That there's a lot more of them these days still doesn't make the Greens a respectable party. They pander to whatever.
 
ASCPFC said:
Polanski is not a respectable politician. He's a sensationalist whose party have drifted far from Green issues and deal mainly in minority identity politics. The loony fringe as it were. That there's a lot more of them these days still doesn't make the Greens a respectable party. They pander to whatever.
Click to expand...
Sadly true.

Who to vote for?

When the party I have voted for in the past is also drifting that way and who are so desperate for attention that their leader has to bungee jumps in speedos...

OK, not that... yet.

But small wonder voters are drifting towards... anybody.

A generation ago, if a populist nationalist gave the us v the establishment speech flanked by the flag of the union on either side, for the limited attention such a stunt would have garnered there would only be widespread ridicule. Now, there are many people so in hock to his tosh due a dearth of alternatives that they have bought into it.

Where did it all go wrong?
 
silvertop said:
Sadly true.

Who to vote for?

When the party I have voted for in the past is also drifting that way and who are so desperate for attention that their leader has to bungee jumps in speedos...

OK, not that... yet.

But small wonder voters are drifting towards... anybody.

A generation ago, if a populist nationalist gave the us v the establishment speech flanked by the flag of the union on either side, for the limited attention such a stunt would have garnered there would only be widespread ridicule. Now, there are many people so in hock to his tosh due a dearth of alternatives that they have bought into it.

Where did it all go wrong?
Click to expand...
The party system, the voting system, the government system and throw in social media - that's where it all went "wrong". This is a stage of fluctuation and change, before the real change. The government system is not fit for purpose for the current realities of society.
At the very least, proportional representation is required. But also far more robust individual vote ID and verification.
I also think government should also move away from Westminster and dump the traditions. It's more a theatre than reality. They actually need to govern. Not grandstand in PMQs and on social media. There should be a far more business like approach.
We're lurching from one pet thing to another pet thing currently, with nothing ever actually dealt with.
For example, the defence budget and the resignations. All fine now? I don't think so. We're on Social Care now, will that be sorted? Let's face it, we know it won't.
 
ASCPFC said:
The party system, the voting system, the government system and throw in social media - that's where it all went "wrong". This is a stage of fluctuation and change, before the real change. The government system is not fit for purpose for the current realities of society.
At the very least, proportional representation is required. But also far more robust individual vote ID and verification.
I also think government should also move away from Westminster and dump the traditions. It's more a theatre than reality. They actually need to govern. Not grandstand in PMQs and on social media. There should be a far more business like approach.
We're lurching from one pet thing to another pet thing currently, with nothing ever actually dealt with.
For example, the defence budget and the resignations. All fine now? I don't think so. We're on Social Care now, will that be sorted? Let's face it, we know it won't.
Click to expand...
One part of me genuinely hopes we are going through a reboot and it will adjust for the better given time. We survived the 1970s, why not this?

Another feels with some sadness that this is part of an irreversible malaise and that, in a generation, our world will be much worse. Horrible things we see on the news we tut tut about that happen elsewhere will be happening here.
 
silvertop said:
One part of me genuinely hopes we are going through a reboot and it will adjust for the better given time. We survived the 1970s, why not this?

Another feels with some sadness that this is part of an irreversible malaise and that, in a generation, our world will be much worse. Horrible things we see on the news we tut tut about that happen elsewhere will be happening here.
Click to expand...
Society was far more resilient in the 70s and even 80s. Even the 90s to some extent. People could live with little and make do. Some neighbours and family would help out too.
Not so now. We've a load of people who buy every toilet roll when anything happens and are waiting to loot whenever they can. Let alone the victim hood complex of every community. The sense of entitlement for every fringe group is off the scale. Perhaps even the genuine will of the majority could be a starting point. As the world seems to lurch to crazy fringes.
 
silvertop said:
Sadly true.

Who to vote for?

When the party I have voted for in the past is also drifting that way and who are so desperate for attention that their leader has to bungee jumps in speedos...

OK, not that... yet.

But small wonder voters are drifting towards... anybody.

A generation ago, if a populist nationalist gave the us v the establishment speech flanked by the flag of the union on either side, for the limited attention such a stunt would have garnered there would only be widespread ridicule. Now, there are many people so in hock to his tosh due a dearth of alternatives that they have bought into it.

Where did it all go wrong?
Click to expand...
You reap what you sow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top