UK Politics Thread: The Man(chester)date of Heaven

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Police cannot ban pro-Palestine march on anniversary of 7 October attacks, Met says
While I dont agree on an outright ban.
The timing is clearly provocative.
If they had any care about the jews who died in the barbaric attack they would not protest on such a date.

Further information can be found in the statement the met put out. There's a lot going on, it seems.

[Greater Britannian Realm]

Police cannot ban pro-Palestine march on anniversary of 7 October attacks, Met says
While I dont agree on an outright ban.
The timing is clearly provocative.
If they had any care about the jews who died in the barbaric attack they would not protest on such a date.

Further information can be found in the statement the met put out. There's a lot going on, it seems.

Its timing like that,
That makes me doubt their true motives.

[Baathist Union]

Does the UK really need an iron dome? The iron dome suits Israel due to the situation it is in, surrounded by countries that dont like it and endures non stop attacks with small missiles and munitions every single year. The UK doesnt deal with that, like yes missile defences are good but i think the UK's military could probably focus more on improving the quality of their hardware and the procurement of it (looks at the Ajax) as well as the state of their bases across the country

israel got itself into that situation

[Baathist Union]

Police cannot ban pro-Palestine march on anniversary of 7 October attacks, Met says
While I dont agree on an outright ban.
The timing is clearly provocative.
If they had any care about the jews who died in the barbaric attack they would not protest on such a date.

i thought you promotor of speech freedom

[-Saiwania-]

I will admit that some of the scenes of violence (from both police and protesters) on the news/social media do look fairly shocking, but... It's nothing we haven't seen before in France when the speed limits were changed, or when the retirement age was raised, or when that teenager got shot by the police, or...

I wouldn't want to live in France or the UK under those conditions, where do the merchants and businesses stand on this? Don't they want safe streets and stability year round? France has great need for its own Nayib Bukele. I'm dead serious when I say that I'm intent on seeing these people not succeed in their aims. The fear of authority isn't sufficiently instilled into them.

[The Archregimancy]

Police cannot ban pro-Palestine march on anniversary of 7 October attacks, Met says
While I dont agree on an outright ban.
The timing is clearly provocative.
If they had any care about the jews who died in the barbaric attack they would not protest on such a date.

i thought you promotor of speech freedom

GBR specifically wrote 'I dont agree on an outright ban'. He's saying the timing is deliberately provocative, and that he believes choosing to protest on that date is misguided, not that he would ban the protest. For all I often disagree with GBR, there's nothing that contradicts his support of free speech there.

[Ariddia]

There is an unholy alliance between France's Communists and Islamists

No, there isn't. That isn't at all Fabien Roussel's (leader of the Communist Party) style. He's made his career focusing on the working class, being critical of "woke" and being at least somewhat critical of immigration.

[The Archregimancy]

Apologies if this has already been posted, but the optics of the Green Party motion on Zionism continue to get worse.

Green member behind Zionism motion named as 'close friend' of jailed al-Qaeda supporter in court.

Now, there are several important qualifiers there. As the BBC article scrupulously notes, 'There is no suggestion in the documents that Speitan knew of Pham's criminal activities at the time they knew each other'. It would appear that Lubna Speitan's evidence was primarily based on Minh Quang Pham's mental state, and was designed to establish a 'mental health defense [sic]'. There's no suggestion that she was in any way voicing support for Pham's actions or Al Qaeda or Islamic extremism.

All the same, I submit that discovering that Ms Speitan was voicing support for someone sentenced to 40 years in prison after admitting to three counts associated with a plot to detonate explosives in Heathrow's arrivals area after spending several months training in Yemen is perhaps sub-optimal for Mr Polanski and his party so close to the Holborn by-election.

The Greens now seem to be furiously backpedalling from Ms Speitan, stressing that she holds no official positions in the party, and that they 'take all allegations of this nature seriously'. But the statement that 'Where members have expressed views that do not fit in with the party's values, we have internal processes to investigate' seems a little bit self-contradictory since at least some of Ms Speitan's sincerely held views and values are now official party policy.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the fact that the mess is at least in part down to democratic policy-making structures that likely worked well before the party's recent expansion. But the mess also does not reflect well on Mr Polanski.


Edit:

I would be interested (sincerely) in the views of our Green Party members on this paragraph from an opinion piece in the Guardian:

That is the suspicion of some Green veterans. They feel their party has been captured by a well-organised, itinerant caucus of militant left activists who have been looking for a new host since Jeremy Corbyn and his acolytes lost control of Labour. Obsession with Israel, crowding out the party’s environmental message, is a tell.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm dead serious when I say that I'm intent on seeing these people not succeed in their aims.

I look forward to reading in Le Monde about how a far-right American internet keyboard warrior singlehandedly brought the protests to an end through his fearless personal intervention.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Apologies if this has already been posted, but the optics of the Green Party motion on Zionism continue to get worse.

Green member behind Zionism motion named as 'close friend' of jailed al-Qaeda supporter in court.

Now, there are several important qualifiers there. As the BBC article scrupulously notes, 'There is no suggestion in the documents that Speitan knew of Pham's criminal activities at the time they knew each other'. It would appear that Lubna Speitan's evidence was primarily based on Minh Quang Pham's mental state, and was designed to establish a 'mental health defense [sic]'. There's no suggestion that she was in any way voicing support for Pham's actions or Al Qaeda or Islamic extremism.

All the same, I submit that discovering that Ms Speitan was voicing support for someone sentenced to 40 years in prison after admitting to three counts associated with a plot to detonate explosives in Heathrow's arrivals area after spending several months training in Yemen is perhaps sub-optimal for Mr Polanski and his party so close to the Holborn by-election.

The Greens now seem to be furiously backpedalling from Ms Speitan, stressing that she holds no official positions in the party, and that they 'take all allegations of this nature seriously'. But the statement that 'Where members have expressed views that do not fit in with the party's values, we have internal processes to investigate' seems a little bit self-contradictory since at least some of Ms Speitan's sincerely held views and values are now official party policy.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the fact that the mess is at least in part down to democratic policy-making structures that likely worked well before the party's recent expansion. But the mess also does not reflect well on Mr Polanski.

Back in June/July, Speitan was calling for Zionists to hunted down by force "in the same way as the Nazi oppressors were".

She seems pleasant.

[The Archregimancy]

Apologies if this has already been posted, but the optics of the Green Party motion on Zionism continue to get worse.

Green member behind Zionism motion named as 'close friend' of jailed al-Qaeda supporter in court.

Now, there are several important qualifiers there. As the BBC article scrupulously notes, 'There is no suggestion in the documents that Speitan knew of Pham's criminal activities at the time they knew each other'. It would appear that Lubna Speitan's evidence was primarily based on Minh Quang Pham's mental state, and was designed to establish a 'mental health defense [sic]'. There's no suggestion that she was in any way voicing support for Pham's actions or Al Qaeda or Islamic extremism.

All the same, I submit that discovering that Ms Speitan was voicing support for someone sentenced to 40 years in prison after admitting to three counts associated with a plot to detonate explosives in Heathrow's arrivals area after spending several months training in Yemen is perhaps sub-optimal for Mr Polanski and his party so close to the Holborn by-election.

The Greens now seem to be furiously backpedalling from Ms Speitan, stressing that she holds no official positions in the party, and that they 'take all allegations of this nature seriously'. But the statement that 'Where members have expressed views that do not fit in with the party's values, we have internal processes to investigate' seems a little bit self-contradictory since at least some of Ms Speitan's sincerely held views and values are now official party policy.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the fact that the mess is at least in part down to democratic policy-making structures that likely worked well before the party's recent expansion. But the mess also does not reflect well on Mr Polanski.

Back in June/July, Speitan was calling for Zionists to hunted down by force "in the same way as the Nazi oppressors were".

She seems pleasant.

She has a website...

https://www.lubnaspeitan.com/

It's entirely understandable that Ms Speitan feels passionately about the status of Palestine given her personal family history. It's entirely understandable that she would want to advocate fiercely for Palestine given that history. But the Green Party may yet have cause to regret that her passion and fierceness was directed towards formulating party policy.

[Cole Whyte-Gurney]

Back in June/July, Speitan was calling for Zionists to hunted down by force "in the same way as the Nazi oppressors were".

She seems pleasant.

She has a website...

https://www.lubnaspeitan.com/

It's entirely understandable that Ms Speitan feels passionately about the status of Palestine given her personal family history. It's entirely understandable that she would want to advocate fiercely for Palestine given that history. But the Green Party may yet have cause to regret that her passion and fierceness was directed towards formulating party policy.

I like her paintings more than her politics

[Hirota]

It's projection.

Coincidentally, it's demonstrably very easy to snarl things like "racist," "Islamophobic," "right-wing apologist," "drunk," or "centrist dad" without an ounce of evidence.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm only claiming it's projection as an example of proving my point on how useless it is to snarl this crap. I don't think you are racist or any of the above Uan, and even if I did I don't think it would be worth throwing it out there as an attempt to avoid proper engagement.

The asymmetry is justified when it tracks documented context, as the EHRC's 2020 findings were. It isn't when the word alone does the work. It's why I so dislike the empty snarl words.

The clouding isn't specific to these two terms either. "Racist", "transphobic" and "misogynist" get used the same way. "Witchhunt" has the mirror-image problem, because it can be used to wave away a legitimate complaint just as "racist" can be used to shut down legitimate criticism.

The problem is people treating the label as the final verdict on mere snarling assertion alone. The fix is to ask what was actually said or done, and what the evidence is. But it persists because it works: a label ends a discussion cheaply, and the person using it rarely has to defend it... until they have a track record of such rhetorical stunts.

OK, I ended up feeling a little hard done by here because I don't think I was snarling. I'd engaged with Ostro's posts in quite some detail, and over the past few weeks I've done that more than most thread contributors do. But I think that at the end of that one can sometimes conclude that someone is, in fact, racist. Although I recognise the phenomenon you're referring to, racist isn't always a term used to shut down discussion, it can be the conclusion drawn after the discussion. The answer isn't always to reply in kind with several hundred words about "how we conceptualise concepts". Sometimes it's fair to call it what it is.

It's a pet hate of mine and I'll call it out, regardless of if it's well intentioned for brevities sake, or used to stiffle discussion.

Don't take it too personally, far too many people do it. I do it too often for my own liking.

[Cole Whyte-Gurney]

I know you meant stifle, but I like stiffle even more. It should be a word.

[Hirota]

I would be interested (sincerely) in the views of our Green Party members on this paragraph from an opinion piece in the Guardian:

That is the suspicion of some Green veterans. They feel their party has been captured by a well-organised, itinerant caucus of militant left activists who have been looking for a new host since Jeremy Corbyn and his acolytes lost control of Labour. Obsession with Israel, crowding out the party’s environmental message, is a tell.

It sounds similar to the theory I suggested:

I'll be kind to the Greens and suggest there is a risk that a group of highly motivated single issue campaigners who aren't invested in the Green Party's long term success thought it would be a way of moving the Overton window and that the criticisms both from inside and outside the party in response were an acceptable cost. If you aren't emotionally or strategically invested in a party, you don't mind sinking it for what you consider is a "greater good."

Like Plat observed anecdotally, it's not the issue that gets most Green party members the most motivated. I hope that's true.

Back in June/July, Speitan was calling for Zionists to hunted down by force "in the same way as the Nazi oppressors were".

She seems pleasant.

Not too long ago she admitted being an "antisemitic terrorist." https://x.com/chalavyishmael/status/1981410506305904690

Oh and look who I found in her Facebook.

I'm beginning to think the Greens are cooked at this point. If they get rid of Polanski, Mothin Ali makes his leadership bid, and this self-described "antisemitic terrorist" goes for deputy.

How long before they start reprinting old National Front posters?

[Ariddia]

I would be interested (sincerely) in the views of our Green Party members on this paragraph from an opinion piece in the Guardian:

Good article. I agree with every word, and it's something of a relief to see it formulated so clearly.

I want a strong green party, damn it. Not whatever nastiness the Green Party is becoming.

[Baathist Union]

Apologies if this has already been posted, but the optics of the Green Party motion on Zionism continue to get worse.

Green member behind Zionism motion named as 'close friend' of jailed al-Qaeda supporter in court.

Now, there are several important qualifiers there. As the BBC article scrupulously notes, 'There is no suggestion in the documents that Speitan knew of Pham's criminal activities at the time they knew each other'. It would appear that Lubna Speitan's evidence was primarily based on Minh Quang Pham's mental state, and was designed to establish a 'mental health defense [sic]'. There's no suggestion that she was in any way voicing support for Pham's actions or Al Qaeda or Islamic extremism.

All the same, I submit that discovering that Ms Speitan was voicing support for someone sentenced to 40 years in prison after admitting to three counts associated with a plot to detonate explosives in Heathrow's arrivals area after spending several months training in Yemen is perhaps sub-optimal for Mr Polanski and his party so close to the Holborn by-election.

The Greens now seem to be furiously backpedalling from Ms Speitan, stressing that she holds no official positions in the party, and that they 'take all allegations of this nature seriously'. But the statement that 'Where members have expressed views that do not fit in with the party's values, we have internal processes to investigate' seems a little bit self-contradictory since at least some of Ms Speitan's sincerely held views and values are now official party policy.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the fact that the mess is at least in part down to democratic policy-making structures that likely worked well before the party's recent expansion. But the mess also does not reflect well on Mr Polanski.

Back in June/July, Speitan was calling for Zionists to hunted down by force "in the same way as the Nazi oppressors were".

She seems pleasant.

british colonialiste are mad at palestinians for disliking israel it appears..... as expected

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Back in June/July, Speitan was calling for Zionists to hunted down by force "in the same way as the Nazi oppressors were".

She seems pleasant.

british colonialiste are mad at palestinians for disliking israel it appears..... as expected

lol lmao

Lubna Speitan is not indicative of actual Palestinian opinion. A majority of Palestinians support a two state solution and do not, in fact, support a violent hunting down of Zionists or persecuting Green Party members for 'attending Zionist synagogues' (which is almost all of them in the UK).

[Velstrania]

Police cannot ban pro-Palestine march on anniversary of 7 October attacks, Met says
While I dont agree on an outright ban.
The timing is clearly provocative.
If they had any care about the jews who died in the barbaric attack they would not protest on such a date.

Good, they shouldn't ban it no matter how provocative the timing. The problem here is that they have the authority to ban protests in the first place. That isn't true freedom of speech.

[Vassenor]

british colonialiste are mad at palestinians for disliking israel it appears..... as expected

lol lmao

Lubna Speitan is not indicative of actual Palestinian opinion. A majority of Palestinians support a two state solution and do not, in fact, support a violent hunting down of Zionists or persecuting Green Party members for 'attending Zionist synagogues' (which is almost all of them in the UK).

Yeah I'm not sure ripping off the Mossad playbook is really the way to go here.