UK Politics Thread VIII—Can't Let EU Go

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Meanwhile looks like the law on Domestic Abuse is being overhauled to include things like economic abuse.

This is awful:

The draft legislation also honours a pledge to abolish the practice of alleged abusers cross-examining their victims in the family court. It has already been banned in criminal courts.

In criminal court a law is provided who can cross-examine for you. In family court that is not always the case and legal aid has been drastically cut.

The draft legislation also pledges to allocate £500,000 towards improving support to male victims of domestic abuse. The Home Office said it would publish a male victims position statement to recognise their needs “in due course”.

This is better.

A tiny drop in the water when compared to the actual problem though.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is awful:


In criminal court a law is provided who can cross-examine for you. In family court that is not always the case and legal aid has been drastically cut.




This is better.

A tiny drop in the water when compared to the actual problem though.

I think it's literally 500,000 pounds more than ever before when it comes to state funding. We'll also probably see innovation with the funds as unlike the feminist movement it's not primarily a slush fund for bigots and con artists.

(Reminder that one shelter chief earned 200,000 a year a few years ago.).

Mens shelters will be forced to be innovative with the money because they aren't primarily demanding more to line their own pockets and thus unconcerned with spending it wisely.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Meanwhile looks like the law on Domestic Abuse is being overhauled to include things like economic abuse.

This is awful:

The draft legislation also honours a pledge to abolish the practice of alleged abusers cross-examining their victims in the family court. It has already been banned in criminal courts.

In criminal court a law is provided who can cross-examine for you. In family court that is not always the case and legal aid has been drastically cut.

The draft legislation also pledges to allocate £500,000 towards improving support to male victims of domestic abuse. The Home Office said it would publish a male victims position statement to recognise their needs “in due course”.

This is better.

I didn't know you had become a feminist, but I welcome the change!

[Ostroeuropa]

This is awful:


In criminal court a law is provided who can cross-examine for you. In family court that is not always the case and legal aid has been drastically cut.




This is better.

I didn't know you had become a feminist, but I welcome the change!

I'm not a feminist and if you think the Conservative party is working on mens issues because of feminism you're deluding yourself.

[Imperializt Russia]

A tiny drop in the water when compared to the actual problem though.

I think it's literally 500,000 pounds more than ever before when it comes to state funding. We'll also probably see innovation with the funds as unlike the feminist movement it's not primarily a slush fund for bigots and con artists.

(Reminder that one shelter chief earned 200,000 a year a few years ago.).

Reminder that everyone ITT thought that was fucking disgusting and a waste of money.

[Vassenor]

I am not sure why it is so vital to allow the accused to attack their alleged victim(s) in court.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think it's literally 500,000 pounds more than ever before when it comes to state funding. We'll also probably see innovation with the funds as unlike the feminist movement it's not primarily a slush fund for bigots and con artists.

(Reminder that one shelter chief earned 200,000 a year a few years ago.).

Reminder that everyone ITT thought that was fucking disgusting and a waste of money.

Indeed, not contesting that, but the point is Mens shelters will be forced to be innovative with the money because they aren't primarily demanding more to line their own pockets and thus unconcerned with spending it wisely.

[Ostroeuropa]

I am not sure why it is so vital to allow the accused to attack their alleged victim(s) in court.

Cross examination under the watch of a judge is not an attack. Without a lawyer who can do it for you, there is no excuse to prevent it, it is an intolerable breach of the rights of the accused.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I am not sure why it is so vital to allow the accused to attack their alleged victim(s) in court.

I am not sure why it is so vital for people to make uninformed entries into topics that they know little about, however they do it often. If you had read Ostro's post, he was drawing a contrast between the criminal courts, where somebody is provided in order to cross-examine the person making the alegations, as compared to the family court, where they are often not.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I didn't know you had become a feminist, but I welcome the change!

I'm not a feminist and if you think the Conservative party is working on mens issues because of feminism you're deluding yourself.

Well, you seem to be lobbying for equality of the sexes, and men's rights issues are also feminist issues, so you share at least some views with feminists.

[Imperializt Russia]

I am not sure why it is so vital to allow the accused to attack their alleged victim(s) in court.

Cross examination under the watch of a judge is not an attack. Without a lawyer who can do it for you, there is no excuse to prevent it, it is an intolerable breach of the rights of the accused.

Well again, this isn't exactly "feminist ideology" behind this. In the criminal courts, you must expressly dismiss an appointed lawyer to self-represent. So it made sense for criminal courts to prevent the accused from cross-examining the accuser.

The family courts have clearly been 'brought into line' with the criminal courts on this matter, but obviously the legal aid cuts mean that only those who can afford a lawyer will be able to cross-examine.

This is because the legal aid cuts are political in nature and similarly horrific (and also impact women in many areas, to no benefit I can think of).

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Cross examination under the watch of a judge is not an attack. Without a lawyer who can do it for you, there is no excuse to prevent it, it is an intolerable breach of the rights of the accused.

Well again, this isn't exactly "feminist ideology" behind this. In the criminal courts, you must expressly dismiss an appointed lawyer to self-represent. So it made sense for criminal courts to prevent the accused from cross-examining the accuser.

The family courts have clearly been 'brought into line' with the criminal courts on this matter, but obviously the legal aid cuts mean that only those who can afford a lawyer will be able to cross-examine.

This is because the legal aid cuts are political in nature and similarly horrific (and also impact women in many areas, to no benefit I can think of).

There must be a right to cross-examine however, if you would like a fair trial. It doesn't have to be the defendant themselves, it can be a lawyer, however when no advocate is present, one should be appointed or failing that the accused must be given the right of cross-examination.

[Ostroeuropa]

Cross examination under the watch of a judge is not an attack. Without a lawyer who can do it for you, there is no excuse to prevent it, it is an intolerable breach of the rights of the accused.

Well again, this isn't exactly "feminist ideology" behind this. In the criminal courts, you must expressly dismiss an appointed lawyer to self-represent. So it made sense for criminal courts to prevent the accused from cross-examining the accuser.

The family courts have clearly been 'brought into line' with the criminal courts on this matter, but obviously the legal aid cuts mean that only those who can afford a lawyer will be able to cross-examine.

This is because the legal aid cuts are political in nature and similarly horrific (and also impact women in many areas, to no benefit I can think of).

I agree, the causes of this one are conservative in nature, it's the budget cuts.

I'm not a feminist and if you think the Conservative party is working on mens issues because of feminism you're deluding yourself.

Well, you seem to be lobbying for equality of the sexes, and men's rights issues are also feminist issues, so you share at least some views with feminists.

I have always lobbied for equality of the sexes and that has meant most of the time I find myself opposed by feminists. Feminists deform the discussion of mens issues through a gynocentric ideological framework.

Well again, this isn't exactly "feminist ideology" behind this. In the criminal courts, you must expressly dismiss an appointed lawyer to self-represent. So it made sense for criminal courts to prevent the accused from cross-examining the accuser.

The family courts have clearly been 'brought into line' with the criminal courts on this matter, but obviously the legal aid cuts mean that only those who can afford a lawyer will be able to cross-examine.

This is because the legal aid cuts are political in nature and similarly horrific (and also impact women in many areas, to no benefit I can think of).

There must be a right to cross-examine however, if you would like a fair trial. It doesn't have to be the defendant themselves, it can be a lawyer, however when no advocate is present, one should be appointed or failing that the accused must be given the right of cross-examination.

This. A stop-gap measure would be to guarantee legal aid in the event domestic abuse is an aspect of the trial, but this is a worse solution that just expanding legal aid. I am not going to pretend that society should push for people to represent themselves in civil cases. A more sensible goal is to ensure everyone gets a lawyer.

What this law effectively does is remove the rights of poor males to defend themselves in family court.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Well again, this isn't exactly "feminist ideology" behind this. In the criminal courts, you must expressly dismiss an appointed lawyer to self-represent. So it made sense for criminal courts to prevent the accused from cross-examining the accuser.

The family courts have clearly been 'brought into line' with the criminal courts on this matter, but obviously the legal aid cuts mean that only those who can afford a lawyer will be able to cross-examine.

This is because the legal aid cuts are political in nature and similarly horrific (and also impact women in many areas, to no benefit I can think of).

I agree, the causes of this one are conservative in nature, it's the budget cuts.

Well, you seem to be lobbying for equality of the sexes, and men's rights issues are also feminist issues, so you share at least some views with feminists.

I have always lobbied for equality of the sexes and that has meant most of the time I find myself opposed by feminists. Feminists deform the discussion of mens issues through a gynocentric ideological framework.

There must be a right to cross-examine however, if you would like a fair trial. It doesn't have to be the defendant themselves, it can be a lawyer, however when no advocate is present, one should be appointed or failing that the accused must be given the right of cross-examination.

This. A stop-gap measure would be to guarantee legal aid in the event domestic abuse is an aspect of the trial, but this is a worse solution that just expanding legal aid. I am not going to pretend that society should push for people to represent themselves in civil cases. A more sensible goal is to ensure everyone gets a lawyer.

What this law effectively does is remove the rights of poor males to defend themselves in family court.

Well, I don't, and I'm a feminist, so you must have been talking to different feminists then.

[Ostroeuropa]

I agree, the causes of this one are conservative in nature, it's the budget cuts.



I have always lobbied for equality of the sexes and that has meant most of the time I find myself opposed by feminists. Feminists deform the discussion of mens issues through a gynocentric ideological framework.



This. A stop-gap measure would be to guarantee legal aid in the event domestic abuse is an aspect of the trial, but this is a worse solution that just expanding legal aid. I am not going to pretend that society should push for people to represent themselves in civil cases. A more sensible goal is to ensure everyone gets a lawyer.

What this law effectively does is remove the rights of poor males to defend themselves in family court.

Well, I don't, and I'm a feminist, so you must have been talking to different feminists then.

*Sigh*
What is the primary cause of the mens suicide epidemic?

No you know what, fuck 20 questions. I cba. If you talk about the issues differently then go ahead, rattle some off related to the UK.

What would you think the results of a second referendum be?
And how will Brexit effect the accession of the West Balkans(Serbia, Montenegro, Albania) and Turkey?

I voted to remain solely on human rights grounds, and my opinion has not changed. I never supported the so-called United States of Europe, but I know that the EU can be negotiated with to focus on the fundamental freedoms without being so bureaucratic.

I also believe that national currencies can co-exist with the euro, using the ERM: I do not see anything wrong with a member with two official currencies, which in my opinion would actually encourage both the ECB and the member state to be more competitive.

The bottom line in my opinion: never give up, tempting it may be.

On referendum day I was leaning remain despite opposing sentiments.

The human rights and refugee shit pushed me toward leave, but I support a federal Europe and view myself as a European.

Then I got locked in a hallway so i couldn't vote.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Theresa May adds nothing in her statement.

[Imperializt Russia]

Theresa May adds nothing in her statement.

A lot of Corbyn blame-gaming, even by her standards.

"Oh yes, it was because the person most viscerally opposed to my proposal didn't attend that the cross-party talks failed, of course, not because I'm not willing to compromise on anything"

[Juristonia]

When in doubt, just throw out a "YES, BUT LABOUR"

And apparently she's in doubt a lot.

[Imperializt Russia]

When in doubt, just throw out a "YES, BUT LABOUR"

And apparently she's in doubt a lot.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think Corbyn might have to push a second referendum or he'll be gotten rid of shortly. The party conference gave an explicit instruction to Corbyn supported by 85% of members and their representatives that he was to pursue an election and the opportunity to negotiate a deal himself or a second referendum, and now that the vote of no confidence has failed, he has no mechanism by which to pursue an election.

Shortly after the no confidence vote failed we saw a number of shadow ministers mobilize and this time organizations like momentum are silent on the matter and not coming to the defense of Corbyn.

This was the compromise we came to in order to give the Leavers a "fair shake", despite the party being overwhelmingly remain. Corbyn noting that we cannot afford to alienate leave labour voters was accepted and this was why we didn't push a strong remain position, but he cannot continue to use that excuse any further now that the compromise has tilted toward remain.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I think Corbyn might have to push a second referendum or he'll be gotten rid of shortly. The party conference gave an explicit instruction to Corbyn supported by 85% of members and their representatives that he was to pursue an election and the opportunity to negotiate a deal himself or a second referendum, and now that the vote of no confidence has failed, he has no mechanism by which to pursue an election.

Shortly after the no confidence vote failed we saw a number of shadow ministers mobilize and this time organizations like momentum are silent on the matter and not coming to the defense of Corbyn.

This was the compromise we came to in order to give the Leavers a "fair shake", despite the party being overwhelmingly remain.

If labour policy becomes a second referendum I will not be continuing as a party member. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this.

[Dresderstan]

I think Corbyn might have to push a second referendum or he'll be gotten rid of shortly. The party conference gave an explicit instruction to Corbyn supported by 85% of members and their representatives that he was to pursue an election and the opportunity to negotiate a deal himself or a second referendum, and now that the vote of no confidence has failed, he has no mechanism by which to pursue an election.

Shortly after the no confidence vote failed we saw a number of shadow ministers mobilize and this time organizations like momentum are silent on the matter and not coming to the defense of Corbyn.

This was the compromise we came to in order to give the Leavers a "fair shake", despite the party being overwhelmingly remain.

It's not gonna matter, he'll remain as leader until at least 2022 if not even longer, I don't see him leaving or getting ousted as leader just yet or anytime soon.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Raab calling for extending Article 50 to be ruled out "to give businesses certainty". How about ruling out no deal to give businesses certainty?

[Ostroeuropa]

I think Corbyn might have to push a second referendum or he'll be gotten rid of shortly. The party conference gave an explicit instruction to Corbyn supported by 85% of members and their representatives that he was to pursue an election and the opportunity to negotiate a deal himself or a second referendum, and now that the vote of no confidence has failed, he has no mechanism by which to pursue an election.

Shortly after the no confidence vote failed we saw a number of shadow ministers mobilize and this time organizations like momentum are silent on the matter and not coming to the defense of Corbyn.

This was the compromise we came to in order to give the Leavers a "fair shake", despite the party being overwhelmingly remain.

If labour policy becomes a second referendum I will not be continuing as a party member. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this.

It is already party policy, it is a matter of whether Corbyn will have to be brought in for discipline by the policy committee for failing to do as instructed by the party conference.

We cannot allow 15% of members to hold the rest to ransom.

The conference gave explicit options to Corbyn and instructed him to stick to them:

Obtain an election and negotiate a deal yourself
Hold a second referendum

[Ifreann]

I think Corbyn might have to push a second referendum or he'll be gotten rid of shortly. The party conference gave an explicit instruction to Corbyn supported by 85% of members and their representatives that he was to pursue an election and the opportunity to negotiate a deal himself or a second referendum, and now that the vote of no confidence has failed, he has no mechanism by which to pursue an election.

Shortly after the no confidence vote failed we saw a number of shadow ministers mobilize and this time organizations like momentum are silent on the matter and not coming to the defense of Corbyn.

This was the compromise we came to in order to give the Leavers a "fair shake", despite the party being overwhelmingly remain.

If labour policy becomes a second referendum I will not be continuing as a party member. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this.

Labour policy is to pursue a second referendum. It has been for a while.