UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsboro ... or_Inquiry

Does this read like a cover up to you? That report was produced, practical time requirements to actually do the work aside, immediately.

It's fair to say more police should have been prosecuted for falsifying records. On the other hand, a provincial police department is hardly "the establishment".

So, just so I understand this, the disaster occurs in 1989, and 96 people die.

A report comes out (after a 31 day inquiry) saying that we need all seater stadiums, that the police "made a mistake" and that "they were unwilling to admit they were at fault" and you think that that was enough?

You are missing a point in the logical progression which is guilt of the police. It does not follow from the fact that many people died that someone murdered them. The question is whether what the police did was unreasonable. Duckenfield was already prosecuted for this - with alleged gross negligence not malicious intent - and the prosecution failed. I guess it is only because of the repeal of double jeopardy protections that he can be prosecuted a second time.

There is a real travesty here which is that the Taylor reports identify that the police lied in records but this was not pursued. It should have been. On the other hand lying in records is a far cry from mass murder and no one is really excited here about lying in records.

So why, then, did successive governments and Home Secretaries require more inquests to get to the truth? If the truth wasn't already known - if there was no attempt to shield senior figures within the police and others - why bother?

Because there are a fair number of votes in finding "the truth" (i.e. an answer that the Liverpool associations want to hear) and very few votes in defending the original and perfectly fair inquiry. The answers returned have become more and more similar to the Liverpool party line as the process has become more and more politicised. Representing the Taylor reports, which did not blame the Liverpool fans, identified police mistakes as the proximal cause of the disaster, saw through police misreporting and flagged it up, and recommended very effective countermeasures against future stadium disasters, as a "cover up" is absurd and a slur on the memory of Lord Taylor. I see absolutely no reasonable grounds for believing that Taylor was involved in a cover up nor any motive for him to have been. If you disagree please quote from his report significant claims of fact that have subsequently been disproved.

Because Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's inquiry was limited to "new evidence" - evidence that had not been presented to The Taylor Inquiry or any previous reports. And if evidence had not been prevented, wouldn't that suggest that people had been either deliberately hiding or altering testimony?

Sure and we know they were doing that because Taylor said that in his original report: it was a secret only very briefly and certainly not a secret kept by "the establishment". It was a bodge job by a few rural lower middle class policemen trying to keep their pensions. Stuart-Smith concluded that the new evidence was so minor that it would have no bearing on the outcome of an inquiry which is why he recommended that they shouldn't be another inquiry.

[Calladan]

So, just so I understand this, the disaster occurs in 1989, and 96 people die.

A report comes out (after a 31 day inquiry) saying that we need all seater stadiums, that the police "made a mistake" and that "they were unwilling to admit they were at fault" and you think that that was enough?

You are missing a point in the logical progression which is guilt of the police. It does not follow from the fact that many people died that someone murdered them. The question is whether what the police did was unreasonable. Duckenfield was already prosecuted for this - with alleged gross negligence not malicious intent - and the prosecution failed. I guess it is only because of the repeal of double jeopardy protections that he can be prosecuted a second time.

There is a real travesty here which is that the Taylor reports identify that the police lied in records but this was not pursued. It should have been. On the other hand lying in records is a far cry from mass murder and no one is really excited here about lying in records.

So why, then, did successive governments and Home Secretaries require more inquests to get to the truth? If the truth wasn't already known - if there was no attempt to shield senior figures within the police and others - why bother?

Because there are a fair number of votes in finding "the truth" (i.e. an answer that the Liverpool associations want to hear) and very few votes in defending the original and perfectly fair inquiry. The answers returned have become more and more similar to the Liverpool party line as the process has become more and more politicised. Representing the Taylor reports, which did not blame the Liverpool fans, identified police mistakes as the proximal cause of the disaster, saw through police misreporting and flagged it up, and recommended very effective countermeasures against future stadium disasters, as a "cover up" is absurd and a slur on the memory of Lord Taylor. I see absolutely no reasonable grounds for believing that Taylor was involved in a cover up nor any motive for him to have been. If you disagree please quote from his report significant claims of fact that have subsequently been disproved.

Because Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's inquiry was limited to "new evidence" - evidence that had not been presented to The Taylor Inquiry or any previous reports. And if evidence had not been prevented, wouldn't that suggest that people had been either deliberately hiding or altering testimony?

Sure and we know they were doing that because Taylor said that in his original report: it was a secret only very briefly and certainly not a secret kept by "the establishment". It was a bodge job by a few rural lower middle class policemen trying to keep their pensions. Stuart-Smith concluded that the new evidence was so minor that it would have no bearing on the outcome of an inquiry which is why he recommended that they shouldn't be another inquiry.

Yes. I entirely agree. I don't know why I didn't see it before.

[The BlAAtschApen]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/28/br ... ull-bloom/


I first thought the title and intro were satire.

[Philjia]

Are we any closer to a power share in Stormont? LOL no.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Time to write the whole thing off as a Stormont in a teacup and wrap the lot of them across the knuckles with a direct rule.

[The Huskar Social Union]

If i could i would lock every member of the DUP and Sinn Fein in a room together till one of two things happened, they either A: All killed one another, or B: Formed a fucking government.

[Chestaan]

Yeah but there's commemorations of Hillsborough all the time but I don't think there has ever been a major commemoration in Britain for Heysel. Hillsborough should be remembered, especially because of the horrific coverup campaign and victim blaming, but had Italian fans killed a load of British fans then there would almost certainly be commemorations. I don't think its ok for British football to forget about Heysel just because the victims were not British and especially since hooligans played the decisive role in murdering those Italian fans.

It needs to be remembered as a reason never to go back to those horrible days, when some fans thought it was perfectly fine to viciously attack the other team's fans. It needs to be remembered so that it never happens again.

Anfield has a Heysel commemoration.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... er-victims
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-32898612

This is what I'm getting at. The monument to Heysel was unveiled in 2010, 25 years after the disaster actually occurred. The amount of football fans I have met that have never even heard of Heysel is astonishing. It doesn't get the attention it deserves, partially because the victims were primarily not British and partially because it is much harder to come to terms with a largely fan-driven disaster as opposed to a failure of authorities.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Anfield has a Heysel commemoration.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... er-victims
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-32898612

This is what I'm getting at. The monument to Heysel was unveiled in 2010, 25 years after the disaster actually occurred. The amount of football fans I have met that have never even heard of Heysel is astonishing. It doesn't get the attention it deserves, partially because the victims were primarily not British and partially because it is much harder to come to terms with a largely fan-driven disaster as opposed to a failure of authorities.

We've more than had our fill of raking over football tragedies with Hillsbore. If we commemorated every disaster in the world we'd spend 23 hours a day in minute silences.

[The BlAAtschApen]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... er-victims
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-32898612

This is what I'm getting at. The monument to Heysel was unveiled in 2010, 25 years after the disaster actually occurred. The amount of football fans I have met that have never even heard of Heysel is astonishing. It doesn't get the attention it deserves, partially because the victims were primarily not British and partially because it is much harder to come to terms with a largely fan-driven disaster as opposed to a failure of authorities.

We've more than had our fill of raking over football tragedies with Hillsbore. If we commemorated every disaster in the world we'd spend 23 hours a day in minute silences.

Please do so.

Not just you, everyone

[Dumb Ideologies]

We've more than had our fill of raking over football tragedies with Hillsbore. If we commemorated every disaster in the world we'd spend 23 hours a day in minute silences.

Please do so.

Not just you, everyone

Jokes on you. Stealth typing and lack of distractions - we can post more in minute silences and you're not allowed to swear while you're cleaning up the mess.

[Calladan]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/28/britains-anti-irish-prejudice-is-back-in-full-bloom/


I first thought the title and intro were satire.

So, just to get this straight, because we hate a bunch of people who are not very nice (and stuck in the 12th century) but were on "the right side" during The Troubles (and so therefore are "the good guys" in Ireland, as opposed to "The Bad Guys" in Ireland, which presumably are Sinn Fein or someone like that?) we must, therefore, logically hate ALL Irish people?

I can see that. It makes perfect sense

[Hydesland]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/28/britains-anti-irish-prejudice-is-back-in-full-bloom/


I first thought the title and intro were satire.

So, just to get this straight, because we hate a bunch of people who are not very nice (and stuck in the 12th century) but were on "the right side" during The Troubles (and so therefore are "the good guys" in Ireland, as opposed to "The Bad Guys" in Ireland, which presumably are Sinn Fein or someone like that?) we must, therefore, logically hate ALL Irish people?

I can see that. It makes perfect sense

I think it was more because of things like the "Daily Mail cartoon that showed drunk Northern Irishmen on the floor of a bar displaying a “Free Guinness for Life” sign" - a blatantly crude stereotype. And that, again based on crude stereotypes, there were rumours spreading everywhere that they would seek to negotiate with Tories to bring back the orange parade or to overturn LGBT legislation UK wide, when in reality "the DUP’s demands were focused more on matters such as health care and infrastructure — an extra 1 billion pounds of government money — than contentious issues like parading, although there was a clause in there about the implementation in Northern Ireland of the Armed Forces Covenant (in place elsewhere in the U.K.) aimed at improving the lot of British Army veterans."

[Hydesland]

Looks like Corbyn's hard stance against single market membership is causing divisions in the Labour party.

[Dooom35796821595]

Looks like Corbyn's hard stance against single market membership is causing divisions in the Labour party.

There are already divisions in the Labour Party since most of the party didn't want Corbin as leader.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Looks like Corbyn's hard stance against single market membership is causing divisions in the Labour party.

What better time to have an undignified squabble than when the party has just made themselves credible again after years of embarrassing non-stop foot-stomping by bad losers upset that their faction isn't in control of the party anymore?

This'll play well with the public, and completely won't divert attention away from the Tories' woes.

I would never endorse sending some of the boys from Momentum round to "persuade" these traitors back into line, of course! Perish the thought.

[Philjia]

DUP says no breakthrough in time for deadline likely: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-40438609

Hey, they still have two hours. Things could turn around, right?

[Dumb Ideologies]

DUP says no breakthrough in time for deadline likely: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-40438609

Hey, they still have two hours. Things could turn around, right?

We've got too used to Theresa May time. For most people, u-turns take much longer.

[The Huskar Social Union]

DUP says no breakthrough in time for deadline likely: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-40438609

Hey, they still have two hours. Things could turn around, right?

Its NI.


So as a resident of NI, im going to say no.

[Vassenor]

Conservatives cheer after blocking attempt to remove public sector pay caps; call it "attempt to bring down government"

Seriously, how out of touch are they getting?

[Frank Zipper]

Theresa May folding faster than a cheap tent, rather than test her backbenchers' loyalty.

Women from Northern Ireland will be able to get abortions on the NHS in England

[Chestaan]

Tory MP hates social media because it gives a voice to people who "don't deserve one"

[Ifreann]

Theresa May folding faster than a cheap tent, rather than test her backbenchers' loyalty.

A discount tent, you might say.

Women from Northern Ireland will be able to get abortions on the NHS in England

This will upset Protestant Baby Jesus something fierce.

[Imperializt Russia]

Theresa May folding faster than a cheap tent, rather than test her backbenchers' loyalty.

Women from Northern Ireland will be able to get abortions on the NHS in England

That annoyed me.

That she could just fold and avoid the defeat at vote.
Obviously there's no way to stop them and who says they can't just make the decision, but it's a power play and nothing more.

[Frank Zipper]

Theresa May folding faster than a cheap tent, rather than test her backbenchers' loyalty.

A discount tent, you might say.

Women from Northern Ireland will be able to get abortions on the NHS in England

This will upset Protestant Baby Jesus something fierce.

This is the summer of our discount tent made glorious winter... wait that's not right.

[Souseiseki]

the latest british social attitudes survey has been released! let's have a looksie.

http://natcen.ac.uk/our-research/resear ... attitudes/

taxes taxes taxes

there has been a dramatic drop in the perceived prevalence of benefit cheating. (down 15% in the last 15 years) this was notably one of the key issues highlighted in the landmark study referenced in "British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows" in which the british public were off by a factor of 34. 55% of people still apparently believe most unemployed could find a job though, suggesting that while the british public may be on the right path they are not quite there. also, a hilarious drop in the figure of people thinking most unemployed could find a job can be observed in 2008. lol. presumably someone forgot to water the magic jobs tree that year.

support for "tax more, spend more" is at the highest it has been in a decade. however, the number of people saying the government should definitely provide healthcare, provide a decent standard of living for the old, provide decent housing for the poor and provide a decent standard for the living for the unemployed also seems be lower than 1996, 2002, 2006 and 2012. luckily there's no such thing as society anyway, so it's not that big of a concern.

civil liberties

53% of the british public appear to think the government should be able to "detain people for as long as they want without putting them on trial" at the time of a suspected terrorist attack. that's fun. nothing wrong with a bit of indefinite detention without trial in a modern democracy. maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the wording spooked them a bit. that said, apparently the number of people that disagree with this has also been going up, so perhaps britain is again on the right path? or are they?

according to the authors the british public are still generally illiberal and both labour and the conservatives have been curtailing civil liberties for the past yonks with very very very little cases of them liberalizing anything. i hope you're happy with a PM that slammed the old order as babies that shamed the public for being too illiberal and wants to expand censorship and surveillance while also removing the european limitations that kept us in check on issues like this because you're stuck with them for the next 20-50 years, possibly your entire life time. enjoy it. savour it. this is your prize.

the public seem to moving towards the idea the death penalty is unjust but a good portion of them seem to still think it's the bees knee's. this in stark comparison to the past, where support for the death penalty was significantly higher. this is nothing new. much like the partial legalization of homosexuality the abolition of the death penalty was carried out by a liberal elite against the will of the british people and then locked in stone by foreign courts and i am flabbergasted that so many in this thread that claim to represent the will of the british people and british nation refuse to speak out on this issue.

80% of people say they are not prejudiced at all against transgender people, but only 40% are willing to say they have no problem with a qualified transgender people being employed as a police officer or primary school teacher. hmm.

the number of people with the view that "Some films are too violent or pornographic even for adults" seems to have fallen, at least compared with 1996 figures, giving "Adults should be able to see whatever films they like" a 4 point lead. while i have little doubt tugging heartstrings over certain kinds of pornography would most likely still elicit a majority negative reaction from the public (after all, how a question is phrased can affect how it is answered, and see above for how what people think they think and what they actually think can differ) this is still pleasantly surprising. if we take these figures at face value then the dream of a country where you can watch two legal adults having legal sex without worrying about the police getting involved and telling you that actually you were watching the wrong kind of legal sex seems a lot less far off than it once did.

that said, as you can imagine, the labour party, the conservative party and a great deal of feminist groups and children's charities are probably screaming with existential dread as the great nightmare seems like it may be becoming true, that despite their attempts to buff up the morality police this kind of thing is becoming "normalized" to the point that "Adults should be able to see whatever films they like" may become the norm (as paraphrased from some piece of shit organizations whose name i can't be bothered finding), so you might expect to see them pur extra fuel into the bullshit machine soon. brexit will allow us to reverse the post-single market influx of very unbritish pornography from europe and put massive restrictions on what people can and cannot do on the internet, but still, the TV censors were correct in a way in that now that the "floodgate of hardcore pornography" has been opened it will be very hard to close. [laughs in souseiseki]

also, men are almost twice as likely than women to think "Adults should be able to see whatever films they like" (58% for men and 32% for women). the section ends with noting that it is still a "live" issue, which is very depressing.

the daily brexito

"73% of those who are worried about immigration voted Leave, compared with 36% of those who did not identify this as a concern." - shocking
"72% of those holding ‘authoritarian’ views voted to leave, compared with 21% of those holding ‘libertarian’ views. " - lollllllll

the younger and more educated you are the more likely you were to vote remain. again, not that surprising. show those elites what's what.

also, strength of english identify as opposed to british identity was correlated with strength of leave vote. again, not surprising, for all the talk of how the idea that brexit was tied with english nationalism is absurd we have seen plenty of english posters in this thread ultimately be willing to sacrifice the union as long as it means they get a good english brexit.

between 1992-2015 support for leaving the EU floated at 20-25% for every year except two, where 30% and 26% broke the pattern. support jumped considerably near the end to 41% in 2016 until we got the final result of 52%. combined with previous polls showing that even in 2016 only 25% of the british pubic highlighted the EU as one of the key three issues affecting their future/the nation, we can see that UKIP and and others were correct in say that brexit and an EU referendum was indeed something for which the british public longed for with fiery passion in their hearts, denied it only by the selfishness of the elites. now that we have transformed the long standing and stunning support for brexit into the thunderous majority it now holds we can move forward together with building a better country for all.

"From 2002-2014 the public has, on balance, become more positive about the benefits of immigration, but also more selective on who they wish to see migrate. "

can britain stop being tsundere for one fucking second, please?

tl;dr britain is still pretty bad but i have hope it might become slightly less bad in some ways, but possibly more bad in others