UK Politics Thread IX: The Masses Against the Classes

[Fartsniffage]

Special transgender prison unit for three prisoners to open this week.

The move comes after the case of Karen White, a transgender prisoner, who sexually assaulted two women while on remand at New Hall jail in Wakefield.

White, who was born male and now identifies as a woman, was described by a judge as a "predator" who was a danger to women and children.

She was given a life sentence for sexual offences.

How will we protect other prisoners from this dangerous predator? I know, a transgender unit! That way she'll only have access to prisoners we don't care about.

Do minor crime while cis = open prison
Do minor crime while trans = special prison unit you'll share with Karen Rapesalot

I don't think that's a fair assessment. According to the article there are about 125 trans prisoners in England and Wales and this unit is only being used to house 3 of them. I'd venture that those 3 are all difficult prisoners.

[Ostroeuropa]

Special transgender prison unit for three prisoners to open this week.

How will we protect other prisoners from this dangerous predator? I know, a transgender unit! That way she'll only have access to prisoners we don't care about.

Do minor crime while cis = open prison
Do minor crime while trans = special prison unit you'll share with Karen Rapesalot

I don't think that's a fair assessment. According to the article there are about 125 trans prisoners in England and Wales and this unit is only being used to house 3 of them. I'd venture that those 3 are all difficult prisoners.

I don't see the justification for a special transgender unit for transwomen before first trying them in a higher security womens prison with the other women rapists and violent criminals. If they become a frequent victimizer there too, then it may well be justified, but even there it probably isn't given that those prisons have the facilities to segregate problem prisoners from the general population.

I'm not opposed to it on principle, I just think that the available resources have not been fully explored and don't see a reason for the expense beyond a kind of vague gynocentrism and transphobic misandry. It's sort of like suddenly up and deciding to have a special prison for Muslims before you've demonstrated we actually need one after one rapes a white woman.

It's like, ehhhhhhh. Not too sure of your motivations here guy.

I don't see the need for a secondary system until it has been demonstrated the current system and the process for it is not fit for purpose. Just immediately throwing up your arms in defeat after the first stage in the process fails and acting like all subsequent ones are pointless strikes me as odd.

[Kowani]

So, question for the British. What kind of power does the Queen actually have?

[Ostroeuropa]

So, question for the British. What kind of power does the Queen actually have?

None. She has about as much power as the person who holds the bible for the presidential innauguration. She could decide to run off with it during the ceremony, but she'd be quickly replaced and nobody actually puts much stock in the ritual. A president/prime minister who faced those circumstances would not suddenly not be president, they'd just shrug with the rest of us and go;
"Whatever." and either just declare themselves president/prime minister, or find someone else to hold a bible for them.

Parliament can, and has before, up and decided to change who the monarch is, and who can succeed the monarch. The reason the queen is the queen is that a bill in parliament has designated Sophia of Hannover as the starting point for the British Monarchy, with male preference primogeniture as the line of succession.

This was ammended, by parliament, to be a gender neutral primogenture recently.

Parliament can up and decide to replace her.

[Fartsniffage]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tlhOClzULs

[Pasong Tirad]

So, question for the British. What kind of power does the Queen actually have?

AFAIK she has some powers that she can theoretically use, such as royal assent and whatnot, but like if she ever actually did use it people would riot.

see: the whole plot of the play/TV movie King Charles III

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

So, question for the British. What kind of power does the Queen actually have?

About £400 million.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

In the end, Britain does not have a written constitution, so any argument could be made. One could say that the powers of the monarch are just dormant, waiting to be used again to their fullest potential.

Edit: most importantly, the queen is the only owner of land in the UK in the Roman sense.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Elderly ex-paratroopers could be charged with murder within weeks, 47 years after Bloody Sunday

Elderly former Parachute Regiment soldiers fear they will face criminal charges over the Bloody Sunday killings in Londonderry, according to reports.

Well-placed sources have suggested in today's Daily Telegraph that four ex-paratroopers, now in their 60s and 70s, fear being told they will face murder charges.

Northern Ireland's Public Prosecution Service (PPS) is to announce on March 14 the decision on whether any of the former soldiers will face charges in connection with the shooting of 14 men at a protest march.

....

Thirteen people died when soldiers from the Parachute Regiment opened fire on civil rights marchers in Londonderry in January 1972, with a 14th victim dying later.

The landmark Saville Inquiry concluded in 2010 that all those killed or injured were innocent.

Prime Minister David Cameron issued an official apology in the House of Commons, describing the killings as "unjustified and unjustifiable".

Two years later, in 2012, the PSNI launched a murder investigation and passed the files to the PPS in 2016.

The police concluded that charges related to Bloody Sunday could be brought against 18 former soldiers.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Express saying its the IRA rewriting history, no mother fuckers is a fact your soldiers killed 14 innocent people, lets see you say this shit if they racked up in Liverpool and gunned down 14 people there.

[Vassenor]

Express saying its the IRA rewriting history, no mother fuckers is a fact your soldiers killed 14 innocent people, lets see you say this shit if they racked up in Liverpool and gunned down 14 people there.

You're expecting a Conservative paper to not venerate the armed forces as gods.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Elderly ex-paratroopers could be charged with murder within weeks, 47 years after Bloody Sunday

Elderly former Parachute Regiment soldiers fear they will face criminal charges over the Bloody Sunday killings in Londonderry, according to reports.

Well-placed sources have suggested in today's Daily Telegraph that four ex-paratroopers, now in their 60s and 70s, fear being told they will face murder charges.

Northern Ireland's Public Prosecution Service (PPS) is to announce on March 14 the decision on whether any of the former soldiers will face charges in connection with the shooting of 14 men at a protest march.

....

Thirteen people died when soldiers from the Parachute Regiment opened fire on civil rights marchers in Londonderry in January 1972, with a 14th victim dying later.

The landmark Saville Inquiry concluded in 2010 that all those killed or injured were innocent.

Prime Minister David Cameron issued an official apology in the House of Commons, describing the killings as "unjustified and unjustifiable".

Two years later, in 2012, the PSNI launched a murder investigation and passed the files to the PPS in 2016.

The police concluded that charges related to Bloody Sunday could be brought against 18 former soldiers.

Worlds smallest violin for them.

[Old Tyrannia]

It's disgraceful that we allow Irish nationalist (and loyalist) terrorists to walk free under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, but British soldiers are still under threat of being tried for crimes allegedly committed during the Troubles. It simply serves to illustrate how Good Friday was fundamentally a capitulation to terrorism by the British state.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

It's disgraceful that we allow Irish nationalist (and loyalist) terrorists to walk free under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, but British soldiers are still under threat of being tried for crimes allegedly committed during the Troubles. It simply serves to illustrate how Good Friday was fundamentally a capitulation to terrorism by the British state.

It's disgraceful they weren't put on trial long before the Good Friday Agreement.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's disgraceful that we allow Irish nationalist (and loyalist) terrorists to walk free under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, but British soldiers are still under threat of being tried for crimes allegedly committed during the Troubles. It simply serves to illustrate how Good Friday was fundamentally a capitulation to terrorism by the British state.

I agree with you but fundamentally it's a geopolitical consideration. We should arrest and put all criminals on trial.

However, we won the war and prosecuting the IRA would risk re-igniting it, it is not in the public interest. There's no similar consideration for prosecuting the soldiers.
We don't arrest the loyalist terrorists either for similar reasons I suspect.

I don't necessarily view it as capitulation to terrorism to end its practice through government policy.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Bloody Sunday is not an alleged crime. Its an actual thing that happened and the people killed by British Paratroopers were deemed innocent by an official inquiry launched into the matter.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Amnesty policies for historic events are controversial and emotive, and they need to be implemented consistently to all sides or not at all. Going after individual soldiers as fully culpable for situations that are at least partly the result of orders from officers operating in legitimate authority is also something I'm not fully comfortable with, inevitable references to Nuremburg aside.

I don't think they should be charged.

Obviously those who lost family and friends are likely to feel differently, but this is the case for the victims of any of the factions involved in the Troubles.

[Ifreann]

Special transgender prison unit for three prisoners to open this week.

How will we protect other prisoners from this dangerous predator? I know, a transgender unit! That way she'll only have access to prisoners we don't care about.

Do minor crime while cis = open prison
Do minor crime while trans = special prison unit you'll share with Karen Rapesalot

I don't think that's a fair assessment. According to the article there are about 125 trans prisoners in England and Wales and this unit is only being used to house 3 of them. I'd venture that those 3 are all difficult prisoners.

Maybe those three are, but once there is a transgender unit, the prison service are going to use it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Amnesty policies for historic events are controversial and emotive, and they need to be implemented consistently to all sides or not at all. Going after individual soldiers as fully culpable for situations that are at least partly the result of orders from officers operating in legitimate authority is also something I'm not fully comfortable with, inevitable references to Nuremburg aside.

I don't think they should be charged.

Obviously those who lost family and friends are likely to feel differently, but this is the case for the victims of any of the factions involved in the Troubles.

Both civilian sides of the conflict have largely received amnesty. The government holding its officials to a higher standard than the citizenry seems acceptable to me. There is more public interest in seeing crimes commitment on behalf of the government by government officials prosecuted than the same crimes committed by civilians.

The "Both sides" perception exists because it was the running narrative of the state and the IRA to ignore that the Ulster Loyalist terrorists were civilian terrorists.
The state ignored it because it would reframe the conflict away from Soldiers VS IRA and bring up uncomfortable questions about their focus against republican terrorism and lack of crackdowns on the Ulsterists despite comparable bodycounts.

The IRA ignored it because they liked to pretend the loyalist civilian terrorists were agents of the British State and functionally the same thing.

So when soldiers get prosecuted and the IRA get ignored it seems like we're holding a double standard because the historical narrative of the situation is warped to erase the existence of the Ulster terrorist forces.

In reality, "Both sides" have received amnesty, and the government is holding itself accountable for escalating the situation.

[Ostroeuropa]

50% of Conservatives and 22% Of Labour voters agree with the statement that "Islam is generally a threat to British ways of life."

Only 30% of the UK as a whole says it is compatible with the UK.

With that in mind:

The Muslim Council of Britain has accused the Conservative Party of ‘ignoring Islamophobia until it goes away’ and has called for an inquiry into Islamophobia in the party.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/03/01/muslim-g ... to=cbshare

Miqdaad Versi, spokesperson for the Muslim Council of Britain, accused the Conservative Party of having a strategy that seeks to ‘ignore the issue until it goes away’.

I agree this is their strategy and that it's a silly one. You can't wait for more Britons to turn against Islamophiles and judge the religion on its impact before coming to the conclusion it is bad before coming out in support of restricting it and its growth in the hopes of avoiding controversy, because the public by and large already believes that but it doesn't matter to a highly organized cabal of progressive activists who have sway over outrage culture. You have to take action to marginalize those organizations.

20% of the public has concluded Muslim immigration is a deliberate act of hostility by the immigrant and part of a culture of conquest.
31% of children under 18 believe this.

These are obviously extremes akin to the Slave Power conspiracy theory in the US, arising from lack of representation of more moderate anti-Islam views and suppression of that discourse, alongside the typical problem of progressive gaslighting and misrepresenting their opponents in the media leading to radicalization as people realize it is not merely a matter of differing value sets, but that active malice by at least some people plays a part in the current situation, leading some to conclude there must be a deeper and more nefarious thing going on than actually is.

For example, similar figures view Tommy Robinson as a hero. (42% of Tories and 20% of Labour respectively.). Yet look at how he is treated by the media.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Incredibly fucking disappointing.

“education not indoctrination”

FUCKING

LOL

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

Incredibly fucking disappointing.

“education not indoctrination”

FUCKING

LOL

The article makes it sound like it's not even sex education. Just "these people exist don't be shitty to them".

Throw the book at the lot of them. Keep the lessons going, fine the parents every day their kids don't attend. And rake that Labour MP over the coals. If she shows her true colours, expel her from the party.

[Vassenor]

Incredibly fucking disappointing.

“education not indoctrination”

FUCKING

LOL

If exposure is indoctrination, why am I not cishet?

[Novus America]

So, question for the British. What kind of power does the Queen actually have?

None. She has about as much power as the person who holds the bible for the presidential innauguration. She could decide to run off with it during the ceremony, but she'd be quickly replaced and nobody actually puts much stock in the ritual. A president/prime minister who faced those circumstances would not suddenly not be president, they'd just shrug with the rest of us and go;
"Whatever." and either just declare themselves president/prime minister, or find someone else to hold a bible for them.

Parliament can, and has before, up and decided to change who the monarch is, and who can succeed the monarch. The reason the queen is the queen is that a bill in parliament has designated Sophia of Hannover as the starting point for the British Monarchy, with male preference primogeniture as the line of succession.

This was ammended, by parliament, to be a gender neutral primogenture recently.

Parliament can up and decide to replace her.

Actually the person holding the Bible is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Who actually has power. Unlike the queen of the UK.

[The Archregimancy]

In the end, Britain does not have a written constitution, so any argument could be made. One could say that the powers of the monarch are just dormant, waiting to be used again to their fullest potential.

Edit: most importantly, the queen is the only owner of land in the UK in the Roman sense.

I'm sorry, but this is total nonsense.

The monarch can only act on the advice of her ministers. Neither the personal prerogatives of the monarch nor the reserve powers of the Crown can be exercised except as advised by the government.

The monarch does not 'own' the land in the UK in the 'Roman' or any other sense. In those cases where the Crown does directly own land - as per the Crown Estate - the monarchy surrendered all functional control in the 18th century, and the Crown Estate is entirely responsible to Parliament.

So no, it's not possible to make 'any argument'. The British monarchy is both constitutional and ceremonial. The argument you are attempting to make is a gross misrepresentation of the role of the Crown within the British constitution.

This topic comes up from time to time in NSG, but anyone claiming that the monarchy holds any functional power is making an argument that shows a basic ignorance of the operation of the British constitution. That the latter constitution is unwritten doesn't mean it doesn't hold real force.