The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)

[Come On You Irons]

There. Resident WHO political commentators and gurus can knock yourselves out in here and conduct your endless bickering. All other threads will be locked.

[goose]

this??

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c709ypzr8xlo

[Massive Attack]

Splodder, I read about the Bristol grooming gang on12 November, BBC News app.

Once on an App but not on their main News channel? Interesting. 

[,]

Splodder, I read about the Bristol grooming gang on12 November, BBC News app.

[Fauxstralian]

The usual story with foreign aid to countries with nuclear & weapons programmes is that relatively small amount of ‘aid’ is a bribe so they will buy the weapons from the UK

[Massive Attack]

Didn't see the Bristol rapist gang reported anywhere on the good old unbiased Beeb!

That's because this Country clearly doesn't have an issue at all with rape gangs. You're just a racist. Now pass go and collect your 200 Britcard points..  

[Splodder]

Didn't see the Bristol rapist gang reported anywhere on the good old unbiased Beeb!

[goose]

There was a very good video, maybe on instagram, which details all the money the uk has handed out to various causes home & abroad. And yet we have a £xbn black hole that keeps changing to fit their narrative.

[only1billybonds]

Much of politics leads to some severe head scratching for me but the one thing above all other that baffles/angers me is why are we giving aid to countries who have a ( not cheap) ongoing nuclear programme? Especially when our economy is down the shitter and getting worse by the day.

[Mike Oxsaw]

Are we still handing out (ring fenced) foreign aid to nuclear states and despots? That needs to be knocked squarely on the head and the savings used to help fill the black hole.

Same goes for renewable fuel subsidies - none to be paid until the nation's debt has been roped in, whatever the cost elsewhere/further down the line. The government, like West Ham,  has an obvious cash flow issue that needs proper management.

In fact, anything we don't actually need should be de-funded completely by the treasury until the nation is in a fit fiscal state to afford it.

Deciding what we "need" could get rather feisty, though.

[THUNDERCLINT]

In other news, Rachel from accounts may have changed her mind (or had it changed for her) about raising income tax.

They uploaded a new sub-routine to the Rachelbot.

[THUNDERCLINT]

Does calling ordinary people demonstrating outside migrant hotels a Nazi, qualify as hate speech? Especially when shouted by far left extremisy who themselves actually behave like Herr Hitler's brown shirts?

It's certainly slander. I think it's about time something was done about that law so it doesn't cost the price of a house to prosecute it.

In this instance present a video of said unwashed commie rabble screaming Nazi at people protecting their kids, over in minutes, guilty all day. Flat fee  500 quid for 10 minutes work.

Each commie tried separately against a class action of the victims. Bankrupt the cunts for generations.

Could even make a sport of it.

Can't afford a holiday? Hit the town centre with a common sense slogan about women's reproductive organ, wait for retarded commies, film the slander, sue, relax on a beach for a fortnight.

[goose]

In other news, Rachel from accounts may have changed her mind (or had it changed for her) about raising income tax.

[goose]

Every single day in 2014?

[Mike Oxsaw]

Yes you did, you conceded that Brexit got through in spite of the States attempts to stop it. Your words not mine.

Another referendum getting through would once again prove your  theory wrong.

I do agree that the state is a problem but they are not unbeatable. History has proven that.

Change is coming you’ll see. And the state won’t be a match against the will of the people.

It was a challenge to get about half the population off their arses and vote in the Brexit referendum. Apathy in the UK (God save the Queen) has gone up an order of magnitude or two since then, as any observant resident will testify, so an ECHR referendum is more likely to go down in history as a vote with the lowest turn-out ever than delivering "the will of the people".

That's not "defeatist", that's simply reading society, which anybody can do.

Had Brexit been accepted at the time by the state, then it would have sailed through effortlessly, but "the will of the people" decided otherwise, it seems.

Your arguments get more and more "6th-formy" by the minute. The state, as I said, holds all the aces, all the power, and cannot be voted out.

If by 6 th for my you mean right, I’ll agree.

Currently the state is happy with masse immigration and the rape of the children.

Tat will change once the ECHR is removed and your entire argument will be proven wrong again.

Your argument has a lot of waffle and nonsense. It sounds like you’re arguing with yourself.

You're the one with the insane notion that the state will cede any of it's power if/when we leave the ECHR.

Don't just say "Tah (sic) will change", give us some practical examples of how and why.

[F 129 Row66]

Does calling ordinary people demonstrating outside migrant hotels a Nazi, qualify as hate speech? Especially when shouted by far left extremisy who themselves actually behave like Herr Hitler's brown shirts?

[Nutsin]

[Nutsin]

[Nutsin]

If you believe that coming out of the ECHR will have any impact on the way the state runs the country then you deserve to be incarcerated into Barley Lane hospital...for life.

These "barriers" are not being compiled by the government (either colour) but by the state in an attempt to get what it wants.

"Doubling down" against something I never claimed doesn't actually enhance your defence here, at all.

Yes you did, you conceded that Brexit got through in spite of the States attempts to stop it. Your words not mine.

Another referendum getting through would once again prove your  theory wrong.

I do agree that the state is a problem but they are not unbeatable. History has proven that.

Change is coming you’ll see. And the state won’t be a match against the will of the people.

It was a challenge to get about half the population off their arses and vote in the Brexit referendum. Apathy in the UK (God save the Queen) has gone up an order of magnitude or two since then, as any observant resident will testify, so an ECHR referendum is more likely to go down in history as a vote with the lowest turn-out ever than delivering "the will of the people".

That's not "defeatist", that's simply reading society, which anybody can do.

Had Brexit been accepted at the time by the state, then it would have sailed through effortlessly, but "the will of the people" decided otherwise, it seems.

Your arguments get more and more "6th-formy" by the minute. The state, as I said, holds all the aces, all the power, and cannot be voted out.

If by 6 th for my you mean right, I’ll agree.

Currently the state is happy with masse immigration and the rape of the children.

Tat will change once the ECHR is removed and your entire argument will be proven wrong again.

Your argument has a lot of waffle and nonsense. It sounds like you’re arguing with yourself.

[Mike Oxsaw]

Sorry, I thought we were having a 2 way conversation.

You said that nothing would be achieved by the electorate. I simply gave you your example of Brexit and doubled down with Farage clips on ECHR and his plans on the ECHR referendum as an example of what will change.

Coming out of the ECHR removes the barriers currently being used as an excuse by the UK Gov’t as to why people have to live in fear for their kids and women.

If succesful I’d say that’s a big change and a big win for the people and another big loss for the state. Wouldn’t you?

If you believe that coming out of the ECHR will have any impact on the way the state runs the country then you deserve to be incarcerated into Barley Lane hospital...for life.

These "barriers" are not being compiled by the government (either colour) but by the state in an attempt to get what it wants.

"Doubling down" against something I never claimed doesn't actually enhance your defence here, at all.

Yes you did, you conceded that Brexit got through in spite of the States attempts to stop it. Your words not mine.

Another referendum getting through would once again prove your  theory wrong.

I do agree that the state is a problem but they are not unbeatable. History has proven that.

Change is coming you’ll see. And the state won’t be a match against the will of the people.

It was a challenge to get about half the population off their arses and vote in the Brexit referendum. Apathy in the UK (God save the Queen) has gone up an order of magnitude or two since then, as any observant resident will testify, so an ECHR referendum is more likely to go down in history as a vote with the lowest turn-out ever than delivering "the will of the people".

That's not "defeatist", that's simply reading society, which anybody can do.

Had Brexit been accepted at the time by the state, then it would have sailed through effortlessly, but "the will of the people" decided otherwise, it seems.

Your arguments get more and more "6th-formy" by the minute. The state, as I said, holds all the aces, all the power, and cannot be voted out.

[Nutsin]

So at what point did I (that's me, that is, not you) mention the ECHR and "deporting savages"?

Sorry, I thought we were having a 2 way conversation.

You said that nothing would be achieved by the electorate. I simply gave you your example of Brexit and doubled down with Farage clips on ECHR and his plans on the ECHR referendum as an example of what will change.

Coming out of the ECHR removes the barriers currently being used as an excuse by the UK Gov’t as to why people have to live in fear for their kids and women.

If succesful I’d say that’s a big change and a big win for the people and another big loss for the state. Wouldn’t you?

If you believe that coming out of the ECHR will have any impact on the way the state runs the country then you deserve to be incarcerated into Barley Lane hospital...for life.

These "barriers" are not being compiled by the government (either colour) but by the state in an attempt to get what it wants.

"Doubling down" against something I never claimed doesn't actually enhance your defence here, at all.

Yes you did, you conceded that Brexit got through in spite of the States attempts to stop it. Your words not mine.

Another referendum getting through would once again prove your  theory wrong.

I do agree that the state is a problem but they are not unbeatable. History has proven that.

Change is coming you’ll see. And the state won’t be a match against the will of the people.

[Mike Oxsaw]

I found the video clip I was looking for. The one explaining the terms of the ECHR treaty. I thought you’d find it useful. It’s what’s currently being referenced to as a reason as to why we can’t deport these savages.

It’s kind of important.

So at what point did I (that's me, that is, not you) mention the ECHR and "deporting savages"?

Sorry, I thought we were having a 2 way conversation.

You said that nothing would be achieved by the electorate. I simply gave you your example of Brexit and doubled down with Farage clips on ECHR and his plans on the ECHR referendum as an example of what will change.

Coming out of the ECHR removes the barriers currently being used as an excuse by the UK Gov’t as to why people have to live in fear for their kids and women.

If succesful I’d say that’s a big change and a big win for the people and another big loss for the state. Wouldn’t you?

If you believe that coming out of the ECHR will have any impact on the way the state runs the country then you deserve to be incarcerated into Barley Lane hospital...for life.

These "barriers" are not being compiled by the government (either colour) but by the state in an attempt to get what it wants.

"Doubling down" against something I never claimed doesn't actually enhance your defence here, at all.

[Nutsin]

Come on then, what is it that you've "found", not "what do I sound like" (to you)?

I found the video clip I was looking for. The one explaining the terms of the ECHR treaty. I thought you’d find it useful. It’s what’s currently being referenced to as a reason as to why we can’t deport these savages.

It’s kind of important.

So at what point did I (that's me, that is, not you) mention the ECHR and "deporting savages"?

Sorry, I thought we were having a 2 way conversation.

You said that nothing would be achieved by the electorate. I simply gave you your example of Brexit and doubled down with Farage clips on ECHR and his plans on the ECHR referendum as an example of what will change.

Coming out of the ECHR removes the barriers currently being used as an excuse by the UK Gov’t as to why people have to live in fear for their kids and women.

If succesful I’d say that’s a big change and a big win for the people and another big loss for the state. Wouldn’t you?

[Mike Oxsaw]

You sound like a Democrat talking about the Deep state. I’ve heard it all before mate. 

Come on then, what is it that you've "found", not "what do I sound like" (to you)?

I found the video clip I was looking for. The one explaining the terms of the ECHR treaty. I thought you’d find it useful. It’s what’s currently being referenced to as a reason as to why we can’t deport these savages.

It’s kind of important.

So at what point did I (that's me, that is, not you) mention the ECHR and "deporting savages"?

[Nutsin]

What, exactly, is it you've "found", and how does it relate to my claim that the state holds all the aces when it comes to actually running the country?

You sound like a Democrat talking about the Deep state. I’ve heard it all before mate. 

Come on then, what is it that you've "found", not "what do I sound like" (to you)?

I found the video clip I was looking for. The one explaining the terms of the ECHR treaty. I thought you’d find it useful. It’s what’s currently being referenced to as a reason as to why we can’t deport these savages.

It’s kind of important.

[Nutsin]

 

Allow me to correct you.

Whatever flavour of government is in power, it is the state, not the government that actually implements the government's policies - but only if they approve; just look at the effort they put in to getting/trying to get Brexit overturned. They're still smarting like crazy from that one - how very dare the population have a say in how the state runs the country?

If the state (Be it the MoD, MoJ, Home Office, HMRC, etc.) decides to not play along, nothing happens.

 

I disagree, Brexit proves the point. A referendum on the ECHR would be a second example.
Don’t underestimate the power of the people.

 

Brexit only got through because the people were pissed off with it dominating the headlines.

Boris Johnson caught that sentiment and got into power on the back of it, but even then the state was using every trick in the book - and then some - to try and thwart him; they came pretty close at times, too.

It wasn't "people power" that got Brexit over the line, it was simply a case of media fatigue - nobody wanted to hear about it 24/7 any more - either way.

I doubt that many those being asked to partake in a referendum for leaving the ECHR have the slightest clue as to what it does, so calling one would only create a tsunami of disinformation from both sides and, most probably a result not too dissimilar to the Brexit result and it's following state encouraged shenanigans.

Politicians are not the answer. Curbing the power of the state is.

 

 

Wasn’t it the people who voted for Brexit?

Kids are being raped en masse and women murdered and assaulted on a daily basis, I think people will be motivated to put an end to it. Especially parents and women.

According to you all we need is the same game plan of creating media fatigue to get a referendum on leaving the ECHR over line. Shouldn’t be too difficult. 

I would think it would be an easy sell to the public. You could call it “Human rights for women and children” as a campaign.

You know Farage won’t back down.


So I disagree with you, completely! I see mass deportations in the future and the human rights of Brits brought to the forefront.

Britain first is long over due. Farage can expect the full backing of the USA too.