Poll: Who Should Be Leader of HM Most Loyal Opposition? This poll is closed. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
Jeremy Corbyn | 95 | 18.63% | |
Dennis Skinner | 53 | 10.39% | |
Angus Robertson | 20 | 3.92% | |
Tim Farron | 9 | 1.76% | |
Paul Ukips | 7 | 1.37% | |
Robot Lenin | 105 | 20.59% | |
Tony Blair | 28 | 5.49% | |
Pissflaps | 193 | 37.84% | |
Total: | 510 votes |
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:If you want to kill an MP you don't try and do it by ram-raiding into Parliament. As the Jo Cox tragedy showed MPs are easily accessible in relatively vulnerable situations a ton of the time. The venue was deliberately chosen to be high profile but the violence was completely indiscriminate. Of course this isnt how you do it. Thats why hes dead and MPS are alive, but there is really no question as to why he tried to gain access to the building when MPs were sitting inside. Indiscriminate violence by definition usually excludes specific targets.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:15 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 03:36 |
|
Seaside Loafer posted:They would loose though wouldn't they, so kind-of a flawed concept. A flawed concept that means loads of people dieing and resources wasted on military crap instead of nice things. Who is the head guy in charge of Daesh, just stick him on the phone to me and i'll talk some sense into him, im sure he is a reasonable bloke once you get to know him, just got to talk some logic with him I don't know if they would lose, but that's for Clancy-wank threads. I also don't know if I'd trust a man who couldn't persuade a train company to open a toilet as our lead negotiator either, sorry.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:17 |
|
Lid posted:I find this view, and other mitigators, reprehensible. Its the same as the attack on Jo Cox, just because tge perpetrators change the actions do not. If you said this same poo poo at Cox's murder you would have justifiably referred to as a psychopath. Moral relativism is loving irritating. Jo Cox was killed, which was tragic. It would also have been tragic if any MPs were hurt/killed in this attack. Jo Cox's murder was also basically brushed aside and people were actively discouraged from discussing the motivation behind it. Think that will happen this time? Spangly A posted:I watched crap footage of a small number of people dying today and I'm just coming out of the shock. I don't disagree with you on principle but I find it really hard not to empathise with the foreign secretary having a man die bleeding over him. It was a foreign minister, but you're probably right. I just find it annoying that people like Michael Gove immediately took to the airwaves to talk about how horrific it was to hear the sound of gunshots. It's like you voted to take us to war several times, maybe you could make it less obvious you live in a well-insulated and safe bubble while others literally die to protect you. EDIT: And for the record it's not defending violence to say that politicians should absolutely expect to be targeted. They should also expect innocent civilians to be targeted on their behalf. It's called anticipating the consequences of your actions and deciding whether the reward is worth the repercussions. jabby fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Mar 22, 2017 |
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:18 |
|
jabby posted:Jo Cox was killed, which was tragic. It would also have been tragic if any MPs were hurt/killed in this attack. Jo Cox's murder was also basically brushed aside and people were actively discouraged from discussing the motivation behind it. Think that will happen this time? I'm not entirely comfortable with using a purely qualitative concept of "tragic" in that instance given that David Davis, for example, is an MP. I think one of those might be a fair bit more tragic than the other.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:20 |
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I don't know if they would lose, but that's for Clancy-wank threads. I also don't know if I'd trust a man who couldn't persuade a train company to open a toilet as our lead negotiator either, sorry.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:22 |
|
Rakosi posted:A lot of posters ITT unironically think the biggest thing wrong with Cox's murder was that she wasn't Tory or UKIP, if you read the thread when it happened. Dont be so surprised. I hope you eat a probation for this, tbh.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:21 |
|
feedmegin posted:I hope you eat a probation for this, tbh. OwlFancier posted:I'm not entirely comfortable with using a purely qualitative concept of "tragic" in that instance given that David Davis, for example, is an MP.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:22 |
|
Rakosi posted:Of course this isnt how you do it. Thats why hes dead and MPS are alive, but there is really no question as to why he tried to gain access to the building when MPs were sitting inside. Indiscriminate violence by definition usually excludes specific targets. I disagree. It seems to be more an attack "at parliament" than "on parliament". You don't blow your load trying to run over children if you actually have any target in mind.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:24 |
|
OwlFancier & SpanglyA does not in fact make up "a lot" of posters in UKMT.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:24 |
|
jabby posted:Jo Cox was killed, which was tragic. It would also have been tragic if any MPs were hurt/killed in this attack. Jo Cox's murder was also basically brushed aside and people were actively discouraged from discussing the motivation behind it. Think that will happen this time? Of course not, but justifying the attackers because of the not perfect victim won't make it ok. Yes they'll emphasise the other and be racists and xenophobes and attempt to implement shock doctrine. This does not in any way make what was done today ok nor that politicians should expect to be murdered or their murders justified because it aligns with a political view. Cox' murder being downplayed was heinous especially in the culture of brexit that caused it, it was utterly unconscionable and evil. That should be one of the most harrowing and impoetant political stories in twenty years.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:24 |
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:I disagree. It seems to be more an attack "at parliament" than "on parliament". You don't blow your load trying to run over children if you actually have any target in mind. We'll have to agree to disagree then. As much arguments can be made for each side of the point, and the guy who did it is dead, so.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:25 |
|
jabby posted:It was a foreign minister, but you're probably right. I just find it annoying that people like Michael Gove immediately took to the airwaves to talk about how horrific it was to hear the sound of gunshots. It's like you voted to take us to war several times, maybe you could make it less obvious you live in a well-insulated and safe bubble while others literally die to protect you. Gove? Gove sat outside the lobby screaming and calling people "copper bottomed shits" (excellent insult btw) for not voting with hillary benn on Lets Bomb Eviltown. We need a powerful state funded media who have the resources to put those two together and call him a piece of poo poo on TV.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:26 |
|
I guess I feel it's not a great comparison in the same way it would be a bit weird to say that an axe murderer being killed in the process of axe murdering and a nurse being killed in the process of being a nurse are both equally tragic. Like technically both are bad but it takes a bit of effort to feel bad for one of them. I feel like if the world was fair there's probably a few MPs who should be locked up under the laws they use to lock up sharia bloke from the other page. We have some right shits in government. Jo Cox's murder was particularly bad because of what she spent her time doing, more than murder itself is OK. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Mar 22, 2017 |
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:25 |
|
Eh, it would've at least been some kind of cosmic justice if a do whistling racist MP got murdered by a nazi than an anti-racist one like Jo Cox. EDIT: inb4 "So much for the tolerant left"
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:25 |
|
Rakosi posted:We'll have to agree to disagree then. As much arguments can be made for each side of the point, and the guy who did it is dead, so. So what rapist were you defending? I'm assuming it was a white one.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:29 |
|
Rakosi posted:We'll have to agree to disagree then. As much arguments can be made for each side of the point, and the guy who did it is dead, so. How much more indiscriminate can you get than trying to run over children before you've even started your so called "plan"?
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:30 |
|
Lid posted:Of course not, but justifying the attackers because of the not perfect victim won't make it ok. Yes they'll emphasise the other and be racists and xenophobes and attempt to implement shock doctrine. This does not in any way make what was done today ok nor that politicians should expect to be murdered or their murders justified because it aligns with a political view. Cox' murder being downplayed was heinous especially in the culture of brexit that caused it, it was utterly unconscionable and evil. That should be one of the most harrowing and impoetant political stories in twenty years. Where did I say that what happened was justified? I said it shouldn't be unexpected, and judging by the terror alert status the government seems to agree despite what they will say today. Where we probably differ is that I think the fact we can expect attacks like these is at least in some way related to decisions made by our MPs. Just like Jo Cox's murder is in some way related to the right-wing media and Nigel Farage. The similarity is that both those causes will be totally ignored and largely false ones substituted instead.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:31 |
|
Do you reckon they were actually going for ramming in through the gates after the mowing people down hollywood film style? I wonder if in their fantasy they shot and stabbed their way to victory or something.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:34 |
|
Gonzo McFee posted:So what rapist were you defending? I didnt defend a rapist but I did upset TGRS by saying you cant just call people you're arguing with rapists in D&D. TBH i cant wait untill the scottish indyref2 thread comes around so I can get the Coohoolin one back.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:36 |
|
Oh you were totally defending a rapist.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:37 |
|
TheHoodedClaw posted:Channel 4 News just lost a lot of money in a libel case if this is true. He could theoretically sue, but the judge would laugh him out of court when they got on to he damage to his reputation.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:45 |
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:How much more indiscriminate can you get than trying to run over children before you've even started your so called "plan"? Let me introduce you to a little outfit I like to call The Royal Air Force.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:59 |
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Do you reckon they were actually going for ramming in through the gates after the mowing people down hollywood film style? I wonder if in their fantasy they shot and stabbed their way to victory or something. I suspect he was told that he could totally get through the gates, man and it wasn't until he got close enough to Parliament that the second thoughts kicked in and he remembered that the police would probably guard the place pretty well. Thus the 'drive on the pavement and gently caress whoever gets in the way' business.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 21:58 |
|
Is there a reason why Parliament has unarmed guards on the exterior of the building these days? Last time I visited (admittedly it was summer 2006 so the 1 year anniversary of 7/7 hadn't come around yet) every guard and cop on the street was armed pretty heavily.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 22:06 |
|
I would imagine a change in tactics, less desire to instil fear. They can keep armed guards around without having to have them stationed outside the door. Presumably the same reason you don't have a random SAS guy in a balaclava outside number 10 with a machinegun.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 22:09 |
|
kingturnip posted:I suspect he was told that he could totally get through the gates, man and it wasn't until he got close enough to Parliament that the second thoughts kicked in and he remembered that the police would probably guard the place pretty well. Its unlikely, car attacks (both terrorist and people gone homicidal) seem to have increased dramatically as a method via realising just how much damage can be done with a few tonnes of metal at high speed. Off the top of my head there was the attack in France, and a spree killing in Melbourne Australia a month back both using vehicles.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 22:16 |
|
Yeah I think its easier to steal a firearm or something off of a complacent guard stationed externally near tourists everyday than an internally stationed guard who knows if he is alerted then poo poo must have hit the fan.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 22:17 |
OwlFancier posted:I would imagine a change in tactics, less desire to instil fear. They can keep armed guards around without having to have them stationed outside the door. Pretty much this. Also there's a lot of people who head in and out of parliament every day and strangely enough if they ever have reason to need to speak to a police officer they find it easier to do so if they're unarmed. There's still a lot of armed police visibly around the entrances, but they try to have point of contact police be unarmed.
|
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 22:30 |
Cerv posted:He could theoretically sue, but the judge would laugh him out of court when they got on to he damage to his reputation. Yeah, having read up on the twat it's clear that - while he was undoubtedly libeled - the damage to his reputation is going to be in the tens of pounds range, if that.
|
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 22:32 |
|
Its days like this im happy I invested in bollards
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 22:37 |
|
ur on one today ratty
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 22:42 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Presumably the same reason you don't have a random SAS guy in a balaclava outside number 10 with a machinegun. Incidentally the dudes stationed outside #10 at the time I went by were all armed with MP5s.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 22:43 |
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Is there a reason why Parliament has unarmed guards on the exterior of the building these days? Last time I visited (admittedly it was summer 2006 so the 1 year anniversary of 7/7 hadn't come around yet) every guard and cop on the street was armed pretty heavily. British people really don't like seeing armed police. There's generally a couple of DPG* hanging around somewhere in the vicinity and a bunch of them inside, plus ARVs/Trojans all around, and presumably a shitload of DPG inside, but unless something big is up you'll almost never see armed cops actually out on the streets, and the Met continually get poo poo from both the public and politicians if they're too visible. * Spotters/anoraks guide here - there are three main flavours of armed coppers on the streets of London: Protection officers (still mostly known as Diplomatic Protection Group, as that was what they were originally established as) are the ones in the red police cars. They're responsible for protection of buildings and officials (government, royalty, and diplomatic) in and around Westminster. They're generally in normal Met uniform but with guns. SCD19 (formerly known as SO19) are the guys who tool around in the Armed Response Vehicles (normally marked BMWs, the giveaway is the yellow dot on the rear quarter) and Trojans, unmarked cars that are still blatantly obvious because they're souped-up Range Rovers and saloons absolutely festooned with aerials with two scruffy buggers looking very out-of-place in front. Out and about they're normally in blue jumpsuits or combats and t-shirts with big body armour and ridiculous little jockey hats. They're all over London (every Met Division will have at least one ARV) and of course get called in whenever the Police need someone shooting at. They also have a couple of donated-by-the-FBI massive jeep things that look loving ridiculous in London. Counter-Terrorism Command (SCD15) are the ones who go and kick in the doors of people who look at the wrong websites. They're mostly made up of the old Flying Squad, who originally did royal and political protection but had it taken away from them in the eighties so they could concentrate on armed robberies (and perfecting the handbrake turn in a Ford Capri while shouting "SHUT IT YOU SLAG" which is the main qualification for getting in). Ironically they were too successful (seriously, when was the last time you heard of a successful large-scale bank robbery?) and because nobody likes having heavily-armed people like that just sitting around thinking about people who have wronged them, they were merged with the existing Anti-Terrorist Command and given many more new toys. They exclusively use unmarked cars, but keep the old Sweeny SOP of having three officers per car - one driver, one navigator and one "observer" in the back who runs the radio. You can tell them apart from SCD19 because of this, and that they're always in plain clothes, and of course love themselves even more than the other lot above.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 22:50 |
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:British people really don't like seeing armed police. There's generally a couple of DPG* hanging around somewhere in the vicinity and a bunch of them inside, plus ARVs/Trojans all around, and presumably a shitload of DPG inside, but unless something big is up you'll almost never see armed cops actually out on the streets, and the Met continually get poo poo from both the public and politicians if they're too visible. Neometropolitan
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 22:54 |
|
Hey don't forget the 4th type either. The ones whose job it is is to follow innocent unarmed non-white people onto trains and shoot them in the head 13 times
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 22:55 |
|
So some papers like the Mirror are running stories about awesome Doctors and Nurses who ran towards danger in order to help the casualties. Eagerly awaiting the second wave of annoying government responses, which is praising the emergency services/NHS workers while conveniently forgetting how hard they gently caress us over and how much we hate them.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 22:59 |
|
Ratjaculation posted:Hey don't forget the 4th type either. The ones whose job it is is to follow innocent unarmed non-white people onto trains and shoot them in the head 13 times That was a joint effort between SCD19, CTC, and "other agencies" who I didn't mention because they're not police, but if you look closely at pictures from today (or after the de Menezes shooting) you'll generally see a couple of short scruffy buggers with extravagant facial hair and rather more trick-looking guns somewhere around.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 23:02 |
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:seriously, when was the last time you heard of a successful large-scale bank robbery? I guess that was a safety deposit company and not a bank, but close enough. There was no running around with shotguns and a pair of tights over your head either, but that seems to have gone out of fashion a long time ago. The '71 Misuse of Drugs Act probably did quite a bit to stop that, giving gangsters more productive things to do than run around after security trucks in lingerie. It's notable that before the mephedrone ban there was a spike in small post office and building society jobs as the mid-level coke dealers had to scramble to find ways to pay suppliers. Didn't last long though, as most of them were terrible at it and it's a lot more visible than shifting bundles. goddamnedtwisto posted:short scruffy buggers with extravagant facial hair
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 23:09 |
|
I understand the desire to have armed personnel to kepe vital resources safe, and I understand that the Queen is marked as a vital resource, though I am no Monarchist, but pretty much anyone beyond the royals, and maybe the PM, im not so sure of. And I definitely don't think we need the guys at the airports with the MP5's out. People who are clearly security staff, who no doubt have a decent pistol with likely a spare magazine, should be enough to defend against any typical attack. If there's a big enough attack that would require a further response, and the security services didn't have any awareness of it? Chances are increased security would just increase the terrorist resource requirements, meaning you actually have increased bloodshed. The likely attacks are these we've seen, vehicles on pavements, people with knives or improvised weapons, or in situations like the Troubles, people who can make a bomb out of most anything, and can work out a way of putting it somewhere you weren't going to guess anyway. Of course we need to work to prevent these attacks. Fiest prevention is to stop the motivation, and then second is to have a security service who can work to pre-empt or work a lole into potential terrorist cells. Lone assailants are always going to be tough to handle. Armed police on the streets is not the answer.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 23:11 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 03:36 |
|
I think again the intent is to intimidate, not protect.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2017 23:14 |