Political Discussions And Ranting Thread

[En Passant 3,731]

35 minutes ago, TQR said:

Maitlis is the best in the business, no question.

 

Another quite funny exchange with Nigel Führage here too, questioning him on why the fuck he's in the US.

 

He really is an utter cockwomble and thanks to Emily (concur) I can add Kari Lake to my list of people with their head so far up their own arse a petawatt nuclear flash wouldn't damage their retinas.

 

When your answers to perfectly reasonable questions become 'you're a sad case of a human being' or 'because he nearly died' you've truly lost the argument.

 

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,870]

I see Farage not too busy to be shit stirring about what happend in Leeds last night. Anything but represent Clacton 

[time 8,575]

As good a place as any for this...

 

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,870]

And also this

 

 

 

[En Passant 3,731]

On 18/07/2024 at 17:31, En Passant said:

send them to jail for 4 or 5 years.

 

Quote

But on Friday, government officials said ministers would not intervene. Pressed on whether Labour would look again at anti-protest laws it opposed before entering government, Starmer’s spokeswoman said: “The prime minister is very clear that when it comes to these cases, the judgments and sentencing is for independent judges to make them, they’ve had all the facts and evidence before them.

 

“I think you’ve seen some of the reporting from those proceedings and can see some of those details for yourself too. Fundamentally, [it is] not for politicians to interfere and opine on decisions that have been taken by judges.”

 

Disingenuous, swerving, bastards .

It may not be for you to intervene after the fact on an individual case, but it most certainly is up to you as the makers of the law under which these sentences were passed to reverse it. Yes I know it was the other lot, but you have no trouble condemning them for all the ills it is politically expedient to say you'll change in time. Say so about this then.

[The Old Crem 3,576]

4 hours ago, En Passant said:

 

 

Disingenuous, swerving, bastards .

It may not be for you to intervene after the fact on an individual case, but it most certainly is up to you as the makers of the law under which these sentences were passed to reverse it. Yes I know it was the other lot, but you have no trouble condemning them for all the ills it is politically expedient to say you'll change in time. Say so about this then.

The public as a whole surely support the sentences. Eco protestors are not popular and the average person wants longer prison sentences for every criminal. Labour’s main focus is not loosing votes to the Tories or Reform and being soft on Eco Protesters could lose those votes. There is a Twitter thread this morning by Alex Wickham setting out now Labour will govern mainly over the fear of the Tories winning the next election. 

 

 

[TQR 14,352]

I'm sick of this.

 

4 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

The public as a whole surely support the sentences.

 

Source?

 

4 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

Eco protestors are not popular and the average person wants longer prison sentences for every criminal.

 

SOURCE?

 

Didn't think so, you thick cunt. Get this into the noggin: you can't judge public opinion if you don't go out into the world. The Daily Mail and your crank family are the only places you get ideas from, so fuck off to Facebook because that tripe isn't wanted here.

[En Passant 3,731]

17 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

The public as a whole surely support the sentences. Eco protestors are not popular and the average person wants longer prison sentences for every criminal. Labour’s main focus is not loosing votes to the Tories or Reform and being soft on Eco Protesters could lose those votes.

 

This is why I finally have you on ignore. You simply post your opinion as some sort of fact. I'm only seeing this because I guessed what it might be from its location.

 

Handily I remembered another article from yesterdays Guardian in which the UN special rapporteur condemned the sentences.

It included the following quote.

 

Quote

On Friday, their views appeared to resonate with the public at large. An online poll conducted for Social Change Lab, a nonprofit that carries out research into protest and social movements, found 61% of respondents agreed the sentences doled out to the five protesters were “harsh”, compared with 12% who felt the sentences were too lenient.

 

Now, I may think the 12% here are a bunch of complete idiots. But at least my statistics are coming from a source that is verifiable, not just off the top of my head.

It is however, notably at odds with your 'assessment' (read: bollocks)

 

The entire article including those statistics is here.

 

I surely support nobody paying any attention to  your garbage until you learn to back it up.

And back on ignore you go.

[The Old Crem 3,576]

47 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

This is why I finally have you on ignore. You simply post your opinion as some sort of fact. I'm only seeing this because I guessed what it might be from its location.

 

Handily I remembered another article from yesterdays Guardian in which the UN special rapporteur condemned the sentences.

It included the following quote.

 

 

Now, I may think the 12% here are a bunch of complete idiots. But at least my statistics are coming from a source that is verifiable, not just off the top of my head.

It is however, notably at odds with your 'assessment' (read: bollocks)

 

The entire article including those statistics is here.

 

I surely support nobody paying any attention to  your garbage until you learn to back it up.

And back on ignore you go.

Have you go a link to the polling figures.?

[En Passant 3,731]

9 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

Have you go a link to the polling figures.?

 

What?

The link to the results that say that 61% of those polled think the sentences are too harsh? In the quoted part? The quote that belies your assertion? That I provide the link to underneath? That link?

 

56 minutes ago, En Passant said:

The entire article including those statistics is here.

 

In fact this link?

 

Sure I do.

 

 

[Master Obit 822]

51 minutes ago, TQR said:

I'm sick of this.

 

 

Source?

 

 

SOURCE?

 

Didn't think so, you thick cunt. Get this into the noggin: you can't judge public opinion if you don't go out into the world. The Daily Mail and your crank family are the only places you get ideas from, so fuck off to Facebook because that tripe isn't wanted here.

I don't understand how you haven't muted him yet. He either does this stuff for a reaction (which he seems to get), or is unbelievably ignorant/dim. Someone with the level of grey matter that you patently have shouldn't be wasting energy on people like this guy.

 

There is a similarly irritating twonk in a different community that I periodically frequent. He posts things to try and get reactions, and will also target individual members with snarky comments and messages. He's tried numerous times to get me to lash out at him, but I have ignored him every time and he doesn't bother with me anymore (unfortunately there's no option to hide posts from specific members on this other site, else I most certainly would just do that). If we can get to the stage here where at least the active members here don't pay any attention to TOC, he might just reevaluate his position.

[Master Obit 822]

Just now, En Passant said:

 

What?

The link to the results that say that 61% of those polled think the sentences are too harsh? In the quoted part? The quote that belies your assertion? That I provide the link to underneath? That link?

 

 

In fact this link?

 

Sure I do.

 

 

You're clearly a fairly intellectual person and shouldn't be wasting your time on irritants like TOC. Mute the guy and move on. The more people that do this, the better it is for the site (and also TOC himself, since he might actually have to rethink his life a bit.)

[The Old Crem 3,576]

12 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

What?

The link to the results that say that 61% of those polled think the sentences are too harsh? In the quoted part? The quote that belies your assertion? That I provide the link to underneath? That link?

 

 

In fact this link?

 

Sure I do.

 

 

I mean the full polling tables. Sample size, way it was conducted etc. 

[En Passant 3,731]

1 minute ago, Master Obit said:

You're clearly a fairly intellectual person and shouldn't be wasting your time on irritants like TOC. Mute the guy and move on. The more people that do this, the better it is for the site (and also TOC himself, since he might actually have to rethink his life a bit.)

I don't, (finally, he's the first person I've put on ignore in over 10 years, and I'm still uncomfortable doing it).

I like to think I try to listen to others points of view, even if I vehemently disagree with them.

The world already has too many people who want to talk but never listen. And despite this I probably still talk too much myself.

 

He's actively denying something I know to be true here, I can't just leave that unanswered if I see it.

And due to where it is, and subsequently @TQR, quoting it*, I saw it despite the ignore.

 

Me? Intellectual? In an infant school I might be mistaken as such. TQR's a big boy and can decide for himself what he responds to :).

 

 

*I'm not going down the rabbithole of tqr berating people for quoting toc and then doing it himself .

 

 

[En Passant 3,731]

Just now, The Old Crem said:

I mean the full polling tables. Sample size, way it was conducted etc. 

Hahahahahahahahhahahhahahahha, and indeed hahahahahahahaha.

Lets start with you finding any source at all for your statements.

[TQR 14,352]

8 minutes ago, Master Obit said:

I don't understand how you haven't muted him yet. He either does this stuff for a reaction (which he seems to get), or is unbelievably ignorant/dim. Someone with the level of grey matter that you patently have shouldn't be wasting energy on people like this guy.

 

There is a similarly irritating twonk in a different community that I periodically frequent. He posts things to try and get reactions, and will also target individual members with snarky comments and messages. He's tried numerous times to get me to lash out at him, but I have ignored him every time and he doesn't bother with me anymore (unfortunately there's no option to hide posts from specific members on this other site, else I most certainly would just do that). If we can get to the stage here where at least the active members here don't pay any attention to TOC, he might just reevaluate his position.

 

Done the mute thing, but I 'view' the muted comments in this thread in an effort to combat misinformation. Which, despite my decidedly nasty tone in my last message, I rather enjoy. It's like therapy. Crem the troll gets to talk to people (unlike in the real world), people capable of critical thinking get the satisfaction of shooting down bullshit, readers who've seen said bullshit elsewhere but aren't sure about it get clarification, everyone's a winner. And then when Crem is finally banned, we can celebrate and he can hopefully see it as a cue to get out more, so everyone's a winner again. Only positives can be taken from this! 

[Master Obit 822]

1 minute ago, En Passant said:

I don't, (finally, he's the first person I've put on ignore in over 10 years, and I'm still uncomfortable doing it).

I like to think I try to listen to others points of view, even if I vehemently disagree with them.

The world already has too many people who want to talk but never listen. And despite this I probably still talk too much myself.

 

He's actively denying something I know to be true here, I can't just leave that unanswered if I see it.

And due to where it is, and subsequently @TQR, quoting it*, I saw it despite the ignore.

 

Me? Intellectual? In an infant school I might be mistaken as such. TQR's a big boy and can decide for himself what he responds to :).

 

 

*I'm not going down the rabbithole of tqr berating people for quoting toc and then doing it himself .

 

 

Anyone here can decide what content they wish to consume, but I reserve the right to stick my beak in when I think people are simply playing in to the hands of someone desperate for attention, but unwilling to actually listen to any constructive feedback he is given. It confuses me why people do this, especially people who I actively respect on here.

[Master Obit 822]

1 minute ago, TQR said:

 

Done the mute thing, but I 'view' the muted comments in this thread in an effort to combat misinformation. Which, despite my decidedly nasty tone in my last message, I rather enjoy. It's like therapy. Crem the troll gets to talk to people (unlike in the real world), people capable of critical thinking get the satisfaction of shooting down bullshit, readers who've seen said bullshit elsewhere but aren't sure about it get clarification, everyone's a winner. And then when Crem is finally banned, we can celebrate and he can hopefully see it as a cue to get out more, so everyone's a winner again. Only positives can be taken from this! 

You're such an optimist, I love it. A breath of fresh air around here. 

[TQR 14,352]

3 minutes ago, Master Obit said:

You're such an optimist, I love it.

 

Oh I'm not really, I'm just good at spin 

[En Passant 3,731]

 

40 minutes ago, Master Obit said:

Anyone here can decide what content they wish to consume, but I reserve the right to stick my beak in when I think people are simply playing in to the hands of someone desperate for attention, but unwilling to actually listen to any constructive feedback he is given. It confuses me why people do this, especially people who I actively respect on here.

 

I understand. But the casual viewer should also be made aware of TOC's toxicity. (TOCicity?)

 

Here's another couple of quotes (somewhat at odds with each other as it happens), I try to balance one against the other and respond (or not) accordingly. Sometimes unsuccessfully I guess.

 

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” (Quote attributon is the cause of some controversy of itself).

"Never Argue With Stupid People. They Will Drag You Down To Their Level and Then Beat You With Experience" (quote attribution similarly somewhat controversial).

 

End of the day, ToC is now on ignore (as above), but sometimes quote A overrules quote B.

 

ETA: And a prime example of quote B in action is TOC's request for further verification of my source above whilst still providing nada for any assertion of his own. I'm not falling for that crap as either an intellectual nor even as a fool, whichever I may be.

[The Old Crem 3,576]

Suella Braverman has been given a one of show on LBC on Tuesday. . Get the popcorn in that will be full on batshit surely.

[maryportfuncity 10,616]

3 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

Suella Braverman has been given a one of show on LBC on Tuesday. . Get the popcorn in that will be full on batshit surely.

 

 

Increasing speculation she's burned enough bridges with her current party to be #1 on the Reform acquisitions list, doubtless she'll carefully angle the show's content towards their end of the political spectrum

[TQR 14,352]

4 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

Suella Braverman has been given a one of show on LBC on Tuesday. . Get the popcorn in that will be full on batshit surely.

 

Which you will then parrot and pass off as fact and public opinion. Fuck off.

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,870]

10 minutes ago, maryportfuncity said:

 

 

Increasing speculation she's burned enough bridges with her current party to be #1 on the Reform acquisitions list, doubtless she'll carefully angle the show's content towards their end of the political spectrum

Yep. The i reportimg that's fully expected that it's merely a case of when not if she defcets. That's when the fun starts. There's no room for the egos of both Farage and Bravermann. Just a case of how long before it kicks off.

 

 

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,870]

 

 

Dennis at his very best. He'd have wasted no time in reminding the Tories about the shitshow they left yet again