What if he offends me in a terroristic fashion?
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
-
Hello, Guest! We have a new competition (with tagline and award as prizes) starting.
A new Odds or Evens competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit your predictions. Submissions will be open for the next 3 days, 9 hours, 34 minutes, 26 seconds, and will close on Sep 12, 2026 at 15:00.
What if he offends me in a terroristic fashion?
Look. I am not daft and I do understand that the opinions of some will offend others.
But as I keep stressing, this is an open forum. And what makes it so attractive to many of us is that there is no overt censorship.
It can only offend if you choose to read it. That is the point.
It was not in Israel; it was the breakin at Elbit Systems ( that supply Israel) that I was referencing.
See #15549 from @Fingeredmouse.
This is a very ironic line of argument.
Opinions are just that; I have mine and you yours.
However, I am genuinely sorry if my opinions upset you, that is not my intention.
I have had warnings before, your colleagues pointing out when I have overstepped on some issues, and I have had my knuckles rapped appropriately. So rest assured I get my comeuppance when required.
Incidently I do know our constitution is not codified, but it is very much based on many aspects relating to precedence, which can result in difficulties going forward.
Enjoy your day.
Ok, this is tough mate.
In answer to me trying to figure out which terrorist interest in another country Palestine Action were supporting, a statement that you had made, your response is "Israel, was the other country, and Elbit Systems is the primary supplier of much of Israel's land based equipment and unmanned aerial equipment and where the break-in took place."? This is a nonsensical response. The answer, of course, is that Palestine Action don't support a terrorist interest in another country and your claim was bollocks, or, quite possibly, just really badly written and you were making the same facile point that Israel is a foreign country again which nobody was struggling with as a concept. Just in case it was this, the UK choosing to support Israel militarily, or companies in the UK doing so, is an issue under UK Government control, and the subsequent proscription of PA is very much a domestic issue for reasons laboriously explained above by me and others.
The remaining points that you, in a sense, responded to were me listing some Palestine Action incidents in an attempt to understand which one of them involves Palestine Action supporters or members admitting terrorism, a claim that you had previously made. The answer is, of course, none.
My admission that I'm struggling to follow you is because you're posting borderline incomprehensible nonsense, and completely failing to answer any of the points you were challenged on. I can't decide whether you are wilfully being difficult, or if you are actually struggling to understand. Either way this is a waste of both of our time, and no doubt as painful for everyone else to read as I normally find exchanges between you and others.
The Court of Appeal, did find that a small (admittedly, very small) percentage of Palestine Action to be Terrorist, and PA accepted that was enough to prescribe them.
Very 'dodgy' indeed, but the way the world is going, especially in countries like Britian that value personal freedoms... you can expect more of this to come. with more 'nashing of teeth' from civil liberties groups.
That is my opinion; but hope I am wrong!
@Maticmaker
I really don't mean to add to the number of conversations you are having at the moment, and it isn't my intention to add to a pile on.
But I am confused by your objection to precedent and its role in the constitution. I think ultimately I don't understand what you mean by precedent/ce, and how you define it, and also why it is a problem.
For me, precedent is the basis of our common law system, and it has been around since the 12th century in various forms. It also basically means following past cases, right?
But courts have powers to depart from precendent when justice dictates, and they do so regularly.
What's more, parliamentary sovereignty allows Parliament to override precedents and create new laws whenever they want, and this also happens regularly. So don't we already have the tools to change the constitution as we wish? And even if we completely rewrite the constitution, surely that new system would also be based on precedent?
To me, a system not based on precedent means there are no past rules to follow, and everything is decided individually. But then how can we know what the rules to live by are if there are no precedents?
I really don't mean to add to the number of conversations you are having at the moment, and it isn't my intention to add to a pile on.
But I am confused by your objection to precedent and its role in the constitution. I think ultimately I don't understand what you mean by precedent/ce, and how you define it, and also why it is a problem.
For me, precedent is the basis of our common law system, and it has been around since the 12th century in various forms. It also basically means following past cases, right?
But courts have powers to depart from precendent when justice dictates, and they do so regularly.
What's more, parliamentary sovereignty allows Parliament to override precedents and create new laws whenever they want, and this also happens regularly. So don't we already have the tools to change the constitution as we wish? And even if we completely rewrite the constitution, surely that new system would also be based on precedent?
To me, a system not based on precedent means there are no past rules to follow, and everything is decided individually. But then how can we know what the rules to live by are if there are no precedents?
Quick correction - PA didn't accept that was enough to proscribe them. The Court of Appeal did. PA are appealing to the Supreme Court because they think such a small proportion was not enough to justify proscription.
Should change their name to Maticmisinfomaker
PA didn't accept this though, the court of appeals did over-ruling the original judicial review which had ruled that the proscription was unlawful, which is why it's being further appealed. Palestine Action don't consider themselves to be terrorists. Rightly, I'd say, unless you accept an incredibly broad definition of terrorism which, if applied historically, would undoubtedly have proscribed the Suffragettes. But it doesn't matter - I said that I'm backing off from this, and so I will.
No irony was intended.
My objection to precedent in law making is two-fold:
EG. With regard to land rights, ownership, right to defy, etc. many of the problems we are now experiencing of the land availability, usage, even 'nimybism' etc. has been perpetrated via the use of precedent.
Much of the law that effects land were made originally, as you say, as far back as the 12th century, when Barons etc. either owned (usually by a royal bequest) or for use in perpetuity (handed down etc.). The 'rights' to land given or taken by force have been enshrined in existing law via many twists and turns via this construct of a constitution based on precedent.
I was once a victim of this when I bought a house advertised as Freehold, but then found it was subject to something called 'Chief rent' and was paid annually to the estates of the Earls of Stamford and Warrington, or their heirs. It was a relatively small amount and could only be increased each time the house/land were resold. This is what got me interested in investigating such matters.
Thankfully some years back the government was able to force amendments to such laws that allowed this 'deal' to be de-bunked... this was by allowing a current owner to 'buy out' the chief rent clause, in my case it was some £1,200.00. This could be advantageous to some degree when I came to re-sell ... .. i.e. without 'chief rent applying, but the saving to me would require me otherwise some 70 years to get back what I spent.
Of course Land isn't the only thing affected by laws made or changed because of precedent, and as you say 'learning from what went before' is generally a good thing. However, as we see today with the massive demand for houses at reasonable costs/social housing etc. is growing fast, precedent will have little impact.
My second objection is that if as expected our climate-change scenario closes in increasingly swiftly on the lives of everyone and every thing on this planet, what went before in law making, of every kind, is unlikely to have much relevance. .
Also this current exchange/attempt of understanding I am having with many on the Caf about what constitutes 'good law', is showing how confused and confusing its going to get, when people who are trying to make the law do things it was not intended for, to people who believe they are trying to protect civil liberties and the right to protest.
In my opinion (and it is only a personal opinion) the world is going to hell in a hand cart, unless we get ahead of the curve in many things, but especially in law making. There is more need now, more than ever, to look forward and try to anticipate in terms of the framework of law, at what will work, be fair and enforceable. Very little in our past will prepare us for what is coming.
It seems my opinions are not widely shared, fair enough, but as @Buster15 has said, I have a right to present my opinions and others a right to disagree. (Politely I hope!)
Last edited:
Apologies for this, you are correct PA did not accept this, my comments were misleading on PA's acceptance.
Perhaps what I should have said is because until the Court of Appeal ruling is overturned, as it stands in law, they are proscribed.
Once again apologies.
No need to apologise.
I know, and there are now protests about the fact that proscribing the organisation, i.e. under law defining PA as a terrorist group, is an authoritarian over-reach, which was the point being made. The fact that PA are legally proscribed as a terrorist organisation is a fact and not disputed.
Interpreting and applying the 2000 Terrorism act so broadly, in order to include organisations such as PA which members of committing crimes through direct action could and are being tried under pre-existing laws, is the issue. The Terrorism act, at the time of it being drafted and passed, was criticised for being too broad, but we were assured that it wouldn't be abused in precisely the way that it has been abused regarding PA. Hence protests precisely about the legal ruling and Government decision to proscribe PA, and thousands being arrested for holding up placards at peaceful protests because the proscription criminalised them. Those taking direct action, which in this case is vandalism of property (and in the Elbit case, if I recall minor injury to a Police Officer during arrest) should be tried accordingly with those crimes, not designated as terrorists thereby having disproportionate sentences being applied based on this terrorist designation despite not being tried or defended as such, as well as the obvious criminalisation and state censorship of any individuals expressing support for the organisation. The implications of this are profound, and Government has now shown that it will use the powers to crush protest and direct action. God help us if Badenoch or Farage get in power and choose to exercise this power in a similar way on organisations and causes they happen to dislike, and it is pretty devastating that it was a Labour Government that crossed this line, although depressingly not surprising.
This is both a domestic matter (the fact it stems from protests and direct action regarding the UK govt and UK based companies' support of Israel is moot), and a very serious one for freedom of political protest and direct action, and frankly democracy, in the UK.
I think we're done on this now and I'm sure that you get the point. Take care out there mate.
Ironically.
Let's do it. What could possibly go wrong.
Last edited:
Our legal systej is ridiculous.
Our whole society and legal system is based on precedence, including way to many carryovers from the feudal age. It's completely daft.
If we want to develop a proper codified constitution, we're going to have to start by abolishing the monarchy since all laws and authority is vested in the crown, and delegated out at the monarchs pleasure technically.
Our whole society and legal system is based on precedence, including way to many carryovers from the feudal age. It's completely daft.
If we want to develop a proper codified constitution, we're going to have to start by abolishing the monarchy since all laws and authority is vested in the crown, and delegated out at the monarchs pleasure technically.
If nothing is codified it can be changed by either the courts or law if it's considered outdated. A codified constitution is no different over decades and can become unfit for modern society with the difference of being innately more difficult to get changed.
The US is becoming a good example of holding onto a constitution that originated from the 18th century.
Binface update -
This is brilliant
Binface update -
He was on ‘The Trawl’ podcast recently and he’s just fecking hilarious.
More Burnham pro-genocide slop. The Burnham team's position is to ignore the glaring asymmetrical nature of the violence and the suffering, of the apartheid, of the genocide. An asymmetry that the majority of Labour voters in the UK have already acknowledged.
This is "The Crime of Crimes" and Burnham's racist government are soft-pedaling it. It's obscene. Burnham can't even do the bare minimum of naming the ongoing atrocities, let alone stand against them. That "I'm sowwy" video is going to be remembered alongside Starmer's "Israel has that right" one, at this rate.
Imagine discussing the Rape of Nanjing with Iwane Matsui as a "dire humanitarian situation" and saying we must destroy the scourge of Nipponophobia before never mentioning a single Chinese victim.
And it seems not even the feckless lip service towards Palestinians made it into the minutes over there.
Was he tough enuss? like feck he was.
Binface update -
Excellent bit of campaigning. Brilliant.
Can't wait to see the euphoria, the gnashing of teeth and fist sister pumping in Clacton when Farage comfortably beats a bin.
Farage's very own Battle of Britain.
Farage's very own Battle of Britain.
Let's do it. What could possibly go wrong.
..... to quote... "everything that can do, will do"It shows that the issues involved in the recent exchanges we've been having... only tip of the iceberg!
Precedent in law making has guided us for centuries, we have a non-codified Constitution but what possibly confronts us in terms of future law making, that 'guidance'...... lies ahead of us.
Governments have to get ahead of the curve for the future; what is necessary, what is possible, what is fair and above all what is enforceable, needs to be determined, a start needs to be made now.... but will it?
Many thanks - I think my confusion was approaching the term with a technical meaning, whereas you are looking at more structural issues with the UK. I would also add that I agree with your points and diagnoses.
Thank you for your willingness to listen.
Possible because of my age, I have come to to believe that almost every aspect of the current human condition is leading to disaster. Whether it be climatic issues; that the disparity between those that have and those that have not, is growing almost exponentially; technology development outcomes, especially in AI; the growing threat of mass migration in particular from Southern to Northern hemispheres; and perhaps above all the idea for an increasing group of people, that what you are told by others is fake and the only truth is what you believe!
This is where a new attempt to get in front of the 'human condition curve' has to be made . This would be through an new approach to law making for the future, that is focused on dealing with the future world issues, and less on precedent...it is a huge leap and I am far from confident we can make it.
However, where there is life...there is hope, or so we are encouraged to believe.
Please forgive the ramblings of an old man.
Bin day today!
Is there anywhere posting updates ?
43% turnout isn't promising.
Nige will take this easily with that turnout
Just based on the videos I have seen of binface.
He is approximately 500% more intelligent than farage. He’s an intergalactic super brain ffs
It’s a scientifically calculated figure based on my thiughts.
Come on Clacton do what is needed please.
He is approximately 500% more intelligent than farage. He’s an intergalactic super brain ffs
It’s a scientifically calculated figure based on my thiughts.
Come on Clacton do what is needed please.