That's more accurate than accusing the leave campaign for inciting murder, which is what some people have done.
Disgraceful from all sides yesterday. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Some will inevitably pin all the blame on one side or the other, but in reality all are guilty.
This isn't the playground, who started it and who didn't should be well beyond these grown adults who are supposed to be representative of us.
Enough hostile language, before and during yesterday's disgrace came from both sides.
I haven't assumed what her family want. They have said it themselves.
Disgraceful from all sides yesterday. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Some will inevitably pin all the blame on one side or the other, but in reality all are guilty.
Anybody buying this revisionism that it was 50/50 is blind in my opinion. Bj and cox came in to that chamber more bellicose than ever, deliberately determined to incite both hatred and stoke anger amongst the opposition.
The government is 100% to blame. They knew there would be robust questioning and took it 5 steps too far. The opposition had every right to bray and protest at that.
For me, anybody who sees it otherwise is delusional, ignorant, or trolling.
posting this article again, which captures everything perfectlyAnybody buying this revisionism that it was 50/50 is blind in my opinion. Bj and cox came in to that chamber more bellicose than ever, deliberately determined to incite both hatred and stoke anger amongst the opposition.
The government is 100% to blame. They knew there would be robust questioning and took it 5 steps too far. The opposition had every right to bray and protest at that.
For me, anybody who sees it otherwise is delusional, ignorant, or trolling.
He's the prime minister of course he's fecking held to more scrutiny on his language than others. Deary me
Using such nonsensical language to try and shut down debate might work in your echo chamber, but it won't work where people have the ability to see for themselves.
I will repeat the question. Are you suggesting Brendan Cox is also talking "balderdash"?
You are suggesting that anyone who doesn't pin the blame 100% on the government is doing just that. Well, Mr Cox and several MPs say something very different.
So we should be saying "He might have killed someone if not for Brexit but the fact he chose Jo Cox was due to inflammatory rhetoric around Brexit, which our current Pm is now ratcheting up? Thats much better. It's obviously ok for him to do so, he gets a bodyguard detail.
As unacceptable as it is, I cant believe anyone is surprised. For decades standards of behaviour in the house have been unacceptable, behaving in ways that young primary school children recognise to be unacceptable, braying over each other like pissed up donkeys, mocking each other and the public and just generally acting like the worst, entitled thundercunts around. (Regardless of party, or ideological affiliation) Remember the cheering and applause when the vote to give public sector workers a pay rise failed?
We have representatives who feel its ok to vote down a proposal to ensure basic living standards for tenants because the majority of the representatives are landlords, and it will hit their pockets. The time is ripe for a fundamental change to our entire system, despite the claim we are a democracy we are still lead by a ruling elite class (again on both sides) who can not accurately represent us, because they have never lived lives like the majority of the population, its coming to a head, one way or another.
Crikey, that's a bit of a mouthful Oldyella. Inflammatory rhetoric and downright lies were used by both leave and remain throughout the whole campaign. To suggest that we can't have ROBUST political debates and hard campaigning because someone who is already a nutter 'may' commit a crime is ridiculous and will ensure democracy can never be carried out properly again.
You misunderstand me. I don’t care to debate with you. Just as I didn’t care to debate with those who said blame was on all sides in Charlottesville. I already know what you are. And whilst usually you’re inane and mildly amusing in your pedanticism, on this issue you are not worth responding further to. It’s too important for that.
And Brendan criticised bj for the most part, then added a bit about tolerance on all sides.
Last 3 pages are full of hypocritical, unreasoned and undependable claptrap from you.Your bias is laughable to be frank.
Don't worry about debating with me old chap. The idea behind debate is to see it from both sides. Something you are clearly unable to do.
What you and others are doing is shouting your bias as loud as you can hoping to shut down anyone with a different opinion.
The last 3 pages are clear evidence of that.
Robust discussion doesn't involve using language like surrender bill, traitors etc.
Robust discussion doesn't involve using language like surrender bill, traitors etc.
Last 3 pages are full of hypocritical and unreasoned claptrap from you.
Im still waiting for my reply to your post.I've posted on 1 of the last 3 pages...
Maybe you have confused me for one of the other posters?
Your bias is laughable to be frank.
Don't worry about debating with me old chap. The idea behind debate is to see it from both sides. Something you are clearly unable to do.
What you and others are doing is shouting your bias as loud as you can hoping to shut down anyone with a different opinion.
The last 3 pages are clear evidence of that.
Im still waiting for my reply to your post.
Possibly this provides the cover to vote with the goverent in a confidence motion as wellI believe I may get another smug 'told you so' moment soonish as I called impeachment long before it was popular.
Serious meetings happened late into last night about the viability of impeachment. I am not privy to the outcome but you can be assured the idea is gaining steam given the attendees.
It is 'considered obselete' only in that the Blair government decided to do so. It is assumed that the speaker would at the least grant a debate on the matter.
We have representatives who feel its ok to vote down a proposal to ensure basic living standards for tenants because the majority of the representatives are landlords, and it will hit their pockets. The time is ripe for a fundamental change to our entire system, despite the claim we are a democracy we are still lead by a ruling elite class (again on both sides) who can not accurately represent us, because they have never lived lives like the majority of the population, its coming to a head, one way or another.
What I do think should happen is educating our children from a very early age on politics and making future generations aware of the importance of voting and what they're voting for.
For a start, there should be laws put in place to protect the general public from Politicans who spread consistent lies.
Possibly this provides the cover to vote with the goverent in a confidence motion as well
Something along the lines of... We have no confidence in you but will vote to keep the government in place in order that we can impeach the pm...
Here's a question... Could an impeached pm stand again? That would really throw the election plans of Cummings into ruins if all of a sudden the conservatives also had to find a new leader
I have no idea honestly.... though I suspect he’d be both disqualified and on his way to jail if we continued to double down and try to bluster his way through it. And that it would quietly go away if he extended the eu membership and resigned.
One interesting snippet. There is some consideration to updating impeachment legislation before impeaching. I guess this would set out what happens in the case of a conviction.
Impeachment is when a peer or commoner is accused of ‘high crimes and misdemeanours, beyond the reach of the law or which no other authority in the state will prosecute.’ It is a procedure that is ‘directed in particular against Ministers of the Crown’. The first recorded impeachment was in 1376 and the last in 1806. This procedure is considered obsolete.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN02666
That's fine as long as it is performed in a balanced way but the education system is already a very left leaning entity.
If impeachment is considered obsolete, largely because the PM is subject to the laws of the land, on what basis can he be impeached.
On the basis that parliament is sovereign. We’ve been through this.
If impeachment is considered obsolete, largely because the PM is subject to the laws of the land, on what basis can he be impeached.
Answers nothing.
1999 Joint Committee's report, and the advice of the Clerk of the House of Commons that impeachment "effectively died with the advent of full responsible Parliamentary government".
This quote was given as response to attempts to impeach Blair.
Doesn't really look like a credible option. More the ramblings of mad men and women.
Anybody buying this revisionism that it was 50/50 is blind in my opinion. Bj and cox came in to that chamber more bellicose than ever, deliberately determined to incite both hatred and stoke anger amongst the opposition.
The government is 100% to blame. They knew there would be robust questioning and took it 5 steps too far. The opposition had every right to bray and protest at that.
For me, anybody who sees it otherwise is delusional, ignorant, or trolling.
What a ridiculous statement. Yes he's prime minister but JC and Swinson want to become prime minister. The same level of scrutiny applies to all of the house.
Do you know what the sentence “parliament is sovereign” means?
