• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Robspur12 said:
I was illustrating the main threat factors that might make you act with force to protect someone. They didn't exist in this situation. Far left loonies there might be but I am not aware of them attacking and killing anyone in the UK recently.

This was a protest by a climate change group, not known for attacking politicians and I would be very surprised if there was not close protection security nearby the Chancellor. I am sure Field had had a few drinks and was irritated by the speech and meal being disrupted. Hence his reaction. Again I am certain he wouldn't have done it had he felt that there was a genuine threat.

I find Itthe whole overreaction pov slightly hypocritical. We have had talk of Jo Cox, that the reaction wouldn't be the same if it was a Labour politician, that we are soft on crime. Ultimately this was a woman in a dress gatecrashing an event to make a point to an MP who represents the public. We don't need to go all Jo Cox on everyone who does that surely. For me personally his behaviour was disgusting because I do not condone violence to women unless there is a clear threat. If that happened on the street when I was a copper I would be having a word with the bloke.

There is a point worth considering. The PM herself felt Field's behaviour was inappropriate and suspended him. So this is not some left wing conspiracy.

Anyway this discussion had gone on too long and as is typical going around in circles.
Click to expand...

EVERYTHING you said here. On the money.
 
glasgowspur said:
The last politically motivated murder in this country was by a left wing Marxist group.
Click to expand...

Errrr...Jo Cox was Labour and her murderer reportedly a Far-Right activist. What ‘last politically motivated murder’ are you referring to? Apologies for being a pedant but this is an important thing to get right?
 
thfcsteff said:
Errrr...Jo Cox was Labour and her murderer reportedly a Far-Right activist. What ‘last politically motivated murder’ are you referring to? Apologies for being a pedant but this is an important thing to get right?
Click to expand...
No it wasn't, it happened this year and it was front news on every major newspaper in the country.
I know you didn't miss it, it was discussed at length on here.
 
scaramanga said:
What rot.

There was no abuse of power because there was no power used (other than the physical kind, in which case I refer you to my earlier questions). The power wielded by those at the dinner wasn't recognised by those trespassing - the woman didn't leave because her superior asked her to, she left because she was physically removed.

Which leads me back to the physical aspect. What do you think would have happened if some thug for hire, embarrassed that her and her lot had snuck past him? I'd imagine the outcome would have been worse,y calling for security is what most who disapprove of his actions are suggesting should have happened.
Click to expand...

It was abuse of physical power obviously. If you think elected officials should set an example by acting like frustrated night club bouncers that’s fair enough. Personally I prefer more poise, and stately decorum from our elite public servants. And to live in a society where elected governments ministers are more inclined to listen to public protest rather than overpower them with their greater size. We all know Field wouldn’t have done the same to larger male protestor. That he used his size advantage to push a women in a c0cktail dress [emoji156] who was shouting peaceful protest into the wall is personally not something I would be proud of.

It’s not massively wrong, his force and aggression was OTT, you admitted as much saying you’d have used less aggression if it was you. So what are we debating? We’re more or less in agreement.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
thfcsteff said:
I think it is possible to be concerned about both things, proportionately too. We probably don’t want to discuss Iran though. I will say this; the Mullahs are insane evil nutcases, but they do not represent all Iranians any more than Trump represents all Americans. And the course Trump and Bolton are charting over Iran ends up strengthening the Mullahs AND leaving Europe vulnerable. A disaster.
Click to expand...

Iran is actually a very civilised and well educated country. Left to its own devices its probably as ripe as anywhere in the Middle East for an organic progression to liberal democracy.

fudging with them when they've got a liberal president like Rouhani trying to counterbalance the Ayatollah is a really stupid idea
 
Gutter Boy said:
Iran is actually a very civilised and well educated country. Left to its own devices its probably as ripe as anywhere in the Middle East for an organic progression to liberal democracy.

fudging with them when they've got a liberal president like Rouhani trying to counterbalance the Ayatollah is a really stupid idea
Click to expand...

It's like people don't know that an Iranian will never fudge with you but if you fudge with an Iranian it will be the end.
 
AuroRaman said:
It's like people don't know that an Iranian will never fudge with you but if you fudge with an Iranian it will be the end.
Click to expand...
Trump has been setting this war up since before he was elected. Part of the quid pro quo for the election help and copious amounts of money he received is to make the Saudis a nuclear power in the region, this is well underway, and provoke a conflict with Iran, also well underway. This war would be a bigger mistake than the Iraq war, which really is saying something considering the absolute clusterfudge that was and still is.
 
thfcsteff said:
Hahahahaha, and that should indemnify it from being a potential target for protest? 'Tis a free country, right? I would've assumed if it ws that important that the security would've been onto her before she'd got through the lobby. There again, probably some cheap sub-contracted wasters masquerading as security to save them all another few quid which could be better used, errrr, "elsewhere"...
Click to expand...

As I have already said - protest by all means. Outside. There was no right of access at all. She had no right to be in the room, protest or not. And people keep brushing that rather key point under the carpet.

I dont disagree, "Where the fudge were security" is a entirely valid question. Had they done their job this wouldnt have even happened.


thfcsteff said:
And now you're not reading properly. Did I say "should have been"? No. I suggested that if this fool had even an OUNCE of savvy, he could've turned it into a galvanizing moment for him and his instead of a polarizing moment between people who feel this is acceptable behavior and people who know it isn't.
Click to expand...

Sematics.
"Imagine -just imagine- if he’d said to her he would talk for a few minutes. Not only would he have received positive press, he’d have handled the situation like a proper boss. Instead he showed what a giant fudging coward he was..."

How am I to read this if not as suggesting he should have stopped and had a chat with her?


thfcsteff said:
Pathetic. "Nearer terrorism"? Jesus, that is really some statement. Tell you what, why not publish a handbook on protest for the proletariat when directed towards the elite?
Click to expand...

Think about it. She gained entry to a room she had no right to be in, and made a direct run on the chancellor. Thats an aggressive and potentially dangerous set of actions, isnt it?


thfcsteff said:
There you are! Out you come!
Click to expand...

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

thfcsteff said:
It comes down to your perceived view of "equality" does it? Look, his actions were disproportionate and stupid. In my view and that of many others. Not you, obviously. I will say, doubling-down, that the fact it involved a woman makes it twice as poor. Take the gender out of it; a man of his, errrr, "heft" getting physical with someone of that, errrr, "lack of heft" who was carrying nothing other than a protest view unwelcome at the event should NOT be throttled on site. IMO.
Click to expand...

It doesnt come down to my view of equality, rather the clear inequality many here are displaying.

I dont think she should have been given special treatment and concession for being a she. Thats as far as my views on equality go in this instance.

Many here are explicitly saying the opposite. Many who, IMO, will be banging the drum for equality later in the thread...

Nobody was throttled. Thats a little dramatic, as with most responses with those condeming him.

I dont think he handled the situation well, particularly when he cut her off. He was heavy handed and clumsy. That being said, I have no issue whatsoever with him cutting her off and getting her out.

Im willing to give the benefit of the doubt to him in suggesting he wasnt really qualified to handle people, having had no training etc, and so basically made a mess of it.

Far to many here, IMO, havent even entertained that and have added a variety of flavours to the situation.

Accusing him of beating up a woman because the opportunity was there, being drunk and fancying himself the tough guy , being an abuser...
 
Rorschach said:
Trump has been setting this war up since before he was elected. Part of the quid pro quo for the election help and copious amounts of money he received is to make the Saudis a nuclear power in the region, this is well underway, and provoke a conflict with Iran, also well underway. This war would be a bigger mistake than the Iraq war, which really is saying something considering the absolute clusterfudge that was and still is.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Huge mistake. YUUUUUUGE. Iran has not been an antagoniser but you can be sure if the US and quite likely their little lapdogs, namely us, decide to send troops they will be suitably fudged up. But then that is collateral damage if they destroy the nation from above, get that centralised bank in there whilst pillaging the resources and giving their best friends the Saudi's more control of the region. Under the guise of freedom and democracy of course. And we can all go to bed at night believing another boogeyman has been thwarted :)
 
AuroRaman said:
Absolutely. Huge mistake. YUUUUUUGE. Iran has not been an antagoniser but you can be sure if the US and quite likely their little lapdogs, namely us, decide to send troops they will be suitably fudged up. But then that is collateral damage if they destroy the nation from above, get that centralised bank in there whilst pillaging the resources and giving their best friends the Saudi's more control of the region. Under the guise of freedom and democracy of course. And we can all go to bed at night believing another boogeyman has been thwarted :)
Click to expand...
What if they just use heavy sanctions and drones?
 
scaramanga said:
What if they just use heavy sanctions and drones?
Click to expand...

'destroy the nation from above'.

Iran has been under heavy sanctions for a long time. I may well be wrong but with to justify this sort of conflict/war with the public, ground troops would need to be deployed.
 
Do ya think for a minute that the flog who manhandled that woman would have done so had she been a man? No chance! Cowardly piece of brick!
 
Gutter Boy said:
Iran is actually a very civilised and well educated country. Left to its own devices its probably as ripe as anywhere in the Middle East for an organic progression to liberal democracy.

fudging with them when they've got a liberal president like Rouhani trying to counterbalance the Ayatollah is a really stupid idea
Click to expand...

One of the power houses of the Middle East, if like you said left alone does its own thing
 
Rorschach said:
Trump has been setting this war up since before he was elected. Part of the quid pro quo for the election help and copious amounts of money he received is to make the Saudis a nuclear power in the region, this is well underway, and provoke a conflict with Iran, also well underway. This war would be a bigger mistake than the Iraq war, which really is saying something considering the absolute clusterfudge that was and still is.
Click to expand...

What would be really interesting is if the rest of NATO doesn't back America.

UK, France and Germany have already started keeping distance by sticking to the nuclear deal.

ISIS in Iraq (UK) and Syria (France) were a bit different because of old colonial ties to those countries. But Iran was never colonised so there's no 'sphere of influence' reason for either to get involved at all.
 
AuroRaman said:
'destroy the nation from above'.

Iran has been under heavy sanctions for a long time. I may well be wrong but with to justify this sort of conflict/war with the public, ground troops would need to be deployed.
Click to expand...
I can see it being widely accepted if it were nuclear (Trumpspeak: nucular) refinement and ballistic missile sites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back