European General Politics #1

[Rhdem]

1 hour ago, Maturin said:

Also there is a thing called Parliamentary Privilege

are you Italian? or have this shit you too in your country? this is an abomination... this is why we have politics corrupted, outlaws, thieves... 

[Rhdem]

5 hours ago, Foamy T. Squirrel said:

 

Europe should not copy us. It can't. You all have different problems and cultures. Just don't ask us to come over when you have problems with each other anymore. We're a bankrupt country. Thank you.

i fully agree this is why i'm happy the UK gone out from the Europe and the others countries need to follow it... United Europe was born for Euro (monetary currency) not for the united countries (like USA)... for let the banks buy in the new conutries and make investments (example : Romania) 

[BBsq69]

Parliamentary Privilege is something I totally agree with. It is used less often than it should be. 

Sadly in the UK we have absolutely ludicrous libel laws which I have been involved in fighting against. These get used by celebrities to protect themselves in a way they would not be allowed to in the US but much more importantly used by special interest groups, sometimes religious often extreme who sue people trying to tell the truth ... even if they don't succeed the aim of these organisations is to make it very unpleasant for the author who then get involved in sometimes long drawn out court cases attempting to discredit them making it a painful experience they don't want to repeat and giving publicity to these views. With Parliamentary Privilege at least MPs are protected from this rubbish.

Another disgraceful part of the UK system is the super injunction. An injunction which stops people giving information about something is one thing but a super injunction bans the reporting of the injunction taking place at all. So for instance if there is some industrial disaster the company can take an injunction out against releasing details of what was responsible for that disaster but you can report that the company took out an injunction leading people then to start asking questions. With a super injunction there is no record whatsoever so people will assume that the company have no responsibility whatsoever. It has been used less seriously once again by celebrities in order to protect themselves except the problem is the court has no jurisdiction outside the UK and thus everyone else in the world knows about it and so therefore does anyone in the UK who really wants to find out ... even though it is then illegal for them to tell anyone and maybe even to look it up in the first place! 

 

[BBsq69]

Switching to a wider issue in Europe the rise in populism (or celebrated ignorance if you ask me) is seriously challenging the notion of democracy with its unfortunate side effect. It is has allowed Russia, who thanks to the previous Soviet regimes have expertise in misinformation The West can only dream of, has allowed a large number of East European regimes to start turning to the far right who look to Putin or even if for historical and geographical reasons they are anti-Russia their hatred and suspicions of the other have led them into his clutches. The trigger for this was of course the Syrian crisis and Angela Merkel's ill thought out policy of saying "Come to Germany" echoed by the Swedes forgetting all these people would have to come through these other countries letting the Russian propaganda wreak its havoc. It is clear that most but not all populism is fueled by hatred and/or fear of immigration and by using that to get people to vote for them, the right wing can pile a whole load of other policies which those voters would normally be against on top of that. As this happens Europe fractures and the fascist dictator Putin dances. 

[Foamy T. Squirrel]

On 4/21/2018 at 7:42 AM, BBsq69 said:

PMQs are a relic of history. Up until Tony Blair, who really had contempt for parliament, it used to be 2 15 minute session on Tuesdays and Thursdays which allowed obviously for more reaction to events when he changed it to 1 30 minute session on Wednesdays.

 . . .

May:

"I see the right honourable member for Islington North (Corbyn) has difficult counting. He's supposed to ask 1 question at a time and I counted 2"

Tories: 

"Hear hear!"

May:

"I'll have a go at his first point. During their period in office the last Labour government oversaw a record of 0, that's 0, new affordable homes being built in Willesden. Isn't that typical of his party's incompetence?"

Tories:

"Hear hear!"

Labour:

"Answer the question!"

May:

"I will but ..."

Labour:

Jeers

The Speaker:

"Order, order. We must hear what the Prime Minister has to say even if the honouable member for Bolsover doesn't like it!"

Tories:

Cheers 

May:

"I will but it is is important we remember where we started from. In the last 7 years under the coalition and the previous Tory government we have passed legislation making the purchasing of brown belt land easier and we have put in cavaets which will ensure that the new houses to be built on it will be affordable and I hope Sanjay and his lovely wife and daughter will be among the first to benefit from this forward thinking policy."

(This a bit of enhanced reality because it often takes 3 attempts to get an answer if any and even then The Speaker may have to prompt The Prime Minister.) 

The Speaker:

"The honourable member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber

Ian Blackford (SNP Leader):

"Thank you Mr Speaker. If Sanjay and his family want to come to Scotland ..."

Rest of the Commons

Groans

Blackford:

"... they will discover many affordable homes in Scotland thanks to the Scottish government's excellent foresight. Isn't it true ..."

etc. etc

Dude! That's hilarious! Now I know where Monty Python get their material! I told you it was entertaining!

[Foamy T. Squirrel]

To be honest, I needed to google Parliamentary Privilege. Technically, we don't have that animal on this side of the pond. Just a smaller but similar creature.

Our government cannot touch a citizen's right to speak freely on any issue. So, in terms of political thought and speech, we are free to make asses of ourselves without government interference. As for Parliamentary Privilege extending to ACTIONS, I find that it is disgusting that politicians can get away with crimes that would put ordinary citizens in prison. Unfortunately, here in the US, convictions are based on which party holds the most back-room power.

[BBsq69]

2 hours ago, Foamy T. Squirrel said:

Our government cannot touch a citizen's right to speak freely on any issue. 

Yes, one of the things I admire about the US.

[BBsq69]

3 hours ago, Foamy T. Squirrel said:

Dude! That's hilarious! Now I know where Monty Python get their material! I told you it was entertaining!

When you hear it as a one off sketch it is but this every week and while I do like the confrontational element in the design of the chamber - somehow makes it more honest - they do behave like a bunch of children. The concept of PMQ is fine and they have got rid of some of the anachronistic tradition but it needs to be tightened up and in particular The Speaker who does have authority even over the PM must force them to answer the questions or hold them in contempt. The current speaker is a Tory but is scrupulously flair with the flamboyance the role requires. Last month he dealt with the Foreign Secretary.

Here he is at his best:

And the legendary Beast of Bolsover himself:

 

[Foamy T. Squirrel]

I think I'll nominate Bercow to be the next CC Moderator!!!

[BBsq69]

23 hours ago, Foamy T. Squirrel said:

I think I'll nominate Bercow to be the next CC Moderator!!!

This is when the government (his own party remember) tried to remove him, just look at the look he gives them at 1:02.

... and then there's his wife:

Lord McAlpine's business partner, Fairclough had a deaf son who my mother taught in our house - talk about 6 degrees of separation. Mind you I'm only about 3 steps from most of Hollywood LOL so 6 degrees may be an exaggeration. 

[Foamy T. Squirrel]

Re: expensive tweet. . .

BBsq: I'm still trying to figure out how you folks can operate with libel and slander laws that can so easily thwart the expression of political judgments and opinions made by the people. It appears to me that eliminating any such rights could easily lead to tyranny. Do you not trust the people of the nation to form their own opinions about something they hear said by others? How can a constitutional republic or democracy long survive if anyone is punished for a simple twit on twitter just because it is levied against a member of the government? Should the government be given such huge power over political comments aired publicly?

This is a totally foreign concept to most US Citizens. And a dangerous one, indeed. I cannot be fined or jailed or executed for criticizing any public official. I like that. But then, I never lived under the German National Socialist Worker's Party, or the Soviets, or the little Kimmy regime in North Korea. I was born lucky as hell. I can even make a joke about the Donald or Hillary and not be "disappeard" the next day!

So here's my declaration (which no doubt will prohibit me from getting visas to visit the countries of the world):

A public notice to all you asshole politicians throughout the world --- You're assholes and you're fucking-up the world. You start stupid wars, you over-tax your subjects in order to maintain an extravagant lifestyle that you don't deserve, and you are incompetent animals that couldn't start a hot-dog stand without subsidies stolen from the work of others. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! So just resign, fuck off and get out of our lives!

There. I am now a world-wide criminal for denouncing all the world's asshole politicians. Can I be fined in the UK for that?  If that, tell them I said, "Try to sue me, mo fo's."

 

 

 

[BBsq69]

Foamy those with power and I don't just mean politicians, but bankers, CEOs, public organisations and celebrities like the status quo and while that remains the case nothing will change as the general public. with a few exceptions like myself, just don't care about it. They don't realise that they should have these rights and people care far more about rights being taken away rather than being given to them. However I think there is a dilemma here. While social media exists as it is, it is very easy to blame it for almost everything. I am sure the authorities during the riots we had a few years ago arrested far more people for posting on Facebook than they did people actually rioting, attacking police, burning down buildings and stealing goods. Of course new technology is easy to blame because politicians can claim not to understand it while it the same time authorising the capture of everybody's data just in case.

But there is another side and that is Twitter which is maliciously used by several political groups. It does need to be addressed and it is not so simple as just not to be on it. When there was a vote on whether to bomb IS in Syria, many Labour politicians received non-stop abuse calling them baby murderers and sometime threatening the MPs, their families, their staff but if they couldn't do that via social media they would have used other techniques - Twitter just makes it so much easier. I first noticed politically with the SNP who went for of all people J.K.Rowling, then they went for anybody in the Labour Party who wasn't left wing enough. Outside politics you have the Feminazis and even a case of McCann supporters hounding someone who doubted their word to suicide ... in fact anything that is said about the McCanns tends to disappear from the internet. That is a whole other issue. In short Twitter does have things to address but on the other hand I am sick of people posting things and then expecting everyone to agree with them - if you don't want to be criticised, don't post!