Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Well there goes another UN ceasefire vote, the US vetoed it again. Everyone else voted for it, except the UK who in our preferred position of abject cowardliness and lack of any moral spine under the Tories abstained as usual. And in doing so, we remain complicit in aiding and abetting the ongoing massacre in Gaza. }}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Utter farce at Westminster, again. Yesterday was an opposition day motion - basically under the rules as the 3rd largest opposition party in the House, the SNP, get three days a session when they can table a topic for debate and vote in the House. The SNP choose to go with calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and getting a vote on it to show the will of the House. This is the second such debate the SNP have called on the topic, the first time, though they failed to get it passed, saw a significant number of Labour MP's rebel against their party whip and vote with the SNP, including front bench resignation to do so.
Further pressure was piled on Labour and Keir Stamer when Scottish Labour at their conference last week voted to support the SNP ceasefire call. And it was thought that when yesterday's vote from the SNP came up again without a Labour position on a ceasefire (officially they want a 'humanitarian pause' same as Tories) that up to a further 70 Labour MP's would defy the party and vote with the SNP - this would be a disaster for Labour and Starmer.
So what happened?
The Speaker, against all history and precedent that only the government can put forward amendments to such a vote instead adopted a Labour amendment, an amendment from another opposition party that was a watered down version of the SNP proposal, removing references to the treatment of Palestinians which Starmer (whose wife and kids are Jewish and from Israel) was not happy about, but it crucially retained the word ceasefire, though behind a wall of caveats, but enough to stem his own side rebelling.
By allowing this unprecedented rule breaking amendment the Speaker gave Labour (the Speaker's formal party) a get of free jail free card. They got a way to prevent their MP's voting on the SNP bill as the SNP bill, even though it's their opposition day, never got debated at all, only the Labour amendment - the Tories and most of the SNP walked out in disgust and are calling on the Speakers resignation.
So what should have been a vote showing the UK Parliament supported a ceasefire, instead became a ridiculous political farce in which the Speaker rigged the rules to completely silence the SNP who didn't even get allowed to vote on their own proposal, and instead removed their call for a ceasefire from the debate and replaced it with the Labour one whose sole purpose was to help Starmer prevent a rebellion.
This is pure political interference what should be the impartial application of the House rules on debate and Opposition Day Motions.
Shocking and disgraceful.




As a sidenote to all this Scottish Labour voting to adopt the same position on this as the SNP is becoming somewhat amusing.
For example-

SNP- against the bedroom tax
Scottish Labour- against bedroom tax
Labour- in favour of bedroom tax
SNP - opposed to Trident renewal and nukes in Scotland
Scottish Labour- opposed to Trident renewal and nukes in Scotland
Labour- in favour of renewing Trident and keeping Nukes in Scotland
SNP- against the 2 child benefit cap
Scottish Labour-  against the 2 child benefit cap
Labour- in favour of keeping the 2 child benefit cap
SNP- in  favour of renegotiating with EU
Sottish Labour- in  favour of renegotiating with EU
Westminster Labour - want to stay out the EU
SNP- in favour of ceasefire in Gaza
Scottish Labour- in favour of ceasefire in Gaza
Westminster Labour- against a ceasefire favour a humanitarian pause

This means you can have obscene amounts of fun when Scottish Labour candidates come to campaign at your door or annoy you in the street-

Candidate - Vote Scottish Labour
Me- I am against nukes in the Clyde.
Candidate- So are Scottish Labour.
ME- So if I vote for you and you win you will get rid of the nukes?
Candidate- Um, well no not exactly. If you vote for us Labour will win.
Me- So no nukes here then?
Candidate- Um, no Labour will in fact keep them and buy more, but Scottish Labour will fight to have them removed.
Me- Fight your own party?
Candidate- Um, yes?
ME- Ok I'm against the bedroom tax, what about that?
Candidate- We are totally against it too, completely unfair punishment on the poorest.
Me- Good so if I vote for you it will be gone?
Candidate- Um, no, we just oppose it, Labours actual position is to keep it, but we will fight or own party against it.
Me- Ok the child benefit cap is cruel and punishing too, what about that?
Candidate - We are totally opposed to it, however if you actually vote for us we will be keeping it, but we will..
Me- Don't tell me, you'll fight your own party to get rid of it?

And so on. It's farcical, Scottish Labour increasingly have more in common with SNP policy than they do with Westminster Labour policy.}}

[Mrs Figg]

Bring Back Bercow.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ You couldn't make this up, the SNP having had their opposition debate on Gaza hijacked and handed over to Labour by the Speaker, who in his apology to the House for his handling of that told the SNP they could instead have another day to debate Gaza instead, has just now rejected the SNP application for said debate.

'the Speaker said that under Commons rules, an emergency debate had to be on an issue ministers had responsibility for, and that there was no other way MPs could discuss it. Sir Lindsay told MPs the SNP's application for a debate did not meet either criteria. Sir Lindsay, who has already apologised for his handling of the issue, had previously indicated he would allow a fresh debate under emergency rules.
Mr Flynn said: "The Speaker broke the rules last week - and this week he has broken his word. How can MPs have any trust in the Speaker when he makes a public commitment one minute, only to rip it up the next. For months, the UK parliament has blocked SNP calls for an immediate ceasefire - and now it's blocking a vote on the concrete actions the UK government must pursue to make an immediate ceasefire more likely." - BBC

If it did not meet the two main criteria, why did he say just a short few days ago they could have such a debate, shouldn't he as Speaker of the House know the rules for debates? He even said it would be under emergency rules, what happened to them? It all stinks and the result of all these shenanigans is that Scotland's voice is silenced in the Commons and the crucial debate on the UK's response to what is happening in Gaza gets swept under the carpet, again.

Worse as a country we are supplying weapons to Israel, who are under investigation for war crimes, which they certainly are committing, and may well be adjudged by the International Criminal Court to be partaking in genocide, and we as suppliers of arms to them are likewise guilty under international law if they are, we are bombing the Houthis, increasingly, and ever further into Yemen sovereign territory, risking breaking international law ourselves. And we are doing all this on a nod and a wink via the Tory government, none of it, not the strikes, the escalation nor the supply of arms have been debated let alone voted upon in the House by the representatives of the people. And that's a real problem for our parliamentary democracy. Even Blair for his illegal war in Iraq at least went to the trouble to mislead and exaggerate the threat to get the House to support him, but he at least took it to the House. The Tories are not even making the pretence of debate or a vote.}}

[Mrs Figg]

Its all a waste of time anyway. The ceasefire or not is not for Britain to decide.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ No but it defines to the rest of the world where we stand on the war, and how we will respond and conduct ourselves in relation to it. For example if the official view of Parliament is that there must be a ceasefire and restoration of a Palestinian state it becomes harder for the government to continue to get passed the House arms sales to Israel. It's these sort of issues the government does not want publicly aired.
It's also just essential to our style of democracy that when the country takes part in a war, or takes sides, or chooses to supply arms to one side in a hugely contentious war, that the representatives of the people, our elected MP's get to have a say and a vote on what the government is doing on behalf of their constituents. That's their job.

There's a few to blame for this mess, and the fact it has managed to devolve into a very nasty ongoing row in which labour accuses the Tories of Islamophobia, and the Tories accuse Labour of anti-Semitism.
And to understand how we got from the Speaker screwing up the debate and vote to that is to look at the faults of few folks.
First Starmer, he knew this vote for coming for ages, the SNP held the last opposition day they had on such a vote on Gaza, it didn't pass but many Labour MP's defied the whip and voted for the SNP, forcing a couple of shadow ministers to resign and some backbenchers to lose the whip. It was a bad day for Starmer and this vote was going to be worse with as many as 100 Labour Mp's set to vote with the SNP and defy the Labour whip. He knew he had a split in his party over Gaza, and he knew well beforehand the vote was coming, he had two main options under normal House Rules - he could have not made the SNP vote whipped and instead made it a free vote for Labour Mp's, or he could have tabled a Labour vote on it on their next available opposition day which was the following Monday, got his MP's to abstain on the SNP vote and vote for their own a few days later.
He didn't however, instead he chose to wait till the day of the debate and vote, then to pressure the Speaker to change the longstanding rules of the House to effectively let Labour take the SNP opposition day and make it a Labour one, voting on their version of a ceasefire, with all its caveats and without criticism of Israel first.
And the main person at fault, the Speaker. First he caved to Labour pressure, when he did so he came to the House and gave his reasons, they were that the procedure of opposition parties not tabling amendments to opposition day votes was outdated, and it was time for it to go, and that this was so the House could have the broadest possible range of views to vote on.
This was done against the advice of his Clerks, who went so far as to put that fact on the written record.
However, when the Speaker eventually returned to the House after all the chaos he had caused and gave his apology, the reason had also changed. Now it was done to protect the safety of Mp's.

The argument Starmer had made to him, that had persuaded him to change the rules, was that had his Labour MP's not voted for a ceasefire again - and they could not vote for the SNP version as for Starmer it was too far in calling out Israel, nor the Tory amendment as it didn't even mention the word ceasefire but 'humanitarian pause' and so did not go far enough - that Labour Mp's would be under physical threat of violence from angry Muslims and pro-Palestinian supporters for not voting for a ceasefire when they had the chance. So, to safeguard Labour MP's from harm it was necessary they had the Labour version they could vote for first and so not get attacked for not backing a ceasefire.

This opened the floodgates. The Tories and the right immediately pounced on the Speaker changing the rules of the House out of intimidation of the threat of violence from Islamic extremists.
This in turn gave excuse for the right-wing side of Sunak's Tories, who have been boiling away angrily under his more liberal Premiership for some time, to speak out on their favourite topics combined- immigration, the left pandering to extremists and anti-Muslim sentiment.
First a prominent Tory MP said that the Muslim Mayor of London was in the pocket of Islamic extremists and had let all his 'mates' take over London, then he was suspended from the Tory party by Sunak for refusing to withdraw and apologise for the remark, but he is backed up by figures like former Home Sec Braverman and evil incarnate Pritti Patel, and in general that wing of the Tories do not seem like they want to go back in their box on this topic.
Meanwhile, Sunak and co are under increasing pressure as whilst they condemn the language used they are refusing to say or admit it amounts to being Islamophobic and are instead trying to turn the whole thing back on Labour, by saying they are supporting Hamas sympathisers and such by their stance on Gaza, and the pro-Palestinian rallies seen across the country, but particularly those in London, are all anti-Semitic (that Starmer is anti-semetic is a harder sell though, Starmer's wife is Israeli, his kids half Israeli, her family lives there, and his stance on this has been at odds with the grassroot of his party who are pro-Palestinian in general, but it explains why he whipped the party to vote only for his version of a ceasefire which is as much, if not more about Hamas than Israel).

And so that's where we find the sorry mess. Starmer should have seen this coming and acted way earlier, the Speaker has screwed up several times now compounding this whole mess (there have been rumours flying for a while about him that he's a nice chap but doesn't actually know or understand the rules of the House, and I think this proves some truth to that), Sunak has lost control of his anti-Muslim wing of the party who have gone rogue and the actual important Parliamentary debate and vote we should be having about how we approach what is going on in Gaza as a country is completely lost. }}

[Mrs Figg]

Why is it anti-Islamic? he didn't attack a religion, he didn't attack a race, he just said that Khan has been proven to have a strong bias towards muslims to the cost of English people. What did Khan do about genocidal intifada being projected on Big Ben? well, he facilitated the attitude that this behavior is allowed in Britain and there are zero consequences for calling for the genocide of Jews. Khan wasted millions of pounds on vanity projects, changing the names on the underground, Khan allowed the police to arrest English people for flying our flag but let those with pictures of Hamas parachutists on their backs with a free pass to do it again. Khan allows the defilement of the Cenotaph, by Hamas supporters, Khan allows a two-tier policing strategy where violent islamists are free to do whatever the fuck they like every Saturday on the streets of London. I would say that Anderson is 100% correct. That is not anti-islamic its just the naked truth which nobody is allowed to mention.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ That'd be fine Figg, if most of that was not entirely invented nonsense by the right!
Please give examples of Khan favouring Muslims over non Muslims please.
The projections onto Big Ben mainly consisted of slogans such as "stop the war" "Stop the killing", the only contentious slogan at all was "From the Jordan to to the sea" which pro Palestinians in the west do not use for a call to genocide but as a call for a Palestinian state - the law has to prove intent as it can't in such a case it can't arrest for it unless it can prove those who say it mean genocide, as most don't - see Charlotte Church for example who was prominent in that protest, used the phrase and sang pro-Palestinian songs, without arrest as no laws were broken. There's a great piece on the history of the phrase and its use here, I highly recommend it for better understanding- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/2/from-the-river-to-the-sea-what-does-the-palestinian-slogan-really-mean
All Mayors do vanity projects, look at Boris before him and the ridiculous vanity projects he tried, anyone remember his bridge to nowhere, or his memorial hill? All costing a fortune and all utter failures.
The Met have made zero arrests for flying the St George, protesters who have broken the law and happen to have one are not being arrested for the flag but their actions or words. As to the cenotaph, really? That was a fearmongering exercise by the right who claimed the pro-Palestinian march was going to desecrate the cenotaph, in fact the march went off entirely peacefully on the other side of London and went nowhere near the Cenotaph, it was never going near the Cenotaph. It was just completely untrue anti-Palestinian rubbish.}}

[Mrs Figg]

well lets just debunk all that shall we.

First off, from The Guardian,
"Hamas, whose gunmen killed 1,400 people on 7 October, claim the slogan in their rejection of Israel.

“Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” says the organisation’s 2017 constitution."

so violent genocidal intifada then.

Secondly, people are getting arrested for flying the union flag. Funnily those flying the IS flags are left in peace.  Quite clearly this man was not violent or abusive.



thirdly the desecration of the Cenotaph and the disgraceful insult to the war dead and their families.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ It makes no odds that the slogan may have meant that to certain people 7 years ago. It's what it means to people now that is all that is of value. And the majority of those protesting in the West using the slogan use it quite clearly, and stated as such, as being representative of a free Palestinian state, not genocide on Israel.
You have to take both context and what it means to people at the time it is being used.

As to the guy with the flag, he went to a pro-Palestinian march and tried to interrupt and disrupt it, as such according to the police report (I note neither you nor the video include it and the footage starts after his arrest, neatly not covering what he did to get lifted in the first place) they arrested him for Breach of the Peace and Intention to cause a public nuisance. At no point was he arrested for flying a flag, for the very good reason that it is not, and never has been illegal.

Nor is it illegal in this country to burn the flag so long as it's your flag, if its someone else's its vandalism and you should and I imagine would be arrested for that. There is no offence of flag burning in the UK. So no crimes are being committed. It's a protest gesture, big deal. I don't have any love for the Union Flag either, I'd happily set one on fire or piss all over it, am I a terrorist now? }}

[Mrs Figg]

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ It doesn't matter how much the right insist the slogan means genocide, it's not how it's being used, or has been for some considerable time. To quote the organisers of the rally-

'it had "been used by the majority of Palestinians for decades" and "it speaks to the nature of how the rights of the Palestinian people are deprived. It in no way calls for the abrogation of anybody else's rights."- BBC

The law in this county has to prove intent. It is quite clear the vast majority who use this slogan today are doing so in the context of a free Palestine, not the eradication of Israel. Therefore they are not breaking any laws. Also funny how those who shout loudest about freedom of speech are the first to call for its silencing when they don't like what the speech says.
All of this is a pro-Israeli lobby by pro-Israeli ministers, particularly on the right, to deflect from Israeli atrocities and try to turn blame to those supporting Palestine and to make sure our Parliament has no debate or discussion on what Israel is doing - which is an utter disgrace and the real crime here. If we are not careful the right in government is going to curtail public protests and take away our right to protest, and deny our elected representatives the right to represent us and have their say and cast their votes, using appeasers such as yourself to justify it.

As to Khan being in the pocket of Islamists, watched his whole video and he has zero evidence of that beyond rhetoric. Where are the policies as Mayor, Khan has passed which favours Muslims over other religions? Where are the laws he has passed that favours Muslims over others? Anywhere? Any sign or hint of that? No, of course there isn't. }}

[Mrs Figg]

“Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” says the organisation’s 2017 constitution."

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ 7 years ago. Nor is it what it means internationally, which is the context its being used in, it's not being used in Gaza here or by Hamas, it's not being used by terrorists calling for the destruction of Israel, its being used by protesters, lots and lots of them white Brits appalled at what Israel is doing to civilians and the infrastructure of Gaza, and who want to see a ceasefire and a diplomatic resolution that results in a two-state solution.
It's worthless to just reiterate that 7 years ago Hamas, a group devoted to the destruction of Israel used it to mean the destruction of Israel. It's not what the protesters use it to mean, and that has been stated and reiterated by the protesting groups, and individuals on the protests, time and time again. You can't just pretend they mean something else because it suits you to. They clearly don't mean the destruction of Israel as they are not calling for that, they are calling for a ceasefire and two states.
But as I keep saying the real issue is the abandonment of our democracy and accountability in Parliament. It was clear from the Speakers barely there meek presence at today's PMQ's he has no authority left in the House, a proper day debate on Gaza has instead not happened, and the promised government one amounted to them coming to the House and declaring they didn't think a ceasefire was a good idea so they were sticking with things as they are, end of debate, and off they went. And that's what this is all about they have folk like you Figg seeing Islamic extremists hiding under the bed, both distracting from Israelis atrocities and making sure no one is talking about the UK's position, involvement or support in those atrocities, least of all where they should be, in Parliament.}}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ As expected, it's being used by the Tories to further close down protests and demonstrations-

'Prime Minister Rishi Sunak wants more robust police responses that he says are needed to protect politicians and democratic processes.'

He calls the protests 'mob rule', wants the police to take more robust action and wants to ban protests outside MP's offices and outside Council Chambers - I took part in the Poll Tax protests in Glasgow in which we didn't just protest at the Council Chambers there was a take over and sit in of it.

'Amnesty International UK's Law and Human Rights Director, warned fundamental rights were being eroded. "Talk of 'mob rule' wildly exaggerates the issue and risks delegitimising the rights of peaceful protest. Freedom of expression and assembly are absolutely fundamental rights in any free and fair society. The UK has undergone a major crackdown on protest rights in recent years, with peaceful protest tactics being criminalised and the police being given sweeping powers to prevent protests taking place."

They are not wrong this is the third or fourth time the Tories have cracked down on protest rights in this country since they came to power.
As Sky News reporter said, and they are right wing, he has seen far worse, more disruptive and violent protests outside Parliament as recently as Brexit and the anti-vaxers.

This is what I've been warning of, they have closed down Parliamentary discussion on Israel whilst simultaneously rousing the right mob against Muslims by associating the protesters with Hamas, claiming the Muslim mayor is letting all his Muslim mates run London and painting the protesters as wishing to destroy Israel (as Figg has been doing, conflating two unrelated things) and then using it as an excuse to shut down and reduce the number of protests and protesters against Israel's war. They have silenced the voices inside the House, now they are going to silence it outside too.}}

[Mrs Figg]

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ You just keep repeating the same thing over and over Figg in the hopes it will somehow make more sense if you do - it doesn't. In the UK the law has to prove intent - the police have to be able to prove the protesters in the UK, don't care about other countries, we are talking about UK protests, mean the slogan to be a call for genocide. They can't do that because the slogan has taken on another different meaning to the protesters which they clearly state and repeat - that of a free Palestinian state. And calling for a ceasefire and a free Palestinian state is not a crime. And if they make it one, what remains of our democracy and particularly our right to protest will be utterly destroyed, and folk like you Figg will have aided and abetted the Tories in doing it by falling hook, line and sinker for this distraction tactic of switching attention and blame to those protesting a war, rather than those committing war crimes and those funding those crimes.
I predicted a week ago that the Tories would use this to shut down Parliamentary discussion, and they did, I predicted days ago they were going to use the Islamist thing to shut down protesters, and now they are. The patterns are obvious.}}

[Mrs Figg]

The people committing war crimes are Hamas. And the concept of emptying the land from the river to the sea for anyone with an iota of honesty implies that Jews will be swept away INTO the sea.

"and folk like you Figg will have aided and abetted the Tories"  

yeah, apart from that being a singularly absurd comment, the Tories do actually ring me up constantly for my daily contributions to aiding and abetting.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Its not Hamas who just opened fire on a massive crowd of people who are starving to death, starving because Israel has been starving them. Talk of war crimes - they first starve them near to death then open fire on them when in their desperation for food they swarm the supply trucks. It's atrocity after atrocity, and it's not Hamas committing any of them. We are participating in a genocide of a people and the very place such a massive issue should be being discussed, debated and the representatives of the people heard, their voices have been silenced and now they will silence those protesting outside, and yes by buying into this you are aiding and abetting spreading a false narrative whose purpose is to close down debate and deflect from the many, many war crimes Israel has been and continues to commit right before our eyes whilst switching focus of blame onto those protesting the war rather than those conducting it.}}

[halfwise]

yeah, apart from that being a singularly absurd comment, the Tories do actually ring me up constantly for my daily contributions to aiding and abetting.    

The people committing war crimes are Hamas.

They have BOTH committed war crimes, but as Israel is supposedly the more legitimate government, their crimes should not be ignored because we expect this government to stick around.  Hamas DOES deserve to be wiped out for what they've done IF Israel adheres to rules of war (almost a laughable phrase I admit) as applied to civilians.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ The Tory means of operating doesn't change.

Take the banking crisis and the economic global crash it caused. The Tories spent over two years, through their right wing media sources convincing the middle classes that it was not in fact the fault of rich bankers and Tories at all. No, rather it was the fault of those work-shy, lazy, skiving poor people soaking up all the money on state benefits (in reality its never been higher than it is at present which is about 10% of overall state spending, and over 55% of that is solely pensions, except their benefits got guaranteed at always increasing 3 times the size of inflation as pensioners tend to vote Tory and be wealthier, but the working poor, the poor and the disabled they got blamed for it all) using the tabloid press and right wing news media they hammered story after story - the single mother with 10 kids getting more in benefits than a hard working middle class family with two working adults, drug addicts getting given council houses and council tax relief while the middle classes suffered increasing mortgages because the poor were wrecking the economy by refusing to work, story after story about people who were apparently cheating the system for disability money, and on it went relentlessly.

By the end of their campaign it felt like I was in 1984 listening to people talking about choco-rations going up, suddenly people were blaming the crash on the least well off when we all saw and heard in the news only two years earlier when it happened how it was the banks who caused it. Yet to this day that lie persists in Britain, as does the stigma of workshy cheaters that we give to those on benefits, even though in our wrecked Tory economy 35% of those who are claiming benefits are in full-time work, it's just our wages have fallen so far behind prices even if working you require a government top up just to meet the minimum standard for living.

And what did the Tories do when they had got the middle classes angry at the poor? They certainly didn't waste it, now they had it they also used it. It justified increasing the brutal and unfair 'sanctions' regime on benefits claimants, plunging thousands regularly and unfairly into utter poverty by cutting off their payment for the slightest thing, it let them introduce the child benefit cap cutting income to some of the poorest families in the country overnight plunging thousands of children instantly into poverty and to finish the job the bedroom tax, charging the poorest more money if they had a spare room in their house no one regularly used.

This is the Tory way of operating.

First you deflect blame onto a group who cannot speak up or answer back or that you wish to target for political reasons.
You maintain a media campaign hammering home the deflection until it is truth in the minds of enough people and they are angry about it and at the intended target.
You use that anger to attack the group by passing new laws that prevent them from functioning.

It's what they always do.
It's what they are doing right now.

They first wished to deflect debate on Israel and the UK's role in it, they shifted the focus onto the protesters, running story after story in the media about 'the river to the sea' slogan, the Muslim Mayor of London being in the pocket of Islamists and the PM himself declaring the protesters were not really protesters at all, but that London had succumbed to 'mob rule'. And the press have combined it with their ongoing campaign against migrants in general, and Muslim ones specifically. This narrative was pushed and pushed until it completely devoured the fact Parliament, the 'Mother of all Parliaments' as it likes to call itself, has no democratic accountability at this time for the governments actions or stance on Israel or its military strikes inside Yemen sovereign territory, or been able to vote on these matters at all. Imagine for a second that Tony Blair had just starting firing missiles at Iraq, not only without first going to the House, but by deliberately preventing the House from being able to even to talk about it. It would have been unthinkable. And yet with Israel, who may well be committing acts of genocide, certainly are committing daily and ongoing war crimes, we are instead of being outraged at our lack of democracy and scrutiny, blaming those calling for the bloodshed to end.

That's the cunning of the Tories, that's why they are dangerous, they make lies truth and they do it to provoke anger and resentments and then use it to excuse punishing those they wish to punish.

And now they have riled up folk like you Figg about all the Islamists and Hamas sympathisers under your bed, they are using that anger as justification to introduce new rules and police powers to close down the right to demonstrate outside Parliament, council buildings or MP's offices. Denying centuries long held rights of protest and assembly in our country.

And by buying into this Tory game Figg, by swallowing the line about to the river to the sea being meant as genocide by those protesting, by believing the Mayor of London is in cohorts with Islamists and Muslims have taken over the streets of London, arguing that point you do their work for them in helping spread it, helping deflect, helping them hide the fact there is a worrying lack of Parliamentary scrutiny over what our part is in Israel's war. And the fact it's being used to also close down our right to protest. You are helping them to do that, I fully stand by my accusation you aid and abet the Tories in this ploy. }}

[Mrs Figg]

From what I have read, the Palestinians have been offered their own state on many occasions and have refused every single time. Why have they done this, when they could have avoided all the bloodshed and misery decades ago? Maybe it's because they hate Jews and would rather suffer and starve than compromise.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Hamas have refused for a variety of reasons, but then that was the plan. Israel's plan. That's why Israel funded and supported Hamas and helped it into power-

'...with Israel’s then-military governor in that territory, Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev, disclosing in 1981 that he had been given a budget for funding Palestinian Islamists to counter the rising power of Palestinian secularists. Hamas, a spin-off of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, was formally established with Israel’s support soon after the first Intifada flared in 1987 as an uprising against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. Israel’s objective was twofold: to split the nationalist Palestinian movement led by Arafat and, more fundamentally, to thwart the implementation of the two-state solution for resolving the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By aiding the rise of an Islamist group whose charter rejected recognizing the Israeli state, Israel sought to undermine the idea of a two-state solution, including curbing Western support for an independent Palestinian homeland.' - Japanese Times

It's Israel has never wanted peace, it's Israel who have illegally stolen and occupied Palestinian homes and land. It was Israel created a monster they lost control of in Hamas. And they made it so as there could never be peace because Israel has never wanted peace, it has wanted what it always has, Israel restored to the bounds it used to have in biblical King Davids day, because this Israeli government is made up of mentally ill religious nuts who think they have to restore Israel to its original bounds so their Messiah will finally show up and led by a man trying to avoid criminal convictions.}}

[Mrs Figg]

"You are helping them to do that"

How exactly? I am perfectly entitled to an opinion without receiving absurd accusations

First off, from the river to the sea is the call for the extermination of an entire population from the land, cut it as you want and be as disingenuous as you like.

Are you ok with the disgusting spectacle of a bi-election being won as a referendum on Gaza, with the town of Rochdale under a foreign flag?
Are you ok with British MPs having bodyguards and security because of Islamist mobs?
Are you ok with British parliamentary process being changed due to fear from Islamist mobs?
Are you ok with Jewish people being too afraid to go out in London during the Hamas apologist marches?
Are you ok with council meetings and charity dinners being stormed by Islamist mobs?
Are you ok with genocidal chants slogans and placards?
Are you ok with hundreds of English girls STILL being abused by Pakistanis?
Are you ok with teachers being put in protective safe houses because they show cartoons of Mohammad?
Are you ok with autistic kids being hounded by Islamist mobs because they accidently scuff the Quaran?
Are you ok with Useless Humza being an anti-white racist? He said it, too many whites in Scotland

I for one am not ok with this

[Pettytyrant101]

Are you ok with the disgusting spectacle of a bi-election being won as a referendum on Gaza, with the town of Rochdale under a foreign flag?- Figg

Whats disgusting? It was a by-election in which the people of the constituency of Rochdale voted for the parties they wanted to win, Galloway's and in 2nd place an independent, it was a rejection of the two main parties. I have no issue with it being held as a show of feelings of the people of Rochdale over Gaza, exactly as I had no problems growing up with my local council elections being referendums first on nuclear weapons, with the base here, and then later independence. By elections often reflect a protest vote.
And last I checked Rochdale is still part of the UK, it hasn't moved, doesn't have a foreign flag, and you are complaining that the Muslims community there took part in the very British process of a democratic council election, in which they elected a white Scotsman. It does have a large Muslim population compared to other areas in the UK (though still only 36% of the Constituency) but are Muslims in your view not allowed to express their view democratically? I don't understand the objection here other than you don't like who won (nor do I, never have liked Galloway, but he has balls I'll give him that).

'Are you ok with British MPs having bodyguards and security because of Islamist mobs?'

Death threats are nothing new for elected officials, its gone on for as long as they have existed. They had the same when IRA were on the go, Queen Victoria had armed bodyguards to protect her from terrorist attacks and we can go back and back. There will always be a fringe of any group who can act in extreme and dangerous ways, it is not and never has been an excuse to vilify a people. We didn't blame all Catholics for the IRA we should not condemn all Muslims for Islamic extremists either. That is the British way, those are our values.

'Are you ok with British parliamentary process being changed due to fear from Islamist mobs?'

It wasn't. It was changed because Starmer persuaded his ex-party member, the Speaker, to alter the rules to prevent Labour from having to vote on the SNP bill that was critical of Israel and over a 100 Labour MPS were going to defy the Whip to vote for. The Tories have likewise no interest in the debate either as then they would be held to account. The stifling of the debate had nothing in fact to do with threats, it was not even the original excuse the Speaker gave to the House for the change - which was that the protocol of opposition parties not amending opposition day bills was outdated. No mention of threats, you can read it in Hansard for yourself, that excuse came after the fact.

'Are you ok with Jewish people being too afraid to go out in London during the Hamas apologist marches?'

I'm not happy with anyone being afraid to go out, in an ideal world no one would be. But in this one I'd be afraid to go out when theres an Orange Walk on if I were catholic, and I'd be afraid to wander into a St Patrick day parade in a Rangers top as a protestant. Yet we have for centuries allowed such public protests and rallies because it is a part of our rights, our very British rights. Nor are they Hamas apologists, they are not apologising for Hamas, they are condemning Israel's ongoing war crimes and demanding a ceasefire in which Hamas return the hostages they took as well.

'Are you ok with council meetings and charity dinners being stormed by Islamist mobs?'

Yes absolutely 100% I've stormed two council chambers in my time in protests and I'd do it again.

'Are you ok with genocidal chants slogans and placards?'

Not if you mean picking a meaning you insist is genocidal despite what the actual people saying it say it means to them? The police in the Uk have plenty existing powers if is inflammatory or in support of prescribed terrorist organisations, as a result there have been over 600 arrests for such offences during the protests outside Parliament so far - meaning the vast majority of people present were doing no such supporting of terrorism or calling for genocide and those who were have been rightly arrested.

'Are you ok with hundreds of English girls STILL being abused by Pakistanis?'

Nope, nor am I Ok with the many thousands of white girls abused by white men in this country, or the thousands historically abused by white priests in this country for generations. Given your view however, you should welcome the choice of Galloway by the people of Rochdale as one of his four pledges to the people is to - 'Crackdown on grooming gangs'. But I am not sure what relevance this has to anything about Israel's war and how they are conducting it.

'Are you ok with teachers being put in protective safe houses because they show cartoons of Mohammad?
Are you ok with autistic kids being hounded by Islamist mobs because they accidently scuff the Quaran?


But these together as basically the same thing- given I am on record on here saying I think the WHO should classify religion, all organised religions as a mental health issue, obviously I am not. I am not in favour of indoctrinating children into any made up potentially damaging cult, I'm not in favour of any of it.

'Are you ok with Useless Humza being an anti-white racist? He said it, too many whites in Scotland'

This one is actually so mind-bogglingly stupid, either deliberately false in its accusations, or deliberately misleading in its interpretation of what he said, and I've pointed out to you at least three times before with the actual words of the full speech the context the speech was given in and using those rare thing these days, the facts, that I am not even going to bother answering that again. If you are still peddling that ridiculous nonsense about Humza Figg I really don't know what to say. It's idiotic in the extreme. Incidentally the SNP are polling ahead of labour and Tories here for the election and Humza is a more popular national leader here than either Starmer or Sunak. And you can't blame that on the Muslims, they only make up 1.45% of our population (they only make up 6.5% of England's population, and a total of 4.4% of the total UK population - we are hardly at risk of either an Islamist take over as the hysterical right claim, nor Sunak's claimed 'mob-rule'. The majority of those protesting Israel are white Brits, there are not enough Muslims in the country.}}