Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sat Jan 14, 2023 8:51 pm Wait - that's the official Home Office account, making comments on a political story from a political event.

That's not allowed. Breach of ministerial code and that.

Also- reads very much like the work of 55 Tufty.

Whatever happened to the neutral civil service*





*Don't tell me, I know...

I went through the Fourteen Characteristics earlier. I ticked off eleven.

Braverman's hate-fuelled and astoundingly tone-deaf ejaculation doesn't really surprise me.

The good Volk of Farnham being in raptures, hmm, that's an unpleasant echo which betrays the legion young men who never returned to their neck of the woods after fighting her ilk.

This story has depressed me beyond words. Her language, the refusal to apologise, to accept that she might have offended someone, the Home Office statement, all in the knowledge that she's untouchable. These people are our servants, they're supposed to be the brightest and the best. They behave like an out of control frat house.

I know exactly what you mean.

What will it take to clean up after these fascists are gone?

I fear we'll never be able to. They've poisoned the political well beyond redemption.

A quick search of their website reveals that, as I type this, this can be filed under Stories You Won't Find In The Daily Mail.

No mention that I can find on the BBC either. Far be it from me to suggest that the BBC's independence would be trumped by a note from The Home Office.

I’m not a religious person and resisted the concept of evil especially in politics where its used as dangerous demonisation fuelling hate and division. Johnson and his accolades have opinions with no trace of morality in their formation but was happy secularise and/or medicalise who they are; sociopathy, narcissism, realist hacks. I’ve had enough of understanding, these people are evil cunts.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sat Jan 14, 2023 11:37 pm I know exactly what you mean.

What will it take to clean up after these fascists are gone?

There's only really one response that such persons understand without ambiguity or doubt. However, I'd rather not say much more than this as (a) I don't want to be banned from here (and I try to respect the rules of MWF), and (b) I'd rather not risk having the PSNI bring me down to the local station for questioning.

I shall instead do a rare bit of philosophical quoting from Jean Paul Sartre - while proto-fascists are not inherently anti-Semetic, they sure do enjoy either blurring or getting close to those lines at least.

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

You mean the Trotsky solution?

Or to paraphrase, you can't argue with them in good faith, because they're just waiting to get bored and punch you in the face.

Could that apply to the DUP?

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 4:26 pm You mean the Trotsky solution?

If you'd like some better PR, the solution of Patton, Montgomery and Slim.

Spoonman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 4:16 pm

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

I met someone recently who was like this. Not anti-semitic, as far as I saw, but rather the play. He was a prick.

Apparently got her arse handed to her by the Cooper-Harman tag team this afternoon. Even her own party turning on her over her stance on police corruption. Seems "we've established a commission/enquiry/committee, and anyway one bad apple etc" isn't cutting it.

I know it’s awful to wish ill on others, but if by some amazing quirk of fate it could be discovered Braverman’s parents had immigrated illegally and should by her own rules be deported, and her with them, I would seriously consider having some sort of religious conversion.

When Joseph Goebbels was questioned on his long running affair with a Jewish actress, he replied "We'll decide who the Jews are".

I think Braverman's answer to the above issue, should it ever arise, would be along the same lines. In sentiment, if not in vocabulary.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:03 pm Apparently got her arse handed to her by the Cooper-Harman tag team this afternoon. Even her own party turning on her over her stance on police corruption. Seems "we've established a commission/enquiry/committee, and anyway one bad apple etc" isn't cutting it.

I think Cooper allowed that it wasn't Braverman's fault personally, but the Tory backbenchers were certainly killing the Met.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:43 pm

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:03 pm Apparently got her arse handed to her by the Cooper-Harman tag team this afternoon. Even her own party turning on her over her stance on police corruption. Seems "we've established a commission/enquiry/committee, and anyway one bad apple etc" isn't cutting it.

I think Cooper allowed that it wasn't Braverman's fault personally, but the Tory backbenchers were certainly killing the Met.

It may not be her fault but it is most certainly her responsibility.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:16 pm I know it’s awful to wish ill on others, but if by some amazing quirk of fate it could be discovered Braverman’s parents had immigrated illegally and should by her own rules be deported, and her with them, I would seriously consider having some sort of religious conversion.

If it were to happen, I have no doubt Joan Salter would defend her unquestioningly. That's what good people do.

They pack the HoL with their stooges, yet this happens...

A government bill aimed at cracking down on protest has suffered a number of setbacks in the House of Lords, setting the stage for a tense showdown between parliament’s two chambers.

Peers inflicted a number of defeats on the wide-ranging public order bill, which is aimed at curbing guerrilla tactics used by protest groups...

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... otest-bill

While I believe the Upper House is in need of reform, I don't think now is the time to do it.