Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It's basically just common assault, isn't it?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...
- Thread starter ainsworth74
- Start date
- Status
It's basically just common assault, isn't it?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Yeah. It isn't terrorism though. It isn't even a slippery slope to terrorism.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,155
If it's Farage it certainly is common.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Now looking quite likely that North Lincolnshire and Teesside will be added to that list - both areas that voted strongly for Brexit.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
You said a daft thing, I called you out on it, you’re okay with people throwing milkshakes - which you agree is common assault - as a way of enabling political discourse. No more needs to be said.
Anyone can use the search function to find what people have said in the past.
Last edited:
PaxVobiscum
Established Member
I want to know what flavour of milkshake was involved - chocolate, banana, vanilla, strawberry or what? I think we should be told.
MidlandsChap
Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2018
- Messages
- 194
I do not believe there is a definition of terrorism that cites pre-meditation a fundamental requirement. Terrorism is violence with an underlying political motive. Political being the key attribute rather than how far in advance it had been planned. Whilst yes, generally all significant acts of terrorism are planned well in advance in order to cause most devestation, that isnt the defining point.
For example somebody might pre-meditate a murder. But if that murder was drugs related and they were just popping off the boss of a rival gang then its not terrorism. Because there is no political motive.
So really in the case of Farage vs the milkshake the aspect of premeditation isnt the one that really needs to be considered, as to if it was terrorism or not. Whether or not the milkshake throwing is considered violence is aspect you should be considering. In hindsight possibly not, but then again I suppose that depends what the cup was made of and was it thrown as his head. Then I have to ask if im really that bothered what it is, I just called it terrorism as I knew it would ruffle a few feathers.
PaxVobiscum
Established Member
Ah - hadn’t thought of that possibility. I wonder what might be inferred from that?
Struner
Member
So he didn't like the flavour then, whatever it was
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Me too
(And anyone familiar with my posting history in this thread will know I am absolutely no fan of Nigel Farage - a person whom I think has hugely damaged politics and democracy in the UK with his continual espousing of untruths and attempts to stir up xenophobia). To my mind, violence is wrong. You can't pick and choose who you think it's OK to be violent to, no matter how much you might dislike someone.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Smells like a trap to me. May is dangling the remote prospect of a 2nd referendum to try and get remainers to vote for her 'agreement'. But you have to vote for the agreement first - and as soon as it's been voted through, the Government would then probably do everything it can to make sure any proposal for a 2nd referendum gets defeated.
Luckily, it looks almost certain that her agreement will get rejected by Parliament again, so the trap will never activated.
Ha ha. Fair point mate.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It is certainly looking like "no Brexit" is increasingly likely.
thejuggler
Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 1,186
Basically she is saying. You vote the withdrawal agreement and we will agree to agree to an offer of an agreement once we agree what the offer to be agreed will be.
No wonder no one is happy.
No wonder no one is happy.
bramling
Veteran Member
This has been the problem with TM all along, she’s not really managed to please *anyone* throughout her tenure, over anything.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,155
Question is - how do we get there? No deal appears to be the default option, yet parliament has voted that down by huge numbers.
Senario - May quits, we have an interim PM and before October 31 a Brexit hard-liner becomes PM.
However s/he is limited in what they can do by the sheer numbers against a hard-Brexit (and probably a majority really against Brexit at all) so installing Boris, Raab, even Mogg won't change the parliamentary arithmetic.
So how can parliament (a) secure no-deal WTO or (b) revoke A50?
Parliament could even vote down a snap election, think 2/3rds are required?
Round and round in circles but the bottom line is would the HoC REALLY allow the country to crash out without a deal? Even if we had another referendum and the country voted for it??
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,155
It worked in "Yes, Prime Minister" when Sir Humphrey suggested it!!
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,155
Wot, they want another vote?? How many do they want???
So the public gets another vote then...no???
Is it any wonder folks have lost all faith in parliament and the system?
krus_aragon
Established Member
That'd come down to how many Conservative or DUP members would vote for a motion of no confidence in the Government (as opposed to an internal vote of confidence in the Tory leader).
edwin_m
Veteran Member
People (not just ChUKka but the BBC Reality Check too) are already saying that a referendum would have to be called within the next couple of weeks to happen before the end of October. I think therefore that any referendum vote on the second reading would means asking the EU again for more time, which it's possible we would get if there was a firm commitment and timescale to a binding referendum.
I imagine if we get into October without any progress, and either whoever is PM refuses to ask for more time or the EU refuses to grant it, then Parliament will vote to revoke A50 rather than defaulting to no deal. Despite believing strongly that abandoning Brexit is the only sensible course of action, I think that would be a very bad outcome. It would just leave an open goal for the "stealing Brexit" accusations - a referendum is the least bad way to close this issue one way or the other and start to heal the divisions and the dissatisfaction that was the real reason so many people voted to leave. The problem is that if A50 is revoked with the intention of having a referendum afterwards then we are potentially up before the court, as withdrawal has to be based on a genuine change of mind rather than just playing for time.
I imagine if we get into October without any progress, and either whoever is PM refuses to ask for more time or the EU refuses to grant it, then Parliament will vote to revoke A50 rather than defaulting to no deal. Despite believing strongly that abandoning Brexit is the only sensible course of action, I think that would be a very bad outcome. It would just leave an open goal for the "stealing Brexit" accusations - a referendum is the least bad way to close this issue one way or the other and start to heal the divisions and the dissatisfaction that was the real reason so many people voted to leave. The problem is that if A50 is revoked with the intention of having a referendum afterwards then we are potentially up before the court, as withdrawal has to be based on a genuine change of mind rather than just playing for time.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,155
Ref on whether we revoke or crash out. Only way out.
DerekC
Established Member
It seems that the Conservative Party has decided that choosing a new leader is more important than the future of the country. No surprise, really. The whole Brexit fiasco has been driven by party interest.
Purely party interest on the Tory side, aided and abetted by an Opposition that has consistently failed even to attempt to hold the Government to account (largely, it seems, because despite the promises of listening to people and party democracy made at the start by Corbyn, he prefers in reality to stick to his own ideas from his student time and to listen only to his Stalinist clique of advisers). The last three years have held up a mirror to the British constitution and system of government, and the reflection we see is of a set-up totally incapable of dealing with anything that is not the expected two parties totally opposed to each other, one or the other having for the time being a working majority an with the whips being able to exercise total control over the boys and girls.
bramling
Veteran Member
I don’t agree with that. Most people seem to have lost confidence in TM, and she was lucky to last as long as she has after the last election. I think the party is merely reflecting public opinion, as it did over the EU issue - reflecting a level of opinion against the EU which clearly exists otherwise we wouldn’t be seeing parties such as UKIP attracting such numbers of votes as they have at times in the past.
May’s biggest flaw is her communications. She’s simply not an effective communicator / influencer. Gordon Brown was similar, but at least he had some ideas for what he actually wanted to do as PM. May just wanted it for personal ambition, and she’s been found lacking in ability. In fairness the task was never going to be easy, but she’s certainly not made a good go of it.
Last edited:
- Status