Good point, I’d forgotten that, it was nonsense and it died under the weight of its own stupidity, but I remember Gerry Adams being unable to speak in person.
He was allowed to be broadcast, but his voice had to be dubbed to comply with the law, hence the Day Today satire.
I think there's a difference between trying to ban something, and simply not giving them a platform.
Let’s compare it to WW2. Stopping the Nazis from their atrocities would surely not be considered xenophobia against German people? So why is it different with the IDF?
What was said is very much open to interpretation. If they'd gone on stage and shouted "death to ISIS", "death to Hamas" or "death to Hezbollah", I don't think we'd be having this discussion. Nobody in the mainstream media would have really batted an eyelid, other than to offer support to the people who made those remarks.
But their words could be spoken by an actor
The thing is, in WWII people actually fought against the Nazis. They didn't just go to a concert, say the headline grabbing statements then go home. If these people were serious they would actually do something about it, not just say them at an overpriced concert.
www.bbc.co.uk
Reported to be something personal that occured between her and the speaker.
In my primary school infants' life, there was a time where someone in my class upset another classmate, and my act of laughing at their misfortune landed me in as much trouble as the one who did the initial upsetting. Badenoch's comments reminded me of this.
Badenoch's behaviour will appeal to a non-insignificant group of supporters mind. Those who think the Labour party is 'soft' or whatever. I suspect she said what she said knowing this.
I wouldn't expect anything else from Badenoch, to be honest. Vile person.
Indeed, and the usual Reform bores on the internet are being equally vitriolic. I'm not exactly impressed with her as Chancellor, but for goodness' sake be human. It's selfish bullies and cowards, like those who are mocking Reeves for this, who show what a total mess the country is in.
I think our outdated chamber setup exacerbated this incident (as well as making a whole host of other controversial moments more intense). Most parliaments around the world, including the devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales, have semi-circle arrangements. Our two-sided parallel bench arrangement however makes it look more head-to-head and confrontational. I'm not suggesting today wouldn't have been bad had we had a better chamber arrangement, but the heat would have been much lower, and several other "confrontations" could have been/will be prevented.
For historic reasons the Westminster parliament—I was going to write "our" parliament, but I wonder how many of us feel any sense of ownership of the institution—is laid out for a form of court-room battle, in which one side's objective is simply to prove the other wrong. That encourages the same sort of bullying techniques we see and experience every day in our courts and as much controlled rudeness and offence as the Speaker will permit. It's an interesting question as to how far a different layout might make parliament more consultative and deliberative, but any move in that direction seems to be effectively ruled out for the future by MPs who want to restore the "Palace" of Westminster exactly as it is, even at the most outrageous cost.
