Because The United Kingdom?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Looks like Al Murray actually. I should tweet him this on Twitter and let him know the game is up.

 

[DB]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im suspect its the bulk, but it seemingly goes rather wider than that.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/company-director-sobs-court-remanded-192808278.html

A company director sobbed in court on Tuesday, dabbing his eyes with a handkerchief, as he was told he would be remanded in custody for his alleged part in rioting in Middlesbrough on Sunday.

Joe MacKenzie, 28, is accused of being among a main body of around 20 men wearing balaclavas and face coverings who clashed with the police during violent disorder in the city.

He is one of 28 people to have appeared at Teesside magistrates’ court on Tuesday in connection with the disorder.

I had included a longer bit where I tried to explain who I thought would be the not-unemployed people, but it was too  unwieldy.

This guy is exactly the type of person I expected in the other group. Either a deliberate agitator - so politically motivated for whatever reason, so maybe an actual died-in-the-wool racist (as opposed to the more casual sort who discriminates only when they perceive an immediate personal disadvantage) or xenophobe (same reason - recall that some attacks have been on Eastern Europeans).

Otherwise, the balaclava and being part of what looks like an organised violent response might put him into the fashionable (right wing) equivalent of Antifa - let's just generically call them "agitators". I'm glad he's up before the beak, and his crying is straight from the crocodile. Play stupid games and all that.

[DB]

Furthermore - it's obvious that this isn't focussed on the "Muslamic Ray Guns" - which was always just a mondegreen for "Muslim Rape Gangs" because they've been attacking Eastern European migrant shelters too.

The trigger this time was the Southport incident, but now that's been leveraged into the wider immigration cause.

A further note for our American audience - the rioters are generally from what would have been called the "working class", i.e. "blue collar", lower income workers. Traditionally this group has been aligned with the Trades Union movement and thus the Labour party. There is, as a result, a certain irony in describing these people as "far right". They're aligned currently with a populist anti-immigration/nationalist movement, but they almost certainly hate the capitalist overtones that go with typical "right wing" politics. We're simply seeing that the full political compass needs to be used to pigeon hole these groups.

One could also discuss the extent to which the lumpenproletariat is always attracted to whatever the populist party is, regardless of position on any compass. I suppose that's the point - they're attracted like moths to the flame of whatever they think might put them in a better place, but without critical thought.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ill not deny that many of them probably are from the left (or at least, the left that isnt all goey eyed over Gaza, and doesnt give a toss about the refugees). OTOH, there has, like in America, been considerable flux over what is left. Traditional support has gone away with their parents, and most people now vote for Labour purely because they are in violent opposition to the Government  in power, not because they are all Socialists, or because they suddenly believe in wealth redistribution or Socialist policies. Im not sure working class people are ideological anymore. Manly because most of the favoured ones all crashed and burned. you have seen this in Scotland, where everyone dumped the SNP, not because they are necessarily against independence, but because they discovered home grown politicians are corrupt and incompetent as Westminsterones.

Traditionally its been de rigeur to call this neglected subclass 'chav's', but however you refer to them, they clearly exist, and are pissed. They are the people that probably swung Brexit, because they calculated that either way they would get little in return, so picked the way that pissed off the ruling elites the most. They voted for labour, not because they love their policies, but wanted to punish what they regarded as an indifferent elite that neglected them for 14 years, and will doubtless do the same to Labour at the next election if their concerns are not addressed (shocker, they probably wont be). In a previous century, they would probably have been called 'wreckers' or even 'chartists'. That they dont have any agenda except ruining the  lives of politicians and anyone that has it better than them, shows you where we have got to politically in the country. Id call them anarchists, but I think anarchists are probably more thoughtful and structured.

The majority of them I agree are not far right. I think, far worse, they dont really believe in anything, other than communicating some of their misery. I suppose in that regard, having read the other thread and the comments by wobbilyhead, if there is anything there like a political cause among them its an anti authoritarian wing, which would be understandable, if they were not still living in one of the freeist countries in the world.

[rmgill]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No sequitur. The allegations made were false, ergo, no fire. If you were making a claim that was broadly correct, and people overreacted to your truthful statement, yes, thats on them. But they werent correct, and whats more, the people making the allegations KNEW they they werent correct.

No it's not non sequitur. It specifically points to the contention of if there was or was not an issue. Folks who point out the "you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre" always get that wrong because they're failing the test to see if there actually was a fire and the fact that people CAN still do so, they're just held to account afterwards if there was not a fire. 

Correspondingly, who made the false alert that the EDL was marching? Was that yelling fire? Was it Two Tier Kier who made a claim? Someone else? 

If smeone makes a claim that racist muslims are doing a bad thing, is it true or not? 
If someone make a claim that nazis are marching in London is that true or not? 

In both cases if a riot breaks out in the conflict between the marchers and the counter marchers, who is at fault for that? 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, I accept the parallel and peoples lives were destroyed. But you surely notice, its one thing for Politicians to lie, and another using social media to do it. One might not like that difference, but its surely exists, as you notice in your own country.

Yes. Please note my loger 

 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well did Blair apologise for misleading the country over the '45 minutes' claim? If it was not a lie, it was surely sexed up., as Dr David Kelly rightly pointed out. In fact, he shoudl have been forced to resign as prime minister over being distinctly over enthusiastic over very limited evidence. We can go around the houses and say 'This person should have been prosecuted'. You may often be right. But It doesnt excuse some people (In one case according to the Telegraph, a company owner and comfortably well off) putting lies on social media that put property and peoples lives at risk. I dont care who you are, you need to be arrested for that, because im pretty damn sure looking at the communications act, they have good grounds for prosecution.

The question is who is held accountable for speech crimes? Is it always opposition and little people and NOT the government figures? If so, then it's clearly a tool for the government for going after opposition. 

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, DB said:

That's a massive leap. It certainly looks like an acknowledgement, but there is a big difference between an undercover operative and a massive conspiracy to manufacture a movement. The conspiracy crowd should just ponder a moment. Either there is a big grass-roots protest movement, or there is a government-led fake movement and therefore no grass roots. Pick one.

You can have a grass roots movement with goverment agents who act as provoceteurs and start things off violently. They throw a bottle at police from within the crowd giving the police a reason to declare the protest unlawful. 

This is literally the tactic of the Black Block in the US. Tim Pool documented this during occupy wall street. But in this case they're organizing the protests but are a catalyzer who gets the police to respond to their violent action despite the expectation of the bulk of the crowd that they're there peacefully. Naturally they, the new marchers, get very upset that suddenly the police are attacking them, despite the fact that they didn't see the bottle of frozen water hurled from the rear of their ranks that hit the police horse. 

Lots of dirty tricks are possible in police and crowd encounters. It need not be the characterization of Javert, the officer could just be there to keep an eye on things and document any miscreants who DO break the law. 

But it's clear someone is there in their crowd. 

 

2 hours ago, DB said:

And also, note that this is still at the demo stage. there's no brick-throwing to the testicles, there's no riot shields and no helmets. At this point, nobody is going to be arrested.

True, But a full view of that protests would be best noted to pull the thread further to see where it goes. 

[Mr King]

Christopher Hitchens vs Keir Starmer

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

No it's not non sequitur. It specifically points to the contention of if there was or was not an issue. Folks who point out the "you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre" always get that wrong because they're failing the test to see if there actually was a fire and the fact that people CAN still do so, they're just held to account afterwards if there was not a fire. 

Correspondingly, who made the false alert that the EDL was marching? Was that yelling fire? Was it Two Tier Kier who made a claim? Someone else? 

If smeone makes a claim that racist muslims are doing a bad thing, is it true or not? 
If someone make a claim that nazis are marching in London is that true or not? 

In both cases if a riot breaks out in the conflict between the marchers and the counter marchers, who is at fault for that? 

Yes. Please note my loger 

 

The question is who is held accountable for speech crimes? Is it always opposition and little people and NOT the government figures? If so, then it's clearly a tool for the government for going after opposition. 

Ryan, if you want to bellow your little lungs out in a crowded theatre, just to prove me wrong, be my guess. I confidently predict you are going to be disappointed, but there we are.

I dont know anyone made that particular prediction, or if they did, I didnt hear it. EDL are largely defunct, though there are as always former members who never get the memo. And certainly fascists did riot. Are they former EDL? No idea, but I wouldnt rule it out just yet.

 If there are people killed in a riot, and many people cite a story you posted up, and the police find it and find that yes, you did post it up prior to the riot, it doesnt exactly take Poirot to figure out you dropped yourself in the shit. And yes, it may even be a complete coincidence. I remember when your 911 happened, someone on a forum posting up someone had asked what would happen if a plane crashed into the World trade center, and the FBI spent time trying to track them down and determine if they had any involvement.

The lesson im getting is, if you are uncomfortable with your words having possible real world consequences you might have to answer for, dont say anything you arent willing to stand up in court and defend. In fact, lets also not forget, Jihadists who post violent content about Jews, or about a holy war, also come under the same consequences. So if my right to rank is curtained just to keep people in line, im happy to make the concession.

In fact, there have been a number of journalists holding Farage to account, claiming he may have contributed to the riot by posting the claim 'the police know more than they are letting on.' Which as it turned out was complete bollocks. That isnt quite an incitement to riot. There is a case for saying its pissing gasoline on a bushfire. No, he wont be arrested for it, but just maybe he will be more thoughtful in future before opening his yap, and thank fuck for that.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

You can have a grass roots movement with goverment agents who act as provoceteurs and start things off violently. They throw a bottle at police from within the crowd giving the police a reason to declare the protest unlawful. 

This is literally the tactic of the Black Block in the US. Tim Pool documented this during occupy wall street. But in this case they're organizing the protests but are a catalyzer who gets the police to respond to their violent action despite the expectation of the bulk of the crowd that they're there peacefully. Naturally they, the new marchers, get very upset that suddenly the police are attacking them, despite the fact that they didn't see the bottle of frozen water hurled from the rear of their ranks that hit the police horse. 

Lots of dirty tricks are possible in police and crowd encounters. It need not be the characterization of Javert, the officer could just be there to keep an eye on things and document any miscreants who DO break the law. 

But it's clear someone is there in their crowd. 

 

True, But a full view of that protests would be best noted to pull the thread further to see where it goes. 

I will be fair and say, looking back in British history, that has nearly happened. There was one case, I think it was in the 1830's, or 40's, where police infiltrated an underground group of anarchists, and proceeded to arrest them all. And much to their surprise, nearly every last one of the buggers was a policeman or Government informer.

Does it happen here?  I dont believe it does, no.The nearest we have had to that here was Stella Rimmington, eventual head of MI5, infiltrating the Greenham common peace camp. Or the various spies we had in the IRA. But there is not one sources anyone can name, that has demonstrated they have tried to subvert those groups towards violence. Quite obviously its silly, because if you are the one trying to take the lead and push them towards violence, you are taking a leadership role, and at that point you are just as likely to get arrested as anyone else, which is going to cause grave problems when you come up on trial and it turns out you are working for the Government. I cant rule it out, I just think we give too much credit to the authorities for competence and doing things like that. Alright, there is the Zinoviev letter, thats an attempt by an undercover agent, probably from Mi6, trying to subvert politics through an undercover action. And the consequences were so wild, it poisoned relations between Mi6 and Labour, right up to the 1990's when they belatedly had an inquiry on it.

The most contentious thing ive heard undercover police officers doing, is using their secret identities to seduce young women, even have long relationships with them. And when that came out, my god wasnt there a public outcry.

Its not clear to me that isnt a photoshop job, hidden carefully by displaying it in low quality video. And I can think of several good reasons why someone would want to create that. Of course, if you have a HD version, ill watch it with interest.

 

[rmgill]

Stuart if there is a fire on in a theater what then? Would you not call attention to the hazard? 
 

The larger issue I point out is this:

The current situation of over sized immigration that is causing cultural conflicts, over burdening the housing market, the jobs market and social welfare systems is one specifically created by the political leadership. 
 

Given the understanding of cultural conflict in the British Empire over many centuries how were any of these factors not foreseen? How has this been a constant push by both parties in the UK?

More so, why is anyone surprised that the working class is upset by expensive or unavailable housing, cultural conflict in their own neighborhoods and all of the other problems?
 

Add in apparent sexual predation by the immigrants and what do you expect? 

[rmgill]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just as a counterfactual to the roaming Muslim murder Gangs.

[rmgill]

Its ok. They’re not armed. 
 

 

[rmgill]

From 2013 before the rot was more substantial.  

 

 

[rmgill]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Nigel Farage blames Andrew Tate for misleading reports.

 

 

[rmgill]

So are we going to see any in HM’s government taking a knee to the English working class? 

[Stargrunt6]

https://nitter.privacydev.net/EndWokeness/status/1820500865385701708#m

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

So are we going to see any in HM’s government taking a knee to the English working class? 

Oh Ryan, you really dont get how this country works at all.

7 hours ago, Stargrunt6 said:

https://nitter.privacydev.net/EndWokeness/status/1820500865385701708#m

Thanks, I posted the same a few days ago.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 men sentenced in Liverpool court for 32 months for rioting. One of them was a 69 year old man armed with a bat of some kind.

[DB]

Mass demonstrations from what Ryan probably considers to be a woke set of Antifa-inspired anarchists, or something. What most in the UK would call "normal people".

Minimal violence, and not of the "mostly peaceful" kind.

[Stargrunt6]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh Ryan, you really dont get how this country works at all.

Thanks, I posted the same a few days ago.

Bro, I don't read every post.

[Stuart Galbraith]

No, thats understandable, I just didnt want anyone to think this was a new occurrance, I think it happened last week.

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 minutes ago, DB said:

Mass demonstrations from what Ryan probably considers to be a woke set of Antifa-inspired anarchists, or something. What most in the UK would call "normal people".

Minimal violence, and not of the "mostly peaceful" kind.

The interesting thing was that it was accepted (the 69 year old) was not racially motivated. Which makes it a bit of a puzzle why he actually went out with a kosh, and why it took 3 policemen to bring him down. Previously good character, widower, and he goes out prowling the streets like he is bloody Liam Neeson.

Well, thats propaganda for you.

 

[Stargrunt6]

20 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, thats understandable, I just didnt want anyone to think this was a new occurrance, I think it happened last week.

Gotcha. From the look of things now, it probably happens every day.