So how brown will your baby be?Well it's free speech isn't it

[cromwell]

Oh yes we are!!

This fight is rubbish. Aren't you even going to bite on my liberal comments ? 

Well I was just thinking,what did your OH say when she read or saw it? I suspect much the same as mine and most other women who aren't wimmin.

[DeppityDawg]

Well we aren't going round in circles...

Oh yes we are!!

This fight is rubbish. Aren't you even going to bite on my liberal comments ? 

[cromwell]

We appear to be going round in circles. I asked what you thought the Guardian and the Huff Puff would say if someone like Rees Mogg had suggested a curfew for women - as far as I can see, neither the Guardian or the Puffington Host have had much to say about Baroness Jones. The (not) Independent has, but declines to do any editorial (you can imagine how fast they'd have had a Rees Mogg article up), and instead, focuses on the Baroness's claim that her inbox is full of "Misogynist" emails as a result. What she means is a lot of angry people have probably made comments along the line of yours, eg shes "a daft bat" and belongs in a flower pot. But of course, people being pissed off is fuel for liberals with a victim agenda to promote - unless that is, you want to own up to being a "Misogynist" too?

Well we aren't going round in circles I've largely agreed with your points including the grauniad.....If someone wants to label me mysoginistic based on that and her belonging in a plant pot I don't really give a rats bottom.
She's admitted what I said.....powerless.

The Baroness herself meanwhile, has doubled down, then suggested her comments were not entirely serious, on account of her not "having that power". A comment like that only makes you wonder what kind of world we'd live in if she did.

Loonyland

All I can add Cromwell, is that shes a card carrying "liberal". With "liberals" like this, god help us all if any serious extremists ever get near power

And they never will

[DeppityDawg]

there's nothing to be allowed since she's a daft bat no one will take seriously, the fact she's part of the legislature is largely irrelevant

We appear to be going round in circles. I asked what you thought the Guardian and the Huff Puff would say if someone like Rees Mogg had suggested a curfew for women - as far as I can see, neither the Guardian or the Puffington Host have had much to say about Baroness Jones. The (not) Independent has, but declines to do any editorial (you can imagine how fast they'd have had a Rees Mogg article up), and instead, focuses on the Baroness's claim that her inbox is full of "Misogynist" emails as a result. What she means is a lot of angry people have probably made comments along the line of yours, eg shes "a daft bat" and belongs in a flower pot. But of course, people being pissed off is fuel for liberals with a victim agenda to promote - unless that is, you want to own up to being a "Misogynist" too?

The Baroness herself meanwhile, has doubled down, then suggested her comments were not entirely serious, on account of her not "having that power". A comment like that only makes you wonder what kind of world we'd live in if she did.

All I can add Cromwell, is that shes a card carrying "liberal". With "liberals" like this, god help us all if any serious extremists ever get near power

[Barry]

I see a Baroness in the House of Lords has seriously suggested legislation to Curfew ALL men after 6pm in the wake of the Sarah Everard case. I don't wish to downplay the case in any way, but this is an appointed member of our Governmental system. If this doesn't make you hold your head in your hands, then I don't know what will.

Hey Cromwell. What were you saying about "not ALL all people who...etc"? I'm sorry, but you are wrong. When it suits them (and you can't get more liberal left than the Greens), is absolutely is ALL people (in this case men) they mean.

Shouldn't this apply to all Police men, as it seems they are a threat.

[cromwell]

You're missing the point again. I'm not saying she can't have such a view or express it. But she is not a breakfast TV host or Social Media influencer. She is a politician. What I am highlighting is that she is proposing to make an amendment to legistion if the opportunity arises (or words to that effect). Of course it won't be taken seriously let alone pass, the point is she is (or would have us believe) she is about as "liberal" as they come, but is in fact proposing a reactionary and oppressive law on the basis of a highly contentious theory that women are all "victims" of male aggression. Do you simply not get what I am saying or am I not explaining it very well?[highlight] Piers Morgan, no matter what bluster he comes out with, is not in our governing system, but SHE is. If this is allowed, then what is a "liberal" and what is an extremist? [/highlight]

Of course I get what you're saying apart from the underlined bit in the highlight,allowed? there's nothing to be allowed since she's a daft bat no one will take seriously, the fact she's part of the legislature is largely irrelevant,I mean years back Willie hamilton an MP proposed ditching the monarchy......where did that go? nowhere.

I understand you think them extreme and these ideas are,but like the EDL will get nowhere.
The backlash for support of Morgan has begun people wont wear being told how or what to think,I still havn't fully made my mind up about Markle but purely on the level of the trauma he suffered as a kid feel sorry for harry,but let's face it they're all wealthy and over priveleged.

What is the real difference here from the EDL or Antifa proposing to hang their political opponents from the nearest tree? When people like this are emboldened by their.sense of superior morality and victimhood, that isn't very far away.

I gave two examples of highly emotive cases of female murderers - did ANY frothing at the mouth right wing borderline nutter Tory suggest anything about their gender in parliament or the HoL, let alone say they would consider legislation on a gender basis? It goes against everything liberals are supposed to be against. Imagine Rees Mogg had suggested the reverse? Can you imagine the Guardian and the Huff Puffs outrage? Yet I would bet my fecking boots that there will be.some guardian columnist ready to write a supportive article of this madness, and you know what, they'd publish it IN THE INTERESTS OF FREE SPEECH. The very same people who are now sneering at (or calling racism) other peoples right (like Piers Morgan) to have a low opinion of Megan Markle

The hypocrisy is breathtaking, yet the liberal left do it over and over and over again. This is identity politics in action. The motive here is not benevolent to women, although that is the implied outcome. The motive here is pure political dogma that is clearly aimed at criminalising the WHOLE male gender because that's what feminism has been preaching for the last 30 years.

I guess the grauniad may well do a piece as you suggest and of course it's hypocritical but as you say 30 years in the making and where's it got them? nowhere.

[DeppityDawg]

Well of course I'm using humour,those proposing curfews deserve being laughed at but you can't on the on the one hand say Markle is a money grabbing cow and it's my right to say so because we have free speech (and of course you're right you do) and then say some daft old bat can't say men should have a curfew on them (which is ludicrous) despite being in the HoL nobody takes any notice of her and even if she did have that power and was say PM how long would she last? Five minutes.

You're missing the point again. I'm not saying she can't have such a view or express it. But she is not a breakfast TV host or Social Media influencer. She is a politician. What I am highlighting is that she is proposing to make an amendment to legistion if the opportunity arises (or words to that effect). Of course it won't be taken seriously let alone pass, the point is she is (or would have us believe) she is about as "liberal" as they come, but is in fact proposing a reactionary and oppressive law on the basis of a highly contentious theory that women are all "victims" of male aggression. Do you simply not get what I am saying or am I not explaining it very well? Piers Morgan, no matter what bluster he comes out with, is not in our governing system, but SHE is. If this is allowed, then what is a "liberal" and what is an extremist? What is the real difference here from the EDL or Antifa proposing to hang their political opponents from the nearest tree? When people like this are emboldened by their.sense of superior morality and victimhood, that isn't very far away.

I gave two examples of highly emotive cases of female murderers - did ANY frothing at the mouth right wing borderline nutter Tory suggest anything about their gender in parliament or the HoL, let alone say they would consider legislation on a gender basis? It goes against everything liberals are supposed to be against. Imagine Rees Mogg had suggested the reverse? Can you imagine the Guardian and the Huff Puffs outrage? Yet I would bet my fecking boots that there will be.some guardian columnist ready to write a supportive article of this madness, and you know what, they'd publish it IN THE INTERESTS OF FREE SPEECH. The very same people who are now sneering at (or calling racism) other peoples right (like Piers Morgan) to have a low opinion of Megan Markle

The hypocrisy is breathtaking, yet the liberal left do it over and over and over again. This is identity politics in action. The motive here is not benevolent to women, although that is the implied outcome. The motive here is pure political dogma that is clearly aimed at criminalising the WHOLE male gender because that's what feminism has been preaching for the last 30 years.

[cromwell]

You're glossing over the point with humour, Cromwell. It's great, we all do it. But let's not forget the real point, which is free speech. Apparently a.ComRes poll on the issue has shown that a majority of Brits now feel free speech in under threat in this country. Don't believe me sure, but Polls tend to reflect reality, and reality is not looking good right now.

As I see it, there is no proof (or even evidence) of Markles claims. It's her and Prince Fauntleroy's word and we are.supposed to say nothing and believe everything she says. No. Sorry. That's not the way it works

As for the Baroness, it's not her free speech that's the issue. It's that she is in a high governing position, seriously proposing Draconian legislation that would attack one of the most basic human rights of 50% of the population because of the (as yet not even a court case let alone a conviction) of ONE man. If you can't or won't recognise the seriousness of this, then maybe you aren't a liberal at at.

When Joanne Dennehy murdered 3 men "for entertainment", or when Beverley Allitt killed 4 babies, we didn't have people standing up in parliament or the house of lords suggesting legislation that would attack ALL women's human rights in some offensive  kneejerk reaction. I presume you'd agree that their individual actions and their mental health were judged in their respective crimes, not their gender.

I've a lot of respect for you, mate, but in this you are wrong. Free speech and the right to hold or express opinions is the most basic concept that underpins democracy. The idea that extremists are only right wing, that liberals are all "morally correct" and that the left only has your "best interests" at heart, are all dangerous illusions. Threats to our liberty and freedom of expression come from ANYONE who seeks to prevent you exercising your legitimate right to challenge them.

Well of course I'm using humour,those proposing curfews deserve being laughed at but you can't on the on the one hand say Markle is a money grabbing cow and it's my right to say so because we have free speech (and of course you're right you do) and then say some daft old bat can't say men should have a curfew on them (which is ludicrous) despite being in the HoL nobody takes any notice of her and even if she did have that power and was say PM how long would she last? Five minutes.

And yes the idea only right wing are extremists is equally as ludicrous,regarding knowing what is best for us Messrs Swinson,Clegg Starmer and others told us we didn't know what we were voting for......are they in power now? no they were told to sod off.

[srb7677]

The idea that extremists are only right wing....

Actually most of the left do not believe that. I for one recognise that there can be dangerous extremists on the left. Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were all highly prominent examples of dangerous - indeed in their cases murderous - left wing extremists.

As far as Meghan and Harry is concerned there is of course no proof that what they said is the truth just as there is no proof that it isn't. We are all left having to make judgement calls based on what we believe to be credible.

I surprised myself by watching the interview in full and I found much of it highly credible, particularly the assertions of racist commentary on their baby's skin colour. Meghan was after all merely reporting a conversation that Harry claims to have had with a prominent royal, which he confirmed. If this is not true we would have to assume that not only was Harry the one lying about it but that he told the same lie to Meghan herself. I see no credible reason why he would do that, which is why it has the ring of truth.

[DeppityDawg]

You're glossing over the point with humour, Cromwell. It's great, we all do it. But let's not forget the real point, which is free speech. Apparently a.ComRes poll on the issue has shown that a majority of Brits now feel free speech in under threat in this country. Don't believe me sure, but Polls tend to reflect reality, and reality is not looking good right now.

As I see it, there is no proof (or even evidence) of Markles claims. It's her and Prince Fauntleroy's word and we are.supposed to say nothing and believe everything she says. No. Sorry. That's not the way it works

As for the Baroness, it's not her free speech that's the issue. It's that she is in a high governing position, seriously proposing Draconian legislation that would attack one of the most basic human rights of 50% of the population because of the (as yet not even a court case let alone a conviction) of ONE man. If you can't or won't recognise the seriousness of this, then maybe you aren't a liberal at at.

When Joanne Dennehy murdered 3 men "for entertainment", or when Beverley Allitt killed 4 babies, we didn't have people standing up in parliament or the house of lords suggesting legislation that would attack ALL women's human rights in some offensive  kneejerk reaction. I presume you'd agree that their individual actions and their mental health were judged in their respective crimes, not their gender.

I've a lot of respect for you, mate, but in this you are wrong. Free speech and the right to hold or express opinions is the most basic concept that underpins democracy. The idea that extremists are only right wing, that liberals are all "morally correct" and that the left only has your "best interests" at heart, are all dangerous illusions. Threats to our liberty and freedom of expression come from ANYONE who seeks to prevent you exercising your legitimate right to challenge them.

[srb7677]

This is a Baroness in the Upper House, mate.  No matter your opinion of the HoL they are still part of the legalisture. I'd post the video, but I can't do it on my phone.

This demonstrates an inherent problem with the house of lords. Wholly unelected and appointed for life they can say any daft shit without consequences. We the public have no power to express our disapproval at the ballot box.

Can you imagine an elected MP of any political persuasion saying something so daft as a curfew for all men? And if they did can you imagine them retaining their seat at the next election? I know some seats are so safe that it is often said that a monkey with the right rosette could get elected there. But there is a limit to the stupidities the public are willing to countenance even in safe seats.

The fact that no one in the lords is in any way accountable to us frees them to say stupid and/or obnoxious things without negative electoral consequences. This is bad. We the people should be sovereign. This is not the case with the lords.

[cromwell]

It's funny all this surrounding free speech the royals Morgan and some daft bat in the HoL,as far as I can see Morgan resigned wasn't sacked and it looks like he'll come out of this well work wise.

The daft bat is of course entitled to her free speech spouting her six o clock curfew......it'll never happen and I think it was Sheeps observation that she's an eccentric,actually nothing wrong with that because this country was always a place where eccentrics could be fairly happy.

Recently there's been an outcry about blokes resembling desparate Dan replete with five o clock shadow but dressed like Doris Day have been frightening the females because they want to use their bogs,a lot of blokes have go hot under the collar saying this is bad our women folk shouldn't have to put up with this. ( I have to say I'm not comfortable with unisex bogs but I'm old fashioned) but then when another bunch of frightened females jump up and say Oi you blokes frighten us when we're walking around after dark you need to change your behaviour and perhaps there should be a curfew

Now some of those same blokes are shouting No you can't do this you're emasculating us (this isn't aimed at you DD can't remember your views on stubbly blokes using the ladies anyway  )  )

So there we have it the worlds a bit mad......always has been mind

Anyway sticking my mod hat on I've change the thread title a bit because as usual it's drifted a bit and I don't want to start splitting a lot of posts away.

[Thomas]

I saw this only because someone quoted it. Another outrageous lie and misrepresentation from you and a reminder why I ignore you most of the time.

change the record steve , you , the man who tells me constantly you have me on ignore replying to me for the umpteenth time.

You are making yourself look a tit yet again as ever.

Just about sums up your personality disorder , and complete dishonesty.

Just because white racists exists does not make everyone born white a racist.

I agree , and whats also true , and what you looney lefties often lose sight of is the fact just because someone of a minority background is being criticised doesnt mean the critic is being prejudiced.

My wee italian mate used to say to me "a c*nt is a c*nt no matter where you come from" , and although i am no fan of the royals or really interested in their comings and goings , the woman folk tell me Meghan Markle is a bit of a social climber on the make and much of the criticism of her seems justififed from what im reliably told. Feck knows where racism comes into it , apart from the alleged comment about their babies skin colour ,  and ginge refused to tell us who said it in which context.

And I have never said any such thing.

You insinuated something along those lines. Something about the majority of people being racist , and tried to back it up with puerile distorted figures from the guardian or some other such shite rag.

As is typical you combine paraphrasing with wilful and outrageously dishonest misrepresentation in order to propagate lies.

The man who is regularly being picked up on this forum , as you were on the old forum , by various members for your dishonesty( this thread is an exmaple of your duplicity , telling people you have me on ignore then hiding behind someone  elses post to quote what i have said to you.......feckin bullshitter)attempting to weakly call out anyone else over dishonesty is laughable.

You steve are a wee bit like tony blair.........whatever forum you go  on , you manage the fantastic feat of uniting everyone of all political perusasions against you over the utter bullshit you come out with , yet you sit and wonder why labour can't get elected and their supporters are routinely ridiculed time and again?

[Thomas]

Willfully blind is the problem, because you'll just end up going around in circles repeating the same thing whilst knowing they embrace convenient ignorance, and of course, double standards and outright hypocrisy.

It's so bad that politics is now all about oppressing all opposition until victory.  Weaponising words, destroying people's characters with smears and lies, whilst hiding behind a perverse banner of moral superiority, which, as we know, makes the rest of us immoral by their warped rules and very boring ideology

"Deceits favourite role is playing the victim".

A quote i  heard the other day , and boy does it sum up labour and the looney left .

Its funny though , i go on a number of different social media platforms and forums , with varying political views , and im noticing more and more how labour and their supporters are becoming increasingly isolated in their warped views.

[cromwell]