Technology8 mins ago
Is It Acceptable For An Mp To Call For Another To Be Lynched?
19 Answers
This seems t be coming to the fore again.
Honest freedom of speech with no spin or unacceptable use of provocative violent expression?
http://
Honest freedom of speech with no spin or unacceptable use of provocative violent expression?
http://
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Do you really think he was calling on Ms McVey's constituents to capture her and hang her? It is a figurative term meaning she should get her comeuppance. Which of course is exactly what happened.
It was not provoking violence, but it was saying she should be held to account for her terrible legislation.
It was not provoking violence, but it was saying she should be held to account for her terrible legislation.
Youngmafbog,
I take it in this post of yours, you were warning that this man would be murdered if he came to your town?
// I'd like to see him stand on a soap box in some of our towns and say that.
I'd give him 5 mins before he was lynched ! //
09:20 Wed 31st Aug 2016Report
Of course you were not suggesting your townsfolk would murder him. It is just a figure of speech.
I take it in this post of yours, you were warning that this man would be murdered if he came to your town?
// I'd like to see him stand on a soap box in some of our towns and say that.
I'd give him 5 mins before he was lynched ! //
09:20 Wed 31st Aug 2016Report
Of course you were not suggesting your townsfolk would murder him. It is just a figure of speech.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
TheChair - // Funny how some people on here think that harsh rhetoric demonstrates nastiness, but taking from the sick and poor to give tax cuts to the rich is perfectly acceptable.//
You are guilty of a common trick in responding – you are acting as though someone has said something, in order to disagree with it.
On-one has debated the rights and wrongs of the policy which is the background to the OP; it is not relevant, so let’s park that there.
This gentleman is using the age-old defence of the nasty loudmouth – ‘I believe in plain speaking …’ which translates as – ‘”I’ll be as rude as I like and say what I like and I don’t care.”
He would have been censured in The House for ‘unparliamentary language’ – which his comments most certainly are.
Disagreeing vehemently with a political opponent does not entitle you to use such inflammatory expressions, and then to defend them by saying you are entitled to be righteously angry.
There is no place in a free society for elected representatives to be using such phrase as ‘lynching’ and ‘stain on humanity’ – it is utterly inappropriate, and no time should be wasted arguing the minutia of what is meant by saying such things.
Free speech does not entitle you falsely to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre – similarly, it does not entitle an MP to make such appalling comments about another MP. John McDonnell should be thoroughly ashamed of himself – but of course, as a ‘plan speaker’, that notion will be totally alien to him.
You are guilty of a common trick in responding – you are acting as though someone has said something, in order to disagree with it.
On-one has debated the rights and wrongs of the policy which is the background to the OP; it is not relevant, so let’s park that there.
This gentleman is using the age-old defence of the nasty loudmouth – ‘I believe in plain speaking …’ which translates as – ‘”I’ll be as rude as I like and say what I like and I don’t care.”
He would have been censured in The House for ‘unparliamentary language’ – which his comments most certainly are.
Disagreeing vehemently with a political opponent does not entitle you to use such inflammatory expressions, and then to defend them by saying you are entitled to be righteously angry.
There is no place in a free society for elected representatives to be using such phrase as ‘lynching’ and ‘stain on humanity’ – it is utterly inappropriate, and no time should be wasted arguing the minutia of what is meant by saying such things.
Free speech does not entitle you falsely to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre – similarly, it does not entitle an MP to make such appalling comments about another MP. John McDonnell should be thoroughly ashamed of himself – but of course, as a ‘plan speaker’, that notion will be totally alien to him.
TheChair - //you are acting as though someone has said something, in order to disagree with it. "
No I'm not. TTT has said that the remark "demonstrates how nasty the left really are". //
But the OP is about the right of the gentleman to speak using the phrases he did – it has nothing to do with what he was speaking about.
You attempted to drag the rights and wrongs of the policy into the debate – but the debate is not about the policy, it is about what the MP said, and the way he expressed his views.
No I'm not. TTT has said that the remark "demonstrates how nasty the left really are". //
But the OP is about the right of the gentleman to speak using the phrases he did – it has nothing to do with what he was speaking about.
You attempted to drag the rights and wrongs of the policy into the debate – but the debate is not about the policy, it is about what the MP said, and the way he expressed his views.
Andy-hughes,
You cannot divorce the policy from the words to describe it and their author. It was a nasty bill and deserved all the nasty things said about it.
McVey certain did get lynched by the electorate. She managed to buck the trend of Conservative gains in May 2015 by being kicked out by the voters of Wirral West.
You cannot divorce the policy from the words to describe it and their author. It was a nasty bill and deserved all the nasty things said about it.
McVey certain did get lynched by the electorate. She managed to buck the trend of Conservative gains in May 2015 by being kicked out by the voters of Wirral West.
Gromit - //Andy-hughes,
You cannot divorce the policy from the words to describe it and their author. It was a nasty bill and deserved all the nasty things said about it. //
That is a moot point - but the fact is, Mr McDonnell did not refer to the policy, he referred to Ms. McVey, which is an entirely different issue.
//McVey certain did get lynched by the electorate. She managed to buck the trend of Conservative gains in May 2015 by being kicked out by the voters of Wirral West. //
No - she was not voted back in by her constituents, she was not 'lynched, or anything like it.
This kind of emotive language is not best suited to discussing something like politics, and - to return to the OP, it is completely unacceptable language to be used by an MP about anybody.
You cannot divorce the policy from the words to describe it and their author. It was a nasty bill and deserved all the nasty things said about it. //
That is a moot point - but the fact is, Mr McDonnell did not refer to the policy, he referred to Ms. McVey, which is an entirely different issue.
//McVey certain did get lynched by the electorate. She managed to buck the trend of Conservative gains in May 2015 by being kicked out by the voters of Wirral West. //
No - she was not voted back in by her constituents, she was not 'lynched, or anything like it.
This kind of emotive language is not best suited to discussing something like politics, and - to return to the OP, it is completely unacceptable language to be used by an MP about anybody.
Andy-hughes,
McDonnel did not say she should be lynched. He told Parliament that a constituent had shouted out that she should be lynched. He was quoting someone else.
Insults are part and parcel of politics, and always have been. Not sure where you get this idea that it is some sort of gentlemen's club with rules of civility. Insults regularly fly, from "swivel-eyed loons" to "being savaged by a dead sheep" all part of modern politics.
McDonnel did not say she should be lynched. He told Parliament that a constituent had shouted out that she should be lynched. He was quoting someone else.
Insults are part and parcel of politics, and always have been. Not sure where you get this idea that it is some sort of gentlemen's club with rules of civility. Insults regularly fly, from "swivel-eyed loons" to "being savaged by a dead sheep" all part of modern politics.
Gromit - //Insults are part and parcel of politics, and always have been. Not sure where you get this idea that it is some sort of gentlemen's club with rules of civility. Insults regularly fly, from "swivel-eyed loons" to "being savaged by a dead sheep" all part of modern politics. //
I entirely accept that point, but I think that 'lynching' is an evocative word, and its image makes it inappropriate in this context.
I entirely accept that point, but I think that 'lynching' is an evocative word, and its image makes it inappropriate in this context.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Is This Man A Good Pick For Secretary Of...
News23 mins ago
Chelmsford Cancer Charity Quiz
Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.