The Lovely Left.

[webbo3]

Im sure the left were ment to be nice and friendly and not troublemakers, £2M to stop them causing trouble.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4936838/Hang-Tories-Effigies-hung-near-Tory-conference.html

Dave.

[Old_Geezer]

"Labour MPs have been quick to condemn the banner, claiming the banner does not represent the values of the party"

Any group can find they attract embarrassing support. It happens.

[ToraToraTora]

all pretty standard stuff, pay it no mind.

[gulliver1]

YES, webbo, Im sure they were ment to be nice ????

[jno]

effigies. The one who really was killed in office was a Labour MP. Do you think it was a lovely lefty who did it or a romantic righty?

[Mamyalynne]

Ah, thank you - someone posted that as an isolated image earlier with no context.

I shall add to what I said then, whoever put that banner up should be dealt with if they haven't been already because they are idiots and troublemakers and don't speak for everyone of any party.

[mikey4444]

Typical DM rot !

[-Talbot-]

Why on earth is it typical DM rot?


What a bizarre dismissal of the actions of the fruitloops who made and swung the effigies from a bridge.

[naomi24]

Mikey seems to be happy with fruitloops - as long as they're anti-Tory fruitloops. Shameful.

[jourdain2]

What on earth has happened to people so that all this vileness is directed at political opponents? People use to engage in debate - often very, very heated - and disagree totally; but this sort of stuff really is vile - an anagram is 'evil'. There's a new Labour M.P. says she hates all Tories.......eh? Is it something to do with spoiled 'snowflakes' not bearing any opposition and unable to cope? I don't know. I do know that when young I read transcripts of debates in Victoria's reign (History A level) and that the level of debate was far higher than today's 'yah - boo' norm. Sickening.

[jim360]

Pretty sure that's a little rose-tinted though, jourdain. Lloyd George once gave, or tried to give, a speech on the somewhat obscure but apparently very interesting issue of Tariff reform, and the mob that arrived in protest might very well have torn him apart had they got his hands on him (that will have been about 1900).

Also Peterloo. Or the Gordon Riots. Or the General Strike of 24 and all that "bring down the government" stuff in the 1960s. Or Cable Street. Or Orgreave (although perhaps that's a bit too recent since apparently Corbyn doesn't want to shut up about it). Or Toxteth. Or the Battle of Lewisham. Or Notting Hill. Or Chapeltown. Or ... or... or...

This is not to say that I find the protests at all acceptable, and I am saddened and sickened by such people. They do nothing really to further their cause and just give opponents an excuse to ignore anything that comes out of their mouths, even if it's uttered by sensible, not-violent-mobster types. But this idea that such violence is somehow new is a fairly bizarre reading of history.

[jim360]

The General strike of 1926, sorry. For some reason I keep thinking it's in 1924. Must be getting confused with the election that year or something.

[-Talbot-]

Isn't you who likes to draw attention to posters 'whataboutery' jim?

[jourdain2]

I didn't say the violence was new, I said the level of debate was higher. The 'London Mob', for instance, has always been feared. But we've had a long period when it seemed that political debate was civilised. Citing Toxteth etc. is about riots by desperate people, not about debate and respect for other ideas on a different level of political divide - that the 2 appear to be melding is alarming, isn't it?

[jno]

Chruchill on Atlee

A sheep in sheep's clothing
A modest man, who has much to be modest about

Churchill on Baldwin

I wish Stanley Baldwin no ill, but it would have been much better if he had never lived
The candle in that great turnip has gone out

And so forth. The golden age of polite and rational British debate.

[-Talbot-]

Thinking about it maybe it is actually Krom who uses whataboutery.

Still Loyd George and general strikes?

[Gromit]

£2 million pound is being spent on preventing terrorists blowing up th Conservatives, not people hanging harmless bedsheets from canal bridges.

Usual Looney Mail over the top nonsense.

[Kromovaracun]

It's a very distasteful banner, and whoever put it up needs to be done for incitement to violence.

It is, however, one banner among a huge protest. Like OG says, you always get some weirdos and crazies, it can't really be avoided.

[Kromovaracun]

Also Jim isn't using whataboutery, he's responding to the specific assertion that until recently politics was fundamentally polite.

[webbo3]

Gromit.

\\£2 million pound is being spent on preventing terrorists blowing up th Conservatives, not people hanging harmless bedsheets from canal bridges.

Usual Looney Mail over the top nonsense.//

But instead of just terrorists they now have to look for the looney lefties and momentum idiots trying get in and disrupt things.

[Kromovaracun]

They're the governing party webbo - they are guaranteed to get expensive security anyway.

Also because they are the government - protest against them is important and probably inevitable. It's not a luxury. It's an essential for living in a functional open society. Unless of course you'd prefer the UK to act like a corrupt developing country to "save money".

Now I agree this banner goes beyond the pale, and the people responsible (probably fewer than 10) need to be prosecuted. But it's just not that relevant against the wider background of thousands turning up to protest.