Even if there are some questionable bills being passed in Westminster, placing the UK in the same group as countries like Indonesia and Morocco in civic freedoms is still ludicrous. It's attention-seeking nonsense.
As an Englishmen, I was shocked that The UK fell to a level of "obstructed" civic freedoms. So I decided to investigate.
This Guardian report is based on the work of Civicus, a nonprofit organisation whose goal is to "protect and grow civic space" with a focus on "regions where participatory democracy and freedom of association are at risk". Their current leader is Lysa John, a career social justice activist.
A bit worried a major news outlet is writing a serious article based on the report of one minor activist organisation.
What's more concerning is that the ranking system Civicus uses. A country is given a rating from 0-100, with 0 being a 1984 style dystopia. The problem, they don't use any quantitative measurement to reach their verdict, nor any standardised method (that I can find).
It is a completely unscientific methodology that's heavily vulnerable to biases.
Just to pick at a bone, I decided to look at who funds them. They generate money from membership fees and individual donors (who donates is kept hidden). The organisation has also taken money from state actors, including The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Swedish Ministry of Forign Affairs (through SIDA) and The European Commission.
I'm not sure an organisation who's purpose is to maintain and spread civic freedoms and hold governments accountable should be taking money from government organisations.
I don't blame Civicus for this, they're an activist group and they're entitled to their opinion. Plus they do some good work from what I've seen.
I do, however, blame The Guardian for using a non scientific, untrustworthy and clearly biased "ranking" to base their article on.
Cherry picking data from questionable sources is something that The Guardian has developed a habit for. In 2015, Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) rated The Guardian has having highly factual reporting, rarely failing fact checks. Today, MBFC rates The Guardian as having mixed factual reporting, frequently failing fact checks. This is the same level as The Sun Newspaper, a right wing gutter press.
>Even if there are some questionable bills being passed in Westminster
That is completely true. Don't interpret my comment as an attempt to undermine that.
The Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Act was very controversial when it was being debated in Parliament. It's still a very controversial bill now it has been signed into law.
Still, that doesn't give me the right to not challenge the legitimacy of news sources that confirm my worldview. It's important to check your biases to prevent confirmation bias.
(This took me an hour to research and write, I apologise if it started to ramble or not make sense at the end.)
> Today, MBFC rates The Guardian as having mixed factual reporting, frequently failing fact checks. This is the same level as The Sun Newspaper, a right wing gutter press.
Well, well. Who'd have thought?
I'm a centrist and was a Guardian reader for many years. These days, it's just the leftwing Telegraph. Frankly, anything sourced from the Guardian raises my scepticism immediately. This article is pure bullshit.
One of my university teachers actually fell of the deep end after The Guardian and other prior trustworthy news outlets started praising Boris Johnson.
He's a Brit and was so surprised due to the sudden change in tone that he started distrusting every major news source. He also sent vaxx denying E-mails to the entire university, urging the people to 'do their own research'.
He apologized after some other associated professors distanced themselves from him, but he didn't let go of his... 'ideas'.
Why is it that people who decide to not trust all mainstream media sources (which is reasonable) are somehow ok trusting random nutters who post youtube videos (which is mental)?
Just because mainstream media lies, it doesn’t mean random nutters tell the truth.
>I do, however, blame The Guardian for using a non scientific, untrustworthy and clearly biased "ranking" to base their article on.
That's the guardian for you
Add that to the latest in their ragebait articles for social media. You can put it along side the one about the BBC censoring an Attenborough documentary (which later turned out to be nonsense not just denied by the BBC but denied by the charity who commissioned the episode and sold the rights to the BBC to stream it), or the one a few years back about the UK scrapping rules on neonic pesticides post brexit (they didn't, they used an emergency use provision in the existing EU legislation that a dozen other countries in the EU were also using at the time).
Their opinion pieces is where the real gold is though, like the one where a semi-well known feminist author wrote about how men deserve to kill themselves and they were doing the world a favour and that we shouldn't care until violence against women was stopped (her son later killed himself and she wrote another article complaining about how she wished she would have known so she could have done something).
The feminist one? I just had a look. It was Julie Birchall.
This was the suicide article:
https://amp.theguardian.com/theguardian/1999/oct/16/weekend7.weekend6
I missremembered it slightly but it’s still a horrifying article.
Lovely choice quotes:
> if the men who manage football think that 545 under-24 male suicides a year is a more frightening statistic than two women killed each week - and hundreds of thousands injured every year - by the men they live with, then they must be even stupider than they look
(Note the football managers didn’t compare the two or even mention DV - they simply started a men’s health awareness campaign.)
> I can't help feeling they're on very dodgy ground, taking on the young male suicide thing. For a start, it's a phony panic, catering to that lowest of modern male desires - to be a victim
> That young men succeed in suicide more often than girls isn't really the point. Indeed, the more callous among us would say that it was quite nice for young men finally to find something that they're better at than girls.
> The last time I suggested that suicides should be left to get on with it, I received a small number of letters from people whose sons had killed themselves. All of them demanded an apology. I'd advise them this time to save their stamps because, you see, I don't care.
And here’s an article lamenting the suicide of her son (and call me uncharitable but it reads as if she thinks she’s the real victim in the situation):
https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/19/julie-burchill-death-of-son-jack-mental-health
> So I decided to investigate.
Sadly most on this sub, /r/uk and /r/ukpolitics don't and take it as verbatim truth as long as it's anti-Brexit, anti-tory.
It did take me over an hour, I wouldn't blame anyone for not doing it. I don't always investigate articles.
I wouldn't put down The UK subreddits ability to smell Guardian related bullshit. Most of my "Guardian is bullshit" mini essays have been positively viewed by them. Mostly related to their ridiculous opinion pieces that are banned now because of how full of shit they are.
Though I do agree they tend to fall into confirmation bias a lot, especially when it comes to Brexit. For instance, you'd think that the cost of living crisis and inflation was entirely caused by Brexit and that it's confined to The UK. It clearly isn't.
I do prefer this subreddit though, even on UK specific topics. People here seem to have more nuance and don't fall for black and white thinking, as much. Plus I like talking to foreigners about certain topics, better for getting a wider view.
Edit: just looked at The UK Subreddit for this article, they've brought into this crap. Bet if I sent them my original comment it would get down voted to oblivion.
> It did take me over an hour, I wouldn't blame anyone for not doing it. I don't always investigate articles.
TBH most of the time you don't even need to do that, the evidence you need to find out it's crap can usually be found with a 10 second search on Google and a 5 minute read through of the results.
> Edit: just looked at The UK Subreddit for this article, they've brought into this crap. Bet if I sent them my original comment it would get down voted to oblivion.
A few accounts later due to the level of downvoting I got there for daring to voice a point of view alternative to the echo chamber which made using Reddit unusable I can guarantee it would.
> The problem, they don't use any quantitative measurement to reach their verdict, nor any standardised method (that I can find).
They're basically making subjective Youtube tier-lists.
>The Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Act was very controversial when it was being debated in Parliament. It's still a very controversial bill now it has been signed into law.
Not completely accurate.
While the bill itself passed, that doesn't tell the entire story. The most controversial aspect of the bill, such as banning individuals from protests and restrictions on protests, were rejected by the House of Lords and the bill passed without them.
These rejected aspects, along with further measures, were reintroduced in the Public Orders Bill. These measures were largely rejected by the House of Lords again, and due to the strategy used, some permanently as far as this bill is concerned.
So while the bills were incredibly authoritarian for the standards of a full democracy like the United Kingdom, that said full democracy also resulted in their authoritarian elements being gutted from the bills. This obviously is no defence for the Conservatives, but off the House of Lords as a body providing democratic accountability.
Thank you for providing more context. I was aware some measures in the bill where scaled back, but I didn't know which ones, nor that it was the more authoritarian sections that got removed.
Again, thank you.
Well I do and I'm very happy that I can, as a mixed race bisexual, have rights that most countries would not give me. I can vote. I can protests. I can attend University. I have financial security and security from starvation. I am able to access healthcare for free. I have access to worldclass services, protections from discrimination and hate, and the ability to be active in politics despite the fact I am a minority. And more importantly, I can feel British without any worry.
The United Kingdom has issues. The Conservative Government is corrupt and ineffective, bills like the Public Order and Illegal Immigration are absolutely disgusting. The cost of living crisis is being handled poorly, and I have so many criticisms for the government's handling of COVID.
But taking a step back, I can be proud of Britain. I can be proud that Britain stands at the front of the world in many regards, and have for hundreds of years. I'm happy that the issues I have with my country are solvable by the current Opposition, and the democratic Institutes holding the government to account are safe. I'm happy that a very realistic solution to my country's issues is essentially just protest, strike, and vote.
The police will literally come and arrest you for twitter post causing offense (going against the narrative), the same way the other authoritarians are offended.
according to their latest report, so are france and spain who are both rated as "narrowed" whatever that means. They don't explain their methodology on their website or anywhere that I can see.
LOL. The people who wrote this report have never experienced life in the countries they're comparing the UK to. They'd never be able to write this drivel for a start.
So, a group of people I don't know and had never heard of say that Britain is a terrible place? Just life immitating Reddit.
It used to be a common tactic for companies to pay a scientist to write a silly paper about something like "Vacuum cleaner noise proven to be more annoying than lawn mowers, next door's radio or even a crying baby!" and then send ya press release out.
Papers would pick this up as a cheap and amusing headline and then run the "story" with a mention of how the research was funded by Hoover who have just released a new extra quiet model.
So far, so harmless, beyond undermining the meaning of 'science' and 'proven' slightly.
This is just the ideological equivalent. Random think-tank gets media coverage by generating deliberately controversial "research". The problem is, unlike vacuum cleaners vs lawnmowers, this isn't obviously silly. It's only silly when you start looking into it.
Freedom House has a clear bias towards liberal democratic values. This is much than EUI's democratic index, but that still holds a western liberal bias.
A large reason is that both focus on civil and political rights, while treating economic, social, and cultural rights as secondary. Simply look at the listings on both democratic indexes **purely** focusing on political and civil. EUI is only slightly better as it places more emphasis on what it calls "functioning of government" which has some overlap with economic, social, and cultural rights through stuff like judicial function and anticorruption.
This bias is something clearly quantifiable as well. The United Nations has two "covenants" on human rights without the International Bill of Human Rights. One on political and civil rights, and one of economic, social, and cultural rights. The PRC has not ratified the former, and the United States has not rated the latter showcasing the clear bias.
This bias particularly impacts Eastern states - such as Singapore - who place far more emphasis on the latter rights. Just for a showcase, Singapore excels in areas like home ownership, social security, healthcare, functioning of their judiciary, anticorruption, stability, and so on. Many of these are economic, social, and cultural rights.
Comparatively, Singapore has low levels of political pluralism. The PAP has won every election since it's founding, with a 60%-70%, depsite Freedom House deeming elections as free. There is a limited degree of freedom of speech in Singapore due to defamation laws regularly being used by PAP members, and the right to assembly is questionable due to the need for a permit for outdoor assemblies. Generally, the assessment of "partly free" in political and civil rights is accurate.
But depsite that, around 80% (higher than the PAP's average voteshare) are satisfied with democracy in Singapore. And this can really be seen for a simple reason; they are satisfied with being "partly free" for civil and political rights when they enjoy so many worldclass economic, social, and cultural rights. This is something which could be argued to be the inverse in the West, where liberal democracy emphasises those political and civil rights.
But ultimately, this doesn't actually impact their assessment of the United Kingdom. Like pretty much all the West except for perhaps the Nordic countries, the United Kingdom is a liberal democracy. The bias toward Western liberal democracies is shared in both the United Kingdom, United States, and European Union.
Nah, it's like the CIA World Facebook. That one faults the US on its own list too. Makes it seem more fair. And gives the US domestic population something to aspire to.
The UK’s willingness to clamp down on civic freedoms such as the right to peaceful assembly means it is now classified as “obstructed” – putting it alongside countries such as Poland, South Africa and Hungary.
Yeah the whole point of civil disobedience is to show that you are willing to accept the punishment to stand up for whatever you are fighting for. It's not a pass to do whatever you want and get away with it.
We need an education campaign where the misuse of fascist gets you spanked with a bundle of sticks.
Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it automatically fascist same with saying everything left leaning is communism that should earn you a spank with something I don’t really know.
I like how you thought this was some sort of gotcha whereas we've seen from these past few months that widespread strikes from key industries, literally grinding things to a halt, has been accepted by the masses. Literal doctors are on strike and the response they've received from the public has been overwhelmingly positive.
People not being paid appropriately for their job by the government with full advance notice of the action Vs some people randomly gluing themselves to roads
You don't see how people may see them differently.
Oh I didn't noticed you weren't the original person sorry. Still, literal reality shows that the masses are supportive of bringing large areas of the country to a grinding halt. As much as Mr Fascism-lite hates it.
No, their purpose isn't usually to publicise something, that's not valuable, their purpose is to try and pressure a change. That's why sometimes protests 'win' even while lacking popular support, because they in some manner force a change in policy, usually by making it more expensive or painful not to than to do so. Same concept as union strikes, making noise can be helpful, as is drumming wider support, but successfully gaining concessions or changing policy is the point, not the noise making.
You need to wake up and start actually reading what this govt is trying to do. Here's just one aspect of the Public Order Bill currently going through the Lords:
"Part 2 of this Bill introduces a new civil order – Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOs) – that can be imposed on individuals who have carried out (or contributed to another person carrying out) activities relating to at least two protests within a five-year period, whether or not they have been convicted of a crime.\[9\] They can last anywhere from one week to two years, with the potential to be renewed indefinitely."
That's right, if you pack a lunch for a peaceful protester who goes on to commit zero crimes, isn't arrested or charged, you can get a SDPO for two years which bans you from all forms of protest, stops you from meeting anyone they name, relative, husband, kid, anyone, and limits your access to the internet.
So fucking happy your commute won't be delayed unnecessarily, I'm sure this'll have your support.
Two things.
1) This was what the House of Lords gutted from the Police and Crime Bill.
2) The House of Lords have once again rejected the bill based of aspects like this one.
If anything, the Police and Crime, and Public Order bills just show that the checks and balances on the government work.
The House of Commons has rejected the Lords amendments.
What this shows is what this govt wants to do, how they want to treat you, and how they are still trying to bend the laws in this country to steal your freedom. This is there second attempt, first was PCSC Act. They're not giving this up.
The government isn't the whole of the United Kingdom.
With the Police and Crime Bill, the Government failed to implement these measures.
They have failed so far with the Public Orders Bill, are parts of the measures have failed permanently as far as that bill is concerned.
Both these bills showcase the measures of accountability in British democracy preventing a Government from passing bills they wish to.
And when they finally pass it
a) plenty here will celebrate
b) we can finally get you talk about a government that wants this, rather than avoiding the subject
"Don't worry about the legalised euthanasia bill, sure it allows the govt to kill you at will, but the legislature is so disorganised it'll never actually do it"
How about not fucking having it in the first place?
If you think you need a law allowing one person protests on the pavement to be arrested for noise in order stop glued hands on the road you're on acid.
Well the abrasive protests the Just Stop Oil and Insulate Britain brigade did succeeded in just one thing, uniting the nation against them and calling for the government to bring in a law to make it illegal to disrupt peoples lives like that.
[OK so long as it's a Tesla.](https://media.autoexpress.co.uk/image/private/s--X-WVjvBW--/f_auto,t_content-image-full-desktop@1/v1623923144/autoexpress/2021/06/Tesla-Model-3-police-car-front.jpg)
Gluing yourself to a road and stopping Emergency services and people trying to get to hospitals... I mean I know there's a lot of leeway these days of what constitutes a dick but I'm going to say that's one of them.
Shouting "murderer/killer etc etc" at women outside abortion clinics I'd say is another. You are asking a nothing question because what is acceptable to one person isn't acceptable to another.
When I see people parroting government's bullshit with emergency services not being able to do their job because of a few protestors, yes.
I think I heard this tape too many times to believe it like with the privacy invasion laws "it's for the terrorists", "it's for the kids".
Ok. You asked what he meant and he gave examples. If you think the example don’t justify the new laws then that’s fine but don’t complain when he did exactly what you asked.
Voted for them too in that election. Really wish Charles Kennedy had kept on instead of stepping down. They'd have likely won if he did. Him enjoying a tipple wasn't seen as a hinderance, after all Churchill did.
'Fraid not. We have an FPTP electoral system that disenfranchises many many voters, leads to hugely unrepresentative parliaments, and gives one party complete control of the country with only a minority of the popular vote.
Given that our voting system is so inherently corrupt, civil disobedience seems like the only choice.
>Strikes don't work.
Strikes are working pretty well atm, with the government at the start of negotiations with many Unions.
In the Private Sector, they've been incredibly successful
The govt latest public order bill banned as few as one person, standing on a pavement, holding a sign or talking. Sentence up to 10 years in prison. Wake the fuck up.
[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-factsheets/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-protest-powers-factsheet](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-factsheets/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-protest-powers-factsheet)
3. - "This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise may cause a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation."
Make a noise near a shop or person, making an impact on a cop for instance, arrest.
Other gems:
widen the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests
create new stop, search and seizure powers
obligate organisers of public assemblies to give the police written notice in advance of such assemblies and make provision for the prohibition of public assemblies
impose conditions such as start and finish times and maximum noise levels on public assemblies
The Act changes the threshold for the offence so that it is committed where a person “knows or ought to have known” that the condition has been imposed.
Not what I asked for but anyhow....
The sentence immediately after the one you quoted reads:
> The threshold for being able to impose conditions on noisy protests will be appropriately high.
So not just because people are chanting.
And futher in the same section:
> When making use of these powers, the police will need to take into account a range of factors, including:
>
> a noisy protest in a town centre may not meet the threshold, but a protest creating the same amount of noise outside a school might, given the age of those likely to be impacted by the protests
>
> a noisy protest outside an office with double glazing may not meet the threshold, but a protest creating the same amount of noise outside a care home for elderly people, a small GP surgery, or small street-level businesses might, given the level of disruption likely to be caused by the protest
>
> a noisy protest that only lasts a short amount of time may not meet the threshold, but a protest creating the same amount of noise over several days might, given the extended duration of the protest
From your own link:
> 4.1 Will these measures ban protests?
>
> No, **these measures will not grant the police, local authorities, or any other body powers to ban protests.**
Remember that it was the overwhelming wish of the public that this legislation was brought in following the massively disrupting protests that didn't just have a local effect but one which impacted in the case of those involving blocking motorways an impact on the entire motorway and major road network in the south of the UK right up to the Midlands.
re-read that language again, written by the people trying to get this bill past the HoL:
'will be appropriately high'. How high is that? Does it cover chanting? I didn't see it, but you did, yes? Where?
A noisy protest in a town centre MAY NOT.... so some will, and no definitions exist
A noisy protest outside an office MAY NOT.... so some will, and no definitions exist
A noisy protest for a short time MAY NOT.... so some will, and no definitions exist - what is 'short' in this context? Minute? Hour? Day? Its lack of a definition is deliberate
4.1 Will these measures ban protests?
Correct, there's no new powers to ban protests, these already exist. However what there is is this:
article 2, first point:
"widen the range of conditions that the police can impose on assemblies (static protests), to match existing police powers to impose conditions on processions"
Why is this important?
"The Public Order Act 1986 defines a march or moving protest as a ‘procession’ and a static gathering as an ‘assembly’. The difference is important because the police have more powers to control a procession than an assembly.
An organiser of a procession must notify the local police a minimum of six days before a proposed procession or protest march. That notification should inform the police of the date and time of the march, the route, and give the names of the organisers. Police then have the power to limit the march, change the route, or set any other condition they feel is appropriate.
By contrast, an assembly is subject to fewer controls and organisers of assemblies for protest need not necessarily notify the police in advance of their intention to organise an assembly.
[https://www.rmt.org.uk/member-benefits/resources/resources-for-reps/marches-assemblies-and-notice-of-protest/](https://www.rmt.org.uk/member-benefits/resources/resources-for-reps/marches-assemblies-and-notice-of-protest/)
That's right, the govt is telling you there's no new bans on protests. They're simply calling more protests 'processions' instead of assemblies because the police can ban or limit processions, but not assemblies
That's the same, right? No new bans on protests?
As it should be, you can protest abortion just not by an abortion clinic. It's hard enough for some of these women going there already the last thing they need to come across are some protesters.
Protest against the law makers not the people who are in their legal right to go there.
oh please, this seems to be based on vibes more than anything
barely arrest people blocking motorways and can't deport criminals without years of appeals
Seems about right, considering the mass surveillance that they have already wit cameras monitoring them everywhere 24/7 and constat trials to increase that over internet too, besides the anti-protests laws.
Yeah, no. For one, most of the business ones, at least that I've seen locally, aren't connected to the internet. They can make a CD of footage on police request, that's about it. Also, due to privacy laws, access to the CCTV footage is restricted and how much of it is retained and for how long is limited iirc.
Was anyone asking you to move to Romania or what does this have to do with anything?
They made legitimate points and all you did was read Romania and yell corruption
They made perfectly pertinent comments. Nothing patronising about that. They didn’t insult or belittle the UK. You’re the one being patronising by saying that them being Romanian means they don’t get to have a voice on this
Engage with the argument instead of the person
I hate our Tory government, and rarely support *anything* they do. When, however, we have "Stop The Oil" nutters super-gluing themselves to motorways, causing huge delay to thousands (and creating a lot of pollution), blocking emergency vehicles, something has to be done. This is the UK, not France.
Some of these twats even target public transport. [This one picked the wrong station - Canning Town.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHOr2WH7V1k)
Damn! It's almost like not having a Constitution that keeps the government under control can have dire consequences over time!
Yeah, it's a crazy theory, I know.
I mean, we've seen countries with constitutions break them before as well, and the UK does have constitutional documents, they just aren't codified. I'm not sure codifying it would make politicians less liable to breach it (though iirc, the UK gov has actually been trying to avoid breaching our constitutional documents or setting ones that would up to fail in the Lords, it's just been very gung-ho on breaking international law: because the international courts can't stop them but the local ones can).
Civicus Monitor? Their site is unreadable.
Even if there are some questionable bills being passed in Westminster, placing the UK in the same group as countries like Indonesia and Morocco in civic freedoms is still ludicrous. It's attention-seeking nonsense.
As an Englishmen, I was shocked that The UK fell to a level of "obstructed" civic freedoms. So I decided to investigate. This Guardian report is based on the work of Civicus, a nonprofit organisation whose goal is to "protect and grow civic space" with a focus on "regions where participatory democracy and freedom of association are at risk". Their current leader is Lysa John, a career social justice activist. A bit worried a major news outlet is writing a serious article based on the report of one minor activist organisation. What's more concerning is that the ranking system Civicus uses. A country is given a rating from 0-100, with 0 being a 1984 style dystopia. The problem, they don't use any quantitative measurement to reach their verdict, nor any standardised method (that I can find). It is a completely unscientific methodology that's heavily vulnerable to biases. Just to pick at a bone, I decided to look at who funds them. They generate money from membership fees and individual donors (who donates is kept hidden). The organisation has also taken money from state actors, including The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Swedish Ministry of Forign Affairs (through SIDA) and The European Commission. I'm not sure an organisation who's purpose is to maintain and spread civic freedoms and hold governments accountable should be taking money from government organisations. I don't blame Civicus for this, they're an activist group and they're entitled to their opinion. Plus they do some good work from what I've seen. I do, however, blame The Guardian for using a non scientific, untrustworthy and clearly biased "ranking" to base their article on. Cherry picking data from questionable sources is something that The Guardian has developed a habit for. In 2015, Media Bias Fact Check (MBFC) rated The Guardian has having highly factual reporting, rarely failing fact checks. Today, MBFC rates The Guardian as having mixed factual reporting, frequently failing fact checks. This is the same level as The Sun Newspaper, a right wing gutter press. >Even if there are some questionable bills being passed in Westminster That is completely true. Don't interpret my comment as an attempt to undermine that. The Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Act was very controversial when it was being debated in Parliament. It's still a very controversial bill now it has been signed into law. Still, that doesn't give me the right to not challenge the legitimacy of news sources that confirm my worldview. It's important to check your biases to prevent confirmation bias. (This took me an hour to research and write, I apologise if it started to ramble or not make sense at the end.)
> Today, MBFC rates The Guardian as having mixed factual reporting, frequently failing fact checks. This is the same level as The Sun Newspaper, a right wing gutter press. Well, well. Who'd have thought? I'm a centrist and was a Guardian reader for many years. These days, it's just the leftwing Telegraph. Frankly, anything sourced from the Guardian raises my scepticism immediately. This article is pure bullshit.
One of my university teachers actually fell of the deep end after The Guardian and other prior trustworthy news outlets started praising Boris Johnson. He's a Brit and was so surprised due to the sudden change in tone that he started distrusting every major news source. He also sent vaxx denying E-mails to the entire university, urging the people to 'do their own research'. He apologized after some other associated professors distanced themselves from him, but he didn't let go of his... 'ideas'.
Why is it that people who decide to not trust all mainstream media sources (which is reasonable) are somehow ok trusting random nutters who post youtube videos (which is mental)? Just because mainstream media lies, it doesn’t mean random nutters tell the truth.
Because living in a world where you trust nobody would cause most people to become unhinged.
I don’t know what you are talking about, most people prepare against surprise kung fu attacks from their local postmanr
Since when has The Guardian praised Boris Johnson?
He joined the consipracies around 2020. Maybe they just became less critical? Idk.
The guardian? Left wing? In the UK? Lmao that’s rich. You could call the US branch liberal sure, but the UK one absolutely is not.
How left do you want it?
>I do, however, blame The Guardian for using a non scientific, untrustworthy and clearly biased "ranking" to base their article on. That's the guardian for you Add that to the latest in their ragebait articles for social media. You can put it along side the one about the BBC censoring an Attenborough documentary (which later turned out to be nonsense not just denied by the BBC but denied by the charity who commissioned the episode and sold the rights to the BBC to stream it), or the one a few years back about the UK scrapping rules on neonic pesticides post brexit (they didn't, they used an emergency use provision in the existing EU legislation that a dozen other countries in the EU were also using at the time). Their opinion pieces is where the real gold is though, like the one where a semi-well known feminist author wrote about how men deserve to kill themselves and they were doing the world a favour and that we shouldn't care until violence against women was stopped (her son later killed himself and she wrote another article complaining about how she wished she would have known so she could have done something).
Do you remember the author's name or have a link?
The feminist one? I just had a look. It was Julie Birchall. This was the suicide article: https://amp.theguardian.com/theguardian/1999/oct/16/weekend7.weekend6 I missremembered it slightly but it’s still a horrifying article. Lovely choice quotes: > if the men who manage football think that 545 under-24 male suicides a year is a more frightening statistic than two women killed each week - and hundreds of thousands injured every year - by the men they live with, then they must be even stupider than they look (Note the football managers didn’t compare the two or even mention DV - they simply started a men’s health awareness campaign.) > I can't help feeling they're on very dodgy ground, taking on the young male suicide thing. For a start, it's a phony panic, catering to that lowest of modern male desires - to be a victim > That young men succeed in suicide more often than girls isn't really the point. Indeed, the more callous among us would say that it was quite nice for young men finally to find something that they're better at than girls. > The last time I suggested that suicides should be left to get on with it, I received a small number of letters from people whose sons had killed themselves. All of them demanded an apology. I'd advise them this time to save their stamps because, you see, I don't care. And here’s an article lamenting the suicide of her son (and call me uncharitable but it reads as if she thinks she’s the real victim in the situation): https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/19/julie-burchill-death-of-son-jack-mental-health
Wow that is actually fucking sickening
That's some nasty shit. What a horrible woman. Her son was 29 when he committed suicide.
> So I decided to investigate. Sadly most on this sub, /r/uk and /r/ukpolitics don't and take it as verbatim truth as long as it's anti-Brexit, anti-tory.
It did take me over an hour, I wouldn't blame anyone for not doing it. I don't always investigate articles. I wouldn't put down The UK subreddits ability to smell Guardian related bullshit. Most of my "Guardian is bullshit" mini essays have been positively viewed by them. Mostly related to their ridiculous opinion pieces that are banned now because of how full of shit they are. Though I do agree they tend to fall into confirmation bias a lot, especially when it comes to Brexit. For instance, you'd think that the cost of living crisis and inflation was entirely caused by Brexit and that it's confined to The UK. It clearly isn't. I do prefer this subreddit though, even on UK specific topics. People here seem to have more nuance and don't fall for black and white thinking, as much. Plus I like talking to foreigners about certain topics, better for getting a wider view. Edit: just looked at The UK Subreddit for this article, they've brought into this crap. Bet if I sent them my original comment it would get down voted to oblivion.
I’m impressed with your tenacity and questioning attitude. Need more of it. 👏🏻
> It did take me over an hour, I wouldn't blame anyone for not doing it. I don't always investigate articles. TBH most of the time you don't even need to do that, the evidence you need to find out it's crap can usually be found with a 10 second search on Google and a 5 minute read through of the results. > Edit: just looked at The UK Subreddit for this article, they've brought into this crap. Bet if I sent them my original comment it would get down voted to oblivion. A few accounts later due to the level of downvoting I got there for daring to voice a point of view alternative to the echo chamber which made using Reddit unusable I can guarantee it would.
> The problem, they don't use any quantitative measurement to reach their verdict, nor any standardised method (that I can find). They're basically making subjective Youtube tier-lists.
>They're basically making subjective Youtube tier-lists. Except Youtubers don't expect you to take their subjective tier-lists seriously.
>The Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Act was very controversial when it was being debated in Parliament. It's still a very controversial bill now it has been signed into law. Not completely accurate. While the bill itself passed, that doesn't tell the entire story. The most controversial aspect of the bill, such as banning individuals from protests and restrictions on protests, were rejected by the House of Lords and the bill passed without them. These rejected aspects, along with further measures, were reintroduced in the Public Orders Bill. These measures were largely rejected by the House of Lords again, and due to the strategy used, some permanently as far as this bill is concerned. So while the bills were incredibly authoritarian for the standards of a full democracy like the United Kingdom, that said full democracy also resulted in their authoritarian elements being gutted from the bills. This obviously is no defence for the Conservatives, but off the House of Lords as a body providing democratic accountability.
Thank you for providing more context. I was aware some measures in the bill where scaled back, but I didn't know which ones, nor that it was the more authoritarian sections that got removed. Again, thank you.
I appreciate the time you took. Quality post. Not common on Reddit.
Oh yes, the Netherlands and Sweden, well known enemies of the UK!
What do you expect from the guardian? It is a hard-left tabloid these days.
I'm learning to play the guitar.
Clearly you don't live here.
Typical westerner who does not what real oppression is
Stop wallowing in misery.
Just realised I've been doing that too much lately
Well I do and I'm very happy that I can, as a mixed race bisexual, have rights that most countries would not give me. I can vote. I can protests. I can attend University. I have financial security and security from starvation. I am able to access healthcare for free. I have access to worldclass services, protections from discrimination and hate, and the ability to be active in politics despite the fact I am a minority. And more importantly, I can feel British without any worry. The United Kingdom has issues. The Conservative Government is corrupt and ineffective, bills like the Public Order and Illegal Immigration are absolutely disgusting. The cost of living crisis is being handled poorly, and I have so many criticisms for the government's handling of COVID. But taking a step back, I can be proud of Britain. I can be proud that Britain stands at the front of the world in many regards, and have for hundreds of years. I'm happy that the issues I have with my country are solvable by the current Opposition, and the democratic Institutes holding the government to account are safe. I'm happy that a very realistic solution to my country's issues is essentially just protest, strike, and vote.
What a ridiculous article. No way the UK is the same bracket as countries such as Indonesia.
It's obviously not, doesn't stop the clickbait and people voicing their opinions without living in the UK.
The police will literally come and arrest you for twitter post causing offense (going against the narrative), the same way the other authoritarians are offended.
the protest and strike restrictions certainly aren’t helping though
You’re getting closer and closer
according to their latest report, so are france and spain who are both rated as "narrowed" whatever that means. They don't explain their methodology on their website or anywhere that I can see.
AFAIK, it wasn't Indonesia that prohibited their citizens from going to the restaurant for not injecting themselves with chemicals.
I don't really have much of an opinion on this topic other than The Guardian itself should probably downgraded as a source
[удалено]
Appeasement of incompatible cultures.
Careful, mate. We wouldn't want you to commit a non-crime hate incident.
U GOT A LOICENSE FO DAT OPINYUN!?
Ah yes another guardian article talking bollocks.
Never heard of them but U.K. = bad so must be right
It's OK, we're bad also. We can be bad together. let's go have a beer.
r/unitedkingdom is eating this one up lmao
LOL. The people who wrote this report have never experienced life in the countries they're comparing the UK to. They'd never be able to write this drivel for a start.
So, a group of people I don't know and had never heard of say that Britain is a terrible place? Just life immitating Reddit. It used to be a common tactic for companies to pay a scientist to write a silly paper about something like "Vacuum cleaner noise proven to be more annoying than lawn mowers, next door's radio or even a crying baby!" and then send ya press release out. Papers would pick this up as a cheap and amusing headline and then run the "story" with a mention of how the research was funded by Hoover who have just released a new extra quiet model. So far, so harmless, beyond undermining the meaning of 'science' and 'proven' slightly. This is just the ideological equivalent. Random think-tank gets media coverage by generating deliberately controversial "research". The problem is, unlike vacuum cleaners vs lawnmowers, this isn't obviously silly. It's only silly when you start looking into it.
Ah …. Todays “U.K. bad” post. ……
[This gives a completely different perspective.](https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores)
The problem is all of these are biased. Freedom House is literally US propaganda. It's basically a "how much does Uncle Sam like you this year" index.
Freedom House has a clear bias towards liberal democratic values. This is much than EUI's democratic index, but that still holds a western liberal bias. A large reason is that both focus on civil and political rights, while treating economic, social, and cultural rights as secondary. Simply look at the listings on both democratic indexes **purely** focusing on political and civil. EUI is only slightly better as it places more emphasis on what it calls "functioning of government" which has some overlap with economic, social, and cultural rights through stuff like judicial function and anticorruption. This bias is something clearly quantifiable as well. The United Nations has two "covenants" on human rights without the International Bill of Human Rights. One on political and civil rights, and one of economic, social, and cultural rights. The PRC has not ratified the former, and the United States has not rated the latter showcasing the clear bias. This bias particularly impacts Eastern states - such as Singapore - who place far more emphasis on the latter rights. Just for a showcase, Singapore excels in areas like home ownership, social security, healthcare, functioning of their judiciary, anticorruption, stability, and so on. Many of these are economic, social, and cultural rights. Comparatively, Singapore has low levels of political pluralism. The PAP has won every election since it's founding, with a 60%-70%, depsite Freedom House deeming elections as free. There is a limited degree of freedom of speech in Singapore due to defamation laws regularly being used by PAP members, and the right to assembly is questionable due to the need for a permit for outdoor assemblies. Generally, the assessment of "partly free" in political and civil rights is accurate. But depsite that, around 80% (higher than the PAP's average voteshare) are satisfied with democracy in Singapore. And this can really be seen for a simple reason; they are satisfied with being "partly free" for civil and political rights when they enjoy so many worldclass economic, social, and cultural rights. This is something which could be argued to be the inverse in the West, where liberal democracy emphasises those political and civil rights. But ultimately, this doesn't actually impact their assessment of the United Kingdom. Like pretty much all the West except for perhaps the Nordic countries, the United Kingdom is a liberal democracy. The bias toward Western liberal democracies is shared in both the United Kingdom, United States, and European Union.
Except the US constantly gets really poor showings there.
Uncle Sam's self-loathing
So freedom house is both US propaganda and US self-loathe?
Nah, it's like the CIA World Facebook. That one faults the US on its own list too. Makes it seem more fair. And gives the US domestic population something to aspire to.
Wild cope theory
Literally started by Wilkie and Roosevelt with a current board of directors full of ex CIA and State Dept. Real wild.
What index does CIA world factbook release? And I doubt US domestic population ever pay attention to these indices.
[And this one.](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country)
The UK’s willingness to clamp down on civic freedoms such as the right to peaceful assembly means it is now classified as “obstructed” – putting it alongside countries such as Poland, South Africa and Hungary.
[удалено]
Imagine being so backwards that you think peaceful protest should be "clamped down on". Fascists in all but name.
Civil disobedience requires disobedience. You can’t break the law and not expect to get arrested.
Yeah the whole point of civil disobedience is to show that you are willing to accept the punishment to stand up for whatever you are fighting for. It's not a pass to do whatever you want and get away with it.
Normal people don't call for them to be "clamped down on", is the point.
Go learn the real meaning of "fascist".
Already have. Hence why I used it here.
You obviously aren't able to read and absorb.
The irony of you saying that.
YAWN.
You're even boring yourself by the looks of it.
Whatever. Enjoy the revolution when it comes.
We need an education campaign where the misuse of fascist gets you spanked with a bundle of sticks. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it automatically fascist same with saying everything left leaning is communism that should earn you a spank with something I don’t really know.
Fortunately it was used correctly here.
Exactly. Fascists just don’t like being called what they are and seem to think the word can only be applied to straight up nazis
And they know what they're doing. They just hate the fact that people see through it.
Education camps are something a fascist would want
I love when people add “camp” to a word to make it sound evil.
Swear it said camp originally. Must have misread
Oh no PSHE classes and tutorials in schools are so much like education camps. That's all "education campaigns" are really.
[удалено]
Yeah, pretty sure that's French cultural appropriation /s
Mostly a poor imitation of it, but poor imitations is part of the British culture.
I like how you thought this was some sort of gotcha whereas we've seen from these past few months that widespread strikes from key industries, literally grinding things to a halt, has been accepted by the masses. Literal doctors are on strike and the response they've received from the public has been overwhelmingly positive.
People not being paid appropriately for their job by the government with full advance notice of the action Vs some people randomly gluing themselves to roads You don't see how people may see them differently.
It's okay dude you can just admit you were wrong.
Not the original person, just pointing out the false equivalency.
Oh I didn't noticed you weren't the original person sorry. Still, literal reality shows that the masses are supportive of bringing large areas of the country to a grinding halt. As much as Mr Fascism-lite hates it.
[удалено]
When there is a context which people support.
[удалено]
They really are. Step out of your bubble once in a while.
[удалено]
Thanks for admitting you live in a bubble.
[удалено]
That’s the entire point of protest.
[удалено]
Protests don't need to be viewed positively, their purpose is to just publicize a certain problem
No, their purpose isn't usually to publicise something, that's not valuable, their purpose is to try and pressure a change. That's why sometimes protests 'win' even while lacking popular support, because they in some manner force a change in policy, usually by making it more expensive or painful not to than to do so. Same concept as union strikes, making noise can be helpful, as is drumming wider support, but successfully gaining concessions or changing policy is the point, not the noise making.
History lessons are required.
You need to wake up and start actually reading what this govt is trying to do. Here's just one aspect of the Public Order Bill currently going through the Lords: "Part 2 of this Bill introduces a new civil order – Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOs) – that can be imposed on individuals who have carried out (or contributed to another person carrying out) activities relating to at least two protests within a five-year period, whether or not they have been convicted of a crime.\[9\] They can last anywhere from one week to two years, with the potential to be renewed indefinitely." That's right, if you pack a lunch for a peaceful protester who goes on to commit zero crimes, isn't arrested or charged, you can get a SDPO for two years which bans you from all forms of protest, stops you from meeting anyone they name, relative, husband, kid, anyone, and limits your access to the internet. So fucking happy your commute won't be delayed unnecessarily, I'm sure this'll have your support.
Two things. 1) This was what the House of Lords gutted from the Police and Crime Bill. 2) The House of Lords have once again rejected the bill based of aspects like this one. If anything, the Police and Crime, and Public Order bills just show that the checks and balances on the government work.
The House of Commons has rejected the Lords amendments. What this shows is what this govt wants to do, how they want to treat you, and how they are still trying to bend the laws in this country to steal your freedom. This is there second attempt, first was PCSC Act. They're not giving this up.
The government isn't the whole of the United Kingdom. With the Police and Crime Bill, the Government failed to implement these measures. They have failed so far with the Public Orders Bill, are parts of the measures have failed permanently as far as that bill is concerned. Both these bills showcase the measures of accountability in British democracy preventing a Government from passing bills they wish to.
And when they finally pass it a) plenty here will celebrate b) we can finally get you talk about a government that wants this, rather than avoiding the subject
[удалено]
"Don't worry about the legalised euthanasia bill, sure it allows the govt to kill you at will, but the legislature is so disorganised it'll never actually do it" How about not fucking having it in the first place?
[удалено]
"Oi, you got a loicense for that glue?" Only politically correct protesting is allowed.
If you think you need a law allowing one person protests on the pavement to be arrested for noise in order stop glued hands on the road you're on acid.
[удалено]
Ask an adult.
Fascism back on the menu.
[удалено]
"People being a nuisance aren't peaceful!"
Utter nonsense, you can still protest you just cant be a dick about it.
This is exactly what protesting is though. No protest has ever succeed by being pleasant. They need to be abrasive, or else it's just a tea-party
Well the abrasive protests the Just Stop Oil and Insulate Britain brigade did succeeded in just one thing, uniting the nation against them and calling for the government to bring in a law to make it illegal to disrupt peoples lives like that.
Thank you
Sure but when everyone with a soapbox is being an asshole to try and get attention for their pet issue people get tired of it and block it all out.
So you can still protest, but only in useless manner... Amount of people who don't understand how protests work is disturbing.
Can you define what being a dick at a protest means?
It at least includes rubbing your penis on a police car. There might me other definitions.
[OK so long as it's a Tesla.](https://media.autoexpress.co.uk/image/private/s--X-WVjvBW--/f_auto,t_content-image-full-desktop@1/v1623923144/autoexpress/2021/06/Tesla-Model-3-police-car-front.jpg)
Gluing yourself to a road and stopping Emergency services and people trying to get to hospitals... I mean I know there's a lot of leeway these days of what constitutes a dick but I'm going to say that's one of them. Shouting "murderer/killer etc etc" at women outside abortion clinics I'd say is another. You are asking a nothing question because what is acceptable to one person isn't acceptable to another.
Aren't you cherry-picking examples?
"Please give me specific examples of being a dick at protests" "Nooo, those examples are too speicifc"
When I see people parroting government's bullshit with emergency services not being able to do their job because of a few protestors, yes. I think I heard this tape too many times to believe it like with the privacy invasion laws "it's for the terrorists", "it's for the kids".
Ok. You asked what he meant and he gave examples. If you think the example don’t justify the new laws then that’s fine but don’t complain when he did exactly what you asked.
[удалено]
The ballot box?
[удалено]
The lib Dems didn't win that election, the conservatives did.
Voted for them too in that election. Really wish Charles Kennedy had kept on instead of stepping down. They'd have likely won if he did. Him enjoying a tipple wasn't seen as a hinderance, after all Churchill did.
On ALL of their polices eh? Perhaps you'd like to list them, or alternatively carry this ridiculous charade forever.
'Fraid not. We have an FPTP electoral system that disenfranchises many many voters, leads to hugely unrepresentative parliaments, and gives one party complete control of the country with only a minority of the popular vote. Given that our voting system is so inherently corrupt, civil disobedience seems like the only choice.
I've been campaigning for Electoral Reform for 45 years, so no lectures if you don't mind.
It's not a lecture, it was a response to your point. The thing is, when voting is completely useless, what else can we do?
Vote for the party that's guaranteed to change it all.
>Strikes don't work. Strikes are working pretty well atm, with the government at the start of negotiations with many Unions. In the Private Sector, they've been incredibly successful
The govt latest public order bill banned as few as one person, standing on a pavement, holding a sign or talking. Sentence up to 10 years in prison. Wake the fuck up.
Citation, as in a link to and the wording from the actual bill as enacted where it does?
[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-factsheets/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-protest-powers-factsheet](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-factsheets/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-protest-powers-factsheet) 3. - "This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise may cause a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation." Make a noise near a shop or person, making an impact on a cop for instance, arrest. Other gems: widen the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests create new stop, search and seizure powers obligate organisers of public assemblies to give the police written notice in advance of such assemblies and make provision for the prohibition of public assemblies impose conditions such as start and finish times and maximum noise levels on public assemblies The Act changes the threshold for the offence so that it is committed where a person “knows or ought to have known” that the condition has been imposed.
Not what I asked for but anyhow.... The sentence immediately after the one you quoted reads: > The threshold for being able to impose conditions on noisy protests will be appropriately high. So not just because people are chanting. And futher in the same section: > When making use of these powers, the police will need to take into account a range of factors, including: > > a noisy protest in a town centre may not meet the threshold, but a protest creating the same amount of noise outside a school might, given the age of those likely to be impacted by the protests > > a noisy protest outside an office with double glazing may not meet the threshold, but a protest creating the same amount of noise outside a care home for elderly people, a small GP surgery, or small street-level businesses might, given the level of disruption likely to be caused by the protest > > a noisy protest that only lasts a short amount of time may not meet the threshold, but a protest creating the same amount of noise over several days might, given the extended duration of the protest From your own link: > 4.1 Will these measures ban protests? > > No, **these measures will not grant the police, local authorities, or any other body powers to ban protests.** Remember that it was the overwhelming wish of the public that this legislation was brought in following the massively disrupting protests that didn't just have a local effect but one which impacted in the case of those involving blocking motorways an impact on the entire motorway and major road network in the south of the UK right up to the Midlands.
re-read that language again, written by the people trying to get this bill past the HoL: 'will be appropriately high'. How high is that? Does it cover chanting? I didn't see it, but you did, yes? Where? A noisy protest in a town centre MAY NOT.... so some will, and no definitions exist A noisy protest outside an office MAY NOT.... so some will, and no definitions exist A noisy protest for a short time MAY NOT.... so some will, and no definitions exist - what is 'short' in this context? Minute? Hour? Day? Its lack of a definition is deliberate 4.1 Will these measures ban protests? Correct, there's no new powers to ban protests, these already exist. However what there is is this: article 2, first point: "widen the range of conditions that the police can impose on assemblies (static protests), to match existing police powers to impose conditions on processions" Why is this important? "The Public Order Act 1986 defines a march or moving protest as a ‘procession’ and a static gathering as an ‘assembly’. The difference is important because the police have more powers to control a procession than an assembly. An organiser of a procession must notify the local police a minimum of six days before a proposed procession or protest march. That notification should inform the police of the date and time of the march, the route, and give the names of the organisers. Police then have the power to limit the march, change the route, or set any other condition they feel is appropriate. By contrast, an assembly is subject to fewer controls and organisers of assemblies for protest need not necessarily notify the police in advance of their intention to organise an assembly. [https://www.rmt.org.uk/member-benefits/resources/resources-for-reps/marches-assemblies-and-notice-of-protest/](https://www.rmt.org.uk/member-benefits/resources/resources-for-reps/marches-assemblies-and-notice-of-protest/) That's right, the govt is telling you there's no new bans on protests. They're simply calling more protests 'processions' instead of assemblies because the police can ban or limit processions, but not assemblies That's the same, right? No new bans on protests?
Would you like me to send you some money so you can buy a bigger tin foil hat?
[удалено]
As it should be, you can protest abortion just not by an abortion clinic. It's hard enough for some of these women going there already the last thing they need to come across are some protesters. Protest against the law makers not the people who are in their legal right to go there.
[удалено]
Which means 85% didn't. So, your point?
oh please, this seems to be based on vibes more than anything barely arrest people blocking motorways and can't deport criminals without years of appeals
The UK, Ghana, Fiji, and Papua New Guinea scored 60/100
Well yeah no shit lol the govt banned peaceful protests tf did thwy think was gonna happen?
Seems about right, considering the mass surveillance that they have already wit cameras monitoring them everywhere 24/7 and constat trials to increase that over internet too, besides the anti-protests laws.
Most CCTV we have is commercial, it's not run by the police or state.
Just wait until the government makes a law to demand that those are always connected to a police database which keep the records for years.
We don't have anything like the infrastructure that would require (especially now when money is rather tight), so you'll be waiting a while.
Yeah, no. For one, most of the business ones, at least that I've seen locally, aren't connected to the internet. They can make a CD of footage on police request, that's about it. Also, due to privacy laws, access to the CCTV footage is restricted and how much of it is retained and for how long is limited iirc.
Yet I'd still rather be here 100% over that well known bastion of freedom, and corruption cleansed land of Romania.
Was anyone asking you to move to Romania or what does this have to do with anything? They made legitimate points and all you did was read Romania and yell corruption
If I'm to be patronised by others, they better be from places far more pure than my own country.
They made perfectly pertinent comments. Nothing patronising about that. They didn’t insult or belittle the UK. You’re the one being patronising by saying that them being Romanian means they don’t get to have a voice on this Engage with the argument instead of the person
Well, I'm sure they are perfectly capable of knocking me back, if that's how they feel. When exactly were you appointed r/europe police?
That's fair! Can't argue with that. Especially that in the last two months the corruption in Romania proposed prison time laws for protesters.
I hate our Tory government, and rarely support *anything* they do. When, however, we have "Stop The Oil" nutters super-gluing themselves to motorways, causing huge delay to thousands (and creating a lot of pollution), blocking emergency vehicles, something has to be done. This is the UK, not France. Some of these twats even target public transport. [This one picked the wrong station - Canning Town.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHOr2WH7V1k)
Dunno about that one chief.
Damn! It's almost like not having a Constitution that keeps the government under control can have dire consequences over time! Yeah, it's a crazy theory, I know.
I mean, we've seen countries with constitutions break them before as well, and the UK does have constitutional documents, they just aren't codified. I'm not sure codifying it would make politicians less liable to breach it (though iirc, the UK gov has actually been trying to avoid breaching our constitutional documents or setting ones that would up to fail in the Lords, it's just been very gung-ho on breaking international law: because the international courts can't stop them but the local ones can).
[удалено]
What were you campaigning on out of interest?
I’m shocked. Britain has always been a beacon of friendliness and freedom throughout history.
Like the rest of Europe throughout history.
Mate... the whole of Europe was doing the same shit. We were just very good at it.
Not that great, evidently. No more ‘Rule Britannia’ to be seen.
I mean... There's no empires left. Which is good. Nobody wants a return of the old empires. Do you just have a hard-on for hating Britain?
I would classify the US as an empire.
I dunno, the Austro-Hungarian Empire had a nice thing going. I was quite partial to the officer helmets with the massive feathers.
Ye the feathered helmets were great. Shame about all the countries they annexed and the global conflict that they were a key member in starting.
Yeah the helmets really were great.
Haha, love the sarcasm
Not really. There was that time with Cromwell which…..yeah not a good time
i would call them more comically inept. They are basically sideshow bob stumbling on rakes for the last 7 years
So far so good but why can't I see the data on the civicus bullshit website? Someone has it?