|
Ddraig posted:I'm not a huge fan of Jess Phillips but I don't think speaking in terms of "stabbing in the back" vs "stabbing in the front" in politics is a direct threat. She's a poo poo for being the kind of person that is doing far, far more harm than good to her party for selfish reasons but I don't really think she made a direct threat on Corbyn's life, given that backstabbing is a well known political metaphor, going back to the days of Ancient Greece. It certainly is a direct threat, but it isn't a death threat. Of course, this is a meaningless semantic quibble, because what's objectionable here is that she and her ilk are trying to blackmail their own party because they don't get to be in charge anymore after losing a fair election. Going all "but I didn't actually threaten to kill Corbyn" is just a weaksauce attempt at deflection from the real issue. e: 1995: A bunch of Norwegians almost end the world. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Dec 15, 2015 |
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:She's a chemist first and foremost as far as I know, that she went to space was sort of secondary to her chemistry career whereas I gather the guy going up today was trained intentionally as an astronaut and will be up there longer than a week, I assume? Yes, she's a chemist but underwent a rigorous selection process and 18 months of astronaut training before going on the mission. It's not like she was just randomly picked and bundled aboard a rocket or something. Granted though, the Indy is pretty poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:Yes, she's a chemist but underwent a rigorous selection process and 18 months of astronaut training before going on the mission. It's not like she was just randomly picked and bundled aboard a rocket or something. I don't really understand the distinction myself unless the brag is "we can afford to spend money to help crew the ISS" They might also just not have bothered to look it up properly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
the sad thing is Phillips is easily one of the better birmingham mps
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
She comes across as a right berk in writing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Pedantic fucks of UKMT: After the Challenger disaster the official UK government stance on manned spaceflight turned extremely sour, and they cancelled all participation in manned missions. So while there have been several other British nationals who were astronauts, most actually had to take US citizenship to do it. And while Helen Sharman was the first Briton in space, she was sponsored by a private consortium and Russia. So yes amazingly enough, Tim Peake is actually the first official fully paid up British astronaut. tooterfish fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:. So while there have been several other British nationals who were astronauts, most actually had to take US citizenship to do it That doesn't stop them being British, though. These days the UK and the US are both chill with dual citizenship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
I don't think you have to be on an official government assignment to count as the first person from a country to do something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:And while Helen was the first Briton in space, she was sponsored by a private consortium and Russia. Not to get all Pissflaps here, but what you're saying is that Helen Sharman was the first British astronaut. Something OwlFancier and I both agree on. The source of the funding that sends someone to space has no bearing on their nationality. /Pissflaps
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
If Andy Murray had been on the Challenger shuttle, he'd be Scottish
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:Not to get all Pissflaps here, but what you're saying is that Helen Sharman was the first British astronaut. Something OwlFancier and I both agree on. Astronauts aren't "the people who go into space", they're "the people employed by NASA who go into space". Go tell Putin that Gagarin was a Russian astronaut, see how quickly you get white phosphorous dropped on you. Besides the point though, Helen wasn't an official representative of the UK, she wasn't sent by the UK. feedmegin posted:That doesn't stop them being British, though. These days the UK and the US are both chill with dual citizenship. tooterfish fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:The source of funding has no bearing on their nationality, but it has bearing on whether they're an astronaut or not... I don't think NASA has trademarked the word "astronaut" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, this is the most Blairite loving nonsense I've ever read. He starts off well by acknowledging that the "Corbyn is unelectable!" argument just makes the Blairites look bad but then goes on not to list a single coherent reason why he doesn't want Corbyn to be PM, instead name dropping a bunch of Labour greats (and Harriet Harman) who Corbyn doesn't live up to in his estimation and then a bunch of Labour Party rules lawyering as to why by voting against Labour he'll only be going against the rules that you have to support the Labour Party for the few seconds he's actually voting so he'll only need to resign his membership for one day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think NASA has trademarked the word "astronaut" No bearing on my points anyway though. See my edits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think anyone literally believed Jess Philips was going to murder Jeremy Corbyn, however saying you're going to knife someone is what we would probably call "threatening language" were it coming from anybody other than her. No, calling it threatening language is ridiculous. If someone had just arrived from the moon and ever heard the very common expression 'to stab in the back' before I could understand the confusion. Maybe you'd also be confused someone says they 'could murder a curry'. But this just looks like people seizing any opportunity no matter how tenuous to attack an MP who isn't on their side. It's a bit sad that they can't address her actual message and feel they have to resort to this. Smells of insecurity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Cerv posted:No, calling it threatening language is ridiculous. This is literally what the press have been doing when it was the public on twitter responding to Labour MP's voting in favour of bombing Syria.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
I think it's probably just people pretending to be idiots on the internet to wind up Jess Phillips MP, a laudable goal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Cerv posted:No, calling it threatening language is ridiculous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8ouBFh04DU (Starts about 1:40)
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Cerv posted:No, calling it threatening language is ridiculous. Except labour supporters have been accused of all sorts of threatening behaviour even when they aren't doing anything remotely threatening. Apparently holding a prayer vigil outside an empty MP's office constitutes threatening behaviour to some people in the PLP. So I drat well expect them to put their loving brains in gear before they open their stupid mouths. Her message is poo poo, same as all the blairites who whine to the papers complaining about "poor communication" like shouting at your boss from the car park is the proper way to resolve a workplace dispute. But on top of that she should loving well know better, when MPs are whining left and right about the horrible threats they've received in the form of their constitutes writing letters to them to express their preferences and when, in the same loving article, she goes on about wanting threats of deselection to be crushed, to not open her goddamn mouth and talk about how she's going to stab jeremy corbyn in the back or the front, which is neither remotely loving appropriate language or at all in keeping with her own loving complaint in the first place! She's a twat and she can go on the heap of other PLP twats who don't deserve their offices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:The source of funding has no bearing on their nationality, but it has bearing on whether they're an official representative or not... Technically, he's a cosmonaut
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8ouBFh04DU Hey I thought I was the only person who'd listened to him. E: I think we could do with a UKMT version of this replacing NSA with GCHQ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMJ2VDTQWSI OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:This is literally what the press have been doing when it was the public on twitter responding to Labour MP's voting in favour of bombing Syria. So? Are you saying that makes it ok and not ridiculous? Because some idiots in the press did a similar thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:Holy poo poo, this is the most Blairite loving nonsense I've ever read. He starts off well by acknowledging that the "Corbyn is unelectable!" argument just makes the Blairites look bad but then goes on not to list a single coherent reason why he doesn't want Corbyn to be PM, instead name dropping a bunch of Labour greats (and Harriet Harman) who Corbyn doesn't live up to in his estimation and then a bunch of Labour Party rules lawyering as to why by voting against Labour he'll only be going against the rules that you have to support the Labour Party for the few seconds he's actually voting so he'll only need to resign his membership for one day. If labour had fought the Conservatives half as hard as they’re fighting Corbyn maybe they would have won.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Cerv posted:So? Yes. Pointing out hypocrisy is good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Fans posted:If labour had fought the Conservatives half as hard as they’re fighting Corbyn maybe they would have won. I just assume the ones really going for Corbyn are the really obvious business plants being told to get Labour back on script or there will be consequences. But this is because in my weakness I have to believe they're being this loving stupid for a reason other than they were always this terrible. Years of private education producing nothing but a badly programmed robot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
I think if they genuinely believe it was a violent threat they are idiots, but if they are just pretending to believe that in order to wind up an MP then that is funny. I also think we can hold professional politicians and random anonymous internet people to different standards and that Jess Phillips is deliberately focusing on the people who ostensibly believe it to be a serious threat in order to avoid having to answer the much larger group of people addressing the substance of what she was saying because it was stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:I just assume the ones really going for Corbyn are the really obvious business plants being told to get Labour back on script or there will be consequences. But this is because in my weakness I have to believe they're being this loving stupid for a reason other than they were always this terrible. Years of private education producing nothing but a badly programmed robot. They're not all business plants some of them are cia plants
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Yes. Pointing out hypocrisy is good. Engaging in is not the same as pointing out. Not sure though that the MP in question did respond with deliberate misinterpretation of public tweets to find threats where none existed. But don't follow them all so could be mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/15/revealed-prince-charles-has-received-confidential-cabinet-papers-for-decades Prince charles has been receiving confidential documents for ages including stuff on upcoming legislation. This is far bigger than the useless poo poo that was in his letters
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Jose posted:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/15/revealed-prince-charles-has-received-confidential-cabinet-papers-for-decades Son on same mailing list as mother, is that really shocking news?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Jose posted:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/15/revealed-prince-charles-has-received-confidential-cabinet-papers-for-decades I have a hard time being concerned about this, to be honest. I mean, if the Queen pops her clogs he's going to be expected to know about what's going on in his capacity as our Head of State anyway. Think of him as being like the Vice President. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Son on same mailing list as mother, is that really shocking news? I'd bet money that Mark was got the inside on some of the things going on with Maggie though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Yeah but Prince Charles isn't a random pleb. and yeah, clearly Mark Thatcher got some major benefits from being his mother's son.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Engaging in is not the same as pointing out. Given the trend of the PLP (supported by the press) to cry bullying and threats at the slightest little piece of criticism by Corbyn supporters, I'm not going to hold it against the latter when they get a little pleasure from one of the shits being subjected to the same level of pedantic scrutiny and blowing up as a result.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Jose posted:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/15/revealed-prince-charles-has-received-confidential-cabinet-papers-for-decades Yeah this would sort of seem to be a bit necessary given that the Monarch is still involved in government somewhat, I mean, the privy council is the basis for security briefings so, er, you'd expect the successor to be part of that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Yeah but Prince Charles isn't a random pleb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I think for republicans this is the key issue here. yeah I get that, but given the UK is actually a monarchy this story is perhaps not really a scandal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
We've all collectively bought into the lie that royalty are just ceremonial and don't wield any actual political power, and this kinda pulls the veil back on that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I think for republicans this is the key issue here. You can deffo complain about the monarchy in general, and I suppose Charlie on the basis he's probably going to be shite compared to his mam, but as we are a constitutional monarchy it's sort of just how it has to work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:03
|
|