Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

General British politics discussion thread

1597598600602603636

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,600 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    It was the decision of the right wing Starmer government to proscribe PA as a 'terrorist' organisation and insinuate that its members pose a serious threat to civil society. Had this not happened, it's unlikely that a large number of them wouldn't even be on remand now.

    Some eminent legal experts have argued that the decision to proscribe them was an extraordinary and outrageous misuse of the UK Terrorism Act 2000.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,303 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    They're being held and arrested largely because of the action of a government operating at the behest of a country carrying out genocide.

    You can rightly argue that these people arrest and detention is legally correct, but it can also be argued that the law and the interpretation of it is influenced by external events and organizations.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,145 ✭✭✭Randycove


    how can breaking in to private property, carrying out criminal damage and assaulting police officers be anything but illegal?

    Some people live in a parallel universe.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,303 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    At most, one person assaulted a police officer but aside from the fact that they haven't convicted of that yet, the details of what happened are yet to be revealed.

    Is it the case that every time someone accused of breaking and entering, particularly if it is their first arrest for such, that they are held on remand for that?

    There is a parallel universe at play here alright, and it is the one where one particular group can exert particular influence on the governance and policing of a state.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,145 ✭✭✭Randycove


    Breaking and entering 🤣

    Are you saying that the only reason they have been arrested is because the government is under the influence of their Zionist overlords (or Kier Starmers wife as some posters seem to think)

    It what world would these people not have been arrested?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,600 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    The PA activists fully admit that their activities are illegal. The whole point of 'direct action' is to carry out illegal acts as a form of protest to draw attention to the issue or to put pressure on those they are targeting (such as arms manufacturers or the military in PA's instance).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,145 ✭✭✭Randycove


    so what’s the problem? Do illegal stuff, get caught, get punished.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,401 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    It's like you've never heard of civil disobedience, Randycove. Yes, you do illegal stuff and, yes, you get punished for that and you use the attendant publicity to call attention to the injustice that you did the illegal stuff to protest against in the first place.

    Gandhi did this. The Suffragettes did this. Martin Luther King did this. Vietnam war protesters did this. Extinction Rebellion does this. PETA does this. Cuban dissidents do this. This can't be a wholly novel concept for you, can it?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,145 ✭✭✭Randycove


    of course I get it.
    why should people who do it get special treatment though?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,401 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Calling attention to the sentence imposed is just a tactic for highlighting the injustice they are protesting against — "we wouldn't have to commit these offences if you weren't supporting a genocide. Punishing us for the offences we have committed is the wrong response, and just magnifies the injustice; the morally correct response is for you to rectify your own behaviour".

    In Gandhian civil disobedience, you do in fact accept that you are going to be punished for what you have done, but you still use the fact that you are being punished to call attention to your protest. (Partly for that reason, in fact, you should want to be punished; it keeps you in the news more effectively than being let off would.) So I don't think the protestors here expect that they will get special treatment; their aim here is to use their punishment to call further attention to what they see as injustice.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,145 ✭✭✭Randycove


    oh I get all of that. It is another form of protest. (And a pointless one at that, what exactly do they think is going to happen).
    that’s why I think they need to cop on and stop putting their families through this pointless pain.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,037 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    ER aside, I don't think these bodies whined quite so much about the institutions of the state being used against them though. If anything, the entire point was to highlight the righteousness of their cause by over the top State reaction to it.

    It is relatively novel to suggest that, in fact, you were acting completely legally and do not deserve to face any repercussions. The motivation behind the hunger strikes appear fairly baseless and to give into them would be a refutation of the entire concept of the rule of law. Now, laws are not always moral and if that is the angle they want to take fine. But I find the moralising about how they were arrested for protesting a genocide fairly grotesque and fundamentally it is simply incorrect.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 533 ✭✭✭midlander12


    Rejoining the customs union definitely back on the agenda, as is Streeting's leadership challenge:-

    The Times and The Sunday Times on X: "Wes Streeting has defied Sir Keir Starmer and suggested Britain should join a customs union with Europe, as a poll for The Times shows eight out of ten Labour voters support the move https://t.co/2lZGi72iXG" / X

    In an interview with the Observer, Steeting said:-

    ‘We’re not going to win the next election by trying to out-Reform Reform. That’s not who we are. Those aren’t our values and we’ve got to beat them, not join them.’ * He said Britain has taken a ‘massive economic hit’ from Brexit. ‘I’m really uncomfortable with the level of taxation in this country. We’re asking a lot of individual taxpayers, we’re asking a lot of businesses. We’ve got a level of indebtedness that we need to take very seriously. The best way for us to get more growth into our economy is a deeper trading relationship with the EU’



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,546 ✭✭✭✭Tom Mann Centuria


    Not too many politicians more unlikable than Starmer in the current Parliamentary Labour Party but Streeting is one of them. I don't see him being a vote winner either, a most unpleasant personality.

    Oh well, give me an easy life and a peaceful death.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,303 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    With respect to the conversation on here about the relevance of specific laws, and their application, this is worth considering.

    Some on here will attempt to dismiss the content of this tweet as being irrelevant as it relates to Israel, and not the UK but let me respond to that upfront.

    If what was happening in Israel was entirely irrelevant to the UK, then Rachel Reeves wouldn't be speaking, as a cabinet minister, saying that she's unapologetically Zionist. Nor would the UK government be providing arms licenses permitting the sale of military components to Israel and its Air Force wouldn't be flying reconnaissance missions over Gaza.

    So for those in here pointing to the letter of the law with respect to the hunger strikers, how do you think the British government should react to Israel's latest act?

    Its a very simple fact that the actions of the hunger strikers which led to them being arrested are partly because of the willingness of successive UK governments to ignore international law and support a genocidal nation.

    Does that justify the actions of the hunger strikers? Many would think so, I dont particularly, but feel its debatable and I still feel the way they have been treated is excessive and influenced by lobbying forces on UK officials.

    For those who may say that no crime justifies the committing of another one, would you (your own safety aside) break in to a house to help someone being beaten? Or would you call the police and stay outside knowing it would likely result in the victims death?

    It is intentional and incorrect to view the acts of the hunger strikers in isolation given the moral standing of their position. A position the UK agreed to uphold when it signed on to the Geneva Convention.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Well isn't that the point, they are getting special treatment (i.e. treated as terrorists), which you seem to support.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,786 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Would the person being beaten to death happen to be Israeli?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,145 ✭✭✭Randycove




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,145 ✭✭✭Randycove


    How exactly is the UK government aiding Israel in its genocide?

    This goes back to what I said in an earlier post, people are using the ongoing situation in Gaza to further their own agendas. SF supporters are animated about the UK still trading with Israel (which includes components being used to build military systems) yet aren’t animated about the Irish governments ongoing trade with Israel (which includes deals with Israeli arms companies) the answer is simple, that doesn’t further SF’s agenda.
    We are in the middle of the largest rearmament programme in Europe since the Cold War and, as unsavory as that may be, Israeli owned firms are very much a critical part of that. Israeli tech is everywhere, even in the new Casa aircraft the Irish air corp is buying, not to mention drones used by the Irish military and I would guarantee that the new radar the government promised from Thales also contains tech built by Israeli owned companies.
    a lot of that tech (the European sky shield for example) will most likely be assembled in Israel using components sourced from all over Europe, but is then exported back to Europe for deployment. That is not supporting the Israeli military in their ongoing genocide, it is a simple fact about global politics at the moment.

    people believe what they want to believe and create a narrative ( like an RAF voyager refueling the F35s that attacked Qatar) despite who factuallynincorrect, or even impossible it is.

    It is a narrative created to support the actions of people who are plain anarchists and willl do whatever they can to disrupt anything to do with either the arms trade or globalization. Not to mention those that just simply despise the west and want to project their own hatred and use this as an excuse.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,525 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Anyone who states that they are "unapologetically Zionist" should be asked "what kind of Zionist". The next question for them to answer should be on the issue of what Israel is doing in the West Bank, where the excuse of Hamas isn't relevant. It would be interesting to see the likes of Reeves square those particular circles.

    For many so called "Zionists", it's not just a matter of Israel's right to exist, but in how it exists and what it is doing to people who aren't Jews. To many "Zionists" "Zionism" means the eradication of Arabs and the stealing of their land…and that is not something that should be tolerated on any level. Because it wouldn't be tolerated by any other "ism" or nation.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,303 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    How exactly is the UK government aiding Israel in its genocide?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/aug/07/uks-surveillance-flights-over-gaza-raise-questions-on-help-for-israeli-military

    This goes back to what I said in an earlier post, people are using the ongoing situation in Gaza to further their own agendas.

    Absolutely. People are looking to legislate to prevent any criticism of Israel as being antisemitic and to equate antizionism with antisemitism also. They are looking to prevent public declarations of support for a people who have suffered a genocide. And they are succeeding, which is a massive problem. And it is why the actions of these particular protesters is so necessary and admirable.

    Speaking personally, I am 1000 times happier to be supporting those who are calling for peace than absolving those who are delivering carnage. Time and again when discussing this, on here or wherever, I do wonder, what is the point, but when I think of the suffering of the Palestinians I realize again the very least I can do is support those who are advocating for them and challenge those who are at best indifferent to their suffering, if not outright supporting it or in some extreme cases, relishing it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,600 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    The likes of Reeves want us to believe she is merely talking about Israel's right to self defence or to 'exist'. But it is clear that the subtext is that she wants Israel to carry on being a colonial oppressor and enforcer of apartheid. If that's not the case, she could come out and say 'I am an unapologetic Zionist, but oppose Israeli settler actions in the West Bank, recognise the state of Palestine and condemn Israel's war crimes in Gaza'.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,145 ✭✭✭Randycove


    and for many, it simply means they support the right for Israel to exist.
    the UK government has never altered from its long term policy (regardless of which party is in power) of a two state solution and the recent recognition of Palestine and the type of Zionism you are talking about are not compatible



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,303 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    and for many, it simply means they support the right for Israel to exist.

    Do you think Palestine has a right to exist? And more importantly, do you think Israel believes Palestine has a right to exist?

    UK government officials at this point should not be highlighting the right of one party to exist as a nation state without acknowledging the other in the same moment.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,525 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Funny how they don't say that though, isn't it. None of these "unapologetic Zionists" ever qualify their "unapologetic Zionism".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,786 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Criminals should never be viewed admirably ffs. But it makes sense for the Palestine diehards to worship criminality.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,525 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,303 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" is a line as old as time itself.

    Why does it make sense for the Palestinian die hards to worship criminality?

    Throughout history, those who advocated for others in cases of oppression were initially categorized as terrorists in an attempt to undermine the validity of their argument.

    And throughout history there were the "holier than thou supposedly righteous advocates" talking about criminality to hide how they truly felt about those pesky protesters.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,786 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Yes Hamas and Hezbollah are getting retconned into nice "freedom fighters" these days. I think the vast majority aren't buying it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,145 ✭✭✭Randycove


    no one has legislated for any of those things. And flying a surveillance plane over Gaza isn’t helping with genocide either. Do you really think Israel, with its scores of drones and its own surveillance planes, needs the RAF to tell it what is going on in Gaza?

    Who is being prevented from showing support for Palestine. This is just more absolute lies that people are actually starting to believe.



Advertisement
Advertisement