Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[ralphjohn69]

First topic message reminder :

It's not logic. Most pot 4 teams are no worse than Rangers. If Rangers were the worst ever pot 4 team last year, what makes them any better now?

Because instead of playing another Pot 3 team they will be playing a Pot 4 team, who will probably be worse than a Pot 3 team so they have a better chance of getting 3rd, although it's obviously not guaranteed. You really don't help yourself when you post about football....

[navyblueshorts]

As I always say. Pretty confident we can say he is a r***ist but we need a court case to decide whether he goes to jail or not for it.

At least you're consistent, Mac. I'll give you that.

[McLaren]

Do you disagree with that position?

[JAS]

Do you disagree with that position?

Think you might have overlooked the fact that he might need to be charged first Mac. Then you have to hope for 12 kindred spirits like yourself to populate the jury. Then the case(s) get heard and eventually the jury deliver a verdict if it gets that far… so…long way to go yet. But whatever the justice system decides, in my mind he’ll always be a repulsive Muppet but that’s just my opinion and has no basis in law.

[JAS]

As an aside I also think Muppet is a very sad auto-correct for the abbreviated amalgamation of the words twaddle and hat

[navyblueshorts]

Do you disagree with that position?

Yes, I do, particularly the first part of the second sentence. JAS said it perfectly well, above.

[super_realist]

I don't know if Brand is guilty of any crime or not, but I sincerely hope he is. 
He's a truly vile human being even without these allegations, and doesn't even know the meaning of the words he's using in his attempt to appear clever.

[Pal Joey]

I don't know if Brand is guilty of any crime or not, but I sincerely hope he is. 
He's a truly vile human being even without these allegations, and doesn't even know the meaning of the words he's using in his attempt to appear clever.

His scruffy and unkempt appearance obviously appealed to lots of gashers. Call me prudish (but I'm not) but surely his victims could have seen that any association with him could end in tears, forehead and elbow burns... and not to mention, running mascara? Poor judges of character I'd say. Unless you were a professional TV or radio interviewer (after ratings) and he stuck his tongue in your ear and groped you live on air without warning. That, then, certainly would be cause for alarm. He made no secret of his high energy sexual proclivities, did he? Play with fire and expect cinder burns at least one would think.

[super_realist]

I don't know if Brand is guilty of any crime or not, but I sincerely hope he is. 
He's a truly vile human being even without these allegations, and doesn't even know the meaning of the words he's using in his attempt to appear clever.

His scruffy and unkempt appearance obviously appealed to lots of gashers. Call me prudish (but I'm not) but surely his victims could have seen that any association with him could end in tears, forehead and elbow burns... and not to mention, running mascara? Poor judges of character I'd say. Unless you were a professional TV or radio interviewer (after ratings) and he stuck his tongue in your ear and groped you live on air without warning. That, then, certainly would be cause for alarm. He made no secret of his high energy sexual proclivities, did he? Play with fire and expect cinder burns at least one would think.

There's a very wide chasm between being promiscuous to accusations of sexual impropriety with claims of illegality .
I don't think anyone is complaining about the former. 

I struggle to see the attraction of him. He looks like a smelly drug addled tramp. He  isn't a good comedian, isn't funny and judging by his YouTube content is a complete nutjob and nowhere near as bright as he thinks he is

I don't think (alleged) victim blaming is a good thing either Joey. You're basically saying that if a woman goes out skimpily dressed, she's asking to be r*ped. Agreeing to going back to someone's room, doesn't mean you agree to his alleged illegal behaviour. Brand needs to answer the allegations, and saying what you have said isn't going to be a good enough reason.

[JuliusHMarx]

I don't know if Brand is guilty of any crime or not, but I sincerely hope he is. 
He's a truly vile human being even without these allegations, and doesn't even know the meaning of the words he's using in his attempt to appear clever.

His scruffy and unkempt appearance obviously appealed to lots of gashers. Call me prudish (but I'm not) but surely his victims could have seen that any association with him could end in tears, forehead and elbow burns... and not to mention, running mascara? Poor judges of character I'd say. Unless you were a professional TV or radio interviewer (after ratings) and he stuck his tongue in your ear and groped you live on air without warning. That, then, certainly would be cause for alarm. He made no secret of his high energy sexual proclivities, did he? Play with fire and expect cinder burns at least one would think.

He exposed himself to a woman he'd only just met, after following her into the toilets and told her he was was going to f*ck her.
Also, associating with him, or even having a relationship with him, doesn't mean they should expect to be rap*d.

[Pal Joey]

I don't know if Brand is guilty of any crime or not, but I sincerely hope he is. 
He's a truly vile human being even without these allegations, and doesn't even know the meaning of the words he's using in his attempt to appear clever.

His scruffy and unkempt appearance obviously appealed to lots of gashers. Call me prudish (but I'm not) but surely his victims could have seen that any association with him could end in tears, forehead and elbow burns... and not to mention, running mascara? Poor judges of character I'd say. Unless you were a professional TV or radio interviewer (after ratings) and he stuck his tongue in your ear and groped you live on air without warning. That, then, certainly would be cause for alarm. He made no secret of his high energy sexual proclivities, did he? Play with fire and expect cinder burns at least one would think.

There's a very wide chasm between being promiscuous to accusations of sexual impropriety seems to be illegal. 
I don't think anyone is complaining about the former. 

I struggle to see the attraction of him. He looks like a smelly drug addled tramp and as if he smells awful, he  isn't a good comedian, isn't funny and judging by his YouTube content is a complete nutjob and nowhere near as bright as he thinks he is

I don't think (alleged) victim blaming is a good thing either Joey. You're basically saying that if a woman goes out skimpily dressed, she's asking to be r*ped. Agreeing to going back to someone's room, doesn't mean you agree to his alleged behaviour.

Read it again. I never said either of those things. I'm not blaming the victims. Just saying that perhaps they made a poor choice or were a little naive? They're only human after all. Big difference. Also, where did I mention a correlation between how someone dresses and how they should be treated?

All I'm saying is that if they had been paying attention (as you and I obviously did and still do) to what he was famous for talking about (his over the top sexual behaviour); perhaps they should have thought twice before accepting his 'invitation' to go backstage with him or catching a cab to his digs in the wee hours. A bit late for just a cup of coffee wouldn't you say? Maybe he was also offering some kind of special deal for them with strings and a bone attached?

[Duty281]

Brand was always dreadful. The political left of course forgetting that Brand was their darling around 2013-2016, when the BBC and Guardian (Owen Jones especially) were promoting him as a vital political voice, and Miliband seeked Brand's endorsement in the 2015 GE.

Hopefully this whole thing is another nail in the coffin of the BBC.

[super_realist]

I don't know if Brand is guilty of any crime or not, but I sincerely hope he is. 
He's a truly vile human being even without these allegations, and doesn't even know the meaning of the words he's using in his attempt to appear clever.

His scruffy and unkempt appearance obviously appealed to lots of gashers. Call me prudish (but I'm not) but surely his victims could have seen that any association with him could end in tears, forehead and elbow burns... and not to mention, running mascara? Poor judges of character I'd say. Unless you were a professional TV or radio interviewer (after ratings) and he stuck his tongue in your ear and groped you live on air without warning. That, then, certainly would be cause for alarm. He made no secret of his high energy sexual proclivities, did he? Play with fire and expect cinder burns at least one would think.

There's a very wide chasm between being promiscuous to accusations of sexual impropriety seems to be illegal. 
I don't think anyone is complaining about the former. 

I struggle to see the attraction of him. He looks like a smelly drug addled tramp and as if he smells awful, he  isn't a good comedian, isn't funny and judging by his YouTube content is a complete nutjob and nowhere near as bright as he thinks he is

I don't think (alleged) victim blaming is a good thing either Joey. You're basically saying that if a woman goes out skimpily dressed, she's asking to be r*ped. Agreeing to going back to someone's room, doesn't mean you agree to his alleged behaviour.

Read it again. I never said either of those things. I'm not blaming the victims. Just saying that perhaps they made a poor choice or were a little naive? They're only human after all. Big difference. Also, where did I mention a correlation between how someone dresses and how they should be treated?

All I'm saying is that if they had been paying attention (as you and I obviously did and still do) to what he was famous for talking about (his over the top sexual behaviour); perhaps they should have thought twice before accepting his 'invitation' to go backstage with him or catching a cab to his digs in the wee hours. A bit late for just a cup of coffee wouldn't you say? Maybe he was also offering some kind of special deal for them with strings and a bone attached?

You implied that because they chose rogerisation with Brand they should expect to be treated badly. 
The two don't necessarily go hand in hand. He had a reputation as a shagger, not an abuser, so it wouldn't necessarily have been expected by any woman  stupid enough to be willing to get into bed with him that they would meet with anything untoward, other than Brand's tramp like appearance.

[Pal Joey]

I don't know if Brand is guilty of any crime or not, but I sincerely hope he is. 
He's a truly vile human being even without these allegations, and doesn't even know the meaning of the words he's using in his attempt to appear clever.

His scruffy and unkempt appearance obviously appealed to lots of gashers. Call me prudish (but I'm not) but surely his victims could have seen that any association with him could end in tears, forehead and elbow burns... and not to mention, running mascara? Poor judges of character I'd say. Unless you were a professional TV or radio interviewer (after ratings) and he stuck his tongue in your ear and groped you live on air without warning. That, then, certainly would be cause for alarm. He made no secret of his high energy sexual proclivities, did he? Play with fire and expect cinder burns at least one would think.

There's a very wide chasm between being promiscuous to accusations of sexual impropriety seems to be illegal. 
I don't think anyone is complaining about the former. 

I struggle to see the attraction of him. He looks like a smelly drug addled tramp and as if he smells awful, he  isn't a good comedian, isn't funny and judging by his YouTube content is a complete nutjob and nowhere near as bright as he thinks he is

I don't think (alleged) victim blaming is a good thing either Joey. You're basically saying that if a woman goes out skimpily dressed, she's asking to be r*ped. Agreeing to going back to someone's room, doesn't mean you agree to his alleged behaviour.

Read it again. I never said either of those things. I'm not blaming the victims. Just saying that perhaps they made a poor choice or were a little naive? They're only human after all. Big difference. Also, where did I mention a correlation between how someone dresses and how they should be treated?

All I'm saying is that if they had been paying attention (as you and I obviously did and still do) to what he was famous for talking about (his over the top sexual behaviour); perhaps they should have thought twice before accepting his 'invitation' to go backstage with him or catching a cab to his digs in the wee hours. A bit late for just a cup of coffee wouldn't you say? Maybe he was also offering some kind of special deal for them with strings and a bone attached?

You implied that because they chose rogerisation with Brand they should expect to be treated badly. 
The two don't necessarily go hand in hand. He had a reputation as a shagger, not an abuser, so it wouldn't necessarily have been expected by any woman  stupid enough to be willing to get into bed with him that they would meet with anything untoward, other than Brand's tramp like appearance.

Not sure it's so clear cut as you suggest. The two don't necessarily go hand in hand but where do you draw the line?

If he makes a silly quip whilst shagging, is that abuse? Or just drug-addled bedroom banter? Did they (the women) giggle at first? Then did they begin to feel abused at some later stage? Who knows?

If her head was being forced against his bookcase, is that physical abuse or just a little over exuberance performance on his part? What's borderline abuse or poor treatment for some women might be considered as exciting and fun for others.

We're all complex creatures with varying degrees of behaviour and both the women who were willing and the tramp himself; may or may not have identical boundaries of where the fun stops and the abuse begins.

I don't like the guy either but where do you draw the line between what is 'untoward' and not untoward on the sliding scale of kinky pleasure to unfettered abuse? And who sets the transition point between one acceptable behaviour and the other which is obviously not? It's quite a sickish dilemma actually. It's not something that I'd want to think about in too much detail. I feel sorry for the girls who believe they were abused (by the standards of their own acceptable behaviour or sexual morality scale) by such a foul-mouthed filthy creature.

[super_realist]

If the woman is forced to do something she doesn't want, it doesn't matter if she willingly went with Brand or not. 
I think it's pretty obvious where you draw the line is one which the woman doesn't want to cross. 

If the smelly tramp transgressed the wishes of these hitherto willing woman to do something they didn't want to, there's your line. Brands reputation doesn't come into it.

[Pal Joey]

If the woman is forced to do something she doesn't want, it doesn't matter if she willingly went with Brand or not. 
I think it's pretty obvious where you draw the line is one which the woman doesn't want to cross. 

If the smelly tramp transgressed the wishes of these hitherto willing woman to do something they didn't want to, there's your line. Brands reputation doesn't come into it.

Yeah, well maybe the women should do some more research and present the creep with a detailed written list of what they want "to do" and what they definitely wouldn't want to do. Then get his pox-ridden signature or d!ck print on the document. Maybe also bring along a witness just to make sure he follows the clearly written instructions to the tee. Reputations aside (from both parties), that should assist the courts in their determination as to whether any abuse has occured. Simple isn't it?

[super_realist]

I can only assume it's your inbuilt Aussie mysoginy. 

No jury is going to be allowed to make a decision on whether a woman should take into account a man's reputation, which until these accusations came out were not widely known. 
He was known as a shagger, not necessarily as an abuser. You seem to be saying that the woman has to be taking some responsibility for being treated in a way she doesn't want.

The women are at no fault here at all other than being vacuous enough to be seduced by such an bumhole.

If you willingly go to the pub with your mates, one of who has a drink problem, it doesn't mean you have to be coerced into drinking something you don't want if you decide you don't want to. Same situation here. Consent to sex, isn't consent to being abused.

[Pal Joey]

I can only assume it's your inbuilt Aussie mysoginy. 

No jury is going to be allowed to make a decision on whether a woman should take into account a man's reputation, which until these accusations came out were not widely known. 
He was known as a shagger, not necessarily as an abuser. You seem to be saying that the woman has to be taking some responsibility for being treated in a way she doesn't want.

The women are at no fault here at all other than being vacuous enough to be seduced by such an bumhole.

Well you both assume wrong and can't spell misogyny correctly.

How do you know what a jury will be allowed to make a decision on? Times are changing if you hadn't noticed. Pretty sure the accusations were known to the women who are making the claims. Some dating back more than 15 years. So you're simply going to ignore those, are you? The Scotsman hiding in Norway way, right? Keep quiet and hope nobody will notice. What proof do you have to assure anyone that he was not necessarily an abuser?

What makes you think the women (all or some) are vacuous? Some may have even chosen to be seduced by him. Others not. How do you know which women are not at fault and which women willingly took responsibility for their actions of chancing it with him but were not necessarily abused?

You've dug yourself another hole again.

[super_realist]

I can only assume it's your inbuilt Aussie mysoginy. 

No jury is going to be allowed to make a decision on whether a woman should take into account a man's reputation, which until these accusations came out were not widely known. 
He was known as a shagger, not necessarily as an abuser. You seem to be saying that the woman has to be taking some responsibility for being treated in a way she doesn't want.

The women are at no fault here at all other than being vacuous enough to be seduced by such an bumhole.

Well you both assume wrong and can't spell misogyny correctly.

How do you know what a jury will be allowed to make a decision on? Times are changing if you hadn't noticed. Pretty sure the accusations were known to the women who are making the claims. Some dating back more than 15 years. So you're simply going to ignore those, are you? The Scotsman hiding in Norway way, right? Keep quiet and hope nobody will notice. What proof do you have to assure anyone that he was not necessarily an abuser?

What makes you think the women (all or some) are vacuous? Some may have even chosen to be seduced by him. Others not. How do you know which women are not at fault and which women willingly took responsibility for their actions of chancing it with him but were not necessarily abused?

You've dug yourself another hole again.

In what way am I hiding in Norway? I've made no secret of it. Hiding from what?

Jurors are only allowed to consider the evidence presented in relation to a case and to ignore reputation. As much as I absolutely despite Russel Brand, no evidence has been put forward that leads us to even imply guilt on the basis of the accusations, if there were Brand would already be under police questioning. 
What makes a woman vacuous? Oh I don't know, perhaps sleeping with someone on the basis of their celebrity. 

The accusations against Brand weren't known or widely known 5 or 10 years ago, they've either been covered up or excused, all that was known about him he was a cad and a shagger, nothing about abuse, so how can a woman take a chance on something that she isn't privy to?
I'm not saying he wasn't an abuser, I'm saying it wasn't KNOWN about in the wider world UNTIL now, it might have been an open secret among media production companies, but all the groupies wouldn't have known the allegations we now have been told about.

[Duty281]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12552809/peter-hitchens-lucy-letby-not-guilty.html

Turns out McLaren is Peter Hitchens. Didn't see that coming.

[McLaren]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12552809/peter-hitchens-lucy-letby-not-guilty.html

Turns out McLaren is Peter Hitchens. Didn't see that coming.

[super_realist]

Ha ha ha. Justin Trudeau, the complete plank gave a Ukrainian war veteran a standing ovation in the Canadian parliament and described him as a war hero without realising he was in a voluntary Waffen SS unit working for the Nazis. Add that to his blackface outrage and he's looking a bit dodgy. Corbyn must love him

[Duty281]

Should be a resigning matter for Trudeau, but we all know that's unlikely.

Canada's democracy is dismal. Trudeau's party lost the popular vote in the last two elections, but still have 40 more seats than their nearest opponents. Less than a third of those in Canada who voted voted for Trudeau, yet they still have him as PM. Dreadful.

[JAS]

Should be a resigning matter for Trudeau, but we all know that's unlikely.

Canada's democracy is dismal. Trudeau's party lost the popular vote in the last two elections, but still have 40 more seats than their nearest opponents. Less than a third of those in Canada who voted voted for Trudeau, yet they still have him as PM. Dreadful.

Not sure we’ve got that much to be smug about pointing at anybody else’s democracy.

[super_realist]

Should be a resigning matter for Trudeau, but we all know that's unlikely.

Canada's democracy is dismal. Trudeau's party lost the popular vote in the last two elections, but still have 40 more seats than their nearest opponents. Less than a third of those in Canada who voted voted for Trudeau, yet they still have him as PM. Dreadful.

Not sure we’ve got that much to be smug about pointing at anybody else’s democracy.

We don't, but those faux do gooders like Trudeau always get hoisted by their own petard whilst trying to constantly show how worthy they are. Even a GCSE history pupil should know there was a high risk of a Ukrainian in the war siding with the Nazis.

[JAS]

Should be a resigning matter for Trudeau, but we all know that's unlikely.

Canada's democracy is dismal. Trudeau's party lost the popular vote in the last two elections, but still have 40 more seats than their nearest opponents. Less than a third of those in Canada who voted voted for Trudeau, yet they still have him as PM. Dreadful.

Not sure we’ve got that much to be smug about pointing at anybody else’s democracy.

We don't, but those faux do gooders like Trudeau always get hoisted by their own petard whilst trying to constantly show how worthy they are. Even a GCSE history pupil should know there was a high risk of a Ukrainian in the war siding with the Nazis.

On the surface and from the outside yes Trudeau does seem a bit wet but how deeply are we absorbed in Canadian culture to know whether or not his stances represent your average Canadian's thinking. The point that Duty made was he was elected by less than 1/3rd of Canadians who voted (pretty out there statement from a citizen of a country whose last 2 prime ministers have been crowbar'd into place by a few thousand blue rinse geriatric coffin dodgers).

[McLaren]

Super

Can you give us an example of someone who you think is real do gooder?

[super_realist]

Should be a resigning matter for Trudeau, but we all know that's unlikely.

Canada's democracy is dismal. Trudeau's party lost the popular vote in the last two elections, but still have 40 more seats than their nearest opponents. Less than a third of those in Canada who voted voted for Trudeau, yet they still have him as PM. Dreadful.

Not sure we’ve got that much to be smug about pointing at anybody else’s democracy.

We don't, but those faux do gooders like Trudeau always get hoisted by their own petard whilst trying to constantly show how worthy they are. Even a GCSE history pupil should know there was a high risk of a Ukrainian in the war siding with the Nazis.

On the surface and from the outside yes Trudeau does seem a bit wet but how deeply are we absorbed in Canadian culture to know whether or not his stances represent your average Canadian's thinking. The point that Duty made was he was elected by less than 1/3rd of Canadians who voted (pretty out there statement from a citizen of a country whose last 2 prime ministers have been crowbar'd into place by a few thousand blue rinse geriatric coffin dodgers).

British politics is bad because no opposition is ever effective. 
Johnson didn't get in because he was voted in by a few thousand geriatric blue rinsers, they voted him in because the alternative, Corbyn was an unimaginable and terrifying option. 
To be a worse option than Boris Johnson really takes some doing, yet the Labour party NEVER take responsibility for being in opposition for so long. 
It seems Starmer is going to get in this time,  not because he has any policies or because he is seen as a good leader, but because he can afford to keep quiet and simply let the Tories implode.

[super_realist]

Super

Can you give us an example of someone who you think is real do gooder?

No, I can't, they are all virtue signalling hypocrites as far as I can see. 
I'm sure there are plenty unsung heroes out there, but anyone with a celebrity profile appears to be more fake than a three pound coin.

[Duty281]

Should be a resigning matter for Trudeau, but we all know that's unlikely.

Canada's democracy is dismal. Trudeau's party lost the popular vote in the last two elections, but still have 40 more seats than their nearest opponents. Less than a third of those in Canada who voted voted for Trudeau, yet they still have him as PM. Dreadful.

Not sure we’ve got that much to be smug about pointing at anybody else’s democracy.

We don't, but those faux do gooders like Trudeau always get hoisted by their own petard whilst trying to constantly show how worthy they are. Even a GCSE history pupil should know there was a high risk of a Ukrainian in the war siding with the Nazis.

On the surface and from the outside yes Trudeau does seem a bit wet but how deeply are we absorbed in Canadian culture to know whether or not his stances represent your average Canadian's thinking. The point that Duty made was he was elected by less than 1/3rd of Canadians who voted (pretty out there statement from a citizen of a country whose last 2 prime ministers have been crowbar'd into place by a few thousand blue rinse geriatric coffin dodgers).

My main point was the winning party in Canada had lost the popular vote in the last two elections. Imagine if we had a similar situation in this country, where the dismal Corbyn became PM despite Labour losing the popular vote?

Agree our democracy needs a shake-up, with PR, the abolition of the House of Lords, more direct democracy, a proper ability to recall MPs, and a directly-elected PM.

[navyblueshorts]

Ha ha ha. Justin Trudeau, the complete plank gave a Ukrainian war veteran a standing ovation in the Canadian parliament and described him as a war hero without realising he was in a voluntary Waffen SS unit working for the Nazis. Add that to his blackface outrage and he's looking a bit dodgy. Corbyn must love him

An interesting one, this. Assumes that anyone associating with Nazi Germany is as evil as Heydrich, Goebbels and Hitler. Nice to have that sort of black/white 20:20 hindsight 70 years after the fact, I guess.

[navyblueshorts]

Should be a resigning matter for Trudeau, but we all know that's unlikely.

Canada's democracy is dismal. Trudeau's party lost the popular vote in the last two elections, but still have 40 more seats than their nearest opponents. Less than a third of those in Canada who voted voted for Trudeau, yet they still have him as PM. Dreadful.

Don't be ridiculous.

[super_realist]

Ha ha ha. Justin Trudeau, the complete plank gave a Ukrainian war veteran a standing ovation in the Canadian parliament and described him as a war hero without realising he was in a voluntary Waffen SS unit working for the Nazis. Add that to his blackface outrage and he's looking a bit dodgy. Corbyn must love him

An interesting one, this. Assumes that anyone associating with Nazi Germany is as evil as Heydrich, Goebbels and Hitler. Nice to have that sort of black/white 20:20 hindsight 70 years after the fact, I guess.

He VOLUNTEERED for the Waffen SS Ukraine division, so not a "fluffy and nice Nazi"
Ukrainian collusion with the Nazis was pretty deplorable during WW2 and many were used as concentration camp guards and were among some of the most sadistic. 
He wasn't just a conscript "just following orders" it was the Waffen SS, either you didn't read, or you don't understand what the means in the context of WW2 and the axis powers.

[JAS]

Should be a resigning matter for Trudeau, but we all know that's unlikely.

Canada's democracy is dismal. Trudeau's party lost the popular vote in the last two elections, but still have 40 more seats than their nearest opponents. Less than a third of those in Canada who voted voted for Trudeau, yet they still have him as PM. Dreadful.

Not sure we’ve got that much to be smug about pointing at anybody else’s democracy.

We don't, but those faux do gooders like Trudeau always get hoisted by their own petard whilst trying to constantly show how worthy they are. Even a GCSE history pupil should know there was a high risk of a Ukrainian in the war siding with the Nazis.

On the surface and from the outside yes Trudeau does seem a bit wet but how deeply are we absorbed in Canadian culture to know whether or not his stances represent your average Canadian's thinking. The point that Duty made was he was elected by less than 1/3rd of Canadians who voted (pretty out there statement from a citizen of a country whose last 2 prime ministers have been crowbar'd into place by a few thousand blue rinse geriatric coffin dodgers).

My main point was the winning party in Canada had lost the popular vote in the last two elections. Imagine if we had a similar situation in this country, where the dismal Corbyn became PM despite Labour losing the popular vote?

Agree our democracy needs a shake-up, with PR, the abolition of the House of Lords, more direct democracy, a proper ability to recall MPs, and a directly-elected PM.

...and from the other side of the political fence you won't catch me disagreeing with your last sentence, well, well overdue. Much harder to have an effective opposition in an adversarial first past the post setup where the ruling party has a sizeable numerical advantage. PR is more reflective of the electorate as a whole and by it's nature is more consensus building.

Having said that all democratic processes throw up anomalies, we are still picking up the pieces of an "advisory" vote where 52% of 72% shouted a lot louder than the 28% + 48% of 72% but hey ho :-p

The PR vs FPTP is interesting though and we have a comparison between the SNPs almost total domination of the Scottish Westminster seats on the FPTP system compared to their performance in the PR Scottish parliament where they are reliant on the greens for the balance of power. Like I said interesting anomalies.

Re the former point on Corbyn, we will never know will we?. I don't think the establishment would have allowed him any latitude to go any further left than the centre right and would actually have actively sabotaged his administration if he'd tried to.

[Duty281]

Should be a resigning matter for Trudeau, but we all know that's unlikely.

Canada's democracy is dismal. Trudeau's party lost the popular vote in the last two elections, but still have 40 more seats than their nearest opponents. Less than a third of those in Canada who voted voted for Trudeau, yet they still have him as PM. Dreadful.

Not sure we’ve got that much to be smug about pointing at anybody else’s democracy.

We don't, but those faux do gooders like Trudeau always get hoisted by their own petard whilst trying to constantly show how worthy they are. Even a GCSE history pupil should know there was a high risk of a Ukrainian in the war siding with the Nazis.

On the surface and from the outside yes Trudeau does seem a bit wet but how deeply are we absorbed in Canadian culture to know whether or not his stances represent your average Canadian's thinking. The point that Duty made was he was elected by less than 1/3rd of Canadians who voted (pretty out there statement from a citizen of a country whose last 2 prime ministers have been crowbar'd into place by a few thousand blue rinse geriatric coffin dodgers).

My main point was the winning party in Canada had lost the popular vote in the last two elections. Imagine if we had a similar situation in this country, where the dismal Corbyn became PM despite Labour losing the popular vote?

Agree our democracy needs a shake-up, with PR, the abolition of the House of Lords, more direct democracy, a proper ability to recall MPs, and a directly-elected PM.

...and from the other side of the political fence you won't catch me disagreeing with your last sentence, well, well overdue. Much harder to have an effective opposition in an adversarial first past the post setup where the ruling party has a sizeable numerical advantage. PR is more reflective of the electorate as a whole and by it's nature is more consensus building.

Having said that all democratic processes throw up anomalies, we are still picking up the pieces of an "advisory" vote where 52% of 72% shouted a lot louder than the 28% +  48% of 72% but hey ho :-p

The PR vs FPTP is interesting though and we have a comparison between the SNPs almost total domination of the Scottish Westminster seats on the FPTP system compared to their performance in the PR Scottish parliament where they are reliant on the greens for the balance of power. Like I said interesting anomalies.

Re the former point on Corbyn, we will never know will we?. I don't think the establishment would have allowed him any latitude to go any further left than the centre right and would actually have actively sabotaged his administration if he'd tried to.

That was just fixing the mess of the time when 309 people outvoted 301 people. I'd personally say 17.4 million over 16.1 million, when the side of 16.1 million had the advantages of incumbency, money and the establishment, is a lot more decisive than 309 over 301.

Corbyn wouldn't have been stopped by the establishment. Corbyn's biggest problem was always that he couldn't actually lead, and only ran for Labour leadership without the intention of actually winning, then was in a total mess when he accidentally won. His leadership of the Labour party was a shambles, so no way could he actually lead a government effectively. He actually had a chance to be a strong left-wing populist leader, but abandoned his principles at the first sight of pressure. A very weak man.

I do wonder what would have happened if Corbyn, with his vaccine hesitant and pro-Russia views, had been in charge during this period of history. Johnson was bad, but Corbyn....

And, I know you're very far to the left, but it's ludicrous to suggest Corbyn wouldn't have been allowed to move further left than the centre right. We barely have a centre-right government right now. Hilarious that anyone thinks the current Tories - a party of high tax, mass immigration (highest in the UK's history), big government, big spend -  are right-wing, or even far-right.

[super_realist]

I think we are going to see a collapse of SNP Westminster seats JAS as they've lost their leader who appealed to the sort of Anti English subhuman bigot you find a lot of in Scotland and replaced her with a total buffoon who appeals to no one, whilsy simultaneously tying themselves in knots over the preposterous gender recognition bill and gender identity Love sacks that Mac loves so much.
They've effectively killed their party and independence on a pathetic cross that affects about 3 people in Scotland.

[navyblueshorts]

Ha ha ha. Justin Trudeau, the complete plank gave a Ukrainian war veteran a standing ovation in the Canadian parliament and described him as a war hero without realising he was in a voluntary Waffen SS unit working for the Nazis. Add that to his blackface outrage and he's looking a bit dodgy. Corbyn must love him

An interesting one, this. Assumes that anyone associating with Nazi Germany is as evil as Heydrich, Goebbels and Hitler. Nice to have that sort of black/white 20:20 hindsight 70 years after the fact, I guess.

He VOLUNTEERED for the Waffen SS Ukraine division, so not a "fluffy and nice Nazi"
Ukrainian collusion with the Nazis was pretty deplorable during WW2 and many were used as concentration camp guards and were among some of the most sadistic. 
He wasn't just a conscript "just following orders" it was the Waffen SS, either you didn't read, or you don't understand what the means in the context of WW2 and the axis powers.

Go read your history and actually think about the motivations of individuals from a nation that had been through the Holodomor. Not all individuals in any given Waffen SS military unit were evil. Not all those in any 'good' unit were saints. Not all those that fought for the Allies were saints. Go read about whether anyone from his Division were ever accused or prosecuted for any war crimes. His unit was not, for example, the Das Reich. He was not a camp guard at any of the concentration camps, let alone the Reinhard death camps etc.

Notwithstanding any of the above, it's been made perfectly clear that Trudeau was completely unaware of this man's military history. This was the singular act of the Canadian Speaker, I believe. if anyone is at fault, it's him, and him alone.

You demonstrate a singular lack of knowledge, or willingness to think about things in the context of their times, or nuance thereof. I'll butt out of further discussion with you on this, as it never makes any difference. Relax.

[super_realist]

I don't at all. He was in the Waffen SS. He could have joined any unit if he felt pressed, but he joined one of the most fanatical units of the Nazi forces, the SS. 
It's rather like all those Guardian readers taking in Ukrainians , often quite disappointed to find out where their beliefs and politics actually lie.

[Duty281]

Should be a resigning matter for Trudeau, but we all know that's unlikely.

Canada's democracy is dismal. Trudeau's party lost the popular vote in the last two elections, but still have 40 more seats than their nearest opponents. Less than a third of those in Canada who voted voted for Trudeau, yet they still have him as PM. Dreadful.

Don't be ridiculous.

Well, the speaker has resigned.

[JAS]

I think we are going to see a collapse of SNP Westminster seats JAS as they've lost their leader who appealed to the sort of Anti English subhuman bigot you find a lot of in Scotland and replaced her with a total buffoon who appeals to no one, whilsy simultaneously tying themselves in knots over the preposterous gender recognition bill and gender identity Love sacks that Mac loves so much.
They've effectively killed their party and independence on a pathetic cross that affects about 3 people in Scotland.

Don't disagree with that but even more so, because there's a realistic chance of the Tories being humped in Westminster a LOT of the demographic that swallowed Sturgeon's faux leftism will switch back to Labour in droves. So yes, I think an SNP meltdown is a distinct possibility.

[super_realist]

I think we are going to see a collapse of SNP Westminster seats JAS as they've lost their leader who appealed to the sort of Anti English subhuman bigot you find a lot of in Scotland and replaced her with a total buffoon who appeals to no one, whilsy simultaneously tying themselves in knots over the preposterous gender recognition bill and gender identity Love sacks that Mac loves so much.
They've effectively killed their party and independence on a pathetic cross that affects about 3 people in Scotland.

Don't disagree with that but even more so, because there's a realistic chance of the Tories being humped in Westminster a LOT of the demographic that swallowed Sturgeon's faux leftism will switch back to Labour in droves. So yes, I think an SNP meltdown is a distinct possibility.

I don't think Sturgeon was faux left at all. I think she was genuinely left wing to the point of hating anyone with ambition or wealth, hence the highest tax in UK (42%) for anyone daring to earn more than 43k.

[JAS]

That was just fixing the mess of the time when 309 people outvoted 301 people. I'd personally say 17.4 million over 16.1 million, when the side of 16.1 million had the advantages of incumbency, money and the establishment, is a lot more decisive than 309 over 301.

Yeah that's worked out great hasn't it (and I do say with some retrospective regret that I was one of the 17.4)

Corbyn wouldn't have been stopped by the establishment.

Oh yes he would

Corbyn's biggest problem was always that he couldn't actually lead,

Sadly that's hard to disagree with, He did have principles, however much anyone might disagree, he had compassion, he had a lot of the right ideas on what needed to be done, in retrospect though even I would concede that whilst he was great at standing up and rebelling...standing up and LEADING...yes he struggled. Some people argue he was good because party membership grew hugely under him. I don't personally buy that as a determining factor of good leadership, in fact quite the opposite. You fuel the ego of a populist leader (left or right) and it makes them think they can do things they really can't (or shouldn't).

I do wonder what would have happened if Corbyn, with his vaccine hesitant and pro-Russia views, had been in charge during this period of history. Johnson was bad, but Corbyn....

This one is brilliant, having just admitted that Corbyn lacked good leadership, I'm now going to have to backtrack somewhat and say at least he wouldn't have been as calamitous as the tailspinning pathological liar who put a bloody RUSSIAN Oligarchs son in the House of Lords FFS!! Yes a Russian in one of our legislative chambers, kinda makes any Corbyn pro-Russia accusations seem like a total projection. And of course then there was Truss and Kamikwasi...Corbyn would really have to have worked hard at screwing things up worse than they did.

And, I know you're very far to the left,

Not that far and in places not left at all

but it's ludicrous to suggest Corbyn wouldn't have been allowed to move further left than the centre right.

Nope we're a selfish centre right country and that will NEVER change in our lifetimes

We barely have a centre-right government right now. Hilarious that anyone thinks the current Tories - a party of high tax, mass immigration (highest in the UK's history), big government, big spend -  are right-wing, or even far-right.

Yeah, I can just picture Suella in a Che Guevara t-shirt...seriously!! Of course they're right wing and want to be further right, they're just absolutely Poopie at it though. Either that or 13 years of slavish adherence to neoliberal dogma has now illustrated very well the flaws in that ideology, flaws that have created a scenario where they have to be interventionist to save total collapse. Look around you... what's working better than it was 13 years ago (apart from Executive pay reviews)? Health? Education? Utilities? Transport? Immigration? and remember this cabal have been in power for 13 years add Thatcher, Major, Blair & Brown (yes those 2 as well) and we've had over 40 years of top economists telling us that neoliberal economics is the way to run societies, it's not, it's really not, the ideology has had a sticking plaster on it since 2008. I don't know the answer, neither does Sunak and neither does Starmer, unlike them 2 though I know the answer isn't "more of the same"

[superflyweight]

I think we are going to see a collapse of SNP Westminster seats JAS as they've lost their leader who appealed to the sort of Anti English subhuman bigot you find a lot of in Scotland and replaced her with a total buffoon who appeals to no one, whilsy simultaneously tying themselves in knots over the preposterous gender recognition bill and gender identity Love sacks that Mac loves so much.
They've effectively killed their party and independence on a pathetic cross that affects about 3 people in Scotland.

Don't disagree with that but even more so, because there's a realistic chance of the Tories being humped in Westminster a LOT of the demographic that swallowed Sturgeon's faux leftism will switch back to Labour in droves. So yes, I think an SNP meltdown is a distinct possibility.

I don't think Sturgeon was faux left at all. I think she was genuinely left wing to the point of hating anyone with ambition or wealth, hence the highest tax in UK (42%) for anyone daring to earn more than 43k.

Not sure that's entirely accurate.  Seem to remember Salmond and Sturgeon in 2014 promising that an independent Scotland would attract investment by having a lower rate of Corporation Tax than the rest of the UK and she also presided over years of council tax freezes.

[navyblueshorts]

Should be a resigning matter for Trudeau, but we all know that's unlikely.

Canada's democracy is dismal. Trudeau's party lost the popular vote in the last two elections, but still have 40 more seats than their nearest opponents. Less than a third of those in Canada who voted voted for Trudeau, yet they still have him as PM. Dreadful.

Don't be ridiculous.

Well, the speaker has resigned.

And? That just reflects the fact it was his mistake, and his alone. In case you hadn't noticed, he and Trudeau are different individuals.

[McLaren]

It's rather like all those Guardian readers taking in Ukrainians , often quite disappointed to find out where their beliefs and politics actually lie.

I know a few people who have taken in Ukrainians and the Ukrainians they have taken in do puzzle me. They all just seem to be middle class types that maybe correctly didn't fancy living in a war zone, but I can't help but think there is something cowardly about them being here. Just leave those without the means to uproot and come live with a "Guardian reader" to suffer.

[super_realist]

Should be a resigning matter for Trudeau, but we all know that's unlikely.

Canada's democracy is dismal. Trudeau's party lost the popular vote in the last two elections, but still have 40 more seats than their nearest opponents. Less than a third of those in Canada who voted voted for Trudeau, yet they still have him as PM. Dreadful.

Don't be ridiculous.

Well, the speaker has resigned.

And? That just reflects the fact it was his mistake, and his alone. In case you hadn't noticed, he and Trudeau are different individuals.

Why did Trudeau profer an apology then?

[super_realist]

It's rather like all those Guardian readers taking in Ukrainians , often quite disappointed to find out where their beliefs and politics actually lie.

I know a few people who have taken in Ukrainians and the Ukrainians they have taken in do puzzle me. They all just seem to be middle class types that maybe correctly didn't fancy living in a war zone, but I can't help but think there is something cowardly about them being here. Just leave those without the means to uproot and come live with a "Guardian reader" to suffer.

Bit like your "asylum seekers" Mac, always young  men "escaping the most horrific situations in their home countries" only to leave their womenfolk and families behind to "suffer"

[navyblueshorts]

Should be a resigning matter for Trudeau, but we all know that's unlikely.

Canada's democracy is dismal. Trudeau's party lost the popular vote in the last two elections, but still have 40 more seats than their nearest opponents. Less than a third of those in Canada who voted voted for Trudeau, yet they still have him as PM. Dreadful.

Don't be ridiculous.

Well, the speaker has resigned.

And? That just reflects the fact it was his mistake, and his alone. In case you hadn't noticed, he and Trudeau are different individuals.

Why did Trudeau profer an apology then?

Let me see. Like he has any choice in this 21st century world of the perpetually offended? I assume he's offering a general apology on behalf of his Government. The done thing, in other words, notwithstanding he has no apparent personal role in any of it.

I would assume the Speaker of the Canadian parliament is a party-independent role, like the UK, so fundamentally fail to see how it's any actual fault of Trudeau.

I'm finding this quite funny. Normally, in this sort of situation, you'd be frothing at the mouth to defend someone obviously not at fault, from the mortally offended, but because (I assume) you don't like Trudeau's politics/points of view, you think it's OK in this case.

[navyblueshorts]

It's rather like all those Guardian readers taking in Ukrainians , often quite disappointed to find out where their beliefs and politics actually lie.

I know a few people who have taken in Ukrainians and the Ukrainians they have taken in do puzzle me. They all just seem to be middle class types that maybe correctly didn't fancy living in a war zone, but I can't help but think there is something cowardly about them being here. Just leave those without the means to uproot and come live with a "Guardian reader" to suffer.

I'll bite. Of course having the means to get out is going to favour those so able to do so. The same was the case in Nazi Germany. What of it? Of course, you'd be the first onto the front lines, I'm sure.

Who are these Ukranians you see then? Men of fighting age? Women and children?

[McLaren]

It's rather like all those Guardian readers taking in Ukrainians , often quite disappointed to find out where their beliefs and politics actually lie.

I know a few people who have taken in Ukrainians and the Ukrainians they have taken in do puzzle me. They all just seem to be middle class types that maybe correctly didn't fancy living in a war zone, but I can't help but think there is something cowardly about them being here. Just leave those without the means to uproot and come live with a "Guardian reader" to suffer.

I'll bite. Of course having the means to get out is going to favour those so able to do so. The same was the case in Nazi Germany. What of it? Of course, you'd be the first onto the front lines, I'm sure.

Who are these Ukranians you see then? Men of fighting age? Women and children?

I'd be the first on the bus out of the country.

And yes several are men of fighting age. I'm not going to die on this hill and think anyone has the right to seek sanctuary, but just doubt those offering up their homes got what they were expecting.

In reality if the whole of Ukraine needed refuge I think it should be provided.

[navyblueshorts]

It's rather like all those Guardian readers taking in Ukrainians , often quite disappointed to find out where their beliefs and politics actually lie.

I know a few people who have taken in Ukrainians and the Ukrainians they have taken in do puzzle me. They all just seem to be middle class types that maybe correctly didn't fancy living in a war zone, but I can't help but think there is something cowardly about them being here. Just leave those without the means to uproot and come live with a "Guardian reader" to suffer.

Bit like your "asylum seekers" Mac, always young  men "escaping the most horrific situations in their home countries" only to leave their womenfolk and families behind to "suffer"

In the case of economic migrants, do you not think it's actually quite hard to travel half way around the world, at personal risk, to a  different culture that you pretty much know doesn't want you, in order to (presumably) earn enough to send home to families? I'm not sure I'd agree that they should be allowed here illegally, but I'm not sure you have much of a clue.

In any other case, given your unwillingness to consider any sort of nuance, it's probably worth keeping quiet on that one.

[Sponsored content]