NO! No A) or any of the other options - how can you not fail to understand what I meant by rejecting your question? :unsure:

 

It's OK I'm not going to trap you into a referendum comparison, which is clearly what you are worried about. Either that or you don't believe in equality. It's fairly simple: women's rights was justified regardless of popular (male) opinion, or women should still be denied the vote until such time as men vote for it in a referendum of at least 50.1%

 

A great man who was brutally murdered 50 years ago today said it better than me

 

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/560838959816355477/

It's OK I'm not going to trap you into a referendum comparison, which is clearly what you are worried about. Either that or you don't believe in equality. It's fairly simple: women's rights was justified regardless of popular (male) opinion, or women should still be denied the vote until such time as men vote for it in a referendum of at least 50.1%

 

Pertinently, that's why Switzerland didn't have female suffrage until well into the 1970s at a national level (and 1991 at a local level in some parts!), as it required a referendum of the then-male population to bring it into law, and it took several referenda until they finally voted in favour of it.

 

People tend to point to the direct democracy of Switzerland as the shining example of the democratic system, but when you look at some of the nutty stuff that they've voted for in referenda, both at a national and a more local level, you realise that it's not exactly brilliant. there was one example, that may have been apocryphal, but I'll see if I can find a source for it, that in one local referendum, a group of people in a village didn't like one of their neighbours, gained enough signatures to hold a referendum to have her beloved cat put to sleep. It passed. And then the cat did.

It's OK I'm not going to trap you into a referendum comparison, which is clearly what you are worried about. Either that or you don't believe in equality. It's fairly simple: women's rights was justified regardless of popular (male) opinion, or women should still be denied the vote until such time as men vote for it in a referendum of at least 50.1%

 

A great man who was brutally murdered 50 years ago today said it better than me

 

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/560838959816355477/

 

But you are trying to pin me down to a binary choice on an issue which you surely must acknowledge contains very many shades of grey?

 

People tend to point to the direct democracy of Switzerland as the shining example of the democratic system, but when you look at some of the nutty stuff that they've voted for in referenda, both at a national and a more local level, you realise that it's not exactly brilliant. there was one example, that may have been apocryphal, but I'll see if I can find a source for it, that in one local referendum, a group of people in a village didn't like one of their neighbours, gained enough signatures to hold a referendum to have her beloved cat put to sleep. It passed. And then the cat did.

 

You're right - that does sound apocryphal. ;)

But you are trying to pin me down to a binary choice on an issue which you surely must acknowledge contains very many shades of grey?

 

since when is saying "women have the right to a vote" and "standing up for that right and fighting for it is the right thing to do even if public opinion (of men) states the opposite" a shade of grey?

 

You either believe it or you don't. There is no grey.

 

Your reluctance to just state a simple basic democratic principle reflects well on you.

since when is saying "women have the right to a vote" and "standing up for that right and fighting for it is the right thing to do even if public opinion (of men) states the opposite" a shade of grey?

 

You either believe it or you don't. There is no grey.

 

That was not what you were asking!

People tend to point to the direct democracy of Switzerland as the shining example of the democratic system, but when you look at some of the nutty stuff that they've voted for in referenda, both at a national and a more local level, you realise that it's not exactly brilliant. there was one example, that may have been apocryphal, but I'll see if I can find a source for it, that in one local referendum, a group of people in a village didn't like one of their neighbours, gained enough signatures to hold a referendum to have her beloved cat put to sleep. It passed. And then the cat did.

 

I got this wrong - I got it mixed up with another story. However, the real story I should have remembered is just as bonkers. In a referendum, a town in Switzerland voted not to extend citizenship to a long standing resident because she was An annoying vegan who didn’t like bells being put on cows.

I got this wrong - I got it mixed up with another story. However, the real story I should have remembered is just as bonkers. In a referendum, a town in Switzerland voted not to extend citizenship to a long standing resident because she was An annoying vegan who didn’t like bells being put on cows.

 

But the last paragraph or two show that that is not necessarily the end of the matter.

 

I can certainly sympathise with a women who is targeted simply for having controversial opinions... ;)

Edited April 6, 20187 yr by vidcapper

Like refusing to say whether or not 50% + 0.1 is always fine, even withcivil rights.

That was not what you were asking!

 

Still not answering no matter how I reword it and make it as simple as I can....

 

You have no problems saying you are in favour of changing the law to allow killing for minor crimes (even though it clearly wouldnt get popular opinion), but can't bring yourself to agree to changing the law because it is democratic and right if that fails to get restricted popular opinion (as in not actually a democratic vote)....

 

Bizarre.

Still not answering no matter how I reword it and make it as simple as I can....

 

You have no problems saying you are in favour of changing the law to allow killing for minor crimes (even though it clearly wouldnt get popular opinion),

 

I must correct you here - I was not *advocating* killing for minor crimes, only suggesting that someone should not automatically be charged with murder if a burglar died after they were tackled in their home.

 

I hope that clarifies my position a bit?

I must correct you here - I was not *advocating* killing for minor crimes, only suggesting that someone should not automatically be charged with murder if a burglar died after they were tackled in their home.

 

I hope that clarifies my position a bit?

But they are not "automatically charged with murder".

 

Arrest is pretty much automatic but there are good reasons for that - not least the fact that the suspect then has a right to the services of a solicitor free of charge.

this is interesting...

 

 

 

i newspaper

‏

Verified account

 

@theipaper

6h6 hours ago

More

Breitbart delete clip of @Nigel_Farage swigging pint and thanking Steve Bannon for Brexit after Cambridge Analytica scandal https://trib.al/wfnZR55

 

Why delete something that has been freely online for 2 years, and a matter of record that Farage considered Breitbart (a foreign propaganda institution created with stated express purposes) and Cambridge Anal Ytica central to winning the referendum? Why was farage furtively meeting with Assange at odd hours immediately after returning from campaigning for Donald Trump? Why was farage interfering in an American election, he's not a US citizen? Why was he campaigning for far Right organizations in germany during recent elections?

 

None of these questions are fake news, the far right response to everything to create false stories and statements. Farage is central to dealings under investigation. What an amazing co-incidence. Farage believes CA gave "him" the referendum result, therefore their illegal activities......

Oh Mr Orwell, thou shouldest be living at this hour.

I must correct you here - I was not *advocating* killing for minor crimes, only suggesting that someone should not automatically be charged with murder if a burglar died after they were tackled in their home.

 

But they are not "automatically charged with murder".

 

Arrest is pretty much automatic but there are good reasons for that - not least the fact that the suspect then has a right to the services of a solicitor free of charge.

 

OK, I phrased that badly - I should have said 'IMO someone should not automatically be regarded as a murderer if an intruder died in the scenario I postulated' e.g. the death of an intruder during an ordinary, non-violent, burglary. At very worst, I would deem it 'manslaughter due to diminished responsibility'. But even then, I would be extremely reluctant to pass a guilty verdict if I were on their jury.

What date do you see Brexit as really starting from?

 

[Leaving aside the issue that most of you don't want it in the first place]

 

31st Mar 2019, or 31st Dec 2020.

 

********************************

 

For me it would be the latter, as only after then can we really judge how we're performing on our own two feet.

The point at which my right to live and work Europe is removed.

As soon as my EU citizenship and rights are stolen from me by racists, bigots and idiots who can’t tell the difference between the Daily Mail and the truth

As soon as my EU citizenship and rights are stolen from me by racists, bigots and idiots who can’t tell the difference between the Daily Mail and the truth

 

This.

Re: this weekend:

 

 

How have I never seen this before this is incredible.

 

THAT SLAP.

The point at which my right to live and work Europe is removed.

 

This is misleading - you'll still be able to live & work in Europe after Brexit - it just won't be as easy.

 

As soon as my EU citizenship and rights are stolen from me by racists, bigots and idiots who can’t tell the difference between the Daily Mail and the truth

 

I hate to tell you this, but the Mail readership is not remotely near 17.4m... :rolleyes: