hypochondriac

Not really. Since your judgement appears to be so fatally flawed with regards the hard left, it makes me question your judgements in other areas too. Of course you would accuse me of being ill informed since it doesn't suit your hard left agenda. Thankfully according to the polls the majority of the British public have not been hoodwinked and agree with me. Let's hope it stays that way.

Sorry but I won't accept charges of being ill informed from someone who refuses to disavow violence in service of political gains.

Thanks soggy but I don't need a lecture from someone as ill informed as you. I'm well aware of the downsides of tory doctrine but I'd infinitely rather be governed by them than the hard left which is the option that corbyn offers.

“We take both of them very, very seriously,”*The Hill*reported Wray as saying. “Our focus is on violence and threats of violence against the people of this country. That’s our concern; it’s not ideology.” Good to know. If they keep to that philosophy then both extremes will be dealt with when they turn violent.

I don't think it will be that extreme either but the fact that he praises regimes like that is of huge concern.

Do you think corbyn will be able to afford all the promises his party have made?

Can someone confirm that this is fake news? I can't believe this is real but unreal if so. http://yournewswire.com/sweden-child-marriages/amp/

Do you trust corbyn to sort out the economy given his stated aims and the lack of money to actually do it?

OK mate keep telling yourself that. It says a lot that mcdonnell himself expects a run on the pound we're they to get into power. It's like he doesn't give a stuff about what happens to the country as long as he can push his extremist ideology onto the country. I don't want anyone near power that admires communist dictators and brandishes little red books in his speeches. No one has said that Corbyn is not a decent bloke but I don't want him or his comrades anywhere near the wheels of power, the prospect is frightening. Also the less said about the likes of Diane Abbott who no doubt would be given a prominent position running the country the better.

Good post Millbrook I think you have articulated the concerns of the majority well. I think a new party could potentially be very popular as long as it's not just the New Labour lot with a new name. Moderates currently have no one to vote for and many are left voting for a Tory party they don't truly believe in my default because the thought of a hard left Labour in power is scary.

I'm not old enough to remember the country under Harold Wilson but my father certainly is which is another reason I am utterly opposed to a country run by those type of people.

The problem is that by the time the next election rolls around, the Tories should be even more unpopular. It's not that I particularly want the Conservatives in power but corbyn would be about 100 times worse.

I thought this was an interesting chart and worth dropping in this thread in particular.

A classic post!

It's just bizarre that you think that condemning violence like the vast majority of regular people would do makes me ghandhi - it doesn't it makes me a normal person. I don't know an awful lot about Richard Spencer but from what I've seen it suggests that he could certainly be classed as a white supremacist and I would absolutely condemn his views in that regard. Attacking Richard Spencer by punching him in the face in the street isn't going to defeat any white nationalist ideas, all it will do is drive it underground where it is potentially far more insidious and destructive. I want white supremacists and nazis out in the open where they can be seen and their ideas challenged. Do you really think violently beating someone is going to change ideas for the better? I vehemently disagree with many of your comrades who would love nothing better than the overthrow of the capitalist system to be replaced by some communist regime but I would absolutely allow them the freedom to voice their opinions. It's truly odd that you consider that some sort of godly trait on a par with ghandhi when really it's just the normal actions of people who believe in freedom of expression and the right not to be violently acted on due to your words. As soon as you become physically violent then you've lost the argument.

So you are aligning yourself with those members in antifa who violently attack people? I certainly don't believe that white nationalists and nazis are on "my side of the debate" even though presumably they would disagree with the violent hard left too. Just because you have some views in common with them does not mean you cannot condemn their violent actions. Unless you agree with their violent behaviour of course.

You haven't been paying attention then. I roundly condemn hard right wing extremism and nazis. Every single sensible person does because the vast majority of people are not racist pieces of sh*t. I do however respect the rights of others to have an opinion and I won't be applauding violence against people just because I disagree with their opinion. Now I have definitely never seen you condemn the hard left ever. Why is that I wonder?

And those people with those wrong headed views deserve to be challenged. The difference is that you believe the likes of Sour Mash should get a kicking because he perpetuates hate speech.

Indeed. But violence in response to ideas we don't like is fine as long as the violence doesn't come from the group we disagree with...

There's enough refutations of the far right. It's been all over the media for months and has been roundly denounced and derided by the vast majority of people. I have denounced them on a number of occasions including on here and I would be saying similar things that I am saying to you of anyone came on here attempting to excuse far right violence. No one has thus far so there is no need to do that but it's very troubling that you seemingly have a lot of difficulty denouncing this far left extremist violence. It's hardly some saintly virtue to denounce violence in response to speech, it's basic common sense and the moderate position and reaction that virtually all sensible people would have. Resorting to comparing me to Trump when you are the one refusing to condemn violence is laughable.

And who defines what hate speech is? In my view having a rule that some ill defined and broadly encompassing hate speech justifies a violent response is utterly contemptible and on a par with the sort of right wing extremist stuff that Sour Mash comes out with. I don't believe that words are violence and I don't believe that violence is ever a acceptable response to so called hate speech.

That very much depends. Far left extremism is a much greater problem within educational institutions for example and much of the media and its pretty much taken over the labour party in the UK and betrayed the traditional labour voter in the process. I suppose it depends on what the definition of far right is, but then as I have already discussed, members of antifa considers the majority of people who disagree with them to be fascists to the point that the likes of Gad Saad is called a nazi (if you know him you realise how mental that is.) No wonder they see a nazi around every corner. As I said though it's really a different conversation and no matter what you think with regards to the scale of the respective problems, I think there is a problem from both abd that both needs to be tackled.

Just to be clear Jonnyboy, someone delivering a speech that you believe to be full of prejudice merits violent action in response?

So the answer is that you agree that violence is the correct method for dealing with Richard Spencer? When he is just standing in the street? Is there any time when it would be unacceptable to react violently towards him in your opinion? The man who was assaulted with a bike lock, do you believe his actions in the video were deserving of that?

It seems clear to me what the tactics of many members of antifa are: 1) Pretend to be supportive of freedom of speech but against so called "hate speech" 2) Broaden the definition of hate speech to include those who disagree with you so that you feel morally justified in preventing them from speaking. 3) Consider anything you deem to be hate speech to be violence. 4) Use physical violence in response to what you define as violent hate speech. 5) Feel morally justified because you are "defending" yourself. As the definition of who is a so called Nazi becomes anyone who disagrees with the hard left anti capitalist agenda pushed by antifa, it suddenly becomes acceptable to use violence against an ever expanding number of people.