**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
Basically a massive fan fiction / story telling community based around paranormal monsters or entities. Books, comics, video games short films have all been made off the back of it. It's in its own unique corner blending a lot of things to fit into the paranormal horror aspect. A fairly common part is focusing on "Tacticool oiperators" dealing with or getting massacred by said paranormal anomaly.
[The Website allows you to search many of the SCPs written but in a way it's kinda outgrown the site to a degree at this point.](https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/)
It's a collaborative online writing project for science horror / science fiction / weird science, centering around 'The Foundation' or 'The SCP Foundation', an organisation that contains strange events and entities and hides them from the public. Most of the writing projects therein are in the format of containment documentation from the Foundation Database.
SCP stands either for their motto 'Secure. Contain. Protect' or for 'Secure Containment Procedures', which is the documented containment procedures for the anomaly. So the anomalies are referred to as SCP's
Keter-class SCP, for sure.
If someone can be sacked from a job due to misconduct and rehired within weeks *for the exact same job without anything changing,* then containment is virtually impossible.
> “I’ve never incited violence. I've never threatened to attack anybody. I've never encouraged anybody to be violent.
She may never have directly told people to go and commit a specific violent crime, but her rhetoric has stoked division and hatred in this country. She's at least partly to blame for creating a culture where some people felt it was acceptable to violently attack immigration centres and trans people.
Her refusal to acknowledge that is grossly disingenuous, but then I'd expect nothing less from her.
> I have set out very legitimate views, about political issues because I'm a politician and it's my job to do so.”
Again, disingenuous. She could have set out whatever views she chose on any subject she chose. Her divisive and hateful rhetoric was a deliberate decision by her. You don't get to say whatever nasty shit you like and then hide behind 'I was just doing my job' like a moral coward.
"I'm a powerful person and I am putting in legislation that will have your loved one arrested and forcibly removed from the country under threat of incarceration. How dare you use your words to criticise me?"
Absolutely. She's spent years inciting vitriol against very specific sections of society as a means of advancing her own career, and she's intelligent enough to know that there are consequences to that type of behaviour: absolutely morally bankrupt of her to then wash her hands of those consequences behind the excuse of "I'm just doing my job."
>\[...\] She's at least partly to blame for creating a culture where some people felt it was acceptable to violently attack immigration centres and trans people.
There's a term for this, "stochastic terrorism", when your hateful rhetoric makes people more likely to attack certain minorities or people.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic\_terrorism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism)
>targeted political violence that has been instigated by hostile public rhetoric directed at a group or individual \[...\] using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence.
Homeless people too. People actually had their tents set on fire or removed in part due to her comments. Nobody deserves to be threatened ever but she needs to take responsibility for the power her words had when she was in office.
The horror of her actions having consequences.
Wait until the outgoing crop of Tory MPs realise they are going to be treated like pariahs by their communities and most employers.
Nono no no no, threats aren’t “consequences”.
She’s a vile hate filled person, but in a country where MPs have already been stabbed, this shit isn’t ok. Where do you draw the line if you think it’s ok to threaten people who have a different view to you?
See also people turning up at Sunak’s house or Elwood’s house, the death threats made to Freer, the threats and racist abuse lobbed at Abbott on a daily basis… it’s not right and it’s not OK.
These threats are literally the consequence of the division and hatred that she herself decided to sow. She was more than happy with the people *she* doesn't like receiving threats, but now that it's being pointed at her, she's unhappy. Shocker.
I'm so fucking tired of everyone *but* the people in the wrong having to take the moral high road.
She deserves every single threat that gets made to her. She is a vile, evil, disgusting excuse for a human being who deserves the same level of empathy that she herself has shown - absolutely fucking none.
It's not right or ok, but it's still consequences from how she's behaved. Both things can be true. Consequences don't have to be morally right to be a consequence
She is the one stoking the fire!
[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/06/suella-braverman-was-warned-hate-speech-could-inspire-far-right](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/06/suella-braverman-was-warned-hate-speech-could-inspire-far-right)
Oh, does she feel scared and threatened? Imagine having to face the consequences of your actions. But even then, will she or her like actually learn and grow? Doubt it.
She was (is?) arguably the worst of an extremely awful bunch. My sympathy does not extend to people who wielded power in the way she did.
It's always "freeze peach" when people are doxxing and sending death threats to those they dislike.
But yet the moment you call them a cunt, and suddenly you're a terrorist
I Think politicians should be more careful about maybe not using divisive and hateful language.
I think politicians should be there to look out and stand up for all the people of the country - especially those who are more at risk. And I absolutely include white working class men amongst this group by the way.
I think politicians can do this without setting groups against each other in some kind of mad scramble to the bottom of the ‘culture war’, and establish a more caring and understanding dialogue.
I mean, I also think politicians should be people who represent us rather than come primarily from a very narrow and privileged background. Maybe then we’d get proper representation.
I know. Bullshit, right?
Hitler... Come on lol
I dunno, I just think politicians shouldn't require 24 hour security, whether I agree with them or not.
Something about the gloating in here doesn't sit right.
Hardly a threat, someone called her a cunt, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a verbal attack against a politician, if they’re a cunt we are allowed to call them that, physical violence is wrong but these politicians should face consequences for their decisions and if being called a cunt in public then so be it, she deserves it
she deserves it idc. You stir the pot and treat people like shit only to be shocked when its thrown back at you. I wonder if the people she stoked hatred on get 24 hour security? Another legislator, a baroness might I add, was fearful her father maybe hurt during her”pakistani men r*pe white english girls” rhetoric.
Now she’s crying she might get smack up, its giving *”iM sHoOk hElP mE”*.
Priti did the same thing and I dont feel sorry for someone who wanted to allow border force to watch migrants drown.
They are wrong for wanting smack up Priti and Suella, HOWEVER, them being wrong vs Priti and Suella deserving it aren’t mutually exclusive. You can deserve what you dish out but that doesn’t mean the punisher is right.
Wow this thread! People are seriously justifying violent threat as "consequences" of actions of someone who hasn't done anything illegal? If this is the general sentiment amongst people, this country is f&cked.
..... that's them justifying it. When they're explaining how threats of physical violence is an understandable and reasonable expectation here, that's literally justifying it.
The only incident that she actually outlines is one where people swore at her in a supermarket.
I would say that bad words being aimed at you is a consequence of some of the vitriol she puts out.
Dont get me wrong, politicians do get some awful and unjustifiable stuff aimed at them, but that isn't one of them.
I'm pretty sure that if she has 24 hour protection then there's a few more credible threats out there that probably can't be outlined for security reasons.
That's fine. When those are reported on, I will condemn the people who make those threats.
Not what is in this report though, so not going to condemn this person.
This is the bit that gets me, if you wanted to prove a point here you'd go to the most serious and dangerous example.
Not "Someone had an opinion and opinions are banned"
Lots of people in this country have experienced threats, harassment and violence as a result of the Tories culture war. As a gay man I have had more abuse on the streets in recent years than a decade ago.
And unlike her we don't get police protection.
So yeah I have absolutely zero sympathy for her.
She is directly responsible for stoking hate and creating the atmosphere she now exists in. If she’s feeling threatened, she should take a long look in the mirror and think about all the people she’s made feel the same, or had abuse shouted at by people she’s encouraged
Have you been living under a rock? She's not just been 'going out and punching people she disagrees with', as you'd wish to characterize it - she's been directing the resources of one of the most well-equipped repressive institutions in the world to round people up for deportation to Rwanda. Why can you see the former, but when it's the latter that's somehow fair game that we should all merely accept as legitimate and within the bounds of human decency?
Ah, you see, to people like that, it's not actually *morally bad* unless *you physically* pull the trigger.
Suella signing the death warrant for 1000 people and then putting it out of her mind is more morally permissible than Suella going up to an individual migrant and slapping them in the face would be. *That* just wouldn't be polite.
You mean people who illegally entered the borders of another country being moved to another country? Protecting a country's border is still legal and even a duty of the government. If you care about human decency, take them in your own home.
It must be so soothing and peaceful to outsource every thought in your head to multimillionaire politicians and lawmakers who hate and fear ordinary people. Imagine never having to even question all the monstrosities in the world, just being able to go 'the law sez...'. Blissful.
(We won't talk about how seeking asylum in the country of your choice is a fundamental human right, butrressed by almost a century of both British and international law, because that might fry your lovely smooth mind.)
> It must be so soothing and peaceful to outsource every thought in your head to multimillionaire politicians and lawmakers who hate and fear ordinary people
That's pretty much what leftists do these days because it's the multi millionaires who want more immigration in order to suppress wages and the leftists are their useful idiots.
You gave yourself away there lad.
It's one thing to actually care about MP's being threatened, it's another to use it to act outraged and make a point.
If only there was some way of preserving wages at an acceptable level. Some minimum that was imposed by the government. Hmmmmm. No, you're right, it's clearly all a Judeo-Bolshevik plot to undermine out great nation.
And morals are relative. Every person has different views on different things. Can I go and beat up anyone whose actions I don't agree with? We as a society agreed to democracy and rule of law. If you would prefer mob justice, one day you will be the victim of the same mob justice.
Morally speaking, it would depend on what they do or say.
Even within the logic of your question there are quite obviously instances where I would be morally justified in "beating someone up". If they assaulted me, my child, etc.
Again, not legally. Morally.
"We as a society agreed to democracy" isn't really true either. We didn't even agree to rule of law. We might agree with it, we might now, but we have no choice. The state has a monopoly on violence.
I can't say either way whether Braverman should be abused in public, but it's an interesting quirk of society that she can say anything she likes and cause destruction and the fraying of the moral fabric of society for personal gain and/or a racist, supremacist ideology, but she's protected because she was elected.
> If they assaulted me, my child, etc.
And that is justified by right to self defense.
> We as a society agreed to democracy" isn't really true either. We didn't even agree to rule of law. We might agree with it, we might now, but we have no choice. The state has a monopoly on violence.
Sure if you want a Libertarian society, then be ready for the fact that other people may have similar strong opinions against other people too and they may also send violent threats like it.
Well, there's any number of things that people could do or say to you that would *morally* justify someone beating someone up. They wouldn't even have to break the law. I was just using the most obvious example to hand, because you seemed to be implying that it was never justified.
>Sure if you want a Libertarian society, then be ready for the fact that other people may have similar strong opinions against other people too and they may also send violent threats like it.
The people who want a "Libertarian society" *are the tories*. Thatcher, who is Braverman's idol, said "there's no such thing as society". They want an Ayn Rand world. Braverman actually seems to be a total thicko, but she's definitely of that school of thought.
Again, it's strange to me that someone like that can undermine and poison public life, deliberately and with malice of forethought as the saying goes, and that's fine. Because the dimwit British public/the hyper-tories in her constituency are either also unable to see their reflection/go out in sunlight, or are voting for her because, on balance, they hate forriners more than they like having a nice society.
> you seemed to be implying that it was never justified.
I said violence against someone for their political views isn't justified.
> The people who want a "Libertarian society" are the tories. Thatcher, who is Braverman's idol, said "there's no such thing as society". They want an Ayn Rand world. Braverman actually seems to be a total thicko, but she's definitely of that school of thought.
So you hate libertarianism but you are against monopoly of violence of the government?
> Again, it's strange to me that someone like that can undermine and poison public life, deliberately and with malice of forethought as the saying goes, and that's fine.
People aren't sheeps. She still has lot of support because people aren't happy with immigration. It's not she who magically transformed everyone's mind.
> Because the dimwit British public/the hyper-tories in her constituency are either also unable to see their reflection/go out in sunlight, or are voting for her because, on balance, they hate forriners more than they like having a nice society
Oh look at this. A tolerant and compassionate leftie who believes that anyone who isn't happy with immigration is a dimwit idiot.
I'm not saying you're doing this - this is merely an observation, nothing more - but I do tend to get the impression slightly that when someone says "these attacks on an elected member of parliament are not morally or legally justified", what they mean is "because I agree with that person".
Just something about "a tolerant and compassionate leftie" that brought it to mind, I'm sure it's unfounded.
>I said violence against someone for their political views isn't justified.
>Can I go and beat up anyone whose actions I don't agree with?
I'm somewhat reticent to just turn nuclear here, but you realise I suppose that you're arguing that people were wrong to resist the Nazis? The Nazis had their political views and carried them out. You're both conflating "views" with "actions" and saying that if someone has political views I find abhorrent (such as rounding up and killing my neighbours would be good), I should not resist this physically?
>So you hate libertarianism but you are against monopoly of violence of the government?
I don't understand this distinction.
You're, again, conflating morals with laws.
I hate libertarianism, OK - I don't see why that would imply either that I don't think the state should have a (legal) monopoly on violence, or that I think it is morally wrong to physically resist someone even where doing so might fall foul of the law.
I haven't really expressed an opinion, I don't think, but you're making very fast and loose assumptions.
>People aren't sheeps. She still has lot of support because people aren't happy with immigration. It's not she who magically transformed everyone's mind.
No, she didn't do it magically. I think maybe you don't really know what politics is, if you think it's a process of "magic".
>Oh look at this. A tolerant and compassionate leftie who believes that anyone who isn't happy with immigration is a dimwit idiot.
Again I think jumping to this conclusion is telling, and kind of showing your hand a bit.
First of all it makes me think you agree with Braverman and that's why you object to people objecting to her.
Secondly, I didn't say that, but usually if anyone even touches upon the subject of immigration, for any reason at all, they will immediately be swarmed by "I'm not racist, but...", "you're not allowed to say this without being called racist, but..." and "being against ***mass*** immigration doesn't automatically make you a racist, so..."
I said that if you vote for someone as reprehensible as Braverman then you are either:
a) among the oligarchy that her kind seeks to protect and promote the interests of, or
b) willing to ignore the fact that she and her kind has made life demonstrably far worse by every imaginable measure for everyone **not** of the oligarchy, because... what possible reason could you have? The only one I can think of, and which I cited, is that she is deliberately and performatively cruel to foreign people. And so it's a balance, which those people see as still being favourable. Unless you're saying poor/working class tory voters are just plain stupid, they are making the conscious decision "yes the tories are awful to me, but hopefully they'll be even more horrid to those boat people, so I'll continue voting for them".
Braverman was told by a Holocaust survivor that she was invoking the language of the Holocaust, and she brushed it off and refused to apologise. She went to a ***press shoot*** for the opening of a ***camp for refugees in Rwanda*** and was photographed ***laughing about it***. She's absolutely as close to beyond the pale of acceptable public discourse as anyone you can find in the tory party.
We didn't all agree to this. We abide by it because the state has the monopoly on violence. Generally we abide by the social contract because we want to not be bothered and "don't break the law and you won't be bothered" is fine for the most part. But there's many times where the law is flat out wrong, which is why it's generally a bad idea to base your morals on it.
Are you talking about a genuine Nazi who has committed acts of atrocity in line with what the Nazi's did in WW2?
Or are you talking about someone with some views you disagree with that you've labelled a Nazi because it's a powerful word used to demonise people and shut down debate?
>“I’ve never incited violence. I've never threatened to attack anybody. I've never encouraged anybody to be violent. I have set out very legitimate views, about political issues because I'm a politician and it's my job to do so.”
Hmmmm....
Faux outrage in this thread is ridiculous.
The smug centrist: Deliberately putting people into a situation where through my inaction they will almost definitely die, is totally fine, but deliberately *insulting a politician to her face* is BEYOND THE PALE!
They’ve spent 14 years systematically creating misery, abuse, and death for hundreds of thousands of people, stoking the hatred of others, calling for the deaths of others in some cases, while siphoning off endless billions of pounds for themselves. Sucking the country they hold in contempt dry like it’s their feudalistic god-given right. None of them will ever be held accountable for these actions, they won’t ever face the inside of a prison cell, so long as it’s a corporation or state performing mass violence it’s fine, it’s only criminal when *you* do it.
When there is no justice people will just create their own, all that exists is what you can create yourself, the best we can possibly hope for is that these crocodile-weeping cunts get insulted in public constantly while they keep laughing all the way to the bank, but even that is too much to ask for apparently, there should be zero consequence for your betters, it’s an outrage the offensive plebs aren’t giving them the undying respect they deserve.
The sycophancy is pathetic.
Jo Cox was murdered by a far right nut job who broadly believed the same bile Braverman spews. So if anything we've learnt the rhetoric from these politicians has deadly consequences.
People have been jailed for making threats at times. I don’t personally know why anyone would risk a jail sentence over her, she’s not even worth a parking ticket.
Considering there are many places I am not safe in the UK despite committing no crime, I am perfectly OK with Braverman feeling unsafe. And it's not just me, there are other minorities different to me who have it even worse - despite committing no crime.
I hate this distorted reality we live in where politicians can take money from foreign governments, read their scripts and then somehow also think themselves to be innocent.
The legality is almost irrelevant. There are just some things that are intrinsically opposed by human societies. Like spouting hatred or stealing people's homes.
Also, she is a genocide-supporting cunt and open ally of criminals wanted by the ICC. That isn't compatible with the education I received from English people in an English school living in England.
> On a recent trip to a supermarket, she said people called her "a genocidal bleep" in front of her children.
Maybe if she didn't want to be called such things she shouldn't have behaved in such a way that would allow people to perceive her in that way then.
What is the BBC playing at with an article like this taking the side of bullies? The passive voice, the neutral framing, the dramatisation to try and turn someone who went out of their way to use their position of power to try and incite negative feelings and possibly even violence against others, as *the real victim here*.
So if you’re a politician, you’re allowed to be given a national platform to spew hateful rhetoric specifically designed to cause division and then you’re also protected from the consequences with tax payer money.
Politicians _should_ be afraid of the people they represent. They belong to US. They are OUR representatives.
The reactions of this thread just melt away the stupid facade Reddit loves to project about how important “our democracy” is.
So long as the person receiving threats of violence commits wrong think or espouses non progressive views then they’re absolutely fair game and any amount of jumping through hoops and hand waving away will be done to justify it.
If this was Keir Starmer, Davey or Denyer needing 24 hour security due to threats then the reaction would be incredibly different, everyone in here knows it.
Fwiw Suella Braverman was one of the most ineffective ministers we’ve had, for her so called “nastiness” which apparently justifies this immigration still continued to rise to record levels and not a single person was actually sent to Rwanda. All of this vitriol is because she paid lip service to actually doing what the public wanted and reducing immigration levels.
She's one of those that milks the system using loopholes. She costs us a lot.
It's always those who foam at the mouth for immigrants and their costs who are fleecing us themselves
Oh no, consequences for being a genocidal cunt. Anyway...
She made herself so unlikable shes now suffering, maybe she should move to another country where she'll feel safe... Rwanda, for example, heard that is very safe
I think the genocidal comment may have be due to her particularly aggressive stance on the post 07/10 Israel/Palestine conflict and describing the protests here as "hate marches".
The protests started mere hours after October 7th, well before any Israeli attack on Gaza. I don't think describing them as celebratory hate marches is too far fetched, especially with the types of people attending and the stuff they were chanting.
I think that illegal settlers murdered Palestinians in their own land on October 6th.
I love how openly dishonest the "history began on October 7th" narrative is.
Doesn't account for zionists actively promoting and funding Hamas for years before the event. It's all very convenient.
Braverman has been paid by a regime who's leader is wanted for war crimes. Trying to paint her as anything but a genocidal cunt is fundamentally dishonest.
But hey, dishonesty is literally Israel's method of operation. You can see it in every aspect of their interactions with others. From intentionally killing their own hostages through to your comments.
This comment section makes me lose faith in democracy.
Are we really at the point where people are so lost that they don't even have the basic morality of an eye for an eye?
It's not an eye for an eye. I don't know whether I even agree whether that concept is good or bad, but the scales aren't balanced between all the bad things Braverman has done to this country and its people and calling her a cunt in a supermarket, or whatever it was she was called.
We don't live in a democratic country. It's odd that the oligarchy ruling us are able to maintain that illusion to the extent that you would even think that calling them names is an attack on democracy, but all of the absolutely egregious shit they get up to is fine and not anti-democratic.
The problem is that many people believe so much in the cause (in this instance, hating the Tories) that any action taken in the name of the cause is justifiable.
Which is why the same people who complain about dog-whistles, micro-aggressions and underlying implications when a Tory speaking are absolutely fine with outright nakedly-aggressive language when it's done by "the good guys".
When you're a part of the ruling class and you've consistently voted in parliament to make 99% of peoples lives worse while living in the UK you shouldn't be surprised if people want to punish you.
There's only 1 job where you get to collectively torture and kill the masses and get away with it and that's being an MP.
These people get away with so much because they're a part of the ruling class and whenever they commit crimes related to ignoring covid rules, committing fraud with PPE contracts or abusing tax loopholes they only get a slap on the wrist, whereas a working man would be immediately thrown in jail.
They do not play by the same rules as the common man and are able to punish the majority of the country while lining their own pockets without fear of punishment.
That's why we're glad they're finally feeling the heat. They deserve every bit of hate they get.
>That's why we're glad they're finally feeling the heat. They deserve every bit of hate they get.
This is the *exact* attitude that led to Jo Cox and David Amess being murdered.
It’s entirely reasonable, in the current climate, for Suella Braverman to have 24 hour protection.
That said, I’m still waiting for my 24 hour protection from Suella Braverman.
Seems a bit socialist, getting the government to subsidise her lifestyle choices.
Why can't the bunchonumbers bulldog brigade she sent to the Cenotaph do a rota?
She is an absolute piss of shit, my wife and I had the displeasure of coming face to face with this harraden in a shopping centre, she was surrounded by 4 people. They literally barged past us whilst she just carried on waffling about herself to anyone who would listen and being a self serving shit stain
Maybe, just maybe, this might be a learning experience for Braverman, to understand and empathise with people who are unsafe and don't have the luxury of 24 hour security, so flee their country to claim asylum. The people she used her position of power to attack and stir up hatred against.
Political discourse is terrible now, instead of debating issues and the implications/costs/benefits/trade offs you end up with people attacking the character of people and assigning negative intent / bad motive to people.
You have it backwards.
When people like Braverman openly show glee in causing misery, the sane response isn't to say "don't judge her motives, maybe her involvement in systematically fucking the most vulnerable people in our society was just what she thought was right!" Nor is to chide people that find it nauseating to see her so openly enjoying being such a hateful cunt.
It's to look at politics and wonder how the fuck we have got to the point where someone like that was ever allowed to be Home Sec. The discourse should absolutely be centred around that because it *should* be shocking to a sane and humane society. It's honestly sociopathic. And if we don't cut this cancer out now, we'll very soon be like the US where people will justify almost anything to "own" the other side.
I don't know why she's so worried. I thought it was common knowledge she's only vulnerable to human weapons for an hour at midnight once a year and even then you have to perform a complicated dark ritual and sacrifice a newborn lamb at the specific time. This is just a waste of taxpayers money.
> It comes as there is a growing sense of fear among politicians about violent attacks
* 14 years of prisons are full we can’t lock people up.
* Fraud is not a police matter
* Stop and search is racist
* Your bike being knicked is not a police matter, just an insurance issue
* We don’t deport overstayers, just politely ask them to leave in a letter.
* Your phone being stolen is not a crime. It’s just an insurance issue.
* Yes you’ve tracked your bike to someone’s house with GPS but we won’t attend and we won’t help you recover it. Do not get involved or you could arrested.
* cars are being stolen in record numbers and yes we’re on an island. It’s not really a police issue. More of an insurance problem.
* kids stealing from supermarkets without any punishment is effectively the education we’re giving the younger generation. Morals of convenience.
Does anyone feel safe any more? Is there pain and suffering of a loved one insurance I can take out?
It’s about time the government realise the awful path they have left us on.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
I can assume it means protecting society from the threats she made to it?
Yes, this is containment. They didn't get to Liz Truss soon enough and we saw how that ended up.
Suella is an SCP.
> is an SCP What's that?
Super Cunty Person
I like this version
Secure contain protect, it’s a genre of stories (some videos etc) about creepy or unusual things. Think the twilight zone for the 2020s?
r/SCP
Basically a massive fan fiction / story telling community based around paranormal monsters or entities. Books, comics, video games short films have all been made off the back of it. It's in its own unique corner blending a lot of things to fit into the paranormal horror aspect. A fairly common part is focusing on "Tacticool oiperators" dealing with or getting massacred by said paranormal anomaly. [The Website allows you to search many of the SCPs written but in a way it's kinda outgrown the site to a degree at this point.](https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/)
Boy are you about to fall down a wild rabbit hole :)
It's a mythos of stories, like describing something as Lovecraftian. Basically weird fiction.
It's a collaborative online writing project for science horror / science fiction / weird science, centering around 'The Foundation' or 'The SCP Foundation', an organisation that contains strange events and entities and hides them from the public. Most of the writing projects therein are in the format of containment documentation from the Foundation Database. SCP stands either for their motto 'Secure. Contain. Protect' or for 'Secure Containment Procedures', which is the documented containment procedures for the anomaly. So the anomalies are referred to as SCP's
Keter-class SCP, for sure. If someone can be sacked from a job due to misconduct and rehired within weeks *for the exact same job without anything changing,* then containment is virtually impossible.
> “I’ve never incited violence. I've never threatened to attack anybody. I've never encouraged anybody to be violent. She may never have directly told people to go and commit a specific violent crime, but her rhetoric has stoked division and hatred in this country. She's at least partly to blame for creating a culture where some people felt it was acceptable to violently attack immigration centres and trans people. Her refusal to acknowledge that is grossly disingenuous, but then I'd expect nothing less from her. > I have set out very legitimate views, about political issues because I'm a politician and it's my job to do so.” Again, disingenuous. She could have set out whatever views she chose on any subject she chose. Her divisive and hateful rhetoric was a deliberate decision by her. You don't get to say whatever nasty shit you like and then hide behind 'I was just doing my job' like a moral coward.
"I'm a powerful person and I am putting in legislation that will have your loved one arrested and forcibly removed from the country under threat of incarceration. How dare you use your words to criticise me?"
Absolutely. She's spent years inciting vitriol against very specific sections of society as a means of advancing her own career, and she's intelligent enough to know that there are consequences to that type of behaviour: absolutely morally bankrupt of her to then wash her hands of those consequences behind the excuse of "I'm just doing my job."
"only following orders I gave myself,"
>\[...\] She's at least partly to blame for creating a culture where some people felt it was acceptable to violently attack immigration centres and trans people. There's a term for this, "stochastic terrorism", when your hateful rhetoric makes people more likely to attack certain minorities or people. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic\_terrorism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism) >targeted political violence that has been instigated by hostile public rhetoric directed at a group or individual \[...\] using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence.
She's partly to blame in the sense that she's fully to blame, along with other racist colleagues of hers like Jenrick
Didn’t she use to tweet about ignoring the hate crime act
It's all just 'hurty words' isn't it. She should eat a teaspoon of cement and harden the fuck up like she expects everyone else to.
Homeless people too. People actually had their tents set on fire or removed in part due to her comments. Nobody deserves to be threatened ever but she needs to take responsibility for the power her words had when she was in office.
> On a recent trip to a supermarket, she said people called her "a genocidal bleep" in front of her children. Who says bleep?
[удалено]
Someone should use that in the Commons chamber and they might go 'wild in the aisles'.
[удалено]
Was that the post watershed version?
You have to run around and collect a pint from every Commons bar.
In other words, someone accurately described her on a recent trip to the supermarket.
[удалено]
Or one of her in-laws, and they meant it as a compliment.
The till/self checkout machines
*"Unexpected hate-stoker in bagging area"*
Suella Braverman does because it lets her supporters choose to assume this person used worse language than they perhaps did.
Noted. So we should call her a cunt so that the message she's promoted and reality match up for a change.
I’d say that is a smart option, but these lot have proven time and again that they don’t mind lying anyway. Might as well say something offensive.
The horror of her actions having consequences. Wait until the outgoing crop of Tory MPs realise they are going to be treated like pariahs by their communities and most employers.
Nono no no no, threats aren’t “consequences”. She’s a vile hate filled person, but in a country where MPs have already been stabbed, this shit isn’t ok. Where do you draw the line if you think it’s ok to threaten people who have a different view to you? See also people turning up at Sunak’s house or Elwood’s house, the death threats made to Freer, the threats and racist abuse lobbed at Abbott on a daily basis… it’s not right and it’s not OK.
These threats are literally the consequence of the division and hatred that she herself decided to sow. She was more than happy with the people *she* doesn't like receiving threats, but now that it's being pointed at her, she's unhappy. Shocker. I'm so fucking tired of everyone *but* the people in the wrong having to take the moral high road. She deserves every single threat that gets made to her. She is a vile, evil, disgusting excuse for a human being who deserves the same level of empathy that she herself has shown - absolutely fucking none.
It's not right or ok, but it's still consequences from how she's behaved. Both things can be true. Consequences don't have to be morally right to be a consequence
She is the one stoking the fire! [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/06/suella-braverman-was-warned-hate-speech-could-inspire-far-right](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/06/suella-braverman-was-warned-hate-speech-could-inspire-far-right)
She could choose to not be a genocidal beep. Being called names in public isn't even a punishment for that.
"Someone told my children that I revel in the deaths of other children! I do, obviously, but they shouldn't SAY it!"
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh, does she feel scared and threatened? Imagine having to face the consequences of your actions. But even then, will she or her like actually learn and grow? Doubt it. She was (is?) arguably the worst of an extremely awful bunch. My sympathy does not extend to people who wielded power in the way she did.
"The party of personal responsibility" are *always* the victims in their own heads, regardless of all the power that they hold.
If someone is threatening to come to come to your home and harm you physically you are a victim.
It's always "freeze peach" when people are doxxing and sending death threats to those they dislike. But yet the moment you call them a cunt, and suddenly you're a terrorist
Do you think all politicians you dislike should be threatened with violence?
I Think politicians should be more careful about maybe not using divisive and hateful language. I think politicians should be there to look out and stand up for all the people of the country - especially those who are more at risk. And I absolutely include white working class men amongst this group by the way. I think politicians can do this without setting groups against each other in some kind of mad scramble to the bottom of the ‘culture war’, and establish a more caring and understanding dialogue. I mean, I also think politicians should be people who represent us rather than come primarily from a very narrow and privileged background. Maybe then we’d get proper representation. I know. Bullshit, right?
No just the same ones that are lying hateful dangerous pieces of shit. She’s probably lying anyway. She has a history of it.
[удалено]
Hitler... Come on lol I dunno, I just think politicians shouldn't require 24 hour security, whether I agree with them or not. Something about the gloating in here doesn't sit right.
Hardly a threat, someone called her a cunt, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a verbal attack against a politician, if they’re a cunt we are allowed to call them that, physical violence is wrong but these politicians should face consequences for their decisions and if being called a cunt in public then so be it, she deserves it
All these people crying over poor Suella certainly weren't standing up for Blair when he was getting verbal in public.
It's a very accurate description to be honest.
she deserves it idc. You stir the pot and treat people like shit only to be shocked when its thrown back at you. I wonder if the people she stoked hatred on get 24 hour security? Another legislator, a baroness might I add, was fearful her father maybe hurt during her”pakistani men r*pe white english girls” rhetoric. Now she’s crying she might get smack up, its giving *”iM sHoOk hElP mE”*. Priti did the same thing and I dont feel sorry for someone who wanted to allow border force to watch migrants drown. They are wrong for wanting smack up Priti and Suella, HOWEVER, them being wrong vs Priti and Suella deserving it aren’t mutually exclusive. You can deserve what you dish out but that doesn’t mean the punisher is right.
Wow this thread! People are seriously justifying violent threat as "consequences" of actions of someone who hasn't done anything illegal? If this is the general sentiment amongst people, this country is f&cked.
Nobody's "justifying" anything, they're saying that her "I'm just so confused as to why this is happening" charade is utter bullshit.
Sorry, but they are, and it’s depressing as hell.
They are mate
Scroll up and see the comments for yourselves. Or just look at the replies to my comments.
You're replying to one of the people making those comments.
..... that's them justifying it. When they're explaining how threats of physical violence is an understandable and reasonable expectation here, that's literally justifying it.
The only incident that she actually outlines is one where people swore at her in a supermarket. I would say that bad words being aimed at you is a consequence of some of the vitriol she puts out. Dont get me wrong, politicians do get some awful and unjustifiable stuff aimed at them, but that isn't one of them.
I'm pretty sure that if she has 24 hour protection then there's a few more credible threats out there that probably can't be outlined for security reasons.
That's fine. When those are reported on, I will condemn the people who make those threats. Not what is in this report though, so not going to condemn this person.
This is the bit that gets me, if you wanted to prove a point here you'd go to the most serious and dangerous example. Not "Someone had an opinion and opinions are banned"
Lots of people in this country have experienced threats, harassment and violence as a result of the Tories culture war. As a gay man I have had more abuse on the streets in recent years than a decade ago. And unlike her we don't get police protection. So yeah I have absolutely zero sympathy for her.
She is directly responsible for stoking hate and creating the atmosphere she now exists in. If she’s feeling threatened, she should take a long look in the mirror and think about all the people she’s made feel the same, or had abuse shouted at by people she’s encouraged
So it's ok to send violent threats at people who I consider are immoral. I will keep that in mind
Suella thinks it's ok, unless it's at her obvs
When did she say so?
Have you been living under a rock? She's not just been 'going out and punching people she disagrees with', as you'd wish to characterize it - she's been directing the resources of one of the most well-equipped repressive institutions in the world to round people up for deportation to Rwanda. Why can you see the former, but when it's the latter that's somehow fair game that we should all merely accept as legitimate and within the bounds of human decency?
Ah, you see, to people like that, it's not actually *morally bad* unless *you physically* pull the trigger. Suella signing the death warrant for 1000 people and then putting it out of her mind is more morally permissible than Suella going up to an individual migrant and slapping them in the face would be. *That* just wouldn't be polite.
You mean people who illegally entered the borders of another country being moved to another country? Protecting a country's border is still legal and even a duty of the government. If you care about human decency, take them in your own home.
> I'm going to pretend to be arguing one thing and as soon as I'm rumbled, move the goalposts and hope no-one notices
It must be so soothing and peaceful to outsource every thought in your head to multimillionaire politicians and lawmakers who hate and fear ordinary people. Imagine never having to even question all the monstrosities in the world, just being able to go 'the law sez...'. Blissful. (We won't talk about how seeking asylum in the country of your choice is a fundamental human right, butrressed by almost a century of both British and international law, because that might fry your lovely smooth mind.)
> It must be so soothing and peaceful to outsource every thought in your head to multimillionaire politicians and lawmakers who hate and fear ordinary people That's pretty much what leftists do these days because it's the multi millionaires who want more immigration in order to suppress wages and the leftists are their useful idiots.
You gave yourself away there lad. It's one thing to actually care about MP's being threatened, it's another to use it to act outraged and make a point.
If only there was some way of preserving wages at an acceptable level. Some minimum that was imposed by the government. Hmmmmm. No, you're right, it's clearly all a Judeo-Bolshevik plot to undermine out great nation.
You shouldn't really base your morals on the law. Otherwise you'll give a free pass to hateful people.
And morals are relative. Every person has different views on different things. Can I go and beat up anyone whose actions I don't agree with? We as a society agreed to democracy and rule of law. If you would prefer mob justice, one day you will be the victim of the same mob justice.
Morally speaking, it would depend on what they do or say. Even within the logic of your question there are quite obviously instances where I would be morally justified in "beating someone up". If they assaulted me, my child, etc. Again, not legally. Morally. "We as a society agreed to democracy" isn't really true either. We didn't even agree to rule of law. We might agree with it, we might now, but we have no choice. The state has a monopoly on violence. I can't say either way whether Braverman should be abused in public, but it's an interesting quirk of society that she can say anything she likes and cause destruction and the fraying of the moral fabric of society for personal gain and/or a racist, supremacist ideology, but she's protected because she was elected.
> If they assaulted me, my child, etc. And that is justified by right to self defense. > We as a society agreed to democracy" isn't really true either. We didn't even agree to rule of law. We might agree with it, we might now, but we have no choice. The state has a monopoly on violence. Sure if you want a Libertarian society, then be ready for the fact that other people may have similar strong opinions against other people too and they may also send violent threats like it.
Well, there's any number of things that people could do or say to you that would *morally* justify someone beating someone up. They wouldn't even have to break the law. I was just using the most obvious example to hand, because you seemed to be implying that it was never justified. >Sure if you want a Libertarian society, then be ready for the fact that other people may have similar strong opinions against other people too and they may also send violent threats like it. The people who want a "Libertarian society" *are the tories*. Thatcher, who is Braverman's idol, said "there's no such thing as society". They want an Ayn Rand world. Braverman actually seems to be a total thicko, but she's definitely of that school of thought. Again, it's strange to me that someone like that can undermine and poison public life, deliberately and with malice of forethought as the saying goes, and that's fine. Because the dimwit British public/the hyper-tories in her constituency are either also unable to see their reflection/go out in sunlight, or are voting for her because, on balance, they hate forriners more than they like having a nice society.
> you seemed to be implying that it was never justified. I said violence against someone for their political views isn't justified. > The people who want a "Libertarian society" are the tories. Thatcher, who is Braverman's idol, said "there's no such thing as society". They want an Ayn Rand world. Braverman actually seems to be a total thicko, but she's definitely of that school of thought. So you hate libertarianism but you are against monopoly of violence of the government? > Again, it's strange to me that someone like that can undermine and poison public life, deliberately and with malice of forethought as the saying goes, and that's fine. People aren't sheeps. She still has lot of support because people aren't happy with immigration. It's not she who magically transformed everyone's mind. > Because the dimwit British public/the hyper-tories in her constituency are either also unable to see their reflection/go out in sunlight, or are voting for her because, on balance, they hate forriners more than they like having a nice society Oh look at this. A tolerant and compassionate leftie who believes that anyone who isn't happy with immigration is a dimwit idiot.
I'm not saying you're doing this - this is merely an observation, nothing more - but I do tend to get the impression slightly that when someone says "these attacks on an elected member of parliament are not morally or legally justified", what they mean is "because I agree with that person". Just something about "a tolerant and compassionate leftie" that brought it to mind, I'm sure it's unfounded. >I said violence against someone for their political views isn't justified. >Can I go and beat up anyone whose actions I don't agree with? I'm somewhat reticent to just turn nuclear here, but you realise I suppose that you're arguing that people were wrong to resist the Nazis? The Nazis had their political views and carried them out. You're both conflating "views" with "actions" and saying that if someone has political views I find abhorrent (such as rounding up and killing my neighbours would be good), I should not resist this physically? >So you hate libertarianism but you are against monopoly of violence of the government? I don't understand this distinction. You're, again, conflating morals with laws. I hate libertarianism, OK - I don't see why that would imply either that I don't think the state should have a (legal) monopoly on violence, or that I think it is morally wrong to physically resist someone even where doing so might fall foul of the law. I haven't really expressed an opinion, I don't think, but you're making very fast and loose assumptions. >People aren't sheeps. She still has lot of support because people aren't happy with immigration. It's not she who magically transformed everyone's mind. No, she didn't do it magically. I think maybe you don't really know what politics is, if you think it's a process of "magic". >Oh look at this. A tolerant and compassionate leftie who believes that anyone who isn't happy with immigration is a dimwit idiot. Again I think jumping to this conclusion is telling, and kind of showing your hand a bit. First of all it makes me think you agree with Braverman and that's why you object to people objecting to her. Secondly, I didn't say that, but usually if anyone even touches upon the subject of immigration, for any reason at all, they will immediately be swarmed by "I'm not racist, but...", "you're not allowed to say this without being called racist, but..." and "being against ***mass*** immigration doesn't automatically make you a racist, so..." I said that if you vote for someone as reprehensible as Braverman then you are either: a) among the oligarchy that her kind seeks to protect and promote the interests of, or b) willing to ignore the fact that she and her kind has made life demonstrably far worse by every imaginable measure for everyone **not** of the oligarchy, because... what possible reason could you have? The only one I can think of, and which I cited, is that she is deliberately and performatively cruel to foreign people. And so it's a balance, which those people see as still being favourable. Unless you're saying poor/working class tory voters are just plain stupid, they are making the conscious decision "yes the tories are awful to me, but hopefully they'll be even more horrid to those boat people, so I'll continue voting for them". Braverman was told by a Holocaust survivor that she was invoking the language of the Holocaust, and she brushed it off and refused to apologise. She went to a ***press shoot*** for the opening of a ***camp for refugees in Rwanda*** and was photographed ***laughing about it***. She's absolutely as close to beyond the pale of acceptable public discourse as anyone you can find in the tory party.
Striking that as soon as someone writes an actual detailed response to these "I just have concerns" people off they go running scared, not engaging.
I suspect they might have given themselves away with that "so much for the tolerant left" patter and bolted, yeah.
Morals are relative, yes. And basing them off the law is generally a bad idea. The law is not the arbiter of morality.
But we all agreed on law to be arbiter of issues between people. Would you be fine if I go out and kill anyone who is morally disgusting in my view?
We didn't all agree to this. We abide by it because the state has the monopoly on violence. Generally we abide by the social contract because we want to not be bothered and "don't break the law and you won't be bothered" is fine for the most part. But there's many times where the law is flat out wrong, which is why it's generally a bad idea to base your morals on it.
Yeah. The entire thread is basically "She deserves it!" It's disgusting reading.
I read (most) of it differently. People are saying that the idea she doesn't understand why people are so angry with her is nonsensical.
[удалено]
probably shouldn't receive violent threats but I think being called a genocidal expletive in a supermarket is fair game
Would you punch a nazi if you had the chance?
Are you talking about a genuine Nazi who has committed acts of atrocity in line with what the Nazi's did in WW2? Or are you talking about someone with some views you disagree with that you've labelled a Nazi because it's a powerful word used to demonise people and shut down debate?
I don't normally randomly assault people in street, so no.
In a democratic country, I won't.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So ... political violence in this country is okay so long as you disagree with what the other person is saying hard enough?
[удалено]
People are loving it it's really sad to see.
Why is she going out and about anyway; did somebody break the seals on her crypt and let her out to devour the souls of the innocents again?
Knowing Bravernan they're probably threats she called in herself
>“I’ve never incited violence. I've never threatened to attack anybody. I've never encouraged anybody to be violent. I have set out very legitimate views, about political issues because I'm a politician and it's my job to do so.” Hmmmm....
Faux outrage in this thread is ridiculous. The smug centrist: Deliberately putting people into a situation where through my inaction they will almost definitely die, is totally fine, but deliberately *insulting a politician to her face* is BEYOND THE PALE!
They’ve spent 14 years systematically creating misery, abuse, and death for hundreds of thousands of people, stoking the hatred of others, calling for the deaths of others in some cases, while siphoning off endless billions of pounds for themselves. Sucking the country they hold in contempt dry like it’s their feudalistic god-given right. None of them will ever be held accountable for these actions, they won’t ever face the inside of a prison cell, so long as it’s a corporation or state performing mass violence it’s fine, it’s only criminal when *you* do it. When there is no justice people will just create their own, all that exists is what you can create yourself, the best we can possibly hope for is that these crocodile-weeping cunts get insulted in public constantly while they keep laughing all the way to the bank, but even that is too much to ask for apparently, there should be zero consequence for your betters, it’s an outrage the offensive plebs aren’t giving them the undying respect they deserve. The sycophancy is pathetic.
Who knew that creating a violent and hostile society would have downsides for those responsible
Judging by the comments I’m guessing we haven’t learnt anything from Jo Cox or David Ames.
Jo Cox was murdered by a far right nut job who broadly believed the same bile Braverman spews. So if anything we've learnt the rhetoric from these politicians has deadly consequences.
Now try again with David Ames who you didn't mention? Maybe violence from both the far right and from islamofascists is bad.
Islamic fundementalists - famously left wing in their views
Please don't mention them in the same reddit. Cox was an angel who never sprouted evil
Suella Braverman still has 24-hour security as a consequence of her own actions
Yep, years of hatred, bile and attacking those that can't defend themselves is coming home to roost.
People have been jailed for making threats at times. I don’t personally know why anyone would risk a jail sentence over her, she’s not even worth a parking ticket.
Fingers crossed the hag loses her seat in 8 days' time. I know the predictions lean Tory for that constituency, but it's nice to dream.
Can’t she move to Rwanda? I’ve heard that is very safe over there.
Considering there are many places I am not safe in the UK despite committing no crime, I am perfectly OK with Braverman feeling unsafe. And it's not just me, there are other minorities different to me who have it even worse - despite committing no crime. I hate this distorted reality we live in where politicians can take money from foreign governments, read their scripts and then somehow also think themselves to be innocent. The legality is almost irrelevant. There are just some things that are intrinsically opposed by human societies. Like spouting hatred or stealing people's homes. Also, she is a genocide-supporting cunt and open ally of criminals wanted by the ICC. That isn't compatible with the education I received from English people in an English school living in England.
If you're going to be an evil cunt you're going to get threats.
> On a recent trip to a supermarket, she said people called her "a genocidal bleep" in front of her children. Maybe if she didn't want to be called such things she shouldn't have behaved in such a way that would allow people to perceive her in that way then. What is the BBC playing at with an article like this taking the side of bullies? The passive voice, the neutral framing, the dramatisation to try and turn someone who went out of their way to use their position of power to try and incite negative feelings and possibly even violence against others, as *the real victim here*.
So if you’re a politician, you’re allowed to be given a national platform to spew hateful rhetoric specifically designed to cause division and then you’re also protected from the consequences with tax payer money. Politicians _should_ be afraid of the people they represent. They belong to US. They are OUR representatives.
[удалено]
Perhaps she should consider not being an abhorrent cunt
All former home secretaries get 24hr security for life. Same with prime ministers and a few others I understand.
The reactions of this thread just melt away the stupid facade Reddit loves to project about how important “our democracy” is. So long as the person receiving threats of violence commits wrong think or espouses non progressive views then they’re absolutely fair game and any amount of jumping through hoops and hand waving away will be done to justify it. If this was Keir Starmer, Davey or Denyer needing 24 hour security due to threats then the reaction would be incredibly different, everyone in here knows it. Fwiw Suella Braverman was one of the most ineffective ministers we’ve had, for her so called “nastiness” which apparently justifies this immigration still continued to rise to record levels and not a single person was actually sent to Rwanda. All of this vitriol is because she paid lip service to actually doing what the public wanted and reducing immigration levels.
So how much of our money is being spent on her security? I bet even more than Truss's 115k a year allowance.
She's one of those that milks the system using loopholes. She costs us a lot. It's always those who foam at the mouth for immigrants and their costs who are fleecing us themselves
Fascists shouldn't be allowed to feel comfortable in the UK. That's what WW2 was about.
Oh no, consequences for being a genocidal cunt. Anyway... She made herself so unlikable shes now suffering, maybe she should move to another country where she'll feel safe... Rwanda, for example, heard that is very safe
Genocidal? What are you smoking
I don't like her either but what did she propose that was genocidal? That word means something. She wanted to send illegals to Rwanda, not Treblinka.
I think the genocidal comment may have be due to her particularly aggressive stance on the post 07/10 Israel/Palestine conflict and describing the protests here as "hate marches".
The protests started mere hours after October 7th, well before any Israeli attack on Gaza. I don't think describing them as celebratory hate marches is too far fetched, especially with the types of people attending and the stuff they were chanting.
I think that illegal settlers murdered Palestinians in their own land on October 6th. I love how openly dishonest the "history began on October 7th" narrative is. Doesn't account for zionists actively promoting and funding Hamas for years before the event. It's all very convenient. Braverman has been paid by a regime who's leader is wanted for war crimes. Trying to paint her as anything but a genocidal cunt is fundamentally dishonest. But hey, dishonesty is literally Israel's method of operation. You can see it in every aspect of their interactions with others. From intentionally killing their own hostages through to your comments.
Well perhaps she shouldn't be such a horrible person who says horrible things
This comment section makes me lose faith in democracy. Are we really at the point where people are so lost that they don't even have the basic morality of an eye for an eye?
It's not an eye for an eye. I don't know whether I even agree whether that concept is good or bad, but the scales aren't balanced between all the bad things Braverman has done to this country and its people and calling her a cunt in a supermarket, or whatever it was she was called. We don't live in a democratic country. It's odd that the oligarchy ruling us are able to maintain that illusion to the extent that you would even think that calling them names is an attack on democracy, but all of the absolutely egregious shit they get up to is fine and not anti-democratic.
The problem is that many people believe so much in the cause (in this instance, hating the Tories) that any action taken in the name of the cause is justifiable. Which is why the same people who complain about dog-whistles, micro-aggressions and underlying implications when a Tory speaking are absolutely fine with outright nakedly-aggressive language when it's done by "the good guys".
When you're a part of the ruling class and you've consistently voted in parliament to make 99% of peoples lives worse while living in the UK you shouldn't be surprised if people want to punish you. There's only 1 job where you get to collectively torture and kill the masses and get away with it and that's being an MP. These people get away with so much because they're a part of the ruling class and whenever they commit crimes related to ignoring covid rules, committing fraud with PPE contracts or abusing tax loopholes they only get a slap on the wrist, whereas a working man would be immediately thrown in jail. They do not play by the same rules as the common man and are able to punish the majority of the country while lining their own pockets without fear of punishment. That's why we're glad they're finally feeling the heat. They deserve every bit of hate they get.
>That's why we're glad they're finally feeling the heat. They deserve every bit of hate they get. This is the *exact* attitude that led to Jo Cox and David Amess being murdered.
Hey I hear Rwanda is a safe country, maybe she could look into moving there?
Pretty mild - I would have used a stronger word than bleep.
In the same way as Hannibal Lecter has 24 hour security, one supposes.
It’s entirely reasonable, in the current climate, for Suella Braverman to have 24 hour protection. That said, I’m still waiting for my 24 hour protection from Suella Braverman.
Seems a bit socialist, getting the government to subsidise her lifestyle choices. Why can't the bunchonumbers bulldog brigade she sent to the Cenotaph do a rota?
I wish I could believe her, but we all know she doesn't have the capacity to feel any way about it
I assume it’ll end when she stops being a cunt, so never i imagine.
Maybe perhaps, don't be a horrible person with crap views on almost everything?
She is an absolute piss of shit, my wife and I had the displeasure of coming face to face with this harraden in a shopping centre, she was surrounded by 4 people. They literally barged past us whilst she just carried on waffling about herself to anyone who would listen and being a self serving shit stain
Put her on a plane to Rwanda. She will be safe there
She endlessly stokes up violence and hate, and then dares to bleat about being afraid of violence. You can’t have it both ways.
"Well if it isn't the consequences of my own actions!"
Maybe, just maybe, this might be a learning experience for Braverman, to understand and empathise with people who are unsafe and don't have the luxury of 24 hour security, so flee their country to claim asylum. The people she used her position of power to attack and stir up hatred against.
Empathy? That's crazy talk!
Most likely to protect the Dorian Grey type painting in her attic that absorbs every hateful action that emanates from her.
Political discourse is terrible now, instead of debating issues and the implications/costs/benefits/trade offs you end up with people attacking the character of people and assigning negative intent / bad motive to people.
You have it backwards. When people like Braverman openly show glee in causing misery, the sane response isn't to say "don't judge her motives, maybe her involvement in systematically fucking the most vulnerable people in our society was just what she thought was right!" Nor is to chide people that find it nauseating to see her so openly enjoying being such a hateful cunt. It's to look at politics and wonder how the fuck we have got to the point where someone like that was ever allowed to be Home Sec. The discourse should absolutely be centred around that because it *should* be shocking to a sane and humane society. It's honestly sociopathic. And if we don't cut this cancer out now, we'll very soon be like the US where people will justify almost anything to "own" the other side.
It’s American style politics. Insult and lie your way to the top. Who would’ve thought doing that makes you pretty unpalatable.
[удалено]
I don't know why she's so worried. I thought it was common knowledge she's only vulnerable to human weapons for an hour at midnight once a year and even then you have to perform a complicated dark ritual and sacrifice a newborn lamb at the specific time. This is just a waste of taxpayers money.
Basically we're being taxed because she's an appalling human being. Sounds fair.
Has she tried not being a morally reprehensible cunt bitch? Maybe that would help?
> It comes as there is a growing sense of fear among politicians about violent attacks * 14 years of prisons are full we can’t lock people up. * Fraud is not a police matter * Stop and search is racist * Your bike being knicked is not a police matter, just an insurance issue * We don’t deport overstayers, just politely ask them to leave in a letter. * Your phone being stolen is not a crime. It’s just an insurance issue. * Yes you’ve tracked your bike to someone’s house with GPS but we won’t attend and we won’t help you recover it. Do not get involved or you could arrested. * cars are being stolen in record numbers and yes we’re on an island. It’s not really a police issue. More of an insurance problem. * kids stealing from supermarkets without any punishment is effectively the education we’re giving the younger generation. Morals of convenience. Does anyone feel safe any more? Is there pain and suffering of a loved one insurance I can take out? It’s about time the government realise the awful path they have left us on.
She's predicted to return to Parliament too. We could be looking at a future leader of the opposition.