> to the point that we had arson attacks in Belfast

Not to argue against the point you're making but these aren't good examples. Policing in both Northern Ireland and Scotland are fully devolved and operate independently of the government in Westminster.

Police has no choice but to arrest people who commit a serious criminal offence on purpose and very publicly. It would undermine their credibility and the rule of law not to arrest them.

This is orthogonal with how police should tackle the violence you mention.

Edit in response to @pjc50's replay below:

The signs are a serious criminal offence. Supporting a proscribed terror organisation is a serious criminal offence according to the law and arrest is unavoidable.

Edit 2: What constitutes a "serious criminal offence" is not subjective based on one's personal opinion, it is what the law defines as such...

I didn't see that response, was it as bad as when he told his base the door was open and they should leave?

Aphantasia doesn’t preclude having dreams or internal dialogue/thought.

Well that sure as hell does not describe starmer.

The issue isn’t the Labour Party it’s the entire country. Brexit has been a disaster, energy costs are through the roof, housing is becoming more costly, and there’s been no real economic growth in a decade.

But no one wants suffer the temporary pain to make the reforms needed to change it. They just want to grumble and say the current leader isn’t any good before moving onto the next one, rather than admitting they might need to actually accept some change in the country.

Locking up placard-wavers is stupid, but so is intentionally waving a placard with the name of a proscribed group, when just about any other message supporting the cause would be fine.

If you do a million pounds in criminal damage and attack a police officer with a sledgehammer, you can't just write it off as 'direct action', you deserve a tough jail sentence whatever the cause.

I'm opposed too but there's little recognizance of the poor position the UK is in. Under the current decline of Britain's economic foundations, having enough diesel and gas to keep the lights on and the lorries running depends on imports from the US, which could well be banned overnight if the president - any president - feels they need to crack the whip.

Opposing the Oval Office means shortages in the supermarkets, gas power stations turning off and a bond crash that makes the DWP lack the liquidity to service all of the monthly state pension payments, besides a great many other problems.

Ah yes the lovely protesters who spat on me, called me a baby killer and pretended they were going to punch me when I got stuck in the middle of them and said "I don't have time for this - I need to get to my mother" while I was trying to get to my dying mother in hospital and walked right into them leaving a tube station.

Fuck 'em. Sympathy gone.

Also I vote on local policy. The Middle East is a big political distraction from what's actually going on here. 99.9% of us can do fuck all about the Middle East and I suspect 90% of the country couldn't give a flying fuck about it either. But you know the council spent time on a meeting so they have a gaza policy but can't collect the bins reliably.

You mean Palestine Action specifically, because the leadership of that group are violent terrorists.

It's weird how you people never notice that NOBODY else is "arrested"

...or any topic really. More people on the right than the left are being jailed for hurty words.

> I thought parliamentary elections in UK worked like in most of Europe: you vote for a party, not a candidate.

They are. It's a parliamentary system, not a presidential system. Nobody votes directly for who will become PM, who is ultimately selected by the monarch as the person who can best command a majority of the House of Commons – normally the leader of the biggest party, of course, but not necessarily. Perpetuating this view is frustrating because it's not what the system is designed for, and I feel a common misconception among voters that they are "electing the PM".

With the increasing breaking of two-party politics, it would not surprise me if we see this precedent of the monarch choosing a PM who can command a majority tested in close outcomes in future GEs where no party gains an overall majority. I'll be particularly interested to see how the press describes such an outcome, if it occurs, especially if the result is that the party with the most votes doesn't go on to join such a coalition.

Nevertheless, it frustrates me when these changes are described as "undemocratic", as that's a common talking point perpetuated by a poor understanding of the constitutional basis of UK elections. If there is a desire that the PM should be directly elected, that would mean a substantial rewiring of the UK constitution more broadly.

You vote for a local candidate, who may belong to a party. The candidate can switch party, resign from the party, etc, and will still keep his seat.

Whoever can prove to the King he can 'command the confidence of the house' is given the title of Prime Minister, and is free to form a government.

Unfortunately the system has flaws, and a sizeable chunk of people treat it all as a Presidential vote by proxy.

Then we will have a hot-minute before they're utterly hating him and demanding he goes too

God no. None at all. That's what we need though. No more bloody populist snakes!

He's not a Manc, he's a Scouser originally.