Yes, Diane, let's have a parliamentary inquiry.

[Workingman]

Ms Abbott is concerned about the "appalling" vitriol directed at MPs. She has been called a black: she is. She has been called fat: she is. she has been called a ni****, and that is unacceptable and the only case she can make.

However, I am with Diane. Let us have an inquiry into why MPs get so much vitriol from us plebs, but let us make it a Public Inquiry. Let the inquiry look at every single MP and all their dealings, all 650 of them, and the Lords, and let it ask how many of them entreat us to do one thing while doing exactly the opposite themselves.

Diane would be happy with that, wouldn't she? She is, after all, squeaky clean and practices everything that she preaches, n'est pas?

[Suff]

Ah but you know that any enquiry would ONLY look at the plebs and what they are saying and doing. It would never look at the MP's and see if they deserve what is being said and done!!

Remember when they called Brown a one eyed Scottish idiot. It was unconscionable that they called out the fact that he was Scottish. In fact the only real complaint to be made about the whole slur... I mean it's not as if ALL Scots are idiots. Just that we try to export them to England...

I'm slightly on the sidelines here. Yes she's Black. Not that you can't use that to describe her. But when you are talking about ripping someone up for their faults, being Black is not a fault and doesn't need to be called out.

Fat, lazy, stupid and many others, fine. Colour, nope. Nationality, as a slur? Well not the British nationalities anyway; want to have a go at the French or Germans be my guest...

Personally, rather than all these enquiries, I'd like a law on impeaching your MP. Public vote, more than 60% of the constituency to kick it off.. That 60% might seem high but in close run constituencies you can rely on near 50% to vote for impeachment no matter what.

Now if we had Impeachment then the MP's would have to prove they did not transgress and also that they were value to the voters. Might focus them a bit more, rather than once every 5 years.

[Workingman]

Ah but you know that any enquiry would ONLY look at the plebs and what they are saying and doing. It would never look at the MP's and see if they deserve what is being said and done!!

Mine would!

[Suff]

Mine too, but we're talking about "them" and their aids the press..

[cromwell]

They get so much vitriol because they are supposed to be our representatives but see themselves as an elite, above the common herd.

Since the expenses scandal people are seeing them more for what they are.

[AliasAggers]

[quote="Workingman"]Ms Abbott is concerned about the "appalling" vitriol directed at MPs. She has been called a black: she is. She has been called fat: she is. she has been called a ni****, and that is unacceptable and the only case she can make.
quote]

What puzzles me is, who decides what is acceptable and what isn't? - and what brings about these changes?
My mother used to have a brown dress, and to shorten it she bought a reel of cotton labelled 'nigger brown'.
Who decided that word was taboo? Now I understand that it offensive to call anyone 'coloured, but black is
acceptable.

When a child, we used to say. 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but calling names won't hurt me'.

I often feel like saying, 'Don't be so blinking daft'.

[Workingman]

What puzzles me is, who decides what is acceptable and what isn't?

The 'victims' do, and what Abbott and her supporters are trying to do is use extreme examples of perfectly justified criticism to turn all criticism into a low-level form of this new fangled 'hate crime'.

This is going beyond stifling free speech. It is setting up a special caste only able to be challenged in terms it finds acceptable i.e. not at all.

[Suff]

I often feel like saying, 'Don't be so blinking daft'.

When Scotland was in the throes of removing Section 28 legislation, I wound up in a furious row with my Brother in Law. He thought it was a great idea and that Headmasters would have a “choice” over what material they bought.

I told him that it would become illegal to buy anything which did not conform to the equal opportunities act and would sexualise the 5-14 age group.

He was wrong and I was right. Now there are significant groups campaigning to have this “pornographic” literature removed from schools. Not that it will get anywhere because that is exactly what Section 28 was designed to do and lots of these people who are campaigning to remove these books were also vociferously campaigning to repeal Section 28.

Equally all this “hate crime” has become a legal issue. So whilst you and I may think they are being “blinking daft”, they have the entire weight of the law behind them to be as daft as they choose.

As WM so aptly put it, it is for the “offended” to choose whether they have been offended or not. Nobody else gets a say any more and the courts are pre disposed to support the plaintiff.

The lunatics are running the asylum and isn’t it FUN!!!

[Workingman]

... it is for the “offended” to choose whether they have been offended or not.

But only if they are part of a minority.

Members of a majority are not allowed to be offended, they can only ever be offenders.

[Suff]

Members of a majority are not allowed to be offended, they can only ever be offenders.

So very, sadly, true.