Confused by the UK

I understand that Corbyn is an anti-Semite and the Labour party is riddled with anti-Semites (just as much as the Tories are, I’m sure). But what is the Scotland Yard doing investigating it?

I had no opinion on Theresa May’s government because I don’t know much and don’t like to opine when I lack knowledge. But this is very disturbing. I don’t know what the hell is happening over there that makes it ok to start a criminal investigation of political opponents for icky opinions. Maybe somebody here who’s from the UK can explain. But it’s like every day there are news from over there of people being arrested over saying something mean. I don’t get it.


10 thoughts on “Confused by the UK”

  1. Is this legal? If Corbyn were a PM, would this be?

    In another incident, Corbyn came under fire in September when it emerged that in 2010 he had accepted a dinner invitation from Hamas, designated a terror organization by the European Union and the United States. In the footage released by the Sun, Corbyn praised the invitation as “very nice of them and quite a nice gesture.” He had previously described both Hamas and another terror organization, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, as his “friends.”


    1. Is what legal? The investigation? Or accepting the invitation?

      I have no idea what the word legal means in the UK anymore. I believe that all these things should absolutely be legal in the sense of not being considered a crime. These are distasteful things, I don’t support them, but we all do something that somebody considers pig-headed, immoral and distasteful. That doesn’t make us criminals.


      1. I did not mean “legal”only in “meeting police as a result of” sense. Sorry for being unclear. I wonder whether a head of a large party in a country in EU (then and still now) may keep his position after indicating closeness to organizations labelled as terrorist by EU.

        Also, when a major politician does something in his role as a politician, it is different from a private person doing it. It is one thing when Trump publicly say “those evil Muslims” from a person like you and me saying this.


        1. If the voters don’t mind – and they clearly don’t – he will keep his position.

          If Trump made such a statement or if anybody else did, it would be despicable. But I don’t believe it should be charged as a crime. I’m against criminalizing any sort of speech, even the most despicable kind. As for what politicians do, if voters lap it up – and they clearly do – then that’s it. I wouldn’t vote for Corbyn (and not only because of this) but May isn’t looking much better to me right now. This isn’t just one isolated thing. The British government increasingly criminalizes speech, even of the private kind, and that’s wrong.


  2. I’ve said it before, the UK is the leading edge of fluidity in the modern world and the nature and function of things like the police force changes in Fluidity. It’s not about protecting people it’s about removing obstacles to the smooth functioning of fluidity.
    Breaking a window and stealing someone’s things doesn’t represent a threat to fluidity and so the police aren’t tasked with dealing with it.
    Saying something that offends one of the dozens of uneasily co-existing groups is very much a threat and has to be dealt with swiftly lest the whole system come to a (even a very brief) halt.


    1. So-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o …
      …if, for example, someone sneaks up behind me with a 9-iron and smashes my skull in and robs me—even this is still “nothing” compared to, say, some guy “verbally harassing” some woman?

      Is this a world that should seriously be considered livable?


      1. ” still “nothing” compared to, say, some guy “verbally harassing” some woman?”

        That’s the direction it’s headed.


        “should seriously be considered livable?”

        For the extremely rich it’s quite liveable and that’s what counts in fluidity….


  3. The trouble with many stories about Corbyn are the sources. The Sun is a product of NewsCorp, owned by the Murdoch family, ardent opponents of almost anybody who is slightly to the left of Genghis Kahn. Their agenda is to trash the Labour Party and keep the tories in power at all costs. As for the Express, this publication is significantly to the right of Genghis Kahn! Their incoherent agenda is possibly along the lines of sailing the UK out into the ocean as far from Europe (and everywhere else ‘foreign’) a possible.
    I don’t think Corbyn is an anti-Semite, he’s just not a strong leader, he’s incapable of controlling the minority of very unpleasant people in his party. There are plenty of anti-Semites in the tory party too, they just keep their heads down and the right wing press won’t report on them anyway.
    I think Corbyn did talk to hamas, and a lot of other organisations, because he’s in favour of talking to people, which has to be better than shouting or shooting at them. Don’t get me wrong, I won’t be voting for him, I just would marginally prefer Labour to Teresa May’s party, which has a lot of very unpleasant people, a lot of very ignorant people and a few who are pleasant but ill-informed and are looking for ways to head for the hills.


  4. Unfortunately, the United Kingdom is no longer free.

    We have spent today remembering those who gave their todays for our tomorrows, yet we have wasted so much of their legacy pandering to those who want the government to control everything.

    As part of this, many things which are free speech in the US are criminalised in the UK. This is opposed by some right-wing news organisations, including the Murdoch press, so they enjoy the pleasure when it gets turned back on the Labour Party. It must however, be pointed out that the Conservatives have been equally oppressive.

    My reading of what’s happened here is that a news organisation (LBC Radio) has done an investigation which correctly identifies Corbyn as a racist terrorist-sympathiser (but in a woke way…) and their advisers have pointed out that, due to the laws being deliberately broad, a crime may have been committed.

    Having decided this, LBC passed the info to the Met Police, who have the chance to review and decide whether to investigate further. However, if there might be a crime, they are open to judicial review if they fail to investigate further.

    Therefore, they are now covering their backside by asking the Crown Prosecution Service (effectively the District Attorney for England and Wales) whether a successful prosecution is possible – hoping that the answer would be no so they can avoid investigating their paymasters.

    I should note that this isn’t (officially) a decision of Theresa May, and the UK are proud of our officially independent Civil Service (the pride of the world, just like the NHS, just don’t ask how come they’re so biased and bound by group-think that we can’t finalise the Brexit negotiations) so she probably would not have even had an unofficial say on this investigation. Similarly, even if Corbyn were Prime Minister, the process so far would be unchanged (though I doubt very much the CPS would ever say that there is enough evidence to prosecute)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.