Support NeoGAF

[Funky Papa]

Can't they at least add a tilde on the n ? The spelling is annoying me even more than the headline itself...

It's actually señores.

I can excuse the ñ, but missing the second e is just embarrassing.

I'm not even triggered. It's just sad.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It's actually señores.

I can excuse the ñ, but missing the second e is just embarrassing.

I'm not even triggered. It's just sad.

It wouldn't rhyme with doors then, though, you espanool fool.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Should've been "You're only supposed to blow the bloody matadors off". These people are hacks.

 

[Dougald]

Should've been "You're only supposed to blow the bloody matadors off". These people are hacks.

Todays Sun can't even do half-decent puns, and that was the only thing the paper ever had going for it

Wait, it never had anything going for it

 

[correojon]

Was that stunt really performed? If it was I don´t remember watching it in any news report here in Spain. If they´re trying to anger the spanish people with that kind of stuff they´re failing miserably. Brexit as a whole is being barely mentioned in the news reports.

 

[Funky Papa]

Was that stunt really performed? If it was I don´t remember watching it in any news report here in Spain. If they´re trying to anger the spanish people with that kind of stuff they´re failing miserably. Brexit as a whole is being barely mentioned in the news reports.

It's obviously aimed at their rah-rah-rah readers.

 

[Beefy]

@LeaveEUOfficial
How much should the British taxpayer spend on remorseless murdering scum like this?

Not racist though /s

 

[TimmmV]

@LeaveEUOfficial
How much should the British taxpayer spend on remorseless murdering scum like this?




Not racist though /s

Absolutely disgusting

In addition to the obvious racism, those figures are total bollocks too

 

[Beefy]

Absolutely disgusting

In addition to the obvious racism, those figures are total bollocks too

Nah man, all you need is a lil rope. No trial or anything.

 

[Ardenyal]

@LeaveEUOfficial

Rhetoric such as this should be addressed by UN or some other org concerned about human rights?

 

[Carl2291]

Not racist though /s

That's not racist, it's just wanting to bring back the death penalty. it's outrage over Adebowale being moved to Broadmoor where it costs ~£250k per year to house an inmate.

Silly, yes. Racist, I don't see it.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

That's not racist, it's just wanting to bring back the death penalty. it's outrage over Adebowale being moved to Broadmoor where it costs ~£250k per year to house an inmate.

Silly, yes. Racist, I don't see it.

Is it really related to the EU though? I mean, we abolished the death penalty before we joined the EU didn't we?

 

[PJV3]

@LeaveEUOfficial
How much should the British taxpayer spend on remorseless murdering scum like this?




Not racist though /s

When you start killing people to save a few quid you were never really bothered about human life anyway.

 

[Zaph]

That's not racist, it's just wanting to bring back the death penalty. it's outrage over Adebowale being moved to Broadmoor where it costs ~£250k per year to house an inmate.

Silly, yes. Racist, I don't see it.

There are plenty of ways they could have illustrated their awful opinions on the death penalty for a black suspect without photoshopping a noose next to him. No way they're oblivious to the implications there.

 

[Halph n Halph]

@LeaveEUOfficial
How much should the British taxpayer spend on remorseless murdering scum like this?




Not racist though /s

Absolutely disgusting

In addition to the obvious racism, those figures are total bollocks too

Why is it racist?

 

[TimmmV]

Why is it racist?

See what Zaph said

Is it really related to the EU though? I mean, we abolished the death penalty before we joined the EU didn't we?

Yeah we did, but it is kind of related as members of the EU aren't permitted to have the death penalty. Now we are leaving, it's something that could in theory be brought back

 

[Carl2291]

There are plenty of ways they could have illustrated their awful opinions on the death penalty for a black suspect without photoshopping a noose next to him. No way they're oblivious to the implications there.

So because they decided to put a noose next to a picture of a black man, it's racist? Give over.

Michael Adebowale is very well known to the British public and is currently in the news due to him being moved from a high security prison to Broadmoor. That's why he's being used in the image.

 

[tuxfool]

Yeah we did, but it is kind of related as members of the EU aren't permitted to have the death penalty. Now we are leaving, it's something that could in theory be brought back

And that a significant percentage of Brexiters are in favour of.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Yeah we did, but it is kind of related as members of the EU aren't permitted to have the death penalty. Now we are leaving, it's something that could in theory be brought back

We'd also have to leave the ECHR as well though, and I don't think there are any plans to do that.

 

[Muffin1611]

We'd also have to leave the ECHR as well though, and I don't think there are any plans to do that.

Not sure, is this still advocated by May?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ts-2020-general-election-brexit-a7499951.html

 

[chadskin]

We'd also have to leave the ECHR as well though, and I don't think there are any plans to do that.

Theresa May to fight 2020 election on plans to take Britain out of European Convention on Human Rights after Brexit is completed

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Not sure, is this still advocated by May?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ts-2020-general-election-brexit-a7499951.html

I was not aware of that! Thanks for the link.

Edit:

Theresa May to fight 2020 election on plans to take Britain out of European Convention on Human Rights after Brexit is completed

And thank you for the superior Telegraph link

 

[PJV3]

Theresa May to fight 2020 election on plans to take Britain out of European Convention on Human Rights after Brexit is completed

I shouldn't have read it, Phil Davies is such an enormous twat. I'm absolutely livid about the 10 seconds it takes a prisoner to vote or that he/she could be bothered to in the first place.

 

[Muffin1611]

What are some good UK sources btw? I don't talk about Brexit too often, only recently decided to post in here.

The only good ones I have in mind are The Guardian and BBC.

 

[Ardenyal]

Set the clocks back 52 years. Hecking degenerates.

 

[Uzzy]

What are some good UK sources btw? I don't talk about Brexit too often, only recently decided to post in here.

The only good ones I have in mind are The Guardian and BBC.

The Telegraph, Independent and the Guardian are my papers of choice for anything approaching reasonably decent reporting. Though The Telegraph took a hell of a knock in my books after the HSBC coverage scandal.

I also try to read the New Statesman, The Economist and the Spectator. Nice broad range of news weekly magazines.

The Daily Mash is the best place to go for serious reporting though.

 

[Camp Freddie]

Why is it racist?

It's more of an American thing, where lynching of black people was common. Depicting black criminals as deserving the noose has a very nasty history and puts you right alongside the KKK.


That sun headline has me laughing.
Reminds me of a joke about Michael Caine, Jim Morrison, Mick Jagger, and Marian Faithfull.
I'm sure you can guess the punchline and double entendre.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

Yeah we did, but it is kind of related as members of the EU aren't permitted to have the death penalty. Now we are leaving, it's something that could in theory be brought back

We'd also have to leave the ECHR as well though, and I don't think there are any plans to do that.

Not sure, is this still advocated by May?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ts-2020-general-election-brexit-a7499951.html

Just going to provide some clarification here.

The death penalty is forbidden by several pieces of domestic legislation, Art. 3 EHCR, Art. 1 (2nd optional protocol) ICCPR and Art. 6 ICCPR.

The domestic legislation is, in theory, easy to repeal. Regarding Art. 3 ECHR, the only way not to be bound would be to repeal the Human Rights Act, and remove ourselves from the ECHR entirely. However, there would likely be a severe unintended consequence of this. By leaving the ECHR and reintroducing the death penalty, the UK would be in contravention to Art. 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, wherein all states commit to guarantee fundamental human rights. This would mean that, per Art. 8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, the UK may be removed from the Council of Europe entirely. This would be the biggest dressing down that the UK has received since Suez, and would probably mark the end of the UK as a nation that others wanted to associate with in any way whatsoever.

As stated previously, we are also a party to the 2nd optional protocol to the ICCPR, Art. 1 of which (no reservation made by the UK) places a moratorium on the death penalty. Art. 6 ICCPR also serves to accomplish this. While the UK has not signed up to the optional protocol containing an enforcement mechanism for the ICCPR, the UK would be in breach of its international obligations. Per Art. 19 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, the UK is not able to make a late reservation under the ICCPR, and as a result would need to exit the ICCPR and attempt to re-enter. This would probably be met with objections from other states.

In short, we have to really, really want to fuck ourselves on the international stage if we're to reintroduce the death penalty.

 

[EmiPrime]

What are some good UK sources btw? I don't talk about Brexit too often, only recently decided to post in here.

The only good ones I have in mind are The Guardian and BBC.

Private Eye, The Financial Times and The Guardian.

Probably in that order!

 

[RedSparrows]

Just going to provide some clarification here.

The death penalty is forbidden by several pieces of domestic legislation, Art. 3 EHCR, Art. 1 (2nd optional protocol) ICCPR and Art. 6 ICCPR.

The domestic legislation is, in theory, easy to repeal. Regarding Art. 3 ECHR, the only way not to be bound would be to repeal the Human Rights Act, and remove ourselves from the ECHR entirely. However, there would likely be a severe unintended consequence of this. By leaving the ECHR and reintroducing the death penalty, the UK would be in contravention to Art. 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, wherein all states commit to guarantee fundamental human rights. This would mean that, per Art. 8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, the UK may be removed from the Council of Europe entirely. This would be the biggest dressing down that the UK has received since Suez, and would probably mark the end of the UK as a nation that others wanted to associate with in any way whatsoever.

As stated previously, we are also a party to the 2nd optional protocol to the ICCPR, Art. 1 of which (no reservation made by the UK) places a moratorium on the death penalty. Art. 6 ICCPR also serves to accomplish this. While the UK has not signed up to the optional protocol containing an enforcement mechanism for the ICCPR, the UK would be in breach of its international obligations. Per Art. 19 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, the UK is not able to make a late reservation under the ICCPR, and as a result would need to exit the ICCPR and attempt to re-enter. This would probably be met with objections from other states.

In short, we have to really, really want to fuck ourselves on the international stage if we're to reintroduce the death penalty.

I have every faith that millions of my countrymen would see that as a worthy challenge, with that very fact being seen as somehow a justification for bringing it back, on top of 'yeah, let me at them for 5 minutes' pseud-hardman internet vigilante idiocy.

 

[Muffin1611]

The Telegraph, Independent and the Guardian are my papers of choice for anything approaching reasonably decent reporting. Though The Telegraph took a hell of a knock in my books after the HSBC coverage scandal.

I also try to read the New Statesman, The Economist and the Spectator. Nice broad range of news weekly magazines.

The Daily Mash is the best place to go for serious reporting though.

Private Eye, The Financial Times and The Guardian.

Probably in that order!

Thanks, you two. I'll keep that in mind when I use British sources.

 

[Beefy]

So because they decided to put a noose next to a picture of a black man, it's racist? Give over.

Michael Adebowale is very well known to the British public and is currently in the news due to him being moved from a high security prison to Broadmoor. That's why he's being used in the image.

Are you black? If not you can't really say what I as a black man defines as being racist towards my colour.

 

[daviyoung]

It's more of an American thing, where lynching of black people was common. Depicting black criminals as deserving the noose has a very nasty history and puts you right alongside the KKK.

This has nothing to do with the US though

 

[Halph n Halph]

Are you black? If not you can't really say what I as a black man defines as being racist towards my colour.

The image isn't advocating hanging him because he's black ffs . He murdered a young man with a wife and child just because he was a white British soldier.
It was a religious/ racist attack and he supposedly wanted to die at the scene, so in actual fact the death penalty would only serve to give him what he desired.

 

[Makareu]

Just going to provide some clarification here.

The death penalty is forbidden by several pieces of domestic legislation, Art. 3 EHCR, Art. 1 (2nd optional protocol) ICCPR and Art. 6 ICCPR.

The domestic legislation is, in theory, easy to repeal. Regarding Art. 3 ECHR, the only way not to be bound would be to repeal the Human Rights Act, and remove ourselves from the ECHR entirely. However, there would likely be a severe unintended consequence of this. By leaving the ECHR and reintroducing the death penalty, the UK would be in contravention to Art. 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, wherein all states commit to guarantee fundamental human rights. This would mean that, per Art. 8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, the UK may be removed from the Council of Europe entirely. This would be the biggest dressing down that the UK has received since Suez, and would probably mark the end of the UK as a nation that others wanted to associate with in any way whatsoever.

As stated previously, we are also a party to the 2nd optional protocol to the ICCPR, Art. 1 of which (no reservation made by the UK) places a moratorium on the death penalty. Art. 6 ICCPR also serves to accomplish this. While the UK has not signed up to the optional protocol containing an enforcement mechanism for the ICCPR, the UK would be in breach of its international obligations. Per Art. 19 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, the UK is not able to make a late reservation under the ICCPR, and as a result would need to exit the ICCPR and attempt to re-enter. This would probably be met with objections from other states.

In short, we have to really, really want to fuck ourselves on the international stage if we're to reintroduce the death penalty.

Thank you for this informative post. I kinda of want to see that world where Brexit is just a drill.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Is it really related to the EU though? I mean, we abolished the death penalty before we joined the EU didn't we?

1965 in GB.

However, 1973 in Northern Ireland. Several months after joining.

Are you black? If not you can't really say what I as a black man defines as being racist towards my colour.

While I think that imagery is problematic indeed (though mainly in a more American context)...

...No, just no. You do not need to be a certain colour to accurately determine whether something is racist or not towards that colour.

 

[TimmmV]

...

In short, we have to really, really want to fuck ourselves on the international stage if we're to reintroduce the death penalty.

Thanks for clarifying. Your final sentence was reassuring too (although less so than usual with how mental the UKs politics is at the moment!)

The image isn't advocating hanging him because he's black ffs.

They aren't advocating the death penalty for him because he is black (although its not like theyr'e actively campaigning for Thomas Mair to be given the death penalty, which is fairly suspect too) but they are totally happy to use an image thats commonly associated with lynching next to a black person, when there are plenty of other options to convey giving someone the death penalty. It's not unreasonable to consider this picture to be racist

He murdered a young man with a wife and child just because he was a white British soldier.
It was a religious/ racist attack and he supposedly wanted to die at the scene, so in actual fact the death penalty would only serve to give him what he desired.

No. This isn't how the legal system works.

 

[Pancake Mix]

The death penalty coming back wouldn't solve any problems.

It would also lead to expulsion from the Council of Europe.

Edit: Well not expulsion, but it'd be a problem.

 

[Beefy]

The image isn't advocating hanging him because he's black ffs . He murdered a young man with a wife and child just because he was a white British soldier.
It was a religious/ racist attack and he supposedly wanted to die at the scene, so in actual fact the death penalty would only serve to give him what he desired.

Look at the Twitter account and how trash it has become since Brexit won. It was obvious what they were getting at.

While I think that imagery is problematic indeed (though mainly in a more American context)...

...No, just no. You do not need to be a certain colour to accurately determine whether something is racist or not towards that colour.

But white people suffer far less racism then minorities. Also what is deemed not racist by some one could be deemed racist by another. Specially if that person has suffered racism in the past due to being a minority. What a white person who hardly is racially abused thinks is racism and what a black person etc who gets loads of racist abuse is different.

 

[daviyoung]

there's a difference between "it's racist" and "I find it racist", and you're flip-flopping between the two at rapid speed

 

[Beefy]

there's a difference between "it's racist" and "I find it racist", and you're flip-flopping between the two at rapid speed

It's racist because I find it racist, see what I did there? No flip flopping at all.

 

[daviyoung]

It's racist because I find it racist, see what I did there? No flip flopping at all.

so you're saying racism is all a matter of opinion then

 

[Muffin1611]

there's a difference between "it's racist" and "I find it racist", and you're flip-flopping between the two at rapid speed

He's right, you know. Whites certainly are more prone to let things slide that are racist towards minorities. Things aren't really "objectively" racist.

 

[daviyoung]

He's right, you know. Whites certainly are more prone to let things slide that are racist towards minorities. Things aren't really "objectively" racist.

it's the intent of the poster that we're discussing

Beefy said it's obvious what the poster is implying, but is also his opinion...well which is it? just that it's obvious that it's his opinion?

 

[PdotMichael]

Racism is a clearly defined term. There is no subjective aspect about that term.

 

[Beefy]

so you're saying racism is all a matter of opinion then

When racism isn't clear cut and the person isn't spewing racist slurs. How you are brought up and how racism has effected your life will determine what you view as racist. People that haven't suffered racism will have a different outlook then a person that has. If you look at the Twitter account it is obvious what they were getting at.

 

[Zaph]

beefy, this is a forum that still debates zwarte piet every year. ain't worth your time

 

[Muffin1611]

Racism is a clearly defined term. There is no subjective aspect about that term.

It's objective in the general sense, sure, but perceived subjective at least to the extent of the person judging it and the intent behind it.

 

[daviyoung]

When racism isn't clear cut and the person isn't spewing racist slurs. How you are brought up and how racism has effected your life will determine what you view as racist. People that haven't suffered racism will have a different outlook then a person that has. If you look at the Twitter account it is obvious what they were getting at.

how can it be obvious when you yourself say it isn't clear cut?!

 

[Beefy]

beefy, this is a forum that still debates zwarte piet every year. ain't worth your time

True!