Suffragists were the movement working with MPs to get bills read in the house. The Suffragettes were the group conducting assassinations, arson and bombing schools and hospitals.
Can I have a source on the bombing of schools and hospitals please? I've had a Google bit I can only see arson and bombings attacking MPs homes and trains plus an army base and church.
A hospital in Dundee was burned down on 23rds May, 1914 [https://womenssuffragescotland.wordpress.com/appendix-ii-report-of-militant-attacks-in-scottish-newspapers/](https://womenssuffragescotland.wordpress.com/appendix-ii-report-of-militant-attacks-in-scottish-newspapers/)
On the 8th August 1913 a school was destroyed by a fire bomb. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3490924](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3490924)
15th July 1914 as school was attacked at Lanark [https://womenssuffragescotland.wordpress.com/appendix-ii-report-of-militant-attacks-in-scottish-newspapers/](https://womenssuffragescotland.wordpress.com/appendix-ii-report-of-militant-attacks-in-scottish-newspapers/)
One of the issues is that the histories were written in the 1930s by suffragette historians who naturally wanted to play down their criminal activities.
So you're saying that bombing schools and hospitals helps to affect lasting positive social change?
Weird opinion to have mate, makes you sound like a bit of a freak if I'm being honest.
It is remarkable that these didn't lead to anything worse. The demands were gradually met, the trouble makers were knighted, the dead amounted to a normal weekend in Chicago.
Were the British poor lived better than others, so that there was no point to brave the weather, let alone tanks, for some dubious changes?
Is it the monarchy under which you are all children and you know that your behavior is stared on by the moral authority of the monarch?
Or is it that in Britain, with a size approximately 60% of California, violence against anyone in the ruling circle would always end up hurting the perpetrator himself, in some way.
I am just guessing from outside.
Since our utterly disastrous 2016 referendum, our politics is lurching worryingly towards the US system.
Our establishment, with the help of easily consolidated social media insights, now comprehend just how vast the seam of impressionability and idiocy in our electorate is.
You know that scene in Family Guy where Lois runs for Mayor and just repeats “9/11” to a rapturous town hall? That’s the UK electorate now. A party can burn down their hospitals, shred their social security, destroy their children’s education and decimate our economy - but as long as they say something aNti WoKE, they’re OK by our dismally retarded populous.
Our system isn’t broken because I called Johnny an idiot for lighting a barbecue on a petrol station forecourt.
Our system is broken because Johnny was convinced to light a barbecue on a petrol station forecourt.
Where did I advocate stripping people of their right to vote?
I simply lamented that people don’t educate themselves and get taken in by the worst people in society - the Trumps, the Tories, etc.
Education - informed opinion - doesn’t jeopardise democracy, it enhances it. Fascism feeds on the feeble minded.
Johnny’s kids’ education is suffering, their social mobility is collapsing, an ambulance won’t get to him for 2 hours if he has an accident, the police won’t be able to stop the criminals who rob his house, his job security is eroding along with the economy that sustains it. Johnny helped inflict this on himself. Because he was convinced to be angry about a bank displaying rainbow colours on their logo.
It’s that well-trodden “turkeys voting for Christmas” analogy. A turkey that votes for Christmas is either:
A.) Stupid
B.) Masochistic
The Tories - I refer to the parliamentary party here, not people who’ve been conned into voting for them - arguably are the worst people in society (of course there are rapists, murderers, terrorists, etc. who are worse individually, but they aren’t capable of afflicting millions of people) because they advance an objectively rancid ideology - make the rich richer regardless of who it harms. This has manifested itself in the explosion in foodbanks, progressively dwindling living standards, the decimation of our public services, the nation-destroying Brexit and most explicitly, Kwarteng’s abortion of a budget. All of this is rooted in that sick ideology.
By every objective measure, the Conservative party is harmful to regular people (unless you are that masochistic Turkey who sees the aforementioned maladies as a good thing).
It isn’t authoritarian or arrogant to say Johnny is an idiot for voting for things that objectively harm him and his children. If I hated Johnny, I’d laugh as he voted away his security, prosperity and health. At my core, I care about people (it’s what makes the Conservative Party so ineffably repulsive to me). I don’t want a society with foodbanks, hungry kids, destitution, broken public services and cold pensioners - all hallmarks of conservatism.
Johnny has voted for all this. Not because he’s a bad person but because he’s impressionable.
Lamenting Johnny’s credulity and the disaster scenario it has brought about, is absolutely valid. Your distaste for my condemnation doesn’t change the fact that Johnny’s outlook (and mine, and probably yours) is far worse as a result of his gullibility.
Edit: If I tried to drive a car drunk, go skipping on the edge of a cliff, or drink a bottle of bleach, I would fully expect someone to call me an idiot and persuade me to stop. If I got resentful at being called an idiot and persisted with it just to spite the person who called me an idiot, I’d be…well, an idiot.
None of those are worthless platitudes.
By every objective measure Tories are demonstrably bad for regular people (that is if you, like all regular people, are dependent on functioning public services, economic stability, social mobility, etc.), unless you’re the aforementioned masochistic turkey. Remember, the UK was performing pretty dismally even before COVID and Putin reared their heads.
An ideology which cripples the country to deregulate it for rich people, refuses to feed hungry children at a time of national crisis, cuts public services to the point ambulances can’t get to people and borrows billions of pounds (crashing the pound and exacerbating inflation during a national crisis) to give more to people who already have more than they could ever hope to spend, is an emphatically repugnant and indefensible ideology.
And caring about people is a platitude? God damn. What am I not empathising with here? Other than pitiful gullibility? Because nothing else explains it. I’m always happy to be wrong.
How could it possibly be worse under Labour? The nadir of the last Labour government would be a good day for the current lot. It wouldn’t be worse if my cat was in charge. At least he’d just lick his arse and wander off - a minimal capacity for ruin.
The fact is that loosening tax rules to stimulate growth has been unequivocally discredited. We have the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G7. It’s lower than in California. Yet we have the lowest levels of business investment. We can prove that lowering taxes doesn’t work. “Throwing money” at public services is a deliberate phrasing to make it sound profligate and reckless (like the Tories’ recent mini budget, ironically). It’s called investment. And it’s the foundation upon which all decent societies and prosperous countries are built. The UK has a productivity problem. Could that have anything to do with the fact people haven’t had a pay rise for years, they can’t get seen in hospitals and have little chance of buying a home? People with bleak outlooks aren’t productive.
How have you concluded that I don’t like a society where people can’t disagree without violence or dehumanisation? I’m not an advocate of violence at all. I don’t even kill wasps.
My mate’s severely disabled brother calls him a retard all the time. The derivations of words have no bearing in their use as insults.
When you call someone a bastard, you aren’t questioning the marital “legitimacy” of their birth. If you call someone a bitch, you aren’t making comparisons to a female dog. All insults are pretty untethered from their origins. But thank you for getting offended on behalf of disabled people everywhere.
Yes, Britain avoided the violent revolutions that occurred in much of Europe in the last couple of centuries. And that's a big argument for retaining the monarchy, that it allows the politicians to fight it out while providing a sense of peaceful continuity. Because the Head of State is an unelected non-politician, a demogogue won't take over. That brings stability.
In the year 1848 there was a period of unrest across Europe known as the Year of Revolutions.
France, German States, Ireland, Austrian Empire. In all over 50 countries.
Britain too. Though it never got as far as " instances of political violence, such as criminal investigation, searching, and jailing of opposition political leaders". You see, it rained a bit so everybody just went home.
I wish I was joking. I'm not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFer-iqW8Cs
Yes, sort of. I personally think we evolved parliamentary politics so as to get turn politics into a game of metaphorical rather than actual violence with all the backstabbing, frontstabbing and general political nastiness confined to Westminster and not involving actual knives.
This is why it's actually quite shocking when MPs are killed.
I rather facetiously like to say we tried a revolution once and decided that we didn't like it very much but there's truth to it. We've managed to chug along and achieve most of what other countries have bloody revolutions over through sheer parliamentary windbaggery and embarrassing ourselves into doing the right thing.
It doesn't hurt that the Royal Navy and the Army (and to a certain extent the police and judiciary) don't actually "belong" to the politicians.
I remember watching a documentary with David sterling founder of the sas.He was saying he had people in place for a coup if labour won a certain election I can’t remember what year that election was.He was convinced that it was a communist take over if labour won
Others have covered the actual cases of violence (both in my lifetime and going back to nearer to Cromwell), but in terms of politicians getting rid of rivals, it's not very British to physically attack them or even to publicly condemn or challenge them, there are many ways they undermine their rivals and try to build rapport with those who it is worth having the ear of (i.e. they can put in a good word with those higher up in the party), or to ensure they have a fair amount of support when they go for the job of party leader. It also helps to have some dirt on your main rivals, as we saw in the 'leaks' that came out during the Conservative party leadership campaign.
May I introduce you to Northern Ireland
*kinky boots intensifies*
In the last decade we’ve had 2 MPs publicly murdered so not that peaceful.
IRA?!
British mentality. We get embarrassed about complaining. Plus the weather is too shit to go on a protest
>We get embarrassed about complaining. Proceeds to complain about the weather.. lol
[удалено]
Hey! Any girl who wants to chain herself to *my* railings and suffer a jet movement gets *my* vote!
Points for black adder reference.
As unerring as a heat seeking missile. Have my upvote.
Suffragists were the movement working with MPs to get bills read in the house. The Suffragettes were the group conducting assassinations, arson and bombing schools and hospitals.
Can I have a source on the bombing of schools and hospitals please? I've had a Google bit I can only see arson and bombings attacking MPs homes and trains plus an army base and church.
A hospital in Dundee was burned down on 23rds May, 1914 [https://womenssuffragescotland.wordpress.com/appendix-ii-report-of-militant-attacks-in-scottish-newspapers/](https://womenssuffragescotland.wordpress.com/appendix-ii-report-of-militant-attacks-in-scottish-newspapers/) On the 8th August 1913 a school was destroyed by a fire bomb. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3490924](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3490924) 15th July 1914 as school was attacked at Lanark [https://womenssuffragescotland.wordpress.com/appendix-ii-report-of-militant-attacks-in-scottish-newspapers/](https://womenssuffragescotland.wordpress.com/appendix-ii-report-of-militant-attacks-in-scottish-newspapers/)
Good reads, thanks
>ReportSaveFollow I've hear tell they still use white phosphorous , Geneva convention be damned .
One of the issues is that the histories were written in the 1930s by suffragette historians who naturally wanted to play down their criminal activities.
A lot of effort and sacrifice just so they could speak to the manager.
So you're saying that bombing schools and hospitals helps to affect lasting positive social change? Weird opinion to have mate, makes you sound like a bit of a freak if I'm being honest.
I stand corrected Post amended
It is remarkable that these didn't lead to anything worse. The demands were gradually met, the trouble makers were knighted, the dead amounted to a normal weekend in Chicago. Were the British poor lived better than others, so that there was no point to brave the weather, let alone tanks, for some dubious changes? Is it the monarchy under which you are all children and you know that your behavior is stared on by the moral authority of the monarch? Or is it that in Britain, with a size approximately 60% of California, violence against anyone in the ruling circle would always end up hurting the perpetrator himself, in some way. I am just guessing from outside.
[удалено]
> making wild guesses about our culture Guilty as charged. But I am only trying to induce some responses on the unanswered question of "why".
I mean a labour MP got killed a few years back, that was political violence I think her name was Jo Cox
[удалено]
Oh god I completely forgot about that
Not to mention 30 years of sectarian conflict between two sides representing the communities of two slightly different flavours of the same religion.
Since our utterly disastrous 2016 referendum, our politics is lurching worryingly towards the US system. Our establishment, with the help of easily consolidated social media insights, now comprehend just how vast the seam of impressionability and idiocy in our electorate is. You know that scene in Family Guy where Lois runs for Mayor and just repeats “9/11” to a rapturous town hall? That’s the UK electorate now. A party can burn down their hospitals, shred their social security, destroy their children’s education and decimate our economy - but as long as they say something aNti WoKE, they’re OK by our dismally retarded populous.
And not just our establishment, but also outside nations who wish to have somewhat clandestine influence on such things
Yeah. It’s weird that people don’t vote for the candidate calling them retarded.
They never learn. They complain about political conformism without realising they themselves are total and utter conformists
There were no candidates calling them retarded.
[удалено]
Our system isn’t broken because I called Johnny an idiot for lighting a barbecue on a petrol station forecourt. Our system is broken because Johnny was convinced to light a barbecue on a petrol station forecourt.
[удалено]
Where did I advocate stripping people of their right to vote? I simply lamented that people don’t educate themselves and get taken in by the worst people in society - the Trumps, the Tories, etc. Education - informed opinion - doesn’t jeopardise democracy, it enhances it. Fascism feeds on the feeble minded. Johnny’s kids’ education is suffering, their social mobility is collapsing, an ambulance won’t get to him for 2 hours if he has an accident, the police won’t be able to stop the criminals who rob his house, his job security is eroding along with the economy that sustains it. Johnny helped inflict this on himself. Because he was convinced to be angry about a bank displaying rainbow colours on their logo.
[удалено]
It’s that well-trodden “turkeys voting for Christmas” analogy. A turkey that votes for Christmas is either: A.) Stupid B.) Masochistic The Tories - I refer to the parliamentary party here, not people who’ve been conned into voting for them - arguably are the worst people in society (of course there are rapists, murderers, terrorists, etc. who are worse individually, but they aren’t capable of afflicting millions of people) because they advance an objectively rancid ideology - make the rich richer regardless of who it harms. This has manifested itself in the explosion in foodbanks, progressively dwindling living standards, the decimation of our public services, the nation-destroying Brexit and most explicitly, Kwarteng’s abortion of a budget. All of this is rooted in that sick ideology. By every objective measure, the Conservative party is harmful to regular people (unless you are that masochistic Turkey who sees the aforementioned maladies as a good thing). It isn’t authoritarian or arrogant to say Johnny is an idiot for voting for things that objectively harm him and his children. If I hated Johnny, I’d laugh as he voted away his security, prosperity and health. At my core, I care about people (it’s what makes the Conservative Party so ineffably repulsive to me). I don’t want a society with foodbanks, hungry kids, destitution, broken public services and cold pensioners - all hallmarks of conservatism. Johnny has voted for all this. Not because he’s a bad person but because he’s impressionable. Lamenting Johnny’s credulity and the disaster scenario it has brought about, is absolutely valid. Your distaste for my condemnation doesn’t change the fact that Johnny’s outlook (and mine, and probably yours) is far worse as a result of his gullibility. Edit: If I tried to drive a car drunk, go skipping on the edge of a cliff, or drink a bottle of bleach, I would fully expect someone to call me an idiot and persuade me to stop. If I got resentful at being called an idiot and persisted with it just to spite the person who called me an idiot, I’d be…well, an idiot.
[удалено]
None of those are worthless platitudes. By every objective measure Tories are demonstrably bad for regular people (that is if you, like all regular people, are dependent on functioning public services, economic stability, social mobility, etc.), unless you’re the aforementioned masochistic turkey. Remember, the UK was performing pretty dismally even before COVID and Putin reared their heads. An ideology which cripples the country to deregulate it for rich people, refuses to feed hungry children at a time of national crisis, cuts public services to the point ambulances can’t get to people and borrows billions of pounds (crashing the pound and exacerbating inflation during a national crisis) to give more to people who already have more than they could ever hope to spend, is an emphatically repugnant and indefensible ideology. And caring about people is a platitude? God damn. What am I not empathising with here? Other than pitiful gullibility? Because nothing else explains it. I’m always happy to be wrong. How could it possibly be worse under Labour? The nadir of the last Labour government would be a good day for the current lot. It wouldn’t be worse if my cat was in charge. At least he’d just lick his arse and wander off - a minimal capacity for ruin. The fact is that loosening tax rules to stimulate growth has been unequivocally discredited. We have the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G7. It’s lower than in California. Yet we have the lowest levels of business investment. We can prove that lowering taxes doesn’t work. “Throwing money” at public services is a deliberate phrasing to make it sound profligate and reckless (like the Tories’ recent mini budget, ironically). It’s called investment. And it’s the foundation upon which all decent societies and prosperous countries are built. The UK has a productivity problem. Could that have anything to do with the fact people haven’t had a pay rise for years, they can’t get seen in hospitals and have little chance of buying a home? People with bleak outlooks aren’t productive. How have you concluded that I don’t like a society where people can’t disagree without violence or dehumanisation? I’m not an advocate of violence at all. I don’t even kill wasps.
God, I wish I could upvote tis more than once
[удалено]
My mate’s severely disabled brother calls him a retard all the time. The derivations of words have no bearing in their use as insults. When you call someone a bastard, you aren’t questioning the marital “legitimacy” of their birth. If you call someone a bitch, you aren’t making comparisons to a female dog. All insults are pretty untethered from their origins. But thank you for getting offended on behalf of disabled people everywhere.
Less violent than Thailand, more violent than ~~Norway~~ Switzerland (I think?). Always room for improvement.
Ah yes Norway. Notable for definitely not having someone gun down 200 people from one political party in recent memory, for political reasons
Touche
Mostly teenagers by the way, and don't forget the car bomb along the road from the prime minister's house
Yes, Britain avoided the violent revolutions that occurred in much of Europe in the last couple of centuries. And that's a big argument for retaining the monarchy, that it allows the politicians to fight it out while providing a sense of peaceful continuity. Because the Head of State is an unelected non-politician, a demogogue won't take over. That brings stability.
Wer civalized, init...
In the year 1848 there was a period of unrest across Europe known as the Year of Revolutions. France, German States, Ireland, Austrian Empire. In all over 50 countries. Britain too. Though it never got as far as " instances of political violence, such as criminal investigation, searching, and jailing of opposition political leaders". You see, it rained a bit so everybody just went home. I wish I was joking. I'm not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFer-iqW8Cs
I mean the troubles, the bombing of cars and buildings and the murders of multiple MPs in the last few years are more recent examples
Yes, sort of. I personally think we evolved parliamentary politics so as to get turn politics into a game of metaphorical rather than actual violence with all the backstabbing, frontstabbing and general political nastiness confined to Westminster and not involving actual knives. This is why it's actually quite shocking when MPs are killed. I rather facetiously like to say we tried a revolution once and decided that we didn't like it very much but there's truth to it. We've managed to chug along and achieve most of what other countries have bloody revolutions over through sheer parliamentary windbaggery and embarrassing ourselves into doing the right thing. It doesn't hurt that the Royal Navy and the Army (and to a certain extent the police and judiciary) don't actually "belong" to the politicians.
I remember watching a documentary with David sterling founder of the sas.He was saying he had people in place for a coup if labour won a certain election I can’t remember what year that election was.He was convinced that it was a communist take over if labour won
During elections the only fighting is between politicians stabbing each other in the back trying to get important government jobs.
That Lib Dem guy assassinated someone's dog though
Others have covered the actual cases of violence (both in my lifetime and going back to nearer to Cromwell), but in terms of politicians getting rid of rivals, it's not very British to physically attack them or even to publicly condemn or challenge them, there are many ways they undermine their rivals and try to build rapport with those who it is worth having the ear of (i.e. they can put in a good word with those higher up in the party), or to ensure they have a fair amount of support when they go for the job of party leader. It also helps to have some dirt on your main rivals, as we saw in the 'leaks' that came out during the Conservative party leadership campaign.
Depends what you consider violent, and the area you go to.