april. politics. 2019. politics politics politics.

Despite all GEOFFS rage we are still just rats on a page

13 Likes

didn’t know where else to put this

https://twitter.com/eve_rebecca/status/1112734669852889089?s=19

This is horrific, really hope it’s an April Fool’s gone too far rather than real

I remember a Brookside storyline that tackled this subject, in the 90s. ffs.

It’s horrifying that that’s on the top of his list of human rights too.

You might have to have sex thirsty, starving, outside and in the dark but they play second fiddle to fucking the wife.

1 Like

Keep reading that statement over and over. Gobsmacking an educated human being said those words in that order as a matter of public record in the 21st Century.

1 Like

Nah this is really interesting. I wondered if his point might have been misinterpreted but i wasnt sure and didnt want to suggest it in case i was wrong.

Still pretty terribly phrased though

3 Likes

Was gonna say you could combine the 2, but sadly eduroam drops out too often

1 Like

idk it seems pretty binary to me -

if he’s saying it’s a human right for a man to have sex with a woman because she’s his wife then that really shouldn’t ever be said

if he’s saying it’s a human right for a man and a woman to be entitled to privacy from the state sometimes than that really shoudn’t ever need to be said

lol that’s not binary is it more like hex or something

(if he’s saying something else then I don’t get it and he should really make himself clearer because he’s a ruddy judge)

FYI, a non-UK politics thread can be found here if anyone’s inclined.

1 Like

I’d discuss it but I don’t have enough/any knowledge of it I’m afraid :pensive:

2 Likes

CUK appear to be sapping the tory vote which was definitely not the plan afaik.

1 Like

Makes sense tbh, Tory remainers desperately searching for something to vote for that isn’t Corbyn.

2 Likes

The shortening to ‘CHUK’ immediately explains Chuka’s desire to have that name for the party.

1 Like

It’s frustrating but then I feel he is in a position, not just being a judge but being a man and a member of the establishment, of not really deserving the benefit of the doubt.

I think you’re probably right that he means the state shouldn’t be monitoring a marriage like this but it feels like there are so many better ways to phrase that and the fact he chose this way, even if he didn’t mean it to read that way, speaks volumes to me.


As far as your Human Rights law query goes, isn’t personal autonomy only ever a human right as long as it’s not impacting on others’ rights to autonomy? This is about the state claiming the rights of his wife could be violated by his choices and if that’s the case then I would take her right not to be raped as above that.

But even then no bloody idea how you police this or how it is supposed to work. It actually makes me think of aspects of China Mieville’s Perdido Street Station.

I don’t feel like Owen Jones has done a good job with these Tweets. His ‘correctly shot dead’ is too much for me. If I’m honest also part of it is I’m angry at him providing justifiable shit for wankers to fling at him.

(I would advocate for Mussolini’s trial and imprisonment and not execution but equally I cannot feel remotely bad about the fact he was shot.)

1 Like

That’ll be the case down here I think. Sarah Wollaston is pretty popular because she’s seen as being really good on local issues and much more proactive than her predecessor, Anthony Steen. Also, even if she loses say 30-40% of the Tory vote, the Lib Dems are traditionally second here, mainly due to lack of other viable options, so she’d pick up a lot of their vote.

It does make a bit of a dilemma for someone like me and people I know, who’d usually vote LD or Labour to try and take the Tory seat. Wollaston’s voting record isn’t the worst for a Tory, but it’s a bit mixed, and I’m loathe to vote for anyone who once aligned themselves with the lizard people, but on the other hand, it’ll be a straight two horse race here between her and whoever the Tories bring in, so it’s a very good chance of stopping what would now be a Con gain.

2 Likes

My interpretation was the same as yours I think. Horrendously-worded single sentence from the judge, but then going back to look at the original article it seemed likely in that context that it was a clumsily-worded attempt to outline the right to a private and family life free from state interference. And (again based on very limited info) it seems that the judge was only saying that there’s at least a right for that argument to be made in court, not that he was intending to rule one way or another at this stage. Put another way, it doesn’t seem that the council’s argument is that the sexual relationship between this husband and wife has been non-consensual for the last 20 years, so I would assume the onus is on them to prove something substantial has changed now.

From my very limited second-hand experience of these cases, it’s also possible the husband has learning disabilities too, which would make the case even more sensitive as there may be two understandings of consent under scrutiny at the same time. I find cases like this very difficult and I have enormous sympathy for the couple concerned - you can have dozens of people making arguments on behalf of one individual or a couple who aren’t deemed able to represent their own interests adequately. Most of those participating are usually extremely well-intentioned, but it can lead inadvertently to some really unpleasant outcomes - not least of which is something like this, a couple’s sex life playing out in the national media with all sorts of speculation (this included obviously), not least from people who probaby have a responsibility to understand the case better before rushing to report it in such limited ways.

As with so many things, I wouldn’t be surprised to find there’s an austerity angle here too, possibly around the accommodation this couple are entitled to from the council. I know parents with very indepedent adult children with learning disabilities who have had to go to court and effectively argue against their children’s independence as it’s the only way for them to get even limited support from the state that they really should be entitled to as a matter of course.

2 Likes