Steve P 🔶️

He's right*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*if the day is December 21st, in the Arctic

Sometimes, death makes the world a better place. This is one of those times.

You clearly don't understand the first thing about Parliamentary politics. Carry on shouting into the void if you like, but I'm done lowering myself to your level.

You claimed that by abstaining, the Lib Dems allowed the Government to "go after" PA.

So either you didn't know you came up with a steaming pile of horseshit (ignorance), or you knew it was a steaming pile of horseshit (dishonesty).

Who said the Greens should apologise for Labour's behaviour?

CLUE: Not me.

Well let's start with the fact that I made no such assertion. I've made it clear on numerous occasions that the blame lies with Labour.

My issue is with Polanski using it to try & score a cheap political point against his closest Parliamentary allies.

Well in that case, you surely noticed your mutual's opening salvo, which was given the precise amount of respect it deserved.

Well that's remarkably suspicious timing.

I smell socks...

If we're pointless, why did you feel the need to comment? And why did you feel the need to put your ignorance/dishonesty on the record to be debunked?

Surely you could have simply ignored us...

...you could then reflect on whether making such easily-debunked assertions brings anything useful to the discussion.

You may want to revisit your opening gambit on this thread, then reflect on whether it was likely to provoke a reasonable discussion...

You really aren't very bright, are you?

6 Lib Dem MPs deliberately passed through both divisions, so they voted yes *and* no; thus effectively abstaining whilst making a point.

Here's a helping hand for you.

Add 66 to the "No" votes, and take 6 off the "Yes" votes (6 LD MPs voted for *and* against to highlight the absurdity).

Does that give "No" a majority?

votes.parliament.uk/votes/common...

The Tories who would have spoken up were purged in 2019.

All they have left are the zealots & cowards.

I pulled Gully apart when I was on the other site and was promptly blocked.

I was by no means alone.

Mockery is the only appropriate response.

Count the votes. I appreciate you'll have to take your mittens, shoes & socks off, but I'll wait...

No it didn't, as already explained elewhere.

Come back when you have use of the family braincell.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism - Hansard - UK Parliament Hansard record of the item : ' Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism' on Wednesday 2 July 2025.

Here's the transcript of the whole debate:

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025...

We got >72 MPs elected at the last GE. We also got more than double the numer of councillors elected than Labour & Greens combined in this year's local elections.

No media coverage =/= not cutting through.

Well there you go. You're admitting that your entire argument is built on profound ignorance.

It only seemed like that if you stuck your fingers in your ears and screamed every time the Lib Dems spoke.

Polanski knew *exactly* what he was saying.

I don't know about you, but I'd suggest that pissing off your closest allies in Parliament is a suboptimal strategy.

I've laid the blame for this firmly at Labour's feet numerous times on this thread.

Polanski did more than that though. He took a cynical - and totally unjustified - dig at the Lib Dems, who did absolutely nothing wrong throughout the process.

OK, it's clear that you're fundamentally dishonest now. I think we're done.

...and then had the brass neck to criticise others for not doing the same.

Now I think you're being deliberately dishonest. We were presented with two options:

1. Proscribe a group that doesn't meet any reasonable definition of terrorist.

2. Tacitly support violent white supremacist groups.

We chose neither. You chose option 2...

Yes you are. Especially when the question has been cynically loaded to ensure there are no good options.

You seem to think making an active choice to vote for one of two equally bad outcomes is better than refusing to vote for either bad outcome.

You, like Mr. Polanski, have failed to notice that even with 72 LD votes against, the SI would have passed with dozens of votes to spare.

The votes were never there, so your point is moot.

When it comes to poorly drafted SI's with no good outcomes, every option has a downside. So choosing neither option is the least-worse path to take.

It still doesn't stop bad actors from claiming otherwise though.

It was intended to show that the SI as laid gave a bad outcome whichever way you voted.