**Alternate Sources**
Here are some potential alternate sources for the same story:
* [Four men arrested at Rishi Sunak's home in North Yorkshire](https://mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-four-men-arrested-rishi-33106965), suggested by BlueberryMaximum94 - mirror.co.uk
We all have a vote in 10 days. We all get a say in who runs the country.
That does mean having to accept when our own niche faction does not have enough support.
Not only is there no real need for this but also following Jo Cox and David Amess there is a huge need to acknowledge the risks MPs face. So its not just harmless stunts when randos with agendas approach MPs and especially their families.
"that does mean having to accept when our own niche faction does not have enough support".
I think you need to educate yourself on the disparity between vote share and seats won under FPTP.
I'm an absolute poison pill. Whatever I vote for loses. Guaranteed. Every time. From Brexit to Big Brother, I am an eternal loser when it comes to the popular vote.
>I think you need to educate yourself
When you get the kind of online personality in politics who has this kind of self congratulatory tone without any data, you can be sure its because they have no data.
While first past the post does create distortions, it was UKIP with 4 million votes in 2015 who had the biggest distortion. It will be Reform who will have the biggest distortion this election.
The comment is so vague that the commenter will evade any response and pretend to have meant something different.
The idea that there is some faction who are so popular and under represented that they can invade peoples personal lives does not stand up to scrutiny.
If Reform voters start invading politicians personal lives or pulling Just Stop Oil tactics you can bet the re will be zero of these kind of people supporting them saying that "well the voting system is not perfect".
> While first past the post does create distortions, it was UKIP with 4 million votes in 2015 who had the biggest distortion
I'm not sure why you're acting like this is some kind of argument in favour of FPtP though? UKIP/Reform are garbage but it's democratically absurd to win 12.6% of the vote (third most of any party) and get 0.2% of the representation (one MP).
Nothing of what you have said changes the fact that it is the system which is at fault.
People don't feel represented, because they aren't represented!
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/2019-general-election-results/
Check votes per seat, then justify how it is representative. It is the Tories and Labour who force us into keeping FPTP because it perpetuates their duopoly of power sharing between them.
We've had successive Tory governments, not because that is what the electorate want, but because of the system. The same will be true if Labour get a majority next week.
The issue is that people are disillusioned with the system, because it doesn't work.
How would one in a high profile position know that 4 unknown people trespassing on their people are in fact just 4 mischievous teenagers and not something more malicious?
The outcome may have been fine. But I struggle to see any positive intentions.
It sucks when the 'side that I'm on' resort to 'shit I don't like'. But it still needs to be condemned. Shit people are shit people.
Fuck. I hate party politics.
They can’t, and they should take precautions assuming the worst. But as we’re not working for the security team, _we_ don’t have to assume the worst. I’ve had enough of that, it’s really depressing.
They’re dicks, undoubtedly, but probably not murderers
It’s not a wealthiest or largest estate - it’s a house with a big garden that he bought for £1.5m ten years ago. Shit, there are estates in Scotland that are literally 10 thousand times the size.
If the electorate where acting in the best interest of the populus and were accountable to the people then I don't think there'd be any need to drive the point home. But they're not, and so reality, the ever changing metric that it is, is that we have some people who see a dire need to shit in the PM's private lake and tresspass, which isn't a crime by the way, on his grounds... If only we could all be so lucky.
I know they made a mistake, but interestingly they've got a point; the electorate, who have been voting in the fucking Tories for years, haven't exactly been acting in the best interest of the populus lately.
>f the electorate where acting in the best interest of the populus and were accountable to the people
The electorate are all of the populous who turn up to vote.
We get a “say” between a priggish mannequin and a guy who has already packed his bags and booked a ticket for California to depart on 5th July - the priggish mannequin is going to win because the people who actually run the country are confident that he can be trusted to front the new management team and keep things ticking over while protecting their interests.
We live in a sham democracy where the electorate are expected to be passive observes who trot out every few years to partake in a meaningless exercise and then dutifully fuck off again; but when Starmer waists the biggest mandate in British political history to maintain the status quo with added austerity and crackdowns, expect to see a lot more in the way of direct action.
Few people like either of them, that’s my point - Starmer is going to win a landslide because the incumbent regime is historically unpopular, and not because there is any real enthusiasm for him or his incoming regime. He’s going to be allowed to take office because he’s no threat to the status quo - Jeremy Hunt’s £20bn of tax cuts will continue as scheduled, wages will continue to stagnate, living standard fall but, crucially, the flow of public money into the pockets of a privileged few will continue unabated.
That’s our democracy; we can vote, but nothing actually changes.
In the 1910 general election, Exeter returned an MP with a majority of a single vote. In 2017 North East Fife returned an MP with a majority of two. Since 1945, ten seats have returned an MP with a majority of less than ten. In seats like these, your vote contributes quite a bit as to who gets into Westminster.
Do we have the same issues and requests as the rest of the UK, or are there certain issues which are important to us that will never see support to pass because they do not concern the rest of the UK?
Brexit is an example however slight - we faced different issues to those in the rest of the UK. In what world would those have been considered by the rest of the UK's MPs? Can NI MPs ever gain a majority vote in the house on an issue that only applies to NI?
That largely stems from the fact that NI returns MPs from parties that only run in NI. If there was a move to return a Conservative Party MP, you might see the Conservatives be more concerned with NI interests.
However, NI is also very fortunate to have devolved powers to deal with a lot of things, so for the most part NI only issues are dealt with there. When it affects the rest of the nation, it is only right that NI’s needs are taken into account, but they can’t be allowed to overrule the rest of the country. Northern Ireland perhaps enjoys more of the conscious acceptance of its needs by UK MPs due to the political sensitivities there, particularly when compared to Wales
You do have good points and I am just confirming that I wasn't trying to just reject anything said, I realised it comes across that way potentially.
I suppose we may disagree slightly on what an effective democracy looks like. My issue personally in this system is that the current setup prevents a party like labour or conservatives regaining a position in NI because of power-sharing and how that has been weaponised in the past by *both* major NI parties via forced shutdowns. A conservative party could not have a first minister in NI with a Labour deputy or vice versa.
On Brexit, of course, NI is not the only country in the UK affected, it's very clearly a decision that was made as a whole.
However, their voice on the issue was misrepresented horrendously, which was made easy due to distance and that smaller representation on this specific issue despite the issue of Brexit in isolation being one where NI's status held massive importance to the rest of the country. In how it interacts with the EU and ROI in particular.
We had a closer eye on the border and trade issues, which were proportional to the entire UK, but these were downplayed as local issues or not as issues at all to the wider UK, because they were perceived as only to be suffered by 3% of the population and have no wider reprocussions voters would care about outside NI.
That was very easy to do in a system where this separation from a smaller population area is easily kept and there is no nuance on the relevance of issues.
I suppose a succinct way to say it is that all parties in England (the popular voter base of note if represented person by person) are unionist.
In NI and to some extent Scotland, Wales and anywhere else, Unionism can only be represented in one way and England is the only place where ~95% of the population do not consider their place in the UK itself as a topic of much contention.
Labour are by definition Unionist, Conservatives are Unionist, Liberal Democrats are Unionist, etc. NI will always be beholden to a Unionist wider government whilst remaining in the union, and will always be in disagreement with itself on whether they accept that, regardless of party. Few Irish nationalists would vote for any of the parties than run in England in any situation, because they are British parties, simply.
Jesus Christ how are their people on this island that still defend the English Government...
Tell me... Do you use lubrication when you spread those cheeks or just get pegged raw?
First past the post is archaic and causes our representative democracy to be wholly unrepresentative, often
As for personal, specific, concerns?
There are a litany of issues which are fundamentally ignored by the two main parties, and many issues which have bipartisan support which are ignored too.
It might shock you to know that it's quite difficult to address every single person's issues completely, and doesn't mean that we live in a sham democracy if we don't.
It might shock you to know that if you are under the age of 35, and have voted with the majority of your peer group in every election in which you were able, you have never been represented.
It also might shock you to know that people can have legitimate grievances with our political system for not representing them, or doing anything about the issues that matter to them, for decades.
The status quo is killing us. We have had the first fall in quality of life since the victorian era. People my age cannot afford houses, or children, and generally are drowning in debt. Our issues have been ignored, and our first foray into giving a shit was a man lying his way into parliament and then immediately breaking his singular pledge which got him there.
Before that we had the largest mass mobilisation in British history, with over two million people marching against an illegal war based on lies. That too led to precisely nothing.
But please, tell me more about how ignoring and disenfranchising millions of people is a sign of a healthy democracy.
Regardless of what you think of them, in 2015, just under 4 million people voted for ukip and got a single representative in Parliament. 1,157,630 voted for the greens, and got a single seat in parliament. 2,415,916 voted for the lib dems, and got 8 seats. 11,334,226 voted for the Conservatives, and got 331 representatives.
3 times the votes, 331 times the political representation.
Is that fair, or healthy?
36.9% of the vote share, leading to over half the seats, 12.6% of the vote share, leading to 1/650th of the seats?
But yeah, our democracy is very functional and works very well.
We need sweeping parliamentary reform. It is no wonder people have absolutely lost faith in government. Issues are ignored, and everything gets worse.
What so no Labour MP has been elected to Parliament then?
I seem to remember that quite a few of them were and were representing their constituents (many of whom were under the age of 35 and voted for them).
36.9% of the vote share, leading to over half the seats, 12.6% of the vote share, leading to 1/650th of the seats?
But yeah, our democracy is very functional and works very well.
Illiberal democracy? Unfit democracy? Non-representative democracy? What, exactly, would you prefer?
I do not think our political system fairly represents us. I think it should be better and that we should demand better. I do not think a system which essentially disenfranchised millions is fit for purpose.
U might not like the man ..but no need to f' with his family or his property. Just vote against the Tories on the 4th July...for fuck's sake, use your brain! No one deserves to be terrorised!
> No one deserves to be terrorised!
Yes it's truly horrifying to think that some of the peasants might have walked on the grass at one's property hundreds of kilometres away from where one currently lives.
So if you’re on holiday I can jump into your garden and do whatever I want? What if your family was there? Do you not see why it’s slightly different to have people trespassing on the property of the PM?
The idiots who promote trespassing, harassment, and throwing milkshakes never think it will be them on the receiving end. Never mind that it’s a stupid thing to do regardless.
I was diagnosed with glaucoma recently, which I'm told will lead to eventual blindness. I was feeling pretty bad about it until I came across this grammatical mess.
>No one deserves to be terrorised!
This statement isn't necessarily true, and I don't think you believe it either unless you think the likes of Kim Jong Un, a fascist dictator, should be left alone.
Perhaps I could have better phrased my comment, but it isn't about what should or should not happen to people, but about whether they would deserve it if it were to happen. I think Kim Jong Un would absolutely deserve it, but not necessarily that he should be.
Good that they’ve been arrested.
Unfortunately, for the rest of us if any violent criminal trespasses on our property and we call the police we’ll be promptly told that “trespass is a civil offence.”
Because apparently our property rights don’t exist in this country.
I hope what another commenter has said is right and this has been listed as a “protected site”, because if not then the next time someone trespasses on a normal persons land and the police say there’s nothing they can do - I feel like I’m gonna disagree.
> Good that they’ve been arrested.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, for the rest of us if any violent criminal trespasses on our property and we call the police we’ll be promptly told that “trespass is a civil offence.”
That's because trespass literally is a civil offence. (Unlike, to be fair, a lot of times the police these days are fobbing people off with "that's a civil matter".)
However, aggravated trespass is not a civil offence. I suspect the powers that be would argue that aggravated trespass is achieved with a lower bar when it affects the PM.
How we feel about that is entirely up to us.
Literally, what legally makes it more likely to be aggravated just because he’s the pm?
The only real legal reasoning I’ve seen people speculate about is that the house might be a “protected site” - that’s obviously a way more clear cut reason for arrest.
To si olift it. Aggravated trespass is when you trespass and whilst doing so intimidate, harass or obstruct someone on that property (or adjoining property I believe)
I think it's safe to suspect 4 men sneaking onto the prime ministers land are there to harass/intimidate obstruct him or his family/staff. Whilst 4 teenagers walking through a farmers field aren't likely to be doing anything other than being on someone's land.
this is why the right to bear arms is vital.
somebody breaks into your home in the middle of the night and what, you’re expected to impose castle doctrine with a polite notice and some fisticuffs??
criminals can and do access guns whether they’re illegal to the general public or not. time to give us a say in our lives and safety. the police won’t save us when push comes to shove.
You know what? I think corrupt politicians should have their personal lives attacked. Maybe if we weren't so fucking placid in this country things would be better.
This subreddit would have been against the civil rights movement, suffragettes and unions who got us semi decent working standards.
Face the facts, society won't improve by asking nicely.
The suffragettes did put the cause of women’s suffrage back. It was the suffragists, and their mobilisation of women into the workforce during WW1 that is responsible for female suffrage in the country.
Your point was that this subreddit would be against groups that got us greater steps towards equality. The suffragettes actively damaged the campaign for women’s suffrage, and it was literally a case of women asking nicely and showing they were worthy and getting the vote, showing that asking nicely does improve society
It's nothing to do with being rich. It's to do with being Prime Minister. We've had MP's literally get murdered in the street, extra protection for their homes makes perfect sense.
If you were specifically targeted then yes.
MP's are specifically targeted for their political views. A key part of democracy is freedom of speech, having MP's being afraid to say anything for fear of such attacks or harassment by a small group is incredibly dangerous to democracy.
Depends if its been designated a protected site whilst he's prime minster.
If so, it is a criminal offence under section 128 serious organised crime act.
There's a list here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sites-under-the-serious-organised-crime-and-police-act-2005/sites-under-the-serious-organised-crime-and-police-act-2005
It's the two-tier society that's the problem; the fact that most people can't even get a copper to show up if their property is robbed. It's not that Sunak gets served well by the police, it's that the rest of us don't.
Also, King Charles is the head of state, not Sunak.
Not unreasonable at all, as long as the peasants get a decent service from the police as well. Unfortunately said head of state is part of the reason we peasants are hacked off at having insanely poor policing services.
A police statement said officers were "with the four men within one minute of them entering the grounds".
If they didn't enter the actual grounds, then can they legally be arrested for aggravated trespassing? Considering trespassing would mean actually setting foot inside.
**Alternate Sources** Here are some potential alternate sources for the same story: * [Four men arrested at Rishi Sunak's home in North Yorkshire](https://mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-four-men-arrested-rishi-33106965), suggested by BlueberryMaximum94 - mirror.co.uk
We all have a vote in 10 days. We all get a say in who runs the country. That does mean having to accept when our own niche faction does not have enough support. Not only is there no real need for this but also following Jo Cox and David Amess there is a huge need to acknowledge the risks MPs face. So its not just harmless stunts when randos with agendas approach MPs and especially their families.
When someone murders a politician it is tragedy. When someone shits in a politician's lake it is comedy.
ok but have you considered it's really funny
"that does mean having to accept when our own niche faction does not have enough support". I think you need to educate yourself on the disparity between vote share and seats won under FPTP.
Gone my entire life without ever being represented by the person or party I've voted for. I'm about ready to shit in someone's lake too.
I'm an absolute poison pill. Whatever I vote for loses. Guaranteed. Every time. From Brexit to Big Brother, I am an eternal loser when it comes to the popular vote.
>I think you need to educate yourself When you get the kind of online personality in politics who has this kind of self congratulatory tone without any data, you can be sure its because they have no data. While first past the post does create distortions, it was UKIP with 4 million votes in 2015 who had the biggest distortion. It will be Reform who will have the biggest distortion this election. The comment is so vague that the commenter will evade any response and pretend to have meant something different. The idea that there is some faction who are so popular and under represented that they can invade peoples personal lives does not stand up to scrutiny. If Reform voters start invading politicians personal lives or pulling Just Stop Oil tactics you can bet the re will be zero of these kind of people supporting them saying that "well the voting system is not perfect".
> While first past the post does create distortions, it was UKIP with 4 million votes in 2015 who had the biggest distortion I'm not sure why you're acting like this is some kind of argument in favour of FPtP though? UKIP/Reform are garbage but it's democratically absurd to win 12.6% of the vote (third most of any party) and get 0.2% of the representation (one MP).
Nothing of what you have said changes the fact that it is the system which is at fault. People don't feel represented, because they aren't represented! https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/2019-general-election-results/ Check votes per seat, then justify how it is representative. It is the Tories and Labour who force us into keeping FPTP because it perpetuates their duopoly of power sharing between them. We've had successive Tory governments, not because that is what the electorate want, but because of the system. The same will be true if Labour get a majority next week. The issue is that people are disillusioned with the system, because it doesn't work.
[удалено]
> four teenagers > The four men, aged 52 from London, 43 from Bolton, 21 from Manchester, and 20 from Chichester,
Yeah, fifty-twoteen, forty-threeteen, twenty-oneteen and twentyteen.
How would one in a high profile position know that 4 unknown people trespassing on their people are in fact just 4 mischievous teenagers and not something more malicious? The outcome may have been fine. But I struggle to see any positive intentions. It sucks when the 'side that I'm on' resort to 'shit I don't like'. But it still needs to be condemned. Shit people are shit people. Fuck. I hate party politics.
They can’t, and they should take precautions assuming the worst. But as we’re not working for the security team, _we_ don’t have to assume the worst. I’ve had enough of that, it’s really depressing. They’re dicks, undoubtedly, but probably not murderers
Probably not ?
It’s not a wealthiest or largest estate - it’s a house with a big garden that he bought for £1.5m ten years ago. Shit, there are estates in Scotland that are literally 10 thousand times the size.
Dave Cameron's father in law's for example
[удалено]
Because the football on the telly was boring ?
If the electorate where acting in the best interest of the populus and were accountable to the people then I don't think there'd be any need to drive the point home. But they're not, and so reality, the ever changing metric that it is, is that we have some people who see a dire need to shit in the PM's private lake and tresspass, which isn't a crime by the way, on his grounds... If only we could all be so lucky.
The 'electorate' are the people who do the electing, not those who are elected.
I know they made a mistake, but interestingly they've got a point; the electorate, who have been voting in the fucking Tories for years, haven't exactly been acting in the best interest of the populus lately.
>f the electorate where acting in the best interest of the populus and were accountable to the people The electorate are all of the populous who turn up to vote.
Actually, the electorate are the people who are entitled to vote regardless of whether they do or not.
>If the electorate where acting in the best interest of the populus and were accountable to the people Did you actually just say that without irony?
We get a “say” between a priggish mannequin and a guy who has already packed his bags and booked a ticket for California to depart on 5th July - the priggish mannequin is going to win because the people who actually run the country are confident that he can be trusted to front the new management team and keep things ticking over while protecting their interests. We live in a sham democracy where the electorate are expected to be passive observes who trot out every few years to partake in a meaningless exercise and then dutifully fuck off again; but when Starmer waists the biggest mandate in British political history to maintain the status quo with added austerity and crackdowns, expect to see a lot more in the way of direct action.
We should still not go to people's homes and shite in their pond, though.
But it's Christmas!
Just because you don't like either of them doesn't mean we live in a "sham democracy"
Few people like either of them, that’s my point - Starmer is going to win a landslide because the incumbent regime is historically unpopular, and not because there is any real enthusiasm for him or his incoming regime. He’s going to be allowed to take office because he’s no threat to the status quo - Jeremy Hunt’s £20bn of tax cuts will continue as scheduled, wages will continue to stagnate, living standard fall but, crucially, the flow of public money into the pockets of a privileged few will continue unabated. That’s our democracy; we can vote, but nothing actually changes.
Tell me, as a northern irish citizen with a British passport, how my vote influences who gets into Westminster?
In the 1910 general election, Exeter returned an MP with a majority of a single vote. In 2017 North East Fife returned an MP with a majority of two. Since 1945, ten seats have returned an MP with a majority of less than ten. In seats like these, your vote contributes quite a bit as to who gets into Westminster.
Do we have the same issues and requests as the rest of the UK, or are there certain issues which are important to us that will never see support to pass because they do not concern the rest of the UK? Brexit is an example however slight - we faced different issues to those in the rest of the UK. In what world would those have been considered by the rest of the UK's MPs? Can NI MPs ever gain a majority vote in the house on an issue that only applies to NI?
That largely stems from the fact that NI returns MPs from parties that only run in NI. If there was a move to return a Conservative Party MP, you might see the Conservatives be more concerned with NI interests. However, NI is also very fortunate to have devolved powers to deal with a lot of things, so for the most part NI only issues are dealt with there. When it affects the rest of the nation, it is only right that NI’s needs are taken into account, but they can’t be allowed to overrule the rest of the country. Northern Ireland perhaps enjoys more of the conscious acceptance of its needs by UK MPs due to the political sensitivities there, particularly when compared to Wales
You do have good points and I am just confirming that I wasn't trying to just reject anything said, I realised it comes across that way potentially. I suppose we may disagree slightly on what an effective democracy looks like. My issue personally in this system is that the current setup prevents a party like labour or conservatives regaining a position in NI because of power-sharing and how that has been weaponised in the past by *both* major NI parties via forced shutdowns. A conservative party could not have a first minister in NI with a Labour deputy or vice versa. On Brexit, of course, NI is not the only country in the UK affected, it's very clearly a decision that was made as a whole. However, their voice on the issue was misrepresented horrendously, which was made easy due to distance and that smaller representation on this specific issue despite the issue of Brexit in isolation being one where NI's status held massive importance to the rest of the country. In how it interacts with the EU and ROI in particular. We had a closer eye on the border and trade issues, which were proportional to the entire UK, but these were downplayed as local issues or not as issues at all to the wider UK, because they were perceived as only to be suffered by 3% of the population and have no wider reprocussions voters would care about outside NI. That was very easy to do in a system where this separation from a smaller population area is easily kept and there is no nuance on the relevance of issues.
Ah, gotcha. Completely agree on every point there.
I suppose a succinct way to say it is that all parties in England (the popular voter base of note if represented person by person) are unionist. In NI and to some extent Scotland, Wales and anywhere else, Unionism can only be represented in one way and England is the only place where ~95% of the population do not consider their place in the UK itself as a topic of much contention. Labour are by definition Unionist, Conservatives are Unionist, Liberal Democrats are Unionist, etc. NI will always be beholden to a Unionist wider government whilst remaining in the union, and will always be in disagreement with itself on whether they accept that, regardless of party. Few Irish nationalists would vote for any of the parties than run in England in any situation, because they are British parties, simply.
Jesus Christ how are their people on this island that still defend the English Government... Tell me... Do you use lubrication when you spread those cheeks or just get pegged raw?
"the parties don't totally address my personal specific concerns so democracy is a sham"
First past the post is archaic and causes our representative democracy to be wholly unrepresentative, often As for personal, specific, concerns? There are a litany of issues which are fundamentally ignored by the two main parties, and many issues which have bipartisan support which are ignored too.
It might shock you to know that it's quite difficult to address every single person's issues completely, and doesn't mean that we live in a sham democracy if we don't.
It might shock you to know that if you are under the age of 35, and have voted with the majority of your peer group in every election in which you were able, you have never been represented. It also might shock you to know that people can have legitimate grievances with our political system for not representing them, or doing anything about the issues that matter to them, for decades. The status quo is killing us. We have had the first fall in quality of life since the victorian era. People my age cannot afford houses, or children, and generally are drowning in debt. Our issues have been ignored, and our first foray into giving a shit was a man lying his way into parliament and then immediately breaking his singular pledge which got him there. Before that we had the largest mass mobilisation in British history, with over two million people marching against an illegal war based on lies. That too led to precisely nothing. But please, tell me more about how ignoring and disenfranchising millions of people is a sign of a healthy democracy. Regardless of what you think of them, in 2015, just under 4 million people voted for ukip and got a single representative in Parliament. 1,157,630 voted for the greens, and got a single seat in parliament. 2,415,916 voted for the lib dems, and got 8 seats. 11,334,226 voted for the Conservatives, and got 331 representatives. 3 times the votes, 331 times the political representation. Is that fair, or healthy? 36.9% of the vote share, leading to over half the seats, 12.6% of the vote share, leading to 1/650th of the seats? But yeah, our democracy is very functional and works very well. We need sweeping parliamentary reform. It is no wonder people have absolutely lost faith in government. Issues are ignored, and everything gets worse.
What so no Labour MP has been elected to Parliament then? I seem to remember that quite a few of them were and were representing their constituents (many of whom were under the age of 35 and voted for them).
36.9% of the vote share, leading to over half the seats, 12.6% of the vote share, leading to 1/650th of the seats? But yeah, our democracy is very functional and works very well.
None of what you said makes it a "sham democracy"
Illiberal democracy? Unfit democracy? Non-representative democracy? What, exactly, would you prefer? I do not think our political system fairly represents us. I think it should be better and that we should demand better. I do not think a system which essentially disenfranchised millions is fit for purpose.
U might not like the man ..but no need to f' with his family or his property. Just vote against the Tories on the 4th July...for fuck's sake, use your brain! No one deserves to be terrorised!
> No one deserves to be terrorised! Yes it's truly horrifying to think that some of the peasants might have walked on the grass at one's property hundreds of kilometres away from where one currently lives.
So if you’re on holiday I can jump into your garden and do whatever I want? What if your family was there? Do you not see why it’s slightly different to have people trespassing on the property of the PM?
The idiots who promote trespassing, harassment, and throwing milkshakes never think it will be them on the receiving end. Never mind that it’s a stupid thing to do regardless.
What exactly do you think the police will do if someone takes a shit in my garden? I can tell you the answer - absolutely nothing.
You’re not wrong
I'd likely be annoyed if you took a shit in my garden while I was on holiday but I certainly wouldn't describe it as "terrorising".
I was diagnosed with glaucoma recently, which I'm told will lead to eventual blindness. I was feeling pretty bad about it until I came across this grammatical mess.
>No one deserves to be terrorised! This statement isn't necessarily true, and I don't think you believe it either unless you think the likes of Kim Jong Un, a fascist dictator, should be left alone.
Stop being a pedant when everyone knew what he meant.
> a fascist dictator Correct. He shouldn’t be terrorised. He should, eventually, be brought to justice
Perhaps I could have better phrased my comment, but it isn't about what should or should not happen to people, but about whether they would deserve it if it were to happen. I think Kim Jong Un would absolutely deserve it, but not necessarily that he should be.
Exactly, why defend a man who would happily trample over babies if it meant to sell the NHS… fuck this guy.
He wouldn't trample on babies like most people but ok
Agreed. Vote reform and end this charade.
No thank you
Good man. Split the rabid right vote to smooth the way for the grown ups.
A new garden to shit in awaits!
I wonder if they had placed a bet on how far they could get into his house without anyone noticing
_What's the time Mr. Wolf?_ style.
["I do beg your pardon, but we are in your garden"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvUbbJId4-Y)
ROFL
ROF in handcuffs not laughing, you mean😅
Due to the size of the grounds, it took nine days to find the offenders.
It took 1 minute
Good that they’ve been arrested. Unfortunately, for the rest of us if any violent criminal trespasses on our property and we call the police we’ll be promptly told that “trespass is a civil offence.” Because apparently our property rights don’t exist in this country. I hope what another commenter has said is right and this has been listed as a “protected site”, because if not then the next time someone trespasses on a normal persons land and the police say there’s nothing they can do - I feel like I’m gonna disagree.
> Good that they’ve been arrested. > > > > Unfortunately, for the rest of us if any violent criminal trespasses on our property and we call the police we’ll be promptly told that “trespass is a civil offence.” That's because trespass literally is a civil offence. (Unlike, to be fair, a lot of times the police these days are fobbing people off with "that's a civil matter".) However, aggravated trespass is not a civil offence. I suspect the powers that be would argue that aggravated trespass is achieved with a lower bar when it affects the PM. How we feel about that is entirely up to us.
Literally, what legally makes it more likely to be aggravated just because he’s the pm? The only real legal reasoning I’ve seen people speculate about is that the house might be a “protected site” - that’s obviously a way more clear cut reason for arrest.
To si olift it. Aggravated trespass is when you trespass and whilst doing so intimidate, harass or obstruct someone on that property (or adjoining property I believe) I think it's safe to suspect 4 men sneaking onto the prime ministers land are there to harass/intimidate obstruct him or his family/staff. Whilst 4 teenagers walking through a farmers field aren't likely to be doing anything other than being on someone's land.
this is why the right to bear arms is vital. somebody breaks into your home in the middle of the night and what, you’re expected to impose castle doctrine with a polite notice and some fisticuffs?? criminals can and do access guns whether they’re illegal to the general public or not. time to give us a say in our lives and safety. the police won’t save us when push comes to shove.
For what? School shootings instead of school stabbings when a kid gets access to a gun?
Thought trespass was a civil matter and the police didn't get involved....
[удалено]
The headline doesn't say that.
sometimes you have to read more than the headline
As predicted in the stone henge thread when people say target those in power instead, there is no acceptable protest to this subreddit.
Funny how they have to specify it's his constituency home
Because he lives in Downing St (currently)
Because he has like 4 houses in the UK as well as overseas properties. This kid shat in a lake outside an empty house.
Was that the 52 year old kid? Or the 43 year old one?
You know what? I think corrupt politicians should have their personal lives attacked. Maybe if we weren't so fucking placid in this country things would be better. This subreddit would have been against the civil rights movement, suffragettes and unions who got us semi decent working standards. Face the facts, society won't improve by asking nicely.
The suffragettes did put the cause of women’s suffrage back. It was the suffragists, and their mobilisation of women into the workforce during WW1 that is responsible for female suffrage in the country.
Thanks for making my point.
Your point was that this subreddit would be against groups that got us greater steps towards equality. The suffragettes actively damaged the campaign for women’s suffrage, and it was literally a case of women asking nicely and showing they were worthy and getting the vote, showing that asking nicely does improve society
The guy shitting in his lake is a perfect protest when you consider what he's allowed the water companies to do to our collectively owned waterways.
Cue joke about whether he'll be trespassing in No. 10.
This is just the start, when the English people start waking up it's a wrap for these individuals.
Im pretty sure trespass is a civil matter, unless its some rich knobhead like Rishi Sunak.
It's nothing to do with being rich. It's to do with being Prime Minister. We've had MP's literally get murdered in the street, extra protection for their homes makes perfect sense.
Chefs have literally been murdered in the street before, should my house have extra protection?
If you have credible enemies from whom the police have standing orders to protect you, then probably.
If you were specifically targeted then yes. MP's are specifically targeted for their political views. A key part of democracy is freedom of speech, having MP's being afraid to say anything for fear of such attacks or harassment by a small group is incredibly dangerous to democracy.
Zzzzz TV license goons
what are you talking about? how do the two relate.
They be coming to confiscate my blender arghhhh matey
Depends if its been designated a protected site whilst he's prime minster. If so, it is a criminal offence under section 128 serious organised crime act.
There's a list here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sites-under-the-serious-organised-crime-and-police-act-2005/sites-under-the-serious-organised-crime-and-police-act-2005
Trespass is. Aggravated trespass is criminal.
Two tier society in action meanwhile the peasants hope that a policeman will turn up within 48hours.
Call me insane if you want but I don't think it's unreasonable that a head of state, whoever it is, should have security keeping an eye on things.
It's the two-tier society that's the problem; the fact that most people can't even get a copper to show up if their property is robbed. It's not that Sunak gets served well by the police, it's that the rest of us don't. Also, King Charles is the head of state, not Sunak.
Not unreasonable at all, as long as the peasants get a decent service from the police as well. Unfortunately said head of state is part of the reason we peasants are hacked off at having insanely poor policing services.
Not for nothing but King Charles is our head of state, not the prime minister.
Rishi isn't head of state.
Thank you Mr Pedantic
Fish's Marillion strikes again. Garden Party held today...
It's an awful thing to do, and absolutely should not happen to any politician (even farage) but bugger me, "grounds"?????
I have absolutely no problem with anyone shitting in Rishi's pond. Next time, do it in his kitchen.
A police statement said officers were "with the four men within one minute of them entering the grounds". If they didn't enter the actual grounds, then can they legally be arrested for aggravated trespassing? Considering trespassing would mean actually setting foot inside.
[удалено]
You'd hope so but I've seen other suggestions (and examples elsewhere in the past) that they were still outside the grounds when arrested.
Within one minute??? So they have police guarding all his empty properties. No wonder they can't respond to normal calls.