Throwing a milkshake at a stranger is the same as being physically violent towards your girlfriend"


By law. Yes. Yes it is.

Meh. They rushed through a policy of "we'll take literally anyone" as a scattershot in the hopes that, by the numbers, they'd squeak a few through the door if they had a candidate in every single constituency. That "plan" was a success but it really was inevitable that the quality of the candidates was going to be in the gutter. Not one of those blokes was voted for, as an individual, by the voters... They were voting for the party name, or basically, voting for Farage-by-proxy.

I bet 90% of the people who voted for these chaps wouldn't remember their name today if you asked them, without looking it up :idc:. "It was... Uhh... Y'know... The guy... The Nigel Farage party one..."

"By law" :idc: luckily we're not in a court Parmy so can freely state that throwing a milkshake at a public figure is absolutely nothing like battering your wife. Don't be dim.

i think that applies to all the political parties, most certainly for all those up against the big names that lost their seats :laugh:

For example, the only thing i remember about the Jacob RM election was that he stood next to a guy with a baked beans hat

What if it was your wife you through the milkshake over?

My gripe with this is that he won by 98 votes, maybe all those were females who might not have voted for him if this was common knowledge, if he had won by some massive margin it might not be so bad but 98 votes?

It would be far worse (morally) than throwing one over a stranger, in the same way that name-calling is a form of domestic abuse in a relationship that doesn't apply when you're talking to someone else, however in any scenario throwing a milkshake is blatantly not the same as an act of violence intended to cause actual physical harm.

I was going to say there'd probably be males who would have thought twice if they knew about it but then I remembered they're Reform voters, so probably not.

Mental abuse for some is worse than physical abuse.

True but the implications of it being a partner or family member are what make it mental abuse. Thus why a controversial politician having a milkshake poured over them by a member of the public is COMPLETELY different to someone having a drink poured over them by a partner, a parent, or even a friend.

To boil it down to something simpler - obviously it's fine to call a politician a f*ing idiot. It's less fine to call someone who knows you don't like them - or even a friend - a f*ing idiot to their face, but still usually not that serious.

Calling your partner or your kid a f*ing idiot on the other hand, in the heat of the moment is shameful and on a regular basis is flat out abuse.

It is different, quite obviously so.

So because they are politicians they must accept the abuse, even though we are supposed to see them as equals. That dont make sense to me.

"They" don't have to accept anything, but framing a milkshake being thrown at a politician as similar in any way to domestic abuse is utterly bizarre. You're free to consider it a form of assault. To reiterate for the 5th or 6th time, it bears absolutely no similarity to a bloke physically assaulting his girlfriend.

I don't know what the argument even is, to be fair - as far as I'm aware, the girl who threw the milkshake hasn't become an elected member of Parliament?

Apparently there's a hierarchy of abuse and assault, and it's very important to establish where everyone fits on it?

There's certainly a hierarchy of who should be allowed to serve as an elected representative, and it shouldn't include anyone convicted of any violent offense (including milkshake-girl, tbf)

The girl who threw the milkshake will be in court in the Autumn, and that is no bad thing in my eyes, nip these things in the bud

Yeah they should only be allowed to break the law after they get elected

As they all seem to do

I'm not even saying "anyone who has ever broken a law" - I'd say 100% any violent or sexual offense, I'd extend that to things like fraud, and yes anyone convicted of any of the above after getting into a political office should be removed immediately.

Key thing here also is that he wasn't just "accused of something", it's not cancel-culture, he was clearly charged and found guilty of the offense.

Very telling that the men on here who so passionately wave the flag for women’s rights think it’s ok to beat your wife, go to prison and all should be forgiven. Just outright proves the flag waving is all bollocks and maybe they need to sit down and be quiet. Pick a side because the contradiction is nauseating.

In 2012, 43 percent of mps had a criminal conviction...nowadays mps do not have to disclose if they have a criminal conviction, and under the human rights act a freedom of information request on an individual would not be accepted..

I can only assume the percentage is higher now.

No one beat a wife

If you are here to troll around looking to cause discord at least have some basic facts

Jesus wept

Bore off. Like anyone can take you seriously anymore. Walking talking contradiction. Absolute joke of a man

It even extends to your PROTECT THE KIDS bollocks too. You have kids, daughters if I’m not mistaken. You’re a father to daughters. Tragic as ****

Charming.

He was charged and convicted for assaulting his then-girlfriend. If your defence is "Uhh nyuk uhh technically she was not his wife uhh nyuk 🤓" you know you're on shaky ground champ.