Howard A Treesong wrote: Really the situation in NI is an embarrassment upon the UK, that we’ve allowed them a situation where they can maintain such backward laws.
Wow.
"That we've allowed" does not demonstrate an overwhelming level of respect for one of the constituent nations of the UK and devolution of power.
Not that I agree with the DUP on very much, but that's a heck of an attitude.
Special treatment on things like abortion go back even before devolution because members of government just need to be kept on side by successive Westminster governments, as May does now. Similarly Northern Ireland has lagged behind the UK on gay rights, marriage, adoption, etc, and only implemented such things decades later than the rest of the UK by pressure sometimes from the EU court of human rights. So no, I don’t respect their autonomy to do these things.
Some things shouldn’t be devolved, it’s about human rights, and equal rights for everyone in the UK. A refusal to follow human rights in a constituent nation of the UK should not be a devolved issue, devolved issues should be about spending and local resources. Not denying equal access to healthcare and rights because of misogynistic and homophobic hardliners.
No disrespect Kilkrazy, but waiting to win a political argument i.e return to the EU, on the back of the other side dying off, has to be one of the most morally and politically bankrupt arguments I have ever seen in all my years on God's earth.
For pure cynicism, it's up there with the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact.
Or your own post about preferring to see England reduced back to the stone age rather than be prosperous and linked to the EU.
And, cynical or not, if the typical leave voter is, in fact, old, then he does have a point. England will most likely leave the EU just in time to go back to it, under less favorable circumstances.
It's less about this specific issue (Yes, Northern Ireland does lag behind the rest of the UK on a whole variety of issues) than the overall attitude.
Which seems to be "As long as they're not blowing stuff up, let the locals run themselves. We don't care."
Wander off for a couple of years/decades. Looks back next time some crisis kicks off in Norn Iron.
"Horror! The locals have been running themselves, and not in the way that we would like them to! This must be forbidden!"
If the UK's politicians didn't utterly ignore large swathes of the country until something happened to rattle the cage, this would happen far less often.
It's like the Imperium of Man swooping in on some planet after the Administratum has ignored it for five millenia and finding that the population, while Imperial, still venerates Goge Vandire.
No disrespect Kilkrazy, but waiting to win a political argument i.e return to the EU, on the back of the other side dying off, has to be one of the most morally and politically bankrupt arguments I have ever seen in all my years on God's earth.
Despite covering this before; no one wants people to die to suit their political goals. We're just pointing out that with such a major age divide to the vote, there's less leavers over time (to the tune of about 300,000 a year), and making such a huge political change when less people are in favour of it over time is frankly stupid.
All it means is we'll rejoin in another few years when there's a decisive majority to do so. Statistics indictate that if views don't change, there's more remainers than leavers already.
I don't blame Kilkrazy or Herzlos for demographics.
But feth me, where is the fire and brimstone argument for the EU? You guys believe that the EU and all the freedom of movement, trade, peace, stability, brotherly love, and whatever is great and is essential to the British nation's well-being.
Fair enough, but why aren't you selling the EU argument on what you believe to be its merits?
You forget that these old people who want out of the EU are probably the same people who voted to join the EEC back in the 1970s.
You convinced them once, why not again, rather than resort to the skulduggery of demographics and undertakers?
But feth me, where is the fire and brimstone argument for the EU? You guys believe that the EU and all the freedom of movement, trade, peace, stability, brotherly love, and whatever is great and is essential to the British nation's well-being.
Fair enough, but why aren't you selling the EU argument on what you believe to be its merits?
You forget that these old people who want out of the EU are probably the same people who voted to join the EEC back in the 1970s.
You convinced them once, why not again, rather than resort to the skulduggery of demographics and undertakers?
People tried selling the EU on its merits. The economic and opportunistic benefits were highlighted over and over again.
The older people would rather listen to demagogues who tell them to ignore the experts. They chose to put their personal feelings above the benefits that the EU would offer the population who actually want to make use of those benefits.
But feth me, where is the fire and brimstone argument for the EU? You guys believe that the EU and all the freedom of movement, trade, peace, stability, brotherly love, and whatever is great and is essential to the British nation's well-being.
Fair enough, but why aren't you selling the EU argument on what you believe to be its merits?
You forget that these old people who want out of the EU are probably the same people who voted to join the EEC back in the 1970s.
You convinced them once, why not again, rather than resort to the skulduggery of demographics and undertakers?
People tried selling the EU on its merits. The economic and opportunistic benefits were highlighted over and over again.
The older people would rather listen to demagogues who tell them to ignore the experts. They chose to put their personal feelings above the benefits that the EU would offer the population who actually want to make use of those benefits.
I know from the book I keep banging on about that the Remain camp struggled to sell water to a thirsty man.
Poorly planned campaign, internal divisions, and relying on one David Cameron meant that Remain's campaign went down quicker than the Titanic.
But feth me, where is the fire and brimstone argument for the EU? You guys believe that the EU and all the freedom of movement, trade, peace, stability, brotherly love, and whatever is great and is essential to the British nation's well-being.
Fair enough, but why aren't you selling the EU argument on what you believe to be its merits?
You forget that these old people who want out of the EU are probably the same people who voted to join the EEC back in the 1970s.
You convinced them once, why not again, rather than resort to the skulduggery of demographics and undertakers?
You, yourself area case in point about why this might not work. You have already stated several times that regardless of what evidence is put forth you will not change your mind on Wrexit. As for the older generation I think they are missing a trick. The pensions have massively benefited from the increased inflation. If they now voted for Remaining the £ would jump in value, inflation would decrease but they have a guaranteed pension rise. They would benefit twice...
You are arguing that the the debate for remaining isn't winning hearts and minds. However you are looking at it from a view of 'yesterdays' vote. People that are now, for example, 50, are more inclined to want to remain in the EU. There were less people two years ago at 50 that were inclined to vote for remaining in the EU. Hence that would indicate on a 'like for like' age group the Remain arguments are being more successful. The statement that the older you get the less likely you will want to Remain is just a statistical analysis of this situation. It is an argument that the demographics are changing and hence the democratic process should consider this change.
Its not 'skulduggery of demographics and undertakers' because demographics do change and politics should change with them. If we didn't then we'd still be building giant stone circles because that's what the demographics of the past thought were a good idea.
But feth me, where is the fire and brimstone argument for the EU? You guys believe that the EU and all the freedom of movement, trade, peace, stability, brotherly love, and whatever is great and is essential to the British nation's well-being.
Fair enough, but why aren't you selling the EU argument on what you believe to be its merits?
You forget that these old people who want out of the EU are probably the same people who voted to join the EEC back in the 1970s.
You convinced them once, why not again, rather than resort to the skulduggery of demographics and undertakers?
People tried selling the EU on its merits. The economic and opportunistic benefits were highlighted over and over again.
The older people would rather listen to demagogues who tell them to ignore the experts. They chose to put their personal feelings above the benefits that the EU would offer the population who actually want to make use of those benefits.
I know from the book I keep banging on about that the Remain camp struggled to sell water to a thirsty man.
Poorly planned campaign, internal divisions, and relying on one David Cameron meant that Remain's campaign went down quicker than the Titanic.
Sell? With David Cameron leading the charge?
It's almost like there were other groups than David Cameron.
And nice job on not responding to the actual point. You asked why people didn't point out the benefits of EU membership. People did.
Remain - We’re discussing facts about the benefit of membership, whilst giving an idea of how hard those will be to replace if we go it alone.
Leave - We’re going to promise you ]everything. Because we don’t expect to win this, so we’ll never actually have to follow through. And BoJo is only here because he thinks it’ll give him a crack at replacing Call Me Dave.
Lies and pipe dreams are damned hard to counter with mere facts. Especially when the gutter press will parrot and repeat everything you said to their braindead readers.
But feth me, where is the fire and brimstone argument for the EU? You guys believe that the EU and all the freedom of movement, trade, peace, stability, brotherly love, and whatever is great and is essential to the British nation's well-being.
Fair enough, but why aren't you selling the EU argument on what you believe to be its merits?
You forget that these old people who want out of the EU are probably the same people who voted to join the EEC back in the 1970s.
You convinced them once, why not again, rather than resort to the skulduggery of demographics and undertakers?
You, yourself area case in point about why this might not work. You have already stated several times that regardless of what evidence is put forth you will not change your mind on Wrexit. As for the older generation I think they are missing a trick. The pensions have massively benefited from the increased inflation. If they now voted for Remaining the £ would jump in value, inflation would decrease but they have a guaranteed pension rise. They would benefit twice...
You are arguing that the the debate for remaining isn't winning hearts and minds. However you are looking at it from a view of 'yesterdays' vote. People that are now, for example, 50, are more inclined to want to remain in the EU. There were less people two years ago at 50 that were inclined to vote for remaining in the EU. Hence that would indicate on a 'like for like' age group the Remain arguments are being more successful. The statement that the older you get the less likely you will want to Remain is just a statistical analysis of this situation. It is an argument that the demographics are changing and hence the democratic process should consider this change.
Its not 'skulduggery of demographics and undertakers' because demographics do change and politics should change with them. If we didn't then we'd still be building giant stone circles because that's what the demographics of the past thought were a good idea.
You forget that people like me are a minority and are vastly outnumbered by millions of undecideds and floating voters who could have and should have won the referendum for Remain.
Blaming the Daily Mail, or Putin for sending subliminal messages or whatever, lets the Remain camp off the hook for a gak poor performance.
As I always say, I could have ran a better Remain campaign.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Remain - We’re discussing facts about the benefit of membership, whilst giving an idea of how hard those will be to replace if we go it alone.
Leave - We’re going to promise you ]everything. Because we don’t expect to win this, so we’ll never actually have to follow through. And BoJo is only here because he thinks it’ll give him a crack at replacing Call Me Dave.
Lies and pipe dreams are damned hard to counter with mere facts. Especially when the gutter press will parrot and repeat everything you said to their braindead readers.
You lost to Bojo and Gove. That's like Stephen Hawking getting outwitted by Katie Hopkins.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Two good reports on voter analysis of the referendum.
And an interesting comment blog post from the London School of Economics.
These articles discuss lots of factors but the basic message is that older voters favoured Leave, and younger voters favoured Remain.
Those younger voters will get old themselves one day. It's a sweeping generalization, but I think there's a kernel of truth to the old saying that If you've never been a socialist, then you've never been young, and if you've never been a Tory then you've never grown up.
But feth me, where is the fire and brimstone argument for the EU? You guys believe that the EU and all the freedom of movement, trade, peace, stability, brotherly love, and whatever is great and is essential to the British nation's well-being.
Fair enough, but why aren't you selling the EU argument on what you believe to be its merits?
You forget that these old people who want out of the EU are probably the same people who voted to join the EEC back in the 1970s.
You convinced them once, why not again, rather than resort to the skulduggery of demographics and undertakers?
People tried selling the EU on its merits. The economic and opportunistic benefits were highlighted over and over again.
The older people would rather listen to demagogues who tell them to ignore the experts. They chose to put their personal feelings above the benefits that the EU would offer the population who actually want to make use of those benefits.
I know from the book I keep banging on about that the Remain camp struggled to sell water to a thirsty man.
Poorly planned campaign, internal divisions, and relying on one David Cameron meant that Remain's campaign went down quicker than the Titanic.
Sell? With David Cameron leading the charge?
It's almost like there were other groups than David Cameron.
And nice job on not responding to the actual point. You asked why people didn't point out the benefits of EU membership. People did.
All I saw was the EU is gak, but change is risky, for a Remain campaign message point of view.
Leave lied consistently. You can’t fight lies that appeal to jingoistic mouth breathers, because all they want to hear is that they’re right, anything else must be wrong, or simply ignored.
£350,000,000 was a lie.
Giving to the NHS was a lie.
Not being able to control our borders was a lie (and still is)
Sovereignty of Parliament was a lie.
It. Was. All. Lies.
But now the penny is beginning to drop. The Express and Heil are reduced to claiming the EU is ‘bullying’ the UK - even though we warned you at the time that they’d be holding all the aces. As will China, the USA, Australia - pretty much anyone we want and need to hammer out a trade deal with.
This is your gak show. You fethed it all up. Not Remain.
The Remain campaign was pretty poor. But more important was 20+ years of dishonesty from the media, and a sort of harrumphing arrogant disdain from many in the UK toward the EU. The sense of exceptionalism was also pretty apparent. The Remain campaign was both operating in this toxic culture and trying somehow to undo it. They decided to go for a strategy of fear and inertia, as it had worked in Scotland. However, in the Indy ref they faced a scottish independence movement that had to publish all of it's plans for independence for criticism. For some reason they did not hold the Leavers to this standard. Also, the anti-Indy side lied about devolution in "the Vow", which helped their cause a lot. they didn't have the ability to do that in this case.
The Remain campaign was poor. But the Leavers were worse, and do bear responsibility.
You know what, when these particular chickens come home to roost, I hope you lose your job and livelihood. I hope you find yourself unable to get medical help, because the US has demanded the NHS be dismantled in order to agree a trade deal.
I hope you lose the roof over your head, and end up destitute, because there’s no council housing to be had, the building industry has collapsed, and you wind up being ferried from grotty hotel room to grotty hotel room.
That might give me some small sliver of satisfaction. To know those that foisted this upon us take the brunt of the economic suffering. And I hope you look to your Brexiteer Overlords, and finally see that, for them, it was only ever about Disaster Capitalism, and making a quick buck. And I hope that makes you sick to your stomach.
You forget that people like me are a minority and are vastly outnumbered by millions of undecideds and floating voters who could have and should have won the referendum for Remain.
Blaming the Daily Mail, or Putin for sending subliminal messages or whatever, lets the Remain camp off the hook for a gak poor performance.
As I always say, I could have ran a better Remain campaign.
This is not the point we are discussing. You've commented that the Remain are using 'skulduggery' to support the argument that Remain views are a growing trend. Yet that isn't the case as the on a like for like basis in an age group there are more people willing to vote Remain than 2 years ago. That would indicate that the Remain argument is winning. It is irrelevant how ineffective the previous campaign was because that was in the past and what we are arguing is what the demographics now is. That is the basis of democracy that the populace continue to have a choice/voice.
There's no indication people will turn more pro leave as they age.
The remain campaign was garbage, no one will say otherwise, but the truth takes a long time to catch up with serial liars. By the time one claim is disputed the liar is only the next one and no one cares.
When faced with that I'm not sure what the remain camp can do for those that leave promised the world (and failed to deliver).
Special treatment on things like abortion go back even before devolution because members of government just need to be kept on side by successive Westminster governments, as May does now. Similarly Northern Ireland has lagged behind the UK on gay rights, marriage, adoption, etc, and only implemented such things decades later than the rest of the UK by pressure sometimes from the EU court of human rights. So no, I don’t respect their autonomy to do these things.
Some things shouldn’t be devolved, it’s about human rights, and equal rights for everyone in the UK. A refusal to follow human rights in a constituent nation of the UK should not be a devolved issue, devolved issues should be about spending and local resources. Not denying equal access to healthcare and rights because of misogynistic and homophobic hardliners.
Basically DUP's position goes something along the line of:-
Wrexit - We want the same rules as everyone else
Abortion/human rights - We want to be able to have different rules to everyone else.
May - I'm too terrified of upsetting the people keeping me in power (and secretly I'm a religious fruitcake anyway).
Perhaps one solution on the abortion issue would be to call another NIA election but include a question on abortion that whoever was in power (either NIA or Westminster) would implement. That would put DUP in a much more difficult position to refuse the change in law which is way over due (as are other areas that the DUP nut-cases oppose).
People in Britain tend to ignore NI until something forces them to pay attention. They ignored systematic discrimination against Catholics for decades and equal rights were only secured because of a bloody civil war.
So I hope some movement will happen on this issue, but I think it's mostly MPs pushing for a bit of limelight and it'll fall back as soon as the next scandal rocks up, and it'll be up to people in NI to sort it out.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You know what, when these particular chickens come home to roost, I hope you lose your job and livelihood. I hope you find yourself unable to get medical help, because the US has demanded the NHS be dismantled in order to agree a trade deal.
I hope you lose the roof over your head, and end up destitute, because there’s no council housing to be had, the building industry has collapsed, and you wind up being ferried from grotty hotel room to grotty hotel room.
That might give me some small sliver of satisfaction. To know those that foisted this upon us take the brunt of the economic suffering. And I hope you look to your Brexiteer Overlords, and finally see that, for them, it was only ever about Disaster Capitalism, and making a quick buck. And I hope that makes you sick to your stomach.
I think an important point here for the leavers is that whilst they "won't, the resentment for everything that gets worse because of it will be placed firmly at leavers feet. Kids disownong their grandparents for screwing up their futures, open hostility to the people who made their lives worse.
For everyone's sake; I hope that of we do leave, that we can somehow make a success of it, because leavers won't be allowed to forget it or wash their hands of it. Remainers will not be silenced.
People should be held to account for their decisions. I would disown people in Ireland who voted to leave the EU and I would not remain friends with anyone who did so, as they'd be voting to feth me over.
Except apparently it’s all Remoaners fault that Leave’s lies are now seen to be lies by a wider range of people.
This is why Das Daily Heil viciously attacks anyone trying to get some kind of brakes and checks on the nuttier Brexiteers in Parliament. Judges confirm that yes, Parliament is sovereign, so none of that - Traitors. Enemies of the People.
A free press, in a free society, is entitled to call judges whatever they want. Our judiciary is not above criticism nor should it ever be.
It wasn't helpful, and it's not something I would have done myself, and I would always defend the judiciary's right to be independent, but I would always defend people's right to criticise them.
There's a lot of harsh words being spoken here about leavers, wishing plague and pestilence on us etc et
I find it very dissapointing. We obviously disagree, but tolerance and respect is the bedrock our democracy.
Remain supporters have a God given right to criticise Brexit. No problem there.
But we on the Leave side have the same right to criticism them for criticising us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: People should be held to account for their decisions. I would disown people in Ireland who voted to leave the EU and I would not remain friends with anyone who did so, as they'd be voting to feth me over.
People do get held to account. We have elections every 5 years and we've had 2 referendums on the EEC/EU.
I think Da Boss made a good point about the white paper earlier. That might have enforced some honesty into the campaign, and actually produced a unified Leave movement, however what it did show from the very start was that there was no plan or consensus, so that should tell you something. Farage would say one thing, then be contradicted later on by the official leave campaign.
The fact that there was no white paper, or any sort of formal strategy produced by those looking for change for afterwards should have been a huge red flag for anyone, but I believe that even when it was mentioned it was buried under "project fear".
That was the real issue, one side tried to make pragmatic arguments, and the other was all about emotion. It's impossible to make a rational argument against an emotional one. Just try talking a toddler down from an emotional meltdown over wanting to wear her lemon socks, not the white ones if you don't believe me.
However, I'm not one for wishing penury on anyone, but I think the country as a whole will suffer for this, but there will be plenty of people desperate to blame anything but that decision for what's happening to them and the rest of us. It's already started, saboteurs, traitors etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...People do get held to account. We have elections every 5 years and we've had 2 referendums on the EEC/EU.
Well, we can hope that the Tories get held to account over the whole Brexit debacle, but somehow I think they'll wriggle out of it. They always seem to.
Da Boss wrote: People should be held to account for their decisions. I would disown people in Ireland who voted to leave the EU and I would not remain friends with anyone who did so, as they'd be voting to feth me over.
How very intolerant and extreme of you.
By that logic, should we not disown New Labour voters who voted for a government that took us into the illegal Iraq disaster? 2010 Lib Dem and Tory voters, who voted in a government that screwed over students? Tory voters who voted in a party that is savaging the NHS and other public services? A lot of people have been fethed over as a result of other people's votes.
You won't have any friends left if you live your life by this philosophy.
I'm not ready to disown my parents for voting Leave (or Tory.)
OTOH I recognise that their ages (90 and 85) mean they are a lot less likely than my daughter (19) to be able to vote in the next referendum or the general election in 2022.
All I saw was the EU is gak, but change is risky, for a Remain campaign message point of view.
It was half-hearted at best.
Mosty because they were the same people that kept using the EU as a scapegoat each time they wanted to shove an unpopular decision down the throats of the electorate or just to draw attention somewhere else.
"We need to privatise rail because of the EU", "Foreign ships take our fish quota because of the EU", "The EU will ban bendy bananas", "The EU mandated burgundy passports", etc.
All I saw was the EU is gak, but change is risky, for a Remain campaign message point of view.
It was half-hearted at best.
Mosty because they were the same people that kept using the EU as a scapegoat each time they wanted to shove an unpopular decision down the throats of the electorate or just to draw attention somewhere else.
"We need to privatise rail because of the EU", "Foreign ships take our fish quota because of the EU", "The EU will ban bendy bananas", "The EU mandated burgundy passports", etc.
And so on.
I rarely agree with you, but I'm 100% in agreement with you on this.
As I said earlier, if politicians keep attacking the EU whenever it suits them, then they shouldn't be surprised if the electorate takes them at face value.
For 30 years at least, we've al been let down by gak politicians, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you're on...
I would say to Dakka members that my voting over the years has rarely made an impact.
In the 1980s and 1990s, I voted Labour, but the Tories ran the show.
I voted for New Labour in 1997 for all the good that did and abandoned them after Iraq.
And recently, I've been voting SNP so can't be held to account for Clegg and Cameron or Cameron's pledge to allow an EU referendum if elected...
Railway privatisation was a policy of the Major government in the early 1990s, and can be seen as following the policy of privatising national industries (gas, water, electric, phone) which the Conservatives had followed since Thatcher's election as PM.
The fishing quotas were also sold off in a typical capitalist fashion which meant that the big companies bid for and got the lion's share of the catch. Sadly, these large companies were not British. This can be seen as a continuation of the Conservative policy of not caring where the people live who own the assets.
The Bendy Banana Ban was a lie made up by the Daily Mail as part of its EU Hate campaign.
The EU never did mandate burgundy passports and I'm not aware how this became an issue. In terms of sovereignty, if the UK leaves the EU we will still have to use the same passport design because it's mandated by the ICAA, which is dominated by the USA. If we want to influence the ICAA we will be better off to stay in the EU. It will add weight to our arguments.
That said, I think the issue of passport design is something of a red herring. It's obvious that the world needs a standard design at the highest level of security that technology can provide. I don't see why anyone would want to deviate from that.
No-one cares about the cover colour except identity concerned Leave voters.
If anything, rather than impose a "traditional" blue cover, the government ought to allow people to have a choice of colour.
Kilkrazy wrote: I'm not ready to disown my parents for voting Leave (or Tory.)
OTOH I recognise that their ages (90 and 85) mean they are a lot less likely than my daughter (19) to be able to vote in the next referendum or the general election in 2022.
A sensible move. You may not get your inheritance money if you disown them
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A free press, in a free society, is entitled to call judges whatever they want. Our judiciary is not above criticism nor should it ever be.
There's a huge line between criticising the judiciary and incitement of hatred by branding them "traitors" and "enemies of the people", knowing that it'd result in death threats and rage. You could almost claim it was a deliberate attempt to intimidate.
As for the resentment; you're happy to send us to the stone age for some reason, so you need to be aware that some people may have a vigorous objection to that. If doesn't seem unreasonable to want those that decided to trash the country to be the first/worst affected by it; after all it's what they wanted and we warned them against.
Just as we'll need to expect some backlash when the brexiteers feel betrayed.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A free press, in a free society, is entitled to call judges whatever they want. Our judiciary is not above criticism nor should it ever be.
There's a huge line between criticising the judiciary and incitement of hatred by branding them "traitors" and "enemies of the people", knowing that it'd result in death threats and rage. You could almost claim it was a deliberate attempt to intimidate.
As for the resentment; you're happy to send us to the stone age for some reason, so you need to be aware that some people may have a vigorous objection to that. If doesn't seem unreasonable to want those that decided to trash the country to be the first/worst affected by it; after all it's what they wanted and we warned them against.
Just as we'll need to expect some backlash when the brexiteers feel betrayed.
If the Daily Mail were leading angry mobs through the streets and trying to hang judges from the nearest lamp post, I'd be the first to say charge them with the mounted police.
But that's a long way from calling somebody a traitor.
As for the Stone Age, there are some people convinced that Brexit Britain is going to morph into Weimar Germany and we'll add need to carry our money through the streets with wheel-barrows to buy a pint of milk.
We're not going back to the days of Druids and building Stone Circles
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A free press, in a free society, is entitled to call judges whatever they want. Our judiciary is not above criticism nor should it ever be.
There's a huge line between criticising the judiciary and incitement of hatred by branding them "traitors" and "enemies of the people", knowing that it'd result in death threats and rage. You could almost claim it was a deliberate attempt to intimidate.
As for the resentment; you're happy to send us to the stone age for some reason, so you need to be aware that some people may have a vigorous objection to that. If doesn't seem unreasonable to want those that decided to trash the country to be the first/worst affected by it; after all it's what they wanted and we warned them against.
Just as we'll need to expect some backlash when the brexiteers feel betrayed.
If the Daily Mail were leading angry mobs through the streets and trying to hang judges from the nearest lamp post, I'd be the first to say charge them with the mounted police.
But that's a long way from calling somebody a traitor.
As for the Stone Age, there are some people convinced that Brexit Britain is going to morph into Weimar Germany and we'll add need to carry our money through the streets with wheel-barrows to buy a pint of milk.
We're not going back to the days of Druids and building Stone Circles
Druids did not build stone circles. They were built generally it is believed as burial sites, places of worship. In reality in their day stone circles would have been deemed the height of technological innovation.
On the side of freedom of speech. Where is the difference between someone espousing a certain interpretation of Islam that condemns every one else as infidels but falls short of undertaking acts of aggression compared to papers calling people enemies etc. The former is considered hate speech and prosecuted, the latter is freedom of the press....
If the Daily Mail were leading angry mobs through the streets and trying to hang judges from the nearest lamp post, I'd be the first to say charge them with the mounted police.
... ...
It's a bit late by then.
You put yourself forward as someone who respects the rule of law and wants to uphold the British constitution and the sovereignty of Parliament.
TL/DR: British disregard of foreign languages has increased since the Referendum while the top five languages needed by the UK “for prosperity and influence” post-Brexit are Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, French, Arabic and German.
UK translation services are dependent on EU citizens and will suffer due to Brexit.
After 2004, when languages became optional for UK students once they turned 14, GCSE take-up halved, going from nearly 80% to around half that in 2017. Applications to study modern foreign languages at university have also dropped 57% in the last decade.
This bodes well for the UK's engagement with the world in post-Brexit trade euphoria!
As for the Stone Age, there are some people convinced that Brexit Britain is going to morph into Weimar Germany and we'll add need to carry our money through the streets with wheel-barrows to buy a pint of milk.
We're not going back to the days of Druids and building Stone Circles
If things did get that bad, you'd still chose it over the EU.
I don't think we'll enter the stone age again but things will get a lot worse, particularly for people who like yourself feel that you've got nothing to lose. Every analysis has us as being worse off, and no one has any idea how we can make anything better.
If the Daily Mail were leading angry mobs through the streets and trying to hang judges from the nearest lamp post, I'd be the first to say charge them with the mounted police.
... ...
It's a bit late by then.
You put yourself forward as someone who respects the rule of law and wants to uphold the British constitution and the sovereignty of Parliament.
TL/DR: British disregard of foreign languages has increased since the Referendum while the top five languages needed by the UK “for prosperity and influence” post-Brexit are Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, French, Arabic and German.
UK translation services are dependent on EU citizens and will suffer due to Brexit.
After 2004, when languages became optional for UK students once they turned 14, GCSE take-up halved, going from nearly 80% to around half that in 2017. Applications to study modern foreign languages at university have also dropped 57% in the last decade.
This bodes well for the UK's engagement with the world in post-Brexit trade euphoria!
I never understood (or agreed with) Labour’s decision to remove foreign language as compulsory. Even without the current debacle, globalisation is a real thing and the ability for our population to be able to efficiently and effectively interact with others on the world stage is hugely important.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A free press, in a free society, is entitled to call judges whatever they want. Our judiciary is not above criticism nor should it ever be.
There's a huge line between criticising the judiciary and incitement of hatred by branding them "traitors" and "enemies of the people", knowing that it'd result in death threats and rage. You could almost claim it was a deliberate attempt to intimidate.
As for the resentment; you're happy to send us to the stone age for some reason, so you need to be aware that some people may have a vigorous objection to that. If doesn't seem unreasonable to want those that decided to trash the country to be the first/worst affected by it; after all it's what they wanted and we warned them against.
Just as we'll need to expect some backlash when the brexiteers feel betrayed.
If the Daily Mail were leading angry mobs through the streets and trying to hang judges from the nearest lamp post, I'd be the first to say charge them with the mounted police.
But that's a long way from calling somebody a traitor.
As for the Stone Age, there are some people convinced that Brexit Britain is going to morph into Weimar Germany and we'll add need to carry our money through the streets with wheel-barrows to buy a pint of milk.
We're not going back to the days of Druids and building Stone Circles
Jo Cox. Murdered in cold blood by a racist nutter, enable and empowered by our racist press, which normalises such bigotry by printing it on the front page.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Every foreign national that suffers a race hate attack? Lay it at the door of the Heil and Express. They’re the ones insisting all your problems are because of Them.
Can’t get a job? Them took all the jobs.
Low benefits? Them are claiming all of those. Even though they’ve also taken all the jobs.
Roads busy? Them are using all the roads.
NHS criminally and deliberately underfunded? It’s not the Tories. It’s Them taking up all the resources.
nobody gave two hoots for French or German. I suspect other dakka members probably have similar stories.
Not being British, taking a language was mandatory all four years before the end. I opted for Spanish. It seemed the most useful of the options (others were French and German) all things considered.
One of my biggest regrets is not leaning a language. Not from lack of trying. I took Spanish in school but failed the final exam. Written. Had the general idea but the spelling was atrocious. Now it’s all forgotten. All I can remember is “Me espanol es muy mal”.
Again this was pointed out prior to the referendum, but was -- again -- shouted down as project fear, if we all just sing the national anthem really loudly everything will be fine etc etc blah blah.
Da Boss wrote: People should be held to account for their decisions. I would disown people in Ireland who voted to leave the EU and I would not remain friends with anyone who did so, as they'd be voting to feth me over.
How very intolerant and extreme of you.
By that logic, should we not disown New Labour voters who voted for a government that took us into the illegal Iraq disaster? 2010 Lib Dem and Tory voters, who voted in a government that screwed over students? Tory voters who voted in a party that is savaging the NHS and other public services? A lot of people have been fethed over as a result of other people's votes.
You won't have any friends left if you live your life by this philosophy.
If someone still supports the invasion of Iraq or the screwing over of students, then that wasn't a mistake due to not understanding the situation but a moral stance. And I would not be friends with people who held moral stances I disagreed with, at least if I felt strongly enough about it. Or they would have to have some other common values that I felt outweighed it.
With the Irexit thing, it's quite simple. I am living in Germany, married to a German woman. If we were pulled out of the EU by people who did not understand that being in the EU is beneficial to us, and those people behaved as many brexit voters have in doubling down and refusing to take responsibility, then I would have been screwed over by them with no apology. My life would directly be made worse. So why should I forgive them? They don't care about my welfare. My parents business and indeed my whole home town relies on trade from the EU. Why should I forgive them being harmed? I don't see any reason to. It's directly impacting my life.
On that note, I mentioned before that my parents run a bed and breakfast where most of the custom comes from British tourist. Due to the declining pound and general economic headwinds, business is down massively on last year. There are some other factors which make it hard to determine the exact impact, but their income is down by 75% in total and Brexit has to be playing into that. 75%. My folks are not extremely well off, they were forced into the bed and breakfast business after retirement after my Dad's pension was slashed.
So yeah, I have some personal beef with Brexiteers. You didn't care about these things when I mentioned them before and you don't care about them now. So why should I give a gak about you?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The disdain for learning foreign languages has been a feature of British society since the days of Captain Cook.
When I was a lad at school
nobody gave two hoots for French or German. I suspect other dakka members probably have similar stories.
That's not to say there aren't people in Britain who can speak 37 different languages or whatever,
but even when we were in the EU, language learning was never popular...
I beleive it's a cultural thing.
Ha. Speak for yourself. I took my German GCSE in Year 9, GCSE French in Year 11 and OCN Spanish at College and got C's in all of them.
Sadly I never developed on them and went on to actually learn those languages. Lacking the money to travel abroad leaves little opportunity to practice in person, and little motivation . That might change now that I have a half French girlfriend. Oo la la.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: So yeah, I have some personal beef with Brexiteers. You didn't care about these things when I mentioned them before and you don't care about them now. So why should I give a gak about you?
You're changing the subject. We're not talking about "giving a gak" about each other (and quite frankly, with an ugly hostile attitude like yours, I'm not inclined to). And I'm not asking you to give a gak about me.
We're talking about you disowning fellow country men because they voted differently to you. Thats intolerant. We aren't talking about voting for the likes of the BNP.
And TBH, you've partly brought it on yourself. You chose to emigrate and live in another country. Presumably you intend to live the rest of your life in Germany, since you married a German? Why did you not then take German citizenship? I would have done, if I chose to move abroad and live permanently in a foreign country. I'd want that extra security of Citizenship, and to me it would be a very definite statement (to myself as much as to Germany) of my intent to integrate.
German citizenship takes eight years to earn. I will take German citizenship, when I am able.
As to giving a gak, that's exactly what I mean when I say I disown them. I would not associate with them, or particularly care about what happened to them. So I'm not changing the subject at all. I don't care if it's intolerant, why should I have to tolerate people who make decisions that bring real harm to me and my family? That's bs. I don't have to tolerate that and can chose to act how I want to within the law. There's no onus on me to be forgiving.
I notice you ignore the harm that would be done to my family and friends. And I emigrated under a certain system. If you chose to change that system in a way that feths me over, that is on you: You chose to change it to make it more inconvenient for me. I'm not doing anything like that to you, just getting on with my life in Germany. You're the one who has made a hostile act toward me, in that scenario. Thankfully, only a small percentage of my countrymen think like you do.
Aye. I probably will. I hope all your compatriots who are in limbo in the EU due to the Brexit vote will also be able to get citizenship. Of course, it will not be easy for many of them.
I would be the least unhappy with some sort of EFTA outcome but it crosses too many of Theresa May's red lines. I think it's unlikely. But I'd be alright with it.
Here's an interesting report that contradicts a Remain argument that our top universities will struggle to attract the brightest and best students and researchers:
Oxford and Cambridge sitting on a 21 billion golden egg
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Here's an interesting report that contradicts a Remain argument that our top universities will struggle to attract the brightest and best students and researchers:
Oxford and Cambridge sitting on a 21 billion golden egg
Money talks, and with that sort of brass in the bank, they could build world class facilities and pay high salaries to lure in the best of the best.
The vast majority of research doesn't happen at Oxford and Cambridge however. There are certain universities that will never struggle not just here but also in the US (Stamford, Harvard, MIT etc). They have all have a certain reputation, which means that the wealthy will spend a lot to get their children there. You only have to look at the the student backgrounds to see this. As such they both tend to have wealthy benefactors that mean that they get a regular source of income other than through traditional funding streams (and they can charge foreign students much more for that privilege). This is completely the opposite for pretty much every other university in the UK which are vastly more reliant on research grants, the general student population, and so forth (and lets not forget that both Oxford and Cambridge also compete for these).
Effectively what you are advocating is too elite universities and damn the rest which would only further compound societies issues where the wealthy elite continue to remain at the top and leaving the rest to effectively do their bidding. The impacts on the universities is already happening. Foreign student numbers are decreasing (which is where a lot of universities get significant funding from to support other activities) which is having major impacts as to what the universities are able to achieve.
If you advocate a few elite universities benefiting the wealthy then by all means be happy with what is going on.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Here's an interesting report that contradicts a Remain argument that our top universities will struggle to attract the brightest and best students and researchers:
Oxford and Cambridge sitting on a 21 billion golden egg
Money talks, and with that sort of brass in the bank, they could build world class facilities and pay high salaries to lure in the best of the best.
What? That's demented, you're assuming that this isn't something they're doing already. Do you seriously think they're just sitting with that money and no idea what to use it for, and then suddenly "BREXIT! Let us spend our cash to build an academic utopia like we couldn't before because REASONS"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, it is notable that lots of highly respected UK universities AREN'T Oxbridge
Details, details! Who cares! Headlines aRe enough, Just thump your chest harder, sing ru Britannia louder and be glad those damned foreigners aren't coming here any more.
Oh, and better yet, from the article this £21 billion is in "estates, endowments, investments and other assets – including artworks and antiques"
So, if you sell all the buildings that the university is actually IN, bin the pension pots and flog all the décor you'll get scads of money to build some tin sheds to put your new staff in, plus some new build accommodation blocks. You'll be able to pay your academics really well until the money runs out, but can't offer them a pension.
Also worth noting that, to the best of my knowledge, Oxford and Cambridge are in the same pension scheme as quite a lot of other UK universities. So you're dropping their pensions as well.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Here's an interesting report that contradicts a Remain argument that our top universities will struggle to attract the brightest and best students and researchers:
Oxford and Cambridge sitting on a 21 billion golden egg
Fresh calls have been made for a systematic review of the UK’s visa application process for foreign researchers and their families after one of the University of Oxford’s “brightest” new recruits was forced to leave her post and return to China.
Fengying Liu, a postdoctoral researcher in pathology, was recruited to Oxford’s Sir William Dunn School of Pathology in October last year. She acquired the Tier 2 visa necessary to take up the role and work in the UK, but a separate dependency visa for her 22-month-old daughter was later rejected by the Home Office.
Citing the inflexibility of the British visa process and the unaffordable cost of a resubmission, Dr Liu said that she had no choice but to leave her new role and “give up hope” of working in the UK as a scientist.
Her departure has been seen as another manifestation of the perceived hostility of the UK’s immigration regime to foreign researchers and has fuelled elite universities’ fears about their ability to recruit and retain the best international talent post-Brexit.
Ulrike Gruneberg, a Medical Research Council senior research fellow and principal investigator of the laboratory that recruited Dr Liu, told Times Higher Education that she already faced “extreme problems” hiring suitable candidates, which she attributed in part to the “complicated and flawed” nature of the UK immigration system.
The struggle to recruit has intensified since the referendum vote to leave the European Union, Dr Gruneberg added. “[We] don’t get any applications from the EU now and there are hardly any qualified British candidates for postdoc positions, so it becomes much more important for us to be able to employ people from outside the EU.
“My concern is that British science is just going to collapse.”
Dr Liu had applied for the Oxford research role after completing her PhD at Heidelberg University in Germany, where she had been living with her husband, another Chinese scientist, and baby. On being offered the position funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, she moved to the UK without her husband and daughter, having made the decision to apply for their visas separately to make the costs more manageable.
However, a technicality in UK immigration law that requires parents to seek visas together with their children meant that the separate application for Dr Liu’s baby was refused.
“The reason my daughter got rejected is because we did not apply as a family,” Dr Liu told THE. “I did not understand this at the time. It was also too expensive – about €1,400 [£1,226] per person for the visa application alone.”
Employer-sponsored UK visas cost up to £3,220 including an immigration health surcharge of £400 per year – doubled from £200 in April. Given that accompanying family members require their own visas too, the cost of moving to the UK even for a short period of time can add up to several thousand pounds for a family.
While Oxford was able to reimburse Dr Liu’s own visa costs, the policy does not extend to dependants.
The fact that Dr Liu did not completely understand the visa application rules came as “some failing on Oxford’s part”, Dr Gruneberg admitted. “I felt awful. As an employer, you hire someone in good faith and then you essentially make them go through hell,” she said.
“[Dr Liu] was our brightest candidate – the only possible candidate. But, looking at the Home Office website myself, it’s difficult even for someone with a PhD who speaks English very well to understand. On a human level, it’s terrible.”
Dr Gruneberg wrote to her laboratory’s funding bodies, university leaders and her local MP, but while much sympathy was expressed there was “nothing to be done to change the situation”.
Dr Liu was advised to reapply for her husband and daughter’s visas. But at a potential further cost of £4,400 for the two of them without incorporating travel costs, she opted to terminate her contract at Oxford early and seek work in China.
“I don’t know how they can think each person can pay so much even for a baby. We were just PhD students who had just graduated [and we] did not have savings to fall back on,” Dr Liu said. “Something needs to change. It’s a fundamental problem for young researchers coming to the UK.”
While universities could do more to assist recruits in their visa processes, Dr Liu suggested that funding bodies responsible for sponsoring postdoctoral places could help to pick up the bill. “They need to give more consideration not only to funding the cost of the project but the visa, too,” she said.
The debate over visa limits in the UK comes amid growing concern about the impact of migration restrictions in many of the leading higher education nations. The US is reportedly considering limiting the flow of Chinese researchers into the country, amid concerns about espionage and the flow of sensitive data, while Australian universities are caught in the crossfire of increasing tensions with China and are also contending with visa reforms.
Speaking earlier this month, Louise Richardson, Oxford’s vice-chancellor, said that British institutions including her own could struggle even further to attract talent once the UK leaves the EU.
“Personally, I think we are all in trouble in England, Ireland and the rest of the EU over Brexit,” she said. “We know [our elite status] rests on the excellence of research from people who [come] from abroad…It is painful for many of us as committed internationalists, citizens of the world, to find our country turning inward.”
A Home Office spokeswoman said that international collaboration was “essential” to the success of the UK’s universities and that the government therefore “welcome[d] academics visiting the UK”.
The struggle to recruit has intensified since the referendum vote to leave the European Union, Dr Gruneberg added. “[We] don’t get any applications from the EU now and there are hardly any qualified British candidates for postdoc positions, so it becomes much more important for us to be able to employ people from outside the EU.
“My concern is that British science is just going to collapse.”
Kilkrazy wrote: That's pretty stiff even if he is a serial offender.
However I shall not shed bitter tears.
My understanding is that the 13 month sentence for previous contempt of court was suspended and he was warned explicitly to not attend any further court appearances. He only has himself to blame, he was pinched for breach of the peace and the full suspended sentence was then imposed.
He could have just stayed away, which begs the question that maybe he wanted to be arrested so as to be a martyr?
Especially as many of his supporters that I know personally claim he will be lucky to survive prison as he will almost certainly be tossed into a dark cell full of Islamic fundementalists, apparently.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's pretty stiff even if he is a serial offender.
However I shall not shed bitter tears.
My understanding is that the 13 month sentence for previous contempt of court was suspended and he was warned explicitly to not attend any further court appearances. He only has himself to blame, he was pinched for breach of the peace and the full suspended sentence was then imposed.
He could have just stayed away, which begs the question that maybe he wanted to be arrested so as to be a martyr?
Especially as many of his supporters that I know personally claim he will be lucky to survive prison as he will almost certainly be tossed into a dark cell full of Islamic fundementalists, apparently.
Thats exactly what happened the last time he was imprisoned.
Was it? The only fact I can find was that he was attacked in prison.
The only people claiming they were Muslims is a right wing US news site, and his supporters. It’s possible it is true, but far more likely that either it is totally untrue, or he was attacked because he was spouting the same racist garbage in prison and got attacked because of that. Unfortunately prisons have violent people in them and sometimes people do get attacked. Especially if you are a mouthy git that goes out of your way to anger people. That does not make it a conspiracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That's pretty stiff even if he is a serial offender.
However I shall not shed bitter tears.
The maximum sentence is 2 years, so 13 months is not surprising given that it was a second offence and both have been at the serious end, and likely to be repeated.
He's a pretty scummy person generally, and he broke the law. However, it seems to me to be a law that flies in the face of democracy. Anyone should be able to report on a trial, there should be complete transparency, in the same way that in the US they have to issue mug shots when a person is arrested and put on trial so the public are aware, otherwise a government could run a secret police.
Steve steveson wrote: Was it? The only fact I can find was that he was attacked in prison.
The only people claiming they were Muslims is a right wing US news site, and his supporters. It’s possible it is true, but far more likely that either it is totally untrue, or he was attacked because he was spouting the same racist garbage in prison and got attacked because of that. Unfortunately prisons have violent people in them and sometimes people do get attacked. Especially if you are a mouthy git that goes out of your way to anger people. That does not make it a conspiracy.
Not a conspiracy. Negligence. He was put onto a wing with a lot of Muslim inmates convicted for violent offences.
Tommy Robinson himself claims that the men who assaulted him knew him personally, and had previously threatened him and his family outside of Prison.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Here's an interesting report that contradicts a Remain argument that our top universities will struggle to attract the brightest and best students and researchers:
Oxford and Cambridge sitting on a 21 billion golden egg
Money talks, and with that sort of brass in the bank, they could build world class facilities and pay high salaries to lure in the best of the best.
They are drowning in money (though a lot of it is tied into things that aren't exactly liquid - like the college buildings...). However, did you read the article? They're not exactly at pains to spend their money. If you think they're going to single-handedly save UKHE you might want to have a look at the role their efforts to separate themselves from the rest of the UKHE sector to remove financial connections had in the largest ever UK university and college staff strikes in February and March.
Additionally, I'm not sure if you quite understand the college system? The majority of the money is not Oxford or Cambridge univeristies'. It is the colleges. Separate entities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: He's a pretty scummy person generally, and he broke the law. However, it seems to me to be a law that flies in the face of democracy. Anyone should be able to report on a trial, there should be complete transparency, in the same way that in the US they have to issue mug shots when a person is arrested and put on trial so the public are aware, otherwise a government could run a secret police.
I'd disagree. Justice and the right to a fair trial is fundamental to democracy and you can't get a fair trial if there's wall-to-wall coverage of it. UK courts are subject to heavy censorship during a trial, specifically for that reason, but everything (with the exception of individuals' identities in special cases, generally where children need to be protected) is available afterwards.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: He's a pretty scummy person generally, and he broke the law. However, it seems to me to be a law that flies in the face of democracy. Anyone should be able to report on a trial, there should be complete transparency, in the same way that in the US they have to issue mug shots when a person is arrested and put on trial so the public are aware, otherwise a government could run a secret police.
No.. Thetes a very exact reason for it.
Anyone is free to report after but the case is decided on facts alone not media pressure etc. During trial the restrictions are very tight to prevent any kind of comtaniation of the proceedings.
Its trial by jury, not media.
Our laws protect the proceedings heavily, a trial of the type he reported on involving kids and so. Is very restricted on what can and cannot be published.
Our systems are set up as they are for good reason.
We do not have zinerman media circus events.
Steve steveson wrote: Was it? The only fact I can find was that he was attacked in prison.
The only people claiming they were Muslims is a right wing US news site, and his supporters. It’s possible it is true, but far more likely that either it is totally untrue, or he was attacked because he was spouting the same racist garbage in prison and got attacked because of that. Unfortunately prisons have violent people in them and sometimes people do get attacked. Especially if you are a mouthy git that goes out of your way to anger people. That does not make it a conspiracy.
Not a conspiracy. Negligence. He was put onto a wing with a lot of Muslim inmates convicted for violent offences.
Tommy Robinson himself claims that the men who assaulted him knew him personally, and had previously threatened him and his family outside of Prison.
Again, according to who? Please do provide me with a reliable source that says it was any more than a standard prison assault. What Tommy Robinson claims is worthless. Let’s have some independent evidence.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Here's an interesting report that contradicts a Remain argument that our top universities will struggle to attract the brightest and best students and researchers:
Oxford and Cambridge sitting on a 21 billion golden egg
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Here's an interesting report that contradicts a Remain argument that our top universities will struggle to attract the brightest and best students and researchers:
Oxford and Cambridge sitting on a 21 billion golden egg
Money talks, and with that sort of brass in the bank, they could build world class facilities and pay high salaries to lure in the best of the best.
They are drowning in money (though a lot of it is tied into things that aren't exactly liquid - like the college buildings...). However, did you read the article? They're not exactly at pains to spend their money. If you think they're going to single-handedly save UKHE you might want to have a look at the role their efforts to separate themselves from the rest of the UKHE sector to remove financial connections had in the largest ever UK university and college staff strikes in February and March.
Additionally, I'm not sure if you quite understand the college system? The majority of the money is not Oxford or Cambridge univeristies'. It is the colleges. Separate entities.
And the vast majority of that is in assets they can’t sell. Oxford colleges own large amounts of Oxford. The land alien is worth a few billion, without the listed buildings sat on it. Most colleges do not have vast reserves of wealth, nor do the universities themselves. And a large amount of the remaining is investments that generate small but steady incomes. They are not poor, but they are far from rich, and a frightening amount of that money from income goes in to the upkeep of all the Grade 1 listed buildings. This has no relevance to the research income of the UK HE sector at all.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Here's an interesting report that contradicts a Remain argument that our top universities will struggle to attract the brightest and best students and researchers:
Oxford and Cambridge sitting on a 21 billion golden egg
Money talks, and with that sort of brass in the bank, they could build world class facilities and pay high salaries to lure in the best of the best.
They are drowning in money (though a lot of it is tied into things that aren't exactly liquid - like the college buildings...). However, did you read the article? They're not exactly at pains to spend their money. If you think they're going to single-handedly save UKHE you might want to have a look at the role their efforts to separate themselves from the rest of the UKHE sector to remove financial connections had in the largest ever UK university and college staff strikes in February and March.
Additionally, I'm not sure if you quite understand the college system? The majority of the money is not Oxford or Cambridge univeristies'. It is the colleges. Separate entities.
And the vast majority of that is in assets they can’t sell. Oxford colleges own large amounts of Oxford. The land alien is worth a few billion, without the listed buildings sat on it. Most colleges do not have vast reserves of wealth, nor do the universities themselves. And a large amount of the remaining is investments that generate small but steady incomes. They are not poor, but they are far from rich, and a frightening amount of that money from income goes in to the upkeep of all the Grade 1 listed buildings. This has no relevance to the research income of the UK HE sector at all.
This undersells it. Some are very, very rich. Trinity is absurd. And flaunts it. They aren't all like that, of course, and as you say, it has zero bearing on UKHE as a sector.
If "Tommy Robinson" gets the gak kicked out of himself in prison, it's because Tommy Robinson is a fething prick and I have precisely zero sympathy for him or anyone like him who gets filled in because they run their mouth off.
He could try not being a fething gobshite, and maybe people wouldn't feel compelled to kick his teeth in.
Most arn’t in the same situation though. Some have hardly anything. Teddy Hall and St Hilders are both, by all accounts, not that well off at all. Trinity Camb has about the same wealth of the three wealthiest Oxford Colleges combined and the 4 largest colleges have about the same between them as either of the universities. Trinity is an outlier.
r_squared wrote: If "Tommy Robinson" gets the gak kicked out of himself in prison, it's because Tommy Robinson is a fething prick and I have precisely zero sympathy for him or anyone like him who gets filled in because they run their mouth off.
He could try not being a fething gobshite, and maybe people wouldn't feel compelled to kick his teeth in.
Nah not in jail. I'd quite cheerfully stick one on his jaw in the street, but if you incarcerate people you really do have to keep them safe.
r_squared wrote: If "Tommy Robinson" gets the gak kicked out of himself in prison, it's because Tommy Robinson is a fething prick and I have precisely zero sympathy for him or anyone like him who gets filled in because they run their mouth off.
He could try not being a fething gobshite, and maybe people wouldn't feel compelled to kick his teeth in.
Nah not in jail. I'd quite cheerfully stick one on his jaw in the street, but if you incarcerate people you really do have to keep them safe.
In his case you'd have to keep him safe by wiring his jaw shut. He could make the Pope want to chib him.
.. I think we can do without the fantasy beat down talk TBH.
ta.
,,,
Spoiler:
yes, one wouldn't want someone interfering with the due process of the law now would you eh ?
Personally I wouldn't use someone who is best known for claiming that "Hitler will live forever" as my intermediary either but strokes for folks etc etc .
r_squared wrote: If "Tommy Robinson" gets the gak kicked out of himself in prison, it's because Tommy Robinson is a fething prick and I have precisely zero sympathy for him or anyone like him who gets filled in because they run their mouth off.
He could try not being a fething gobshite, and maybe people wouldn't feel compelled to kick his teeth in.
This.
See, unlike the overwhelming majority of the religion he’s chosen to victimise, he actually deserves vitriol on the basis of his own actions.
r_squared wrote: If "Tommy Robinson" gets the gak kicked out of himself in prison, it's because Tommy Robinson is a fething prick and I have precisely zero sympathy for him or anyone like him who gets filled in because they run their mouth off.
He could try not being a fething gobshite, and maybe people wouldn't feel compelled to kick his teeth in.
r_squared wrote: If "Tommy Robinson" gets the gak kicked out of himself in prison, it's because Tommy Robinson is a fething prick and I have precisely zero sympathy for him or anyone like him who gets filled in because they run their mouth off.
He could try not being a fething gobshite, and maybe people wouldn't feel compelled to kick his teeth in.
This.
See, unlike the overwhelming majority of the religion he’s chosen to victimise, he actually deserves vitriol on the basis of his own actions.
If someone - anyone - gets beaten up in prison, then at the very least the prison authorities screwed up big-time. That sort of thing isn't supposed to happen, even to obnoxious people with unpopular opinions. It's not something we should ever tolerate or respond to with a "Ho-hum, I guess he must have deserved it." We're not the USA.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Here's an interesting report that contradicts a Remain argument that our top universities will struggle to attract the brightest and best students and researchers:
Oxford and Cambridge sitting on a 21 billion golden egg
Money talks, and with that sort of brass in the bank, they could build world class facilities and pay high salaries to lure in the best of the best.
They are drowning in money (though a lot of it is tied into things that aren't exactly liquid - like the college buildings...). However, did you read the article? They're not exactly at pains to spend their money. If you think they're going to single-handedly save UKHE you might want to have a look at the role their efforts to separate themselves from the rest of the UKHE sector to remove financial connections had in the largest ever UK university and college staff strikes in February and March.
Additionally, I'm not sure if you quite understand the college system? The majority of the money is not Oxford or Cambridge univeristies'. It is the colleges. Separate entities.
And the vast majority of that is in assets they can’t sell. Oxford colleges own large amounts of Oxford. The land alien is worth a few billion, without the listed buildings sat on it. Most colleges do not have vast reserves of wealth, nor do the universities themselves. And a large amount of the remaining is investments that generate small but steady incomes. They are not poor, but they are far from rich, and a frightening amount of that money from income goes in to the upkeep of all the Grade 1 listed buildings. This has no relevance to the research income of the UK HE sector at all.
This undersells it. Some are very, very rich. Trinity is absurd. And flaunts it. They aren't all like that, of course, and as you say, it has zero bearing on UKHE as a sector.
Well, hang on a moment. Trinity's endowment is only a bit over £100 million.
That's peanuts compared to people like Roman Abramovich and "Sir" Philip Green. He took £500 million out of BHS before it mysteriously crashed with a £500 million hole in its pension fund.
That bloke who's in charge of Persimmon Group got £110 million bonus last year.
I think there are some better options that our best universities if you're trying to raise some ready cash.
r_squared wrote: If "Tommy Robinson" gets the gak kicked out of himself in prison, it's because Tommy Robinson is a fething prick and I have precisely zero sympathy for him or anyone like him who gets filled in because they run their mouth off.
He could try not being a fething gobshite, and maybe people wouldn't feel compelled to kick his teeth in.
r_squared wrote: If "Tommy Robinson" gets the gak kicked out of himself in prison, it's because Tommy Robinson is a fething prick and I have precisely zero sympathy for him or anyone like him who gets filled in because they run their mouth off.
He could try not being a fething gobshite, and maybe people wouldn't feel compelled to kick his teeth in.
This.
See, unlike the overwhelming majority of the religion he’s chosen to victimise, he actually deserves vitriol on the basis of his own actions.
Sure. VITRIOL. Not violence.
He incites violence.
You know what this is? This is the proper channels equivalent of watching the School Bully get the absolute gak kicked out him, having spent several years, with his mob of goon mates, seeking out the smallest, weediest kid they could to give a hard time.
You’re....you’re not actually a supporter of BF and the EDL are you? Because you’re sure coming across as one in your last few posts here....
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Here's an interesting report that contradicts a Remain argument that our top universities will struggle to attract the brightest and best students and researchers:
Oxford and Cambridge sitting on a 21 billion golden egg
Money talks, and with that sort of brass in the bank, they could build world class facilities and pay high salaries to lure in the best of the best.
They are drowning in money (though a lot of it is tied into things that aren't exactly liquid - like the college buildings...). However, did you read the article? They're not exactly at pains to spend their money. If you think they're going to single-handedly save UKHE you might want to have a look at the role their efforts to separate themselves from the rest of the UKHE sector to remove financial connections had in the largest ever UK university and college staff strikes in February and March.
Additionally, I'm not sure if you quite understand the college system? The majority of the money is not Oxford or Cambridge univeristies'. It is the colleges. Separate entities.
And the vast majority of that is in assets they can’t sell. Oxford colleges own large amounts of Oxford. The land alien is worth a few billion, without the listed buildings sat on it. Most colleges do not have vast reserves of wealth, nor do the universities themselves. And a large amount of the remaining is investments that generate small but steady incomes. They are not poor, but they are far from rich, and a frightening amount of that money from income goes in to the upkeep of all the Grade 1 listed buildings. This has no relevance to the research income of the UK HE sector at all.
This undersells it. Some are very, very rich. Trinity is absurd. And flaunts it. They aren't all like that, of course, and as you say, it has zero bearing on UKHE as a sector.
Well, hang on a moment. Trinity's endowment is only a bit over £100 million.
That's peanuts compared to people like Roman Abramovich and "Sir" Philip Green. He took £500 million out of BHS before it mysteriously crashed with a £500 million hole in its pension fund.
That bloke who's in charge of Persimmon Group got £110 million bonus last year.
I think there are some better options that our best universities if you're trying to raise some ready cash.
Their endowment is over a billion, and their assets as we know are vast. They're something silly like the 3rd biggest landowner in the country, and bankroll lavish dinners nightly. They've substantial holdings beyond Trinity hall and other bricks and mortar.
That misses the point, however. As I reckon I've made clear in both of my posts on the topic, I don't think Oxbridge colleges' wealth has anything to do with raising money for UKHE, let alone anything else.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You know what this is? This is the proper channels equivalent of watching the School Bully get the absolute gak kicked out him, having spent several years, with his mob of goon mates, seeking out the smallest, weediest kid they could to give a hard time.
You’re....you’re not actually a supporter of BF and the EDL are you? Because you’re sure coming across as one in your last few posts here....
Kindly retract that smear.
I believe in the rule of Law. Tommy Robinson broke the Law, and he is being sent to where he belongs. I do NOT believe in violence and extra judicial revenge, unlike the likes of you and R_squared who sadistically revel in people they dislike being subjected to illegal violence.
A conservation just like this is what got me kicked off tvtropes. The British Politics Thread was full of the worst kind of lefties, and the mod running it was the biggest leftie of them all. It was ok to hope Maggie was burning in hell, that Cameron deserved to suffer his child’s death and to threaten to give Farage an acid bath, but say rot in hell about Mick Philpott and you’re suspended for a week. spankers.
Anyone is free to report after but the case is decided on facts alone not media pressure etc. During trial the restrictions are very tight to prevent any kind of comtaniation of the proceedings.
Its trial by jury, not media.
Our laws protect the proceedings heavily, a trial of the type he reported on involving kids and so. Is very restricted on what can and cannot be published.
Our systems are set up as they are for good reason. We do not have zinerman media circus events.
If cases were to be decided on facts alone we would do away with the jury and use robots to decide. A hue part of sentencing is how the jury feels, the human aspect, whether they think the defendent is guilty or not could have a lot to do with their behaviour in court, for example.
And for a real example, my english teacher was recently called in for jury service. In one of the cases, despite the defendant being demonstrably guilty of breaking the law by carrying a knife in public, the jury unanimously decided to declare him not guilty. Why? Because when he was arrested with the knife on him, it was in its box, with the reciept, becasue he was going back to the shop to return it. Given it was such a farce of a case, the jury, even though for once there was undeniable evidence the person committed the crime, found them not guilty.
The point of a jury is judgment by peers. Fellow people with emotions and hang-ups and hunches. It is not just a facts exercise. It is also an exercise in human judgment. And again, it still seems to me that a democratic government should make the facts and proceedings of all criminal cases transparent during. Maybe not cameras in the actual court, that would be distracting, but people should be allowed to report on the case's happening and express their own opinions. Otherwise that's suppression of the press, which is not at all democratic.
Future War Cultist wrote: A conservation just like this is what got me kicked off tvtropes. The British Politics Thread was full of the worst kind of lefties, and the mod running it was the biggest leftie of them all. It was ok to hope Maggie was burning in hell, that Cameron deserved to suffer his child’s death and to threaten to give Farage an acid bath, but say rot in hell about Mick Philpott and you’re suspended for a week. spankers.
Can we add Left Wingers on Dakka Dakka inciting violence against Right Wingers to the Dakka Dakka bingo?
Might as well add "put them in camps!" or "let them drown in the Aegean" in that case.
On a related note though, I really wish this thread would stop making me agree with Shadow Captain. Gleefully reveling in the prospect of somebody being assaulted is pretty vile.
Anyone is free to report after but the case is decided on facts alone not media pressure etc. During trial the restrictions are very tight to prevent any kind of comtaniation of the proceedings.
Its trial by jury, not media.
Our laws protect the proceedings heavily, a trial of the type he reported on involving kids and so. Is very restricted on what can and cannot be published.
Our systems are set up as they are for good reason.
We do not have zinerman media circus events.
If cases were to be decided on facts alone we would do away with the jury and use robots to decide. A hue part of sentencing is how the jury feels, the human aspect, whether they think the defendent is guilty or not could have a lot to do with their behaviour in court, for example.
And for a real example, my english teacher was recently called in for jury service. In one of the cases, despite the defendant being demonstrably guilty of breaking the law by carrying a knife in public, the jury unanimously decided to declare him not guilty. Why? Because when he was arrested with the knife on him, it was in its box, with the reciept, becasue he was going back to the shop to return it. Given it was such a farce of a case, the jury, even though for once there was undeniable evidence the person committed the crime, found them not guilty.
The point of a jury is judgment by peers. Fellow people with emotions and hang-ups and hunches. It is not just a facts exercise. It is also an exercise in human judgment. And again, it still seems to me that a democratic government should make the facts and proceedings of all criminal cases transparent during. Maybe not cameras in the actual court, that would be distracting, but people should be allowed to report on the case's happening and express their own opinions. Otherwise that's suppression of the press, which is not at all democratic.
I'm not sure how your example pertains to the point? Yes we have juries specifically so that human judgement is involved, but that doesn't mean we should try to make it as objective as possible, and media speculation in no way helps that. Your example wouldn't be helped by media speculation, but the defendant's chances could be damaged by a swathe of headlines about his being a serial knife carrier. We know the media has massive power in directing public opinion, I'm not sure how it is possible to argue that this can't impact the fairness of a trial? So long as court proceedings are available afterwards, I am perfectly comfortable with judges being able to bar publication whilst a trial is underway. I do have severe problems with superinjunctions.
I utterly despise Tommy and his constant scummy lies and violence (he goes to other countries and baits people into approaching him so he can sucker punch them, good man), but anyone saying they're either happy and/or willing to turn a blind eye to him being attacked in prison is pretty gakky too.
He belongs in prison, serving the sentence given. The sentence didn't include beatings, and I'd worry if our country allowed those.
Anyone supporting him beyond demanding he deserves the same basic rights as the rest of us, I shake my head. This guy is a gakker. As to the evidence of his being attacked etc, you can immediately ignore anything *he* says, given he's a proven thug and liar.
I believe in the rule of Law. Tommy Robinson broke the Law, and he is being sent to where he belongs. I do NOT believe in violence and extra judicial revenge, unlike the likes of you and R_squared who sadistically revel in people they dislike being subjected to illegal violence.
Retract that smear and then you come out with that little gem? I said I don't care if he gets beaten up, I didn't say he should and I certainly wasn't sadistic about it.
You really have tried to jump on the moral high ground here.
Future War Cultist wrote: A conservation just like this is what got me kicked off tvtropes. The British Politics Thread was full of the worst kind of lefties, and the mod running it was the biggest leftie of them all. It was ok to hope Maggie was burning in hell, that Cameron deserved to suffer his child’s death and to threaten to give Farage an acid bath, but say rot in hell about Mick Philpott and you’re suspended for a week. spankers.
Can we add Left Wingers on Dakka Dakka inciting violence against Right Wingers to the Dakka Dakka bingo?
You two have lost the plot, really.
Says the person revelling in violence against people he dislikes.
I believe in the rule of Law. Tommy Robinson broke the Law, and he is being sent to where he belongs. I do NOT believe in violence and extra judicial revenge, unlike the likes of you and R_squared who sadistically revel in people they dislike being subjected to illegal violence.
Retract that smear and then you come out with that little gem? I said I don't care if he gets beaten up, I didn't say he should and I certainly wasn't sadistic about it.
You really have tried to jump on the moral high ground here.
Future War Cultist wrote: A conservation just like this is what got me kicked off tvtropes. The British Politics Thread was full of the worst kind of lefties, and the mod running it was the biggest leftie of them all. It was ok to hope Maggie was burning in hell, that Cameron deserved to suffer his child’s death and to threaten to give Farage an acid bath, but say rot in hell about Mick Philpott and you’re suspended for a week. spankers.
Can we add Left Wingers on Dakka Dakka inciting violence against Right Wingers to the Dakka Dakka bingo?
You two have lost the plot, really.
Says the person revelling in violence against people he dislikes.
You're genuinely not worth it. If people want to know your motivations, and that of FWC, they only have to check the reason why the last thread closed, and I'm not contributing to that possibility anymore. I'm out.
I've never noticed Shadow Captain Edithae being racist. There's plenty we disagree about but I believe we're both on the same page of the hymn book as regards racism.
To get back to the topic, there's an interesting article on The Guardina about how Labour could claim an anti-Brexit position and parlay it into an election victory.
But is the leadership anti-brexit? I honestly can’t tell.
FYI, I chose those three specific examples to highlight the hypocrisy of that attitude. I’d bet money that those same posters hoping that Tommy gets his gak kicked in in prison and finding the first time funny would be chewing me out and moaning about human rights if I had been publicly hoping that any of them got the same. You either support duty of care and human rights for all those in prison or you don’t.
Kilkrazy wrote: I've never noticed Shadow Captain Edithae being racist. There's plenty we disagree about but I believe we're both on the same page of the hymn book as regards racism.
To get back to the topic, there's an interesting article on The Guardina about how Labour could claim an anti-Brexit position and parlay it into an election victory.
I can't even remember back when the last thread was closed, and whatever R_squared is insinuating. IIRC, you accidentally deleted it...So no, R_squared, people can't go and see for themselves.
So I'll quite openly state my motivations here.
Spoiler:
I believe Islam is an outdated religion badly in need of reform and modernisation like Christianity was. I believe that, much like the Bible, the Quran contains a lot of bigoted, regressive scriptures that are easily interpreted to support an extremist interpretation of Islam therefore there is a direct causal link to Islam as stated by every Muslim terrorist; but there is a tremendous reluctance on the Left to acknowledge this and encourage the liberalisation and secularisation of Islam in the same way that Christianity was (and still is) made to reform.
I do NOT however believe in the targeting and harassment of individual Muslims. My issue is with the ideology of Islam, specifically the ideas and values within it that I consider to be illiberal and bigoted; not individual Muslims.
I believe in the rule of Law and Justice. I believe that if anyone is guilty of a crime, like Tommy Robinson, they should be convicted and imprisoned within the boundaries of the Law. I do NOT believe in revenge and violence. Even if that person is a Far Right extremist who incites violence, or a Muslim terrorist guilty of actual violence like the Lee Rigby killers. We have Laws for dealing with their crimes, and vigilantism as advocated by various Left wingers here on Dakka is NOT the answer.
tl;dr NO Tommy Robinson does not deserve to get the gak kicked out of him, he deserves to be imprisoned. He is entitled to the same basic rights as you and I.
Neither does Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. Anjem Chaudhary. Abu Hamza. NOBODY deserves to be subjected to violence, short of whatever is required by law enforcement to subdue and arrest them. If you think people deserve to be punishment for their actions with violence, why not put your money where your mouth is and advocate reinstating Corporal and Capitol Punishment? At least then we'd be following the rule of law.
But feth, what do I know? Apparently defending the right of a criminal to not be savagely beaten and murdered by other inmates means that I'm a Far Right EDL and BF supporter.
Kilkrazy wrote: I've never noticed Shadow Captain Edithae being racist. There's plenty we disagree about but I believe we're both on the same page of the hymn book as regards racism.
To get back to the topic, there's an interesting article on The Guardina about how Labour could claim an anti-Brexit position and parlay it into an election victory.
I can't even remember back when the last thread was closed, or whatever R_squared is insinuating. IIRC, you accidentally deleted it...So no, R_squared, people can't go and see for themselves.
So I'll quite openly state my motivations here.
Spoiler:
I believe Islam is an outdated religion badly in need of reform and modernisation like Christianity was. I believe that, much like the Bible, the Quran contains a lot of bigoted, regressive scriptures that are easily interpreted to support an extremist interpretation of Islam therefore there is a direct causal link to Islam as stated by every Muslim terrorist; but there is a tremendous reluctance on the Left to acknowledge this and encourage the liberalisation and secularisation of Islam in the same way that Christianity was (and still is) made to reform.
I do NOT however believe in the targeting and harassment of individual Muslims. My issue is with the ideology of Islam, specifically the ideas and values within it that I consider to be illiberal and bigoted; not individual Muslims.
I believe in the rule of Law and Justice. I believe that if anyone is guilty of a crime, like Tommy Robinson, they should be convicted and imprisoned within the boundaries of the Law. I do NOT believe in revenge and violence. Even if that person is a Far Right extremist who incites violence, or a Muslim terrorist guilty of actual violence like the Lee Rigby killers. We have Laws for dealing with their crimes, and vigilantism as advocated by various Left wingers here on Dakka is NOT the answer.
tl;dr
NO Tommy Robinson does not deserve to get the gak kicked out of him, he deserves to be imprisoned. He is entitled to the same basic rights as you and I.
Neither does Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. Anjem Chaudhary. Abu Hamza. NOBODY deserves to be subjected to violence, short of whatever is required by law enforcement to subdue and arrest them. If you think people deserve to be punishment for their actions with violence, why not put your money where your mouth is and advocate reinstating Corporal and Capitol Punishment? At least then we'd be following the rule of law.
A steaming racist gak pile he is.
A steaming racist gak pile with rights he also is.
He has every right to serve sentence without harm being condoned. Much as a racist and so. He not deserve being beaten on jail. 13 months locked away from his Facebook and so should be ernough punishment!
About the last thread; after repeated terrorist attacks by people supposedly on watch lists, along with the grooming rings, I was ranting about how the softly softly approach was clearly not working, and I was also angry that a desire to not be seen as rascist to protect multiculturalism was running through the state to the extent that police and social workers turned a blind eye to what was going on. That not being seen as racist was more important than stopping physical child abuse. It all came out far worse than I meant it too, but I’ve always been clumsily direct like that.
Future War Cultist wrote: About the last thread; after repeated terrorist attacks by people supposedly on watch lists, along with the grooming rings, I was ranting about how the softly softly approach was clearly not working, and I was also angry that a desire to not be seen as rascist to protect multiculturalism was running through the state to the extent that police and social workers turned a blind eye to what was going on. That not being seen as racist was more important than stopping physical child abuse. It all came out far worse than I meant it too, but I’ve always been clumsily direct like that.
And yet you were proven right in the end, as we can now see in the many grooming gang cases that have since come to light with Authorities turning a blind eye being a recurring theme. Hell, this tangent began with the discussion of one such case.
Not that the usual suspects here care. They're still sticking to their guns and denying that political correctness and the fear of being accused of racism is a problem.
Future War Cultist wrote: About the last thread; after repeated terrorist attacks by people supposedly on watch lists, along with the grooming rings, I was ranting about how the softly softly approach was clearly not working, and I was also angry that a desire to not be seen as rascist to protect multiculturalism was running through the state to the extent that police and social workers turned a blind eye to what was going on. That not being seen as racist was more important than stopping physical child abuse. It all came out far worse than I meant it too, but I’ve always been clumsily direct like that.
And yet you were proven right in the end, as we can now see in the many grooming gang cases that have since come to light with Authorities turning a blind eye being a recurring theme. Hell, this tangent began with the discussion of one such case.
Not that the usual suspects here care. They're still sticking to their guns and denying that political correctness and the fear of being accused of racism is a problem.
My mistake was saying "there's thousands of the b's up and down the country", by which I meant those in the terror cells and grooming rings. A severe over estimate, but without proper context it just sounds...even worse.
Only citizens or permanent residents who have already been in the country for a long time and aren't going to leave any time soon should get to vote. If this is for Scottish only elections I still think it's stupid, but t doesn't affect me. If this included general elections, what the actual feth? It's not clear from the article. It just talks about elections.
Look, that whole thing with the Pug was tasteless, immature, stupid and not funny. Offensive too. But to have the guy brought up on charges and convicted for it is over the top. This is supposed to be an open society with freedom of thought, with the right to be stupid. I know what he said, but it was to a dog...it's ridiculous.
What's more insidious was this case. Quoting lyrics from a publicly available song is suddenly a crime...especially if you're the wrong colour. When you make something subjective like being offensive a crime you open up pandora's box. Literally anything you say or do could suddenly become a crime because context doesn't matter. And if the victim found you offensive and that's all that is required for a crime to have been committed then you have no defense.
And honestly, what the hell kind of country polices what people, grown ass adults, say anyway? It's petty and infantile.
Future War Cultist wrote: Look, that whole thing with the Pug was tasteless, immature, stupid and not funny. Offensive too. But to have the guy brought up on charges and convicted for it is over the top. This is supposed to be an open society with freedom of thought, with the right to be stupid. I know what he said, but it was to a dog...it's ridiculous.
What's more insidious was this case. Quoting lyrics from a publicly available song is suddenly a crime...especially if you're the wrong colour. When you make something subjective like being offensive a crime you open up pandora's box. Literally anything you say or do could suddenly become a crime because context doesn't matter. And if the victim found you offensive and that's all that is required for a crime to have been committed then you have no defense.
And honestly, what the hell kind of country polices what people, grown ass adults, say anyway? It's petty and infantile.
How can it be acceptable to state that someone should be killed and on top of that by racial stereotypes? It wasn't stated as a quote, which is hardly an acceptable quote anyway. Just because you can quote something doesn't mean you should out of context and independently. Is it OK to be anti-Semitic and then state well it's OK because Hitler said it? I was just quoting him. If an extreme Oman was quoting something about death to heathens in a local mosque, is it acceptable if they just turn around and say, 'but guv, I was just quoting this person in ISIS in Iraq?
And to point out the Pug issue is what the papers made of it and presented it as but the guy had put forward a lot more offensive views as well.
When it's a Pug doing the salute, yes. That was the context.
I believe the context was the commands he had used to get the pug to perform the salute, but I guess saying "gas the Jews" is protected under free speech as long as you're getting a pet to do something to annoy your girlfirend for a private joke that he somehow managed to record and then upload on a public media sharing website.
Only citizens or permanent residents who have already been in the country for a long time and aren't going to leave any time soon should get to vote. If this is for Scottish only elections I still think it's stupid, but t doesn't affect me. If this included general elections, what the actual feth? It's not clear from the article. It just talks about elections.
All Scottish elections. The Scottish government can't change voting rights for a GE (hence why voting regulations are already different in Scottish and Westminster elections, with Scottish ones being more inclusive). An excellent idea that will almost certainly pass. It has good support amongst the populace. Why shouldn't you get to vote in the place you live? Next stop, prisoners (hopefully, that will obviously take a lot more convicing and is far more politically dangerous).
Kilkrazy wrote: I've never noticed Shadow Captain Edithae being racist. There's plenty we disagree about but I believe we're both on the same page of the hymn book as regards racism....
You believed otherwise previously. The last 3 posts of that un-deleted thread say otherwise. I've not linked to it, but I can provide direct quotes and links, or anyone can simply go through the off topic thread to find the UK politics thread that was locked by Killkrazy on 27/4/2017. Off topic, page 11 will help if you're struggling.
Does that jog any memories? Because I've not forgotten, and every time they open their mouth I am reminded of what lies behind their words.
SCE was asked earlier to provide evidence of the claims that Tommy made about being put in a block with Muslims to beat him up by the authorities and it turned out he could not...
Tommy himself attacked a Somalian during induction and was then segregated by prison authorities. He tried to put up a picture of his injuries, but that turned out to have been from a long time previously.
So before these two get all self righteous about prison violence and the sanctity of the person, understand exactly where they are coming from and the sort of individual they are defending.
The sort of person they're defending doesn't matter. I don't want this scrote beaten up in prison, or made to "drop the soap" or whatever - or for those things to happen to anyone else, because I'm not a scrote like him.
AndrewGPaul wrote: The sort of person they're defending doesn't matter. I don't want this scrote beaten up in prison, or made to "drop the soap" or whatever - or for those things to happen to anyone else, because I'm not a scrote like him.
Agreed. Prison should be safe for everyone to do their time and be rehabilitated.
But you can't take Robinsons word for anything; he's been caught out making stuff up to believe he's telling the truth this time.
He was assualtes; that's given. But targeted by Muslims whilst doing nothing wrong, or starting something and come off worse, or just lying about the details?
Hopefully we don't waste many more pages talking about him.
Kilkrazy wrote: I've never noticed Shadow Captain Edithae being racist. There's plenty we disagree about but I believe we're both on the same page of the hymn book as regards racism....
You believed otherwise previously. The last 3 posts of that un-deleted thread say otherwise. I've not linked to it, but I can provide direct quotes and links, or anyone can simply go through the off topic thread to find the UK politics thread that was locked by Killkrazy on 27/4/2017. Off topic, page 11 will help if you're struggling.
Does that jog any memories? Because I've not forgotten, and every time they open their mouth I am reminded of what lies behind their words.
SCE was asked earlier to provide evidence of the claims that Tommy made about being put in a block with Muslims to beat him up by the authorities and it turned out he could not...
Tommy himself attacked a Somalian during induction and was then segregated by prison authorities. He tried to put up a picture of his injuries, but that turned out to have been from a long time previously.
So before these two get all self righteous about prison violence and the sanctity of the person, understand exactly where they are coming from and the sort of individual they are defending.
Right, now that you've jogged my memory and pointed me to the thread... I still deny that anything I said was racist at the end of that thread. Or FWC. Everything i said was consistent with what I am still saying now.
Spoiler:
I was critical of Islam. There was a recent terror attack (possibly the Manchester bombing?) and I predicted that it was almost certainly a radical Muslim, remarking that it's not hard to predict. (I was right).
I responded with a remark saying that there are millions. I was referring not just to Britain, but all of Europe and the Middle Eats because at the time there had a lot of news about terror attacks and extremism all over Europe and Sryia etc. A Freudian slip.
You're accusing us of racism based on an out of context miscommunication which we would have cleared up had someone challenged us, but couldn't because the thread was locked. In fact we did later clarify what we said in a later thread. So we've already had this discussion, and you're very pettily picking at old wounds.
Is it inaccurate to characterise Radical Muslim as "crazies?"
(News flash btw. Islam is not and never will be a race. Bring critical of Islam is not racism).
We then commented on an NUS president Malia Bouttia being ousted. I forget what for, but it was probably for race baiting and making racist remarks or something (not that you think it's possible for non white people to be racist). We predicted that she would deflect from her own wrong doings by complaining of Islamophoboa, and joked that people would call it a Zionist conspiracy.
...You clearly have a very low bar for your definition of racism.
Kilkrazy wrote: I've never noticed Shadow Captain Edithae being racist. There's plenty we disagree about but I believe we're both on the same page of the hymn book as regards racism.
To get back to the topic, there's an interesting article on The Guardina about how Labour could claim an anti-Brexit position and parlay it into an election victory.
I can't even remember back when the last thread was closed, or whatever R_squared is insinuating. IIRC, you accidentally deleted it...So no, R_squared, people can't go and see for themselves.
So I'll quite openly state my motivations here.
Spoiler:
I believe Islam is an outdated religion badly in need of reform and modernisation like Christianity was. I believe that, much like the Bible, the Quran contains a lot of bigoted, regressive scriptures that are easily interpreted to support an extremist interpretation of Islam therefore there is a direct causal link to Islam as stated by every Muslim terrorist; but there is a tremendous reluctance on the Left to acknowledge this and encourage the liberalisation and secularisation of Islam in the same way that Christianity was (and still is) made to reform.
I do NOT however believe in the targeting and harassment of individual Muslims. My issue is with the ideology of Islam, specifically the ideas and values within it that I consider to be illiberal and bigoted; not individual Muslims.
I believe in the rule of Law and Justice. I believe that if anyone is guilty of a crime, like Tommy Robinson, they should be convicted and imprisoned within the boundaries of the Law. I do NOT believe in revenge and violence. Even if that person is a Far Right extremist who incites violence, or a Muslim terrorist guilty of actual violence like the Lee Rigby killers. We have Laws for dealing with their crimes, and vigilantism as advocated by various Left wingers here on Dakka is NOT the answer.
tl;dr
NO Tommy Robinson does not deserve to get the gak kicked out of him, he deserves to be imprisoned. He is entitled to the same basic rights as you and I.
Neither does Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. Anjem Chaudhary. Abu Hamza. NOBODY deserves to be subjected to violence, short of whatever is required by law enforcement to subdue and arrest them. If you think people deserve to be punishment for their actions with violence, why not put your money where your mouth is and advocate reinstating Corporal and Capitol Punishment? At least then we'd be following the rule of law.
A steaming racist gak pile he is.
A steaming racist gak pile with rights he also is.
He has every right to serve sentence without harm being condoned. Much as a racist and so. He not deserve being beaten on jail. 13 months locked away from his Facebook and so should be ernough punishment!
This has got massively turned around. The original claim was that Robinson was intentionally put in with "Muslim Gangs" who attacked him, the prison authorities intended this to happen and it will happen again.
This has been turned around by weasel words, half truths and tangents.
The only fact is that he was attacked in prison. All this shows is that prisons are violent. This is a bad thing, but shows nothing about the claims being made. All Tommy Robinson and his supporters are doing is trying to further their own racist aims by making claims with no facts. In an ideal world no one would suffer violence in prison, but unfortunately it does happen, more so if you are the type of person that takes joy in winding people up.
The ironic bit of it is that Tommy Robinson and his far right peers are exactly the ones who lobby the government to be tougher on crime, make prisons harsher, sentences longer and take funding away from things like mental health support, drug rehabilitation and education for prisoners, which is exactly the thing that causes an increase in violence in prisons.
Kilkrazy wrote: I've never noticed Shadow Captain Edithae being racist. There's plenty we disagree about but I believe we're both on the same page of the hymn book as regards racism....
You believed otherwise previously. The last 3 posts of that un-deleted thread say otherwise. I've not linked to it, but I can provide direct quotes and links, or anyone can simply go through the off topic thread to find the UK politics thread that was locked by Killkrazy on 27/4/2017. Off topic, page 11 will help if you're struggling.
Does that jog any memories? Because I've not forgotten, and every time they open their mouth I am reminded of what lies behind their words.
SCE was asked earlier to provide evidence of the claims that Tommy made about being put in a block with Muslims to beat him up by the authorities and it turned out he could not...
Tommy himself attacked a Somalian during induction and was then segregated by prison authorities. He tried to put up a picture of his injuries, but that turned out to have been from a long time previously.
So before these two get all self righteous about prison violence and the sanctity of the person, understand exactly where they are coming from and the sort of individual they are defending.
Right, now that you've jogged my memory and pointed me to the thread... I still deny that anything I said was racist at the end of that thread. Or FWC. Everything i said was consistent with what I am still saying now.
Spoiler:
I was critical of Islam. There was a recent terror attack (possibly the Manchester bombing?) and I predicted that it was almost certainly a radical Muslim, remarking that it's not hard to predict. (I was right).
I responded with a remark saying that there are millions. I was referring not just to Britain, but all of Europe and the Middle Eats because at the time there had a lot of news about terror attacks and extremism all over Europe and Sryia etc. A Freudian slip.
You're accusing us of racism based on an out of context miscommunication which we would have cleared up had someone challenged us, but couldn't because the thread was locked. In fact we did later clarify what we said in a later thread. So we've already had this discussion, and you're very pettily picking at old wounds.
Is it inaccurate to characterise Radical Muslim as "crazies?"
(News flash btw. Islam is not and never will be a race. Bring critical of Islam is not racism).
We then commented on an NUS president Malia Bouttia being ousted. I forget what for, but it was probably for race baiting and making racist remarks or something (not that you think it's possible for non white people to be racist). We predicted that she would deflect from her own wrong doings by complaining of Islamophoboa, and joked that people would call it a Zionist conspiracy.
...You clearly have a very low bar for your definition of racism.
This is when we spend three pages of back-and-forth explaining and contesting the validity of the concept of cultural racism and its origin in "classical" racism before being told by mods to move on or get the thread locked.
In Brexit related news, applications by UK citizens for EU passports (e.g. French, Dutch etc.) are up 165% as Brits living in the continental EU try to ensure their safe status to continue their lives and businesses.
Well then lets cut the crap and get to the point. I reject your arguments regarding cultural racism. I've heard them before, you didn't change my mind last time and you won't change my mind now.
Kilkrazy wrote: In Brexit related news, applications by UK citizens for EU passports (e.g. French, Dutch etc.) are up 165% as Brits living in the continental EU try to ensure their safe status to continue their lives and businesses.
Not surprising. My family is in the process of getting Irish passports, thanks to my paternal grandfather being Irish and so qualifying my dad, me and my brothers to get on the foreign births register. My mum won't be able to, but they'll figure something out and applying for a single visa for a spouse of an EU citizen will, I imagine, be easier than applying for two visas for non-EU citizens.
nfe wrote: All Scottish elections. The Scottish government can't change voting rights for a GE (hence why voting regulations are already different in Scottish and Westminster elections, with Scottish ones being more inclusive). An excellent idea that will almost certainly pass. It has good support amongst the populace. Why shouldn't you get to vote in the place you live? Next stop, prisoners (hopefully, that will obviously take a lot more convicing and is far more politically dangerous).
Just because you are curently living somewhere doesn't mean you should be allowed to affect the local politics by voting. There shoudl be a long time of residence with no indication someone will leave soon, otherwise anyone could vote anywhere provided you're currently a resident and I hope I shouldn't have to spell out all the issues that creates.
Why should they get to decide on local politics as foreigners who are set to return home at the earliest opportunity? To my mind that undermines the democratic nation state. The citizens and permanent residents are the only people who should decide on that nation state's policies.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Well then lets cut the crap and get to the point. I reject your arguments regarding cultural racism. I've heard them before, you didn't change my mind last time and you won't change my mind now.
Fine, we'll skip cultural racism as a reason for why your "besides, Islam isn't a race so you can't be racist against muslims" is a really, really poorly thought-ought argument and move on to the next problem with the statement:
All so-called "races" are social constructs. The primary issue with racism is that it generalizes people based on a socially constructed idea of what they are like and how they "ought" to behave when the group being generalized actually are incredibly diverse. Are we in agreement thus far?
Assuming we agree on the above statement, if we understand "racism" as the belief that certain "races" have inherent qualities that make some better and some worse then all you have to do in the case of Islam is replace "race" with "culture" or "religion". Sure, if you define racism using your narrower definition then you're technically correct (the best kind of correct!) that you can't be racist against muslims based on their faith, but that's missing the point, wilfully or ignorantly, that you have a situation where everything mimics the mechanics of racism except that the perceived inferiority of Islam in this case is due to factors inherent in culture rather than ones inherent in race.
At best that argument lands in "it's not racist, it's just bigoted!" which isn't much of a win.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: Why should they get to decide on local politics as foreigners who are set to return home at the earliest opportunity? To my mind that undermines the democratic nation state. The citizens and permanent residents are the only people who should decide on that nation state's policies.
You have to understand that a lot of people here in this thread reject the concept of a Nation State, and advocate for open borders (as do the SNP). Allowing everyone to vote regardless of Citizenship or Residency is entirely consistent with being opposed to the Nation State.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Well then lets cut the crap and get to the point. I reject your arguments regarding cultural racism. I've heard them before, you didn't change my mind last time and you won't change my mind now.
Fine, we'll skip cultural racism as a reason for why your "besides, Islam isn't a race so you can't be racist against muslims" is a really, really poorly thought-ought argument and move on to the next problem with the statement:
All so-called "races" are social constructs. The primary issue with racism is that it generalizes people based on a socially constructed idea of what they are like and how they "ought" to behave when the group being generalized actually are incredibly diverse. Are we in agreement thus far?
Assuming we agree on the above statement, if we understand "racism" as the belief that certain "races" have inherent qualities that make some better and some worse then all you have to do in the case of Islam is replace "race" with "culture" or "religion". Sure, if you define racism using your narrower definition then you're technically correct (the best kind of correct!) that you can't be racist against muslims based on their faith, but that's missing the point, wilfully or ignorantly, that you have a situation where everything mimics the mechanics of racism except that the perceived inferiority of Islam in this case is due to factors inherent in culture rather than ones inherent in race.
At best that argument lands in "it's not racist, it's just bigoted!" which isn't much of a win.
We're not in agreement on anything. I'm not going to dignify that massive straw man with a response, you're imagining what you think my arguments are or will be. We had this argument before, and you've literally just now predicted that this will become a long 3 page tangent that will get the thread locked, and yet you're still persisting with it.
I'm not taking the bait, I'm not interested in rehashing old arguments with you.
nfe wrote: All Scottish elections. The Scottish government can't change voting rights for a GE (hence why voting regulations are already different in Scottish and Westminster elections, with Scottish ones being more inclusive). An excellent idea that will almost certainly pass. It has good support amongst the populace. Why shouldn't you get to vote in the place you live? Next stop, prisoners (hopefully, that will obviously take a lot more convicing and is far more politically dangerous).
Just because you are curently living somewhere doesn't mean you should be allowed to affect the local politics by voting. There shoudl be a long time of residence with no indication someone will leave soon, otherwise anyone could vote anywhere provided you're currently a resident and I hope I shouldn't have to spell out all the issues that creates.
Why should they get to decide on local politics as foreigners who are set to return home at the earliest opportunity? To my mind that undermines the democratic nation state. The citizens and permanent residents are the only people who should decide on that nation state's policies.
In UK general elections only UK citizens and Irish citizens can vote. Is that what you mean?
In terms of residence, I've moved to five different addresses in the past 11 years. How many year of residence should I rack up before I am allowed to vote?
nfe wrote: All Scottish elections. The Scottish government can't change voting rights for a GE (hence why voting regulations are already different in Scottish and Westminster elections, with Scottish ones being more inclusive). An excellent idea that will almost certainly pass. It has good support amongst the populace. Why shouldn't you get to vote in the place you live? Next stop, prisoners (hopefully, that will obviously take a lot more convicing and is far more politically dangerous).
Just because you are curently living somewhere doesn't mean you should be allowed to affect the local politics by voting. There shoudl be a long time of residence with no indication someone will leave soon, otherwise anyone could vote anywhere provided you're currently a resident and I hope I shouldn't have to spell out all the issues that creates.
Well you can already vote in regions you live in momentarily in the UK. I know a lot of English and NI students who changed their voting address to vote in the independence referendum, for example. I see no problem with extended that to others. If they choose to live here, they have every bit as much right to impact legislation as I do as someone who was born here. Whilst this wont have any effect on this example, I think it preposterous that my Turkish girlfriend, who has lived in South East England for a decade and has permanent residency, cannot vote in elections but if I go and live there for a month then I can.
Why should they get to decide on local politics as foreigners who are set to return home at the earliest opportunity? To my mind that undermines the democratic nation state. The citizens and permanent residents are the only people who should decide on that nation state's policies.
I don't accept the nation-state as a meaningful concept. We're also talking about the UK, which kinda disregards the nation state in the first place. If indeed, it is meaningful anywhere in a globalised world. Or indeed, if it ever was.
Kilkrazy wrote:In UK general elections only UK citizens and Irish citizens can vote. Is that what you mean?
Yes. Although if someone's lived here for a decade say, I'd say it's fine to vote in a GE.
Kilkrazy wrote: In terms of residence, I've moved to five different addresses in the past 11 years. How many year of residence should I rack up before I am allowed to vote?
Depends. If you've moved around on country a lot, I see no issue, but if that's five different countries, as I would run it you wouldn't get to vote in GE in those countries.
nfe wrote:
Well you can already vote in regions you live in momentarily in the UK. I know a lot of English and NI students who changed their voting address to vote in the independence referendum, for example. I see no problem with extended that to others. If they choose to live here, they have every bit as much right to impact legislation as I do as someone who was born here. Whilst this wont have any effect on this example, I think it preposterous that my Turkish girlfriend, who has lived in South East England for a decade and has permanent residency, cannot vote in elections but if I go and live there for a month then I can.
Did you read my post? I said someone who lives here permanently should get to vote in elections. Your girlfriend, from the sound of it, would fit the bill in my eyes.
nfe wrote:
I don't accept the nation-state as a meaningful concept. We're also talking about the UK, which kinda disregards the nation state in the first place.
The UK is a nation state formed of 4 countries.
nfe wrote: If indeed, it is meaningful anywhere in a globalised world. Or indeed, if it ever was.
I'm astounded at the level of ignorance expressed in this statement. Just look at America right now, or us, or any nation with hard borders, centralised government, and customs duties, for relevance of the nation state. And to assert that it has never had relevance? I guess 1848 never happened then.
Also this is a pretty good reason to leave the EU. Or stay in and fight it. Keep the Internet free kids.
nfe wrote:
Well you can already vote in regions you live in momentarily in the UK. I know a lot of English and NI students who changed their voting address to vote in the independence referendum, for example. I see no problem with extended that to others. If they choose to live here, they have every bit as much right to impact legislation as I do as someone who was born here. Whilst this wont have any effect on this example, I think it preposterous that my Turkish girlfriend, who has lived in South East England for a decade and has permanent residency, cannot vote in elections but if I go and live there for a month then I can.
Did you read my post? I said someone who lives here permanently should get to vote in elections. Your girlfriend, from the sound of it, would fit the bill in my eyes.
And UK citizens that live monetarily in places they never intend to live in again? I'm trying to iron out how strict your requirements are. Is it cool for English residents that live briefly in Scotland to vote in local elections, for instance?
nfe wrote:
I don't accept the nation-state as a meaningful concept. We're also talking about the UK, which kinda disregards the nation state in the first place.
The UK is a nation state formed of 4 countries.
nfe wrote: If indeed, it is meaningful anywhere in a globalised world. Or indeed, if it ever was.
I'm astounded at the level of ignorance expressed in this statement. Just look at America right now, or us, or any nation with hard borders, centralised government, and customs duties, for relevance of the nation state. And to assert that it has never had relevance? I guess 1848 never happened then.
I think you need a sojourn into definitions of nation state before being as condescending as this. Few states have applied citizenship in a way that strictly adheres to the concept of the nation state as a sovereign entity where the vast majority of citizens are also united through common language, descent, and ethnicity. Maybe some of the Arabian peninsula states I guess. There are nations which could be categorised as de facto nation states. Japan and South Korea I suppose are good examples given their near-monoethnicity. The US is certainly not a good example. In fact, it's an utterly dreadful one. Same goes for the UK - heck, same goes for its constituent countries. All of which, like the US, have been comprised of diverse populations from the start of their existence.
EDIT: Thinking about it, Egypt might be the closest thing going, given it is both nearly monoethnic, and the time-depth of the borders and history with which the vast majority of its population closely identifies.
And UK citizens that live monetarily in places they never intend to live in again? I'm trying to iron out how strict your requirements are. Is it cool for English residents that live briefly in Scotland to vote in local elections, for instance?
I would say no. If you're just there for 6 months for work, for example, you shouldn't get to vote in local elections.
nfe wrote: I think you need a sojourn into definitions of nation state before being as condescending as this. Few states have applied citizenship in a way that strictly adheres to the concept of the nation state as a sovereign entity where the vast majority of citizens are also united through common language, descent, and ethnicity. Maybe some of the Arabian peninsula states I guess. There are nations which could be categorised as de facto nation states. Japan and South Korea I suppose are good examples given their near-monoethnicity. The US is certainly not a good example. In fact, it's an utterly dreadful one. Same goes for the UK - heck, same goes for its constituent countries. All of which, like the US, have been comprised of diverse populations from the start of their existence.
EDIT: Thinking about it, Egypt might be the closest thing going, given it is both nearly monoethnic, and the time-depth of the borders and history with which the vast majority of its population closely identifies.
I've looked at the Wikipedia for nation state, and apparently it related to a quite ethnically and culturally homogenous state, so for that misunderstanding I apologise. However, there is a long list of countries to who that would apply, and I would say that across a country like, say, Germany, or America, whilst there are of course subcultures and different ethnic groups, there is more than a strong enough shared culture for claims of nationhood to be made. I would say the same of the 4 constituent countries of the UK, although obviously there's varying levels of cross country relationships, NI for example being quite different culturally to the other three.
However, all that being said, I still hold to my previous argument, the only concession I would make here is to change the term nation state (which I think can still be applied to most countries, as most countries have an internal shared culture that all permanent residents are a part of to a greater or lesser extent) to sovereign state. The general elections of sovereign states should only be open to citizens or permanent/longterm residents. Local elections I'd be more lenient on, but still. I'd be a bit miffed if someone here for a few months got to vote on council elections or come to consultations about local issues.
Kilkrazy wrote:In UK general elections only UK citizens and Irish citizens can vote. Is that what you mean?
Yes. Although if someone's lived here for a decade say, I'd say it's fine to vote in a GE.
Kilkrazy wrote: In terms of residence, I've moved to five different addresses in the past 11 years. How many year of residence should I rack up before I am allowed to vote?
Depends. If you've moved around on country a lot, I see no issue, but if that's five different countries, as I would run it you wouldn't get to vote in GE in those countries.
nfe wrote:
Well you can already vote in regions you live in momentarily in the UK. I know a lot of English and NI students who changed their voting address to vote in the independence referendum, for example. I see no problem with extended that to others. If they choose to live here, they have every bit as much right to impact legislation as I do as someone who was born here. Whilst this wont have any effect on this example, I think it preposterous that my Turkish girlfriend, who has lived in South East England for a decade and has permanent residency, cannot vote in elections but if I go and live there for a month then I can.
Did you read my post? I said someone who lives here permanently should get to vote in elections. Your girlfriend, from the sound of it, would fit the bill in my eyes.
nfe wrote:
I don't accept the nation-state as a meaningful concept. We're also talking about the UK, which kinda disregards the nation state in the first place.
The UK is a nation state formed of 4 countries.
nfe wrote: If indeed, it is meaningful anywhere in a globalised world. Or indeed, if it ever was.
I'm astounded at the level of ignorance expressed in this statement. Just look at America right now, or us, or any nation with hard borders, centralised government, and customs duties, for relevance of the nation state. And to assert that it has never had relevance? I guess 1848 never happened then.
Also this is a pretty good reason to leave the EU. Or stay in and fight it. Keep the Internet free kids.
Here's the thing. I think you need to have to have lived in the country for a x period before you can vote, locally. Couple of years maybe I'd fair.
As for GE, then definitely be applying, applied for and become, or other levels of wanting to remain permantly in this country. Be it residency, citizenship, or so.
And UK citizens that live monetarily in places they never intend to live in again? I'm trying to iron out how strict your requirements are. Is it cool for English residents that live briefly in Scotland to vote in local elections, for instance?
I would say no. If you're just there for 6 months for work, for example, you shouldn't get to vote in local elections.
nfe wrote: I think you need a sojourn into definitions of nation state before being as condescending as this. Few states have applied citizenship in a way that strictly adheres to the concept of the nation state as a sovereign entity where the vast majority of citizens are also united through common language, descent, and ethnicity. Maybe some of the Arabian peninsula states I guess. There are nations which could be categorised as de facto nation states. Japan and South Korea I suppose are good examples given their near-monoethnicity. The US is certainly not a good example. In fact, it's an utterly dreadful one. Same goes for the UK - heck, same goes for its constituent countries. All of which, like the US, have been comprised of diverse populations from the start of their existence.
EDIT: Thinking about it, Egypt might be the closest thing going, given it is both nearly monoethnic, and the time-depth of the borders and history with which the vast majority of its population closely identifies.
I've looked at the Wikipedia for nation state, and apparently it related to a quite ethnically and culturally homogenous state, so for that misunderstanding I apologise.
Fair enough. I'd have preferred an apology for the rudeness and condescension about an issue you know concede you misunderstood, but we can't have everything.
However, there is a long list of countries to who that would apply, and I would say that across a country like, say, Germany, or America, whilst there are of course subcultures and different ethnic groups, there is more than a strong enough shared culture for claims of nationhood to be made.
The US really does remain an appalling example. It grants citizenship on the basis of birth within its borders. It's the opposite of a nation state.
However, all that being said, I still hold to my previous argument, the only concession I would make here is to change the term nation state (which I think can still be applied to most countries, as most countries have an internal shared culture that all permanent residents are a part of to a greater or lesser extent) to sovereign state. The general elections of sovereign states should only be open to citizens or permanent/longterm residents. Local elections I'd be more lenient on, but still. I'd be a bit miffed if someone here for a few months got to vote on council elections or come to consultations about local issues.
Ok that's fair enough. We're obviously not going to agree. I think that you should have full voting rights anywhere you live legally. If you choose to be part of my community, I think you've a right to influence it but I get that people disagree. I just don't really get why - but then I also don't really get why people feel attached to artificial geopolitical borders. Which in part is why I'm writing a PhD about people's perceptions of the landscapes they inhabit...
Corbyn has always been at best EU-agnostic, but his support as leader rests on the left-wing and youth of the party. We already knew that young people are against Brexit. We also know that a good proportion of right-wing Labour MPs are against Breixt.
This combination might have what it takes to get Corbyn to declare an opposing position to the government.
TL/DR: Black university applicants are 20 times more likely to be investigated for possible anomalies in their applications.
That's interesting. I wonder what's behind it. I deal with UCAS a lot I work. This reeks of (unintended?) bias in their software detection system. In my experiencs universities themselves will very rarely trigger an investigation.
I don’t have the time at the minute to look at this fully. Do international students apply through UCAS and are they included in the numbers? I can imagine there being many investigations triggered into students on the basis that they’re applying with qualifications earned in some African nations, for example? If there isn’t some major skewing factor like that, it’s alarming.
nfe wrote: I don’t have the time at the minute to look at this fully. Do international students apply through UCAS and are they included in the numbers? I can imagine there being many investigations triggered into students on the basis that they’re applying with qualifications earned in some African nations, for example? If there isn’t some major skewing factor like that, it’s alarming.
I'm pretty sure they do, my memories a bit vague but from my use of it there is a section dealing with qualifications from outside the UK and I know students from the Republic use it.
TL/DR: Black university applicants are 20 times more likely to be investigated for possible anomalies in their applications.
What proportion of the applications detected for fraud are mistaken? If it’s the case that black people are much more likely to be submitting a fraudulent application, it’s more likely the software will flag them. You don’t put ethnicity on a UCAS form from what I recall. You can’t say what the racial bias in the software is until you know it’s success and false detection rate compared to ethnicity, just because it picks up certain demographics frequently isn’t necessarily a sign of bias. Likely, if there are systematic errors, it’s picking up on foreign students because their details don’t conform to UK norms and there’s been issues around migrants using foreign study as a means to gain access to the UK which makes them more cautious.
It's just a piece of proposed legislation (that's what the commission does) it has to pass parliament and only 3 groups are in favour.... Basically everyone right of centre.
The UK did vote for this, though, (its still in after all) and the Tories are one of the groups pushing for this.
The applicants involved in this piece of research were white and black British, so it's not a case of international students with odd qualifications.
The article wrote:Ucas had previously insisted that ethnicity was not taken into account during the screening of applications – however today’s report states that individuals who may be aware of an applicant’s ethnicity can contact Ucas and raise their concerns about an application.
The verification team can be contacted by individuals from schools, employers, banks and the police, the new report says.
The admissions service said that its fraud detection software – which is used to screen applications – uses historical data as a reference, and this could potentially play a part in the differences.
Ucas themselves don't say black people are more likely to submit fraudulent applications.
To be blunt, the most likely source of such a disparity is racism among people making reports into the system which then trigger examinations. Even if you haven't seen someone's face, you might guess their ethnicity from their name -- e.g. Adam Bleasdale versus Duwayne Okolele -- it's not hard to guess which one is likely to be a black boy.
I see Liam Fox is spouting his usual nonsense, condemning the Trump metal tariffs yet at the same time stating that this won't have nay impact on the Wrexit trade deal with the US.
It's not a particularly good sign for getting anything useful from the US trade deal that doesn't solely benefit the US.
I also see Nigel Lawson arch supporter of Wrexit is apply for permanent residency in France after Wrexit. Almost like he is saying I've screwed everything up for those stuck in the country but I don't care because I'm wealthy enough to avoid the issues it creates (typical Tory really).
Da Boss wrote: I'm curious as to why people are so reluctant to admit that systemic racism exists despite all the evidence?
Because there are other simpler explanations that should be explored and discounted first instead of immediately jumping to conclusions out of ideological bias.
Da Boss wrote: I'm curious as to why people are so reluctant to admit that systemic racism exists despite all the evidence?
Because there are other simpler explanations that should be explored and discounted first instead of immediately jumping to conclusions out of ideological bias.
Believing that racism exists is now ideological bias? Or is it that seeing all of the evidence that racism is a real thing that impacts people’s lives and deciding on the basis of that evidence that racism is a real problem, is “jumping to a conclusion”?
Da Boss wrote: I'm curious as to why people are so reluctant to admit that systemic racism exists despite all the evidence?
Because there are other simpler explanations that should be explored and discounted first instead of immediately jumping to conclusions out of ideological bias.
Believing that racism exists is now ideological bias? Or is it that seeing all of the evidence that racism is a real thing that impacts people’s lives and deciding on the basis of that evidence that racism is a real problem, is “jumping to a conclusion”?
Immediately jumping to conclusions that there is some racist conspiracy built into the system to oppress non-white people before first investigating and disproving simpler explanations is ideological.
I'm not denying the possibility that there is systemic racism - maybe there is - but I'm saying you shouldn't just disregard all other possibilities out of hand because you believe systemic racism to be true. Thats confirmation bias.
Again speaking about EU laws, just yesterday a law was passed that will force employers of workers recruited in other countries to match the conditions local workers have. A very important first step towards reducing the impact of the famous Polish plumbers etc.
Da Boss wrote: I'm curious as to why people are so reluctant to admit that systemic racism exists despite all the evidence?
Because there are other simpler explanations that should be explored and discounted first instead of immediately jumping to conclusions out of ideological bias.
Believing that racism exists is now ideological bias? Or is it that seeing all of the evidence that racism is a real thing that impacts people’s lives and deciding on the basis of that evidence that racism is a real problem, is “jumping to a conclusion”?
Immediately jumping to conclusions that there is some racist conspiracy built into the system to oppress non-white people before first investigating and disproving simpler explanations is ideological.
I'm not denying the possibility that there is systemic racism - maybe there is - but I'm saying you shouldn't just disregard all other possibilities out of hand because you believe systemic racism to be true. Thats confirmation bias.
I don’t see any credible person claiming that all incidents of systematic racism are a deliberate conspiracy.
Without talking about specifics though, it’s very hard to interpret what the rest of your point means. I mean, it needs context or examples. You’re saying that you shouldn’t ignore other factors and I totally agree. You can not assess the affects of racism without context. Interestingly, it’s not looking at other factors and seeing somebody as just their race, that is the basis of a lot of racism. This is why people end up tying themselves in knots when they trying to discuss this issue.
Graphite wrote: "And now over to David Davis! What's the proposal of the day, Dave?"
"I propose a buffer zone in Northern Ireland four times wider than the DMZ in Korea"
Hooray!
Sorry to self quote, but the shear mind melting insanity of this makes my brain itch. The border is 310 miles long, so a buffer 10 miles deep would be 3100 square miles. The land area in NI is 5460 square miles. So this would cover about 55% of the country, presumably because you don't need to count Lough Neagh.
Da Boss wrote: I'm curious as to why people are so reluctant to admit that systemic racism exists despite all the evidence?
Because there are other simpler explanations that should be explored and discounted first instead of immediately jumping to conclusions out of ideological bias.
Believing that racism exists is now ideological bias? Or is it that seeing all of the evidence that racism is a real thing that impacts people’s lives and deciding on the basis of that evidence that racism is a real problem, is “jumping to a conclusion”?
Immediately jumping to conclusions that there is some racist conspiracy built into the system to oppress non-white people before first investigating and disproving simpler explanations is ideological.
I'm not denying the possibility that there is systemic racism - maybe there is - but I'm saying you shouldn't just disregard all other possibilities out of hand because you believe systemic racism to be true. Thats confirmation bias.
I don’t see any credible person claiming that all incidents of systematic racism are a deliberate conspiracy.
Without talking about specifics though, it’s very hard to interpret what the rest of your point means. I mean, it needs context or examples. You’re saying that you shouldn’t ignore other factors and I totally agree. You can not assess the affects of racism without context. Interestingly, it’s not looking at other factors and seeing somebody as just their race, that is the basis of a lot of racism. This is why people end up tying themselves in knots when they trying to discuss this issue.
So far, two alternative explanations have been put forwards. One is that the black students from Africa have different qualifications which need more examination. This is ruled out by the fact that the report concerns British students.
The second is that since Ucas admissions do not record ethnicity, it's impossible to pick out students t examine by race. This is ruled out by the fact that Ucas allows students to be reported individually by people who might know them.
As well, ethnicity is easily guessable from people's names.
Da Boss wrote: I'm curious as to why people are so reluctant to admit that systemic racism exists despite all the evidence?
Because there are other simpler explanations that should be explored and discounted first instead of immediately jumping to conclusions out of ideological bias.
Believing that racism exists is now ideological bias? Or is it that seeing all of the evidence that racism is a real thing that impacts people’s lives and deciding on the basis of that evidence that racism is a real problem, is “jumping to a conclusion”?
Immediately jumping to conclusions that there is some racist conspiracy built into the system to oppress non-white people before first investigating and disproving simpler explanations is ideological.
I'm not denying the possibility that there is systemic racism - maybe there is - but I'm saying you shouldn't just disregard all other possibilities out of hand because you believe systemic racism to be true. Thats confirmation bias.
I don’t see any credible person claiming that all incidents of systematic racism are a deliberate conspiracy.
Without talking about specifics though, it’s very hard to interpret what the rest of your point means. I mean, it needs context or examples. You’re saying that you shouldn’t ignore other factors and I totally agree. You can not assess the affects of racism without context. Interestingly, it’s not looking at other factors and seeing somebody as just their race, that is the basis of a lot of racism. This is why people end up tying themselves in knots when they trying to discuss this issue.
So far, two alternative explanations have been put forwards. One is that the black students from Africa have different qualifications which need more examination. This is ruled out by the fact that the report concerns British students.
The second is that since Ucas admissions do not record ethnicity, it's impossible to pick out students t examine by race. This is ruled out by the fact that Ucas allows students to be reported individually by people who might know them.
As well, ethnicity is easily guessable from people's names.
Right Thats all I'm arguing for. For alternative explanations to be considered first.
You posted some figures and claimed it was systemic racism. People suggested there could be simpler explanations. Those simpler explanations were disproven, which strengthens your case that it is indeed racism.
Da Boss questioned people's motives for not immediately taking it at face value, I responded to explain why. I wasn't taking a position for or against the idea of systemic racism, I was taking a position against blindly trusting a claim out of ideological bias without first considering the alternatives.
Graphite wrote: "And now over to David Davis! What's the proposal of the day, Dave?"
"I propose a buffer zone in Northern Ireland four times wider than the DMZ in Korea"
Hooray!
Sorry to self quote, but the shear mind melting insanity of this makes my brain itch. The border is 310 miles long, so a buffer 10 miles deep would be 3100 square miles. The land area in NI is 5460 square miles. So this would cover about 55% of the country, presumably because you don't need to count Lough Neagh.
Absolutely bewildering.
Bewildering?
Here's a map of Northern Ireland's constituencies by party:
Green is Sinn Fein, Red is DUP, and grey is an independent unionist.
Though this second map shows how much trouble a simple presentation / solution can conceal.
The difficulty of understanding is the massive amount of scientifically research grounded on empirical facts, cross-referenced with psychological research and historical records, which evidence the existence of structural racism.
At this point structural racism is pretty much proved. Maybe not as well as evolution, but social psychology is in various ways a more complex science.
Two big developments for the Max Fac option (the only one under real consideration now)
1. DD has been persuaded a technological solution to keep the NI border open won’t work, so has moved to regulatory alignment ideas (1/3)
2. Those alignments are just for NI; and involve the ‘Liechtenstein model’ of dual EU and UK regimes at the same time, plus a 10 mile border zone for local traders (eg dairy farmers) to cross at will. Hence, no need for any border infrastructure at all. (2/3)
This may just win agreement from the whole of the Cabinet Brexit Committee. Phew. But 2 huge further problems with it: the DUP likely to hate it, as a different settlement to rest of UK, and the EU will instantly throw it out. (3/3)
Right. So the Max-Fac solution, which was the technology solution, is having all the technology taken away? And the border issue is fixed by making it ten miles wide instead of six inches wide? And Northern Ireland will be both in and out of the EU?
This is fething ludicrous.
Thomas J Mace-Archer-Mills Esq, the plummy-voiced leader of the British Monarchist Federation, was a regular feature on TV channels during May’s royal wedding, dispensing wisdom on Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s union while wearing a bow tie and tweed jacket.
In one interview for a Norwegian TV channel, he warned Markle that the most important aspect of the union was “keeping integrity, keeping formality and making sure that the traditions and heritage that we have as British people remain at the forefront”.
In another clip, recorded at a five-star hotel with a US broadcaster, he advised the future Duchess of Sussex not to upstage existing members of the royal family “especially when you’re coming in the way you are”. Shortly afterwards Mace-Archer-Mills approvingly tweeted an article describing himself as “the most interviewed man” on the subject of the royal wedding.
Unfortunately for the overseas news outlets who booked him in the belief they were getting an authentic upper-class Englishman, according to the Wall Street Journal, he is actually Thomas “Tommy” Muscatello, a 38-year-old Italian-American who grew up in upstate New York.
Da Boss wrote: I'm curious as to why people are so reluctant to admit that systemic racism exists despite all the evidence?
Because there are other simpler explanations that should be explored and discounted first instead of immediately jumping to conclusions out of ideological bias.
Believing that racism exists is now ideological bias? Or is it that seeing all of the evidence that racism is a real thing that impacts people’s lives and deciding on the basis of that evidence that racism is a real problem, is “jumping to a conclusion”?
Immediately jumping to conclusions that there is some racist conspiracy built into the system to oppress non-white people before first investigating and disproving simpler explanations is ideological.
I'm not denying the possibility that there is systemic racism - maybe there is - but I'm saying you shouldn't just disregard all other possibilities out of hand because you believe systemic racism to be true. Thats confirmation bias.
I don’t see any credible person claiming that all incidents of systematic racism are a deliberate conspiracy.
Without talking about specifics though, it’s very hard to interpret what the rest of your point means. I mean, it needs context or examples. You’re saying that you shouldn’t ignore other factors and I totally agree. You can not assess the affects of racism without context. Interestingly, it’s not looking at other factors and seeing somebody as just their race, that is the basis of a lot of racism. This is why people end up tying themselves in knots when they trying to discuss this issue.
So far, two alternative explanations have been put forwards. One is that the black students from Africa have different qualifications which need more examination. This is ruled out by the fact that the report concerns British students.
The second is that since Ucas admissions do not record ethnicity, it's impossible to pick out students t examine by race. This is ruled out by the fact that Ucas allows students to be reported individually by people who might know them.
As well, ethnicity is easily guessable from people's names.
UCAS do send ethnicity with application data.
But these investigations are usually triggered by UCAS, not individual universities.
Source: Have worked with university admissions data for 10+ years.
I suppose my question is, what proportion of applications are fraudulent compared by race/nationality? Only when you know that, do you know if certain demographics are being targeted disproportionately, or to what extent it’s racism rather than reflecting reality.
It could be racism, sure, but to compare to something else, some people say the police are just being racist for stopping and searching young black men in London, and that white and black people should be stopped equally. But statistically young black men are vastly more likely to be carrying a knife. That doesn’t mean the Met doesn’t have institutionalised racism, but to claim that young black men shouldn’t be searched on a frequency relative to the likelihood of them having a knife flies in the face of strong statistical evidence.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I suppose my question is, what proportion of applications are fraudulent compared by race/nationality? Only when you know that, do you know if certain demographics are being targeted disproportionately, or to what extent it’s racism rather than reflecting reality.
It could be racism, sure, but to compare to something else, some people say the police are just being racist for stopping and searching young black men in London, and that white and black people should be stopped equally. But statistically young black men are vastly more likely to be carrying a knife. That doesn’t mean the Met doesn’t have institutionalised racism, but to claim that young black men shouldn’t be searched on a frequency relative to the likelihood of them having a knife flies in the face of strong statistical evidence.
The problem with racial profiling is that it makes race the defining factor and ignores all others. Old black people aren’t carrying knives. University educated black people aren’t carrying knives. Black doctors, black lawyers, black teachers, none of those people are carrying knives. The people carrying knives are poor, disaffected, uneducated and surrounded by gang culture. Where I live, where’s there’s a much lower black population than in London, it’s poor, disaffected white and Asian kids doing most of the crime. So their blackness isn’t the issue. The question that needs to be asked is, why are young black men disproportionately more likely to be poor, uneducated and disaffected?
The same applies to the UCAS story. It runs the risk of creating the impression that their race is the reason for the fraud.
Kilkrazy wrote: Do you think black teenagers are 22 times more likely to cheat on their Ucas papers?
No, it seems improbably high for any group to be that much higher than the average. But that wasn’t what I asked. If they were twice as likely, then there’s both an identifiable problem with that group but also an issue with a disproportionate response by overestimating the extent of the problem.
I think it needs to be emphasised that Ucas aren't finding that black youngsters are 22 times more likely to cheat on their applications. Ucas are finding that for some odd reason they are checking 22 times more black applications than white applications.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I suppose my question is, what proportion of applications are fraudulent compared by race/nationality? Only when you know that, do you know if certain demographics are being targeted disproportionately, or to what extent it’s racism rather than reflecting reality.
It could be racism, sure, but to compare to something else, some people say the police are just being racist for stopping and searching young black men in London, and that white and black people should be stopped equally. But statistically young black men are vastly more likely to be carrying a knife. That doesn’t mean the Met doesn’t have institutionalised racism, but to claim that young black men shouldn’t be searched on a frequency relative to the likelihood of them having a knife flies in the face of strong statistical evidence.
The problem with racial profiling is that it makes race the defining factor and ignores all others. Old black people aren’t carrying knives. University educated black people aren’t carrying knives. Black doctors, black lawyers, black teachers, none of those people are carrying knives. The people carrying knives are poor, disaffected, uneducated and surrounded by gang culture. Where I live, where’s there’s a much lower black population than in London, it’s poor, disaffected white and Asian kids doing most of the crime. So their blackness isn’t the issue. The question that needs to be asked is, why are young black men disproportionately more likely to be poor, uneducated and disaffected?
The same applies to the UCAS story. It runs the risk of creating the impression that their race is the reason for the fraud.
I agree with this completely. I don’t deny that there is likely a racial prejudice behind the numbers of challenges made over UCAS applications. But in order to understand the situation, you need a fuller background to the statistics presented so far rather than determining it’s all purely a racist issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I think it needs to be emphasised that Ucas aren't finding that black youngsters are 22 times more likely to cheat on their applications. Ucas are finding that for some odd reason they are checking 22 times more black applications than white applications.
I think that’s apparent from the article, what isn’t clear is their false detection rate for white compared to black students. If they are checking black students 22 times more frequently and having 22 times as many unnecessary checks, then there’s an obvious problem.
I can’t help feeling more information is needed, firstly on the reasons why they are more likely to be investigated and secondly the group that is being investigate.
Is there a reason? Is it because of bias in the softwear, bias in people submitting complaints? Is it actually not black students, but students from inner city areas or working class students, groups which black students are much more likely to be in? The reason I have these questions is because it appears to just be black students and not other minorities, which makes you think there is something else going on other than simple racist behaviour. It could be two issues, or perhaps it could be narrower than that and could just be Afro Caribbean students? These are all thoughts I had with no evidence, but to me this is definitely a case where jumping to conclusions is very dangerous and could end up both looking like playing the race card and diverting from understanding the root cause.
Whirlwind wrote: I see Liam Fox is spouting his usual nonsense, condemning the Trump metal tariffs yet at the same time stating that this won't have nay impact on the Wrexit trade deal with the US.
It's not a particularly good sign for getting anything useful from the US trade deal that doesn't solely benefit the US.
You'll probably have to wait until at least Jan 2021 before there is a chance at dealing with someone in the US who actually understands international trade
There is software to screen applications, and people can send in tips, so there are two ways that bias might cause black applications to be disproportionately targetted. Then there is the role of Ucas staff in deciding to investigate individual cases.
It's hard to think why working class applications should be disproportiately targetted. Maybe based on postcode and school attended?
Less support in completing UCAS applications from parents and schools so more likely to make errors or fill out the form incorrectly? More likely to be claimed additional financial support (I don’t know if this looks at that as well).
I don’t know if there is a reason, and whatever the reason it needs to be looked at for any kind of bias.
It just seems to me like people are pretending not to know the reason when in other situations they would not look for such a high burden of proof before coming to a conclusion. It's troubling.
As to the NI buffer zone idea, I mean that's so obviously mental I think we can discount it. It'd never fly.
I mean the Guardian ran a story on it, and this single article was buried on the BBC website. Surely the press should be full of howls of outrage, demanding that May purge the party of all forms of islamophobia and show leadership in really getting to grips with it.
Even if there was a media outcry (and there won't be) it wouldn't hurt the tories. A fairly large chunk of the population is okay with islamophobia and they're the tories core vote.
Da Boss wrote: ....As to the NI buffer zone idea, I mean that's so obviously mental I think we can discount it. It'd never fly.
I'm a bit puzzled by the idea myself. I mean, how's it supposed to work? Isn't this just shifting the border ten miles either side? Why not push it back even further, say maybe to the sea?
It's a bit bloody stupid to say the least, and nothing but a fudge. It's hardly encouraging that this appears to be the best that they can come up with.
I did read an article that this idea was the favoured one by Brexit minded cabinet ministers, alongside tech-magic gubbins to supplement it. However, it's not likely to be supported by the DUP and almost certainly will be rejected by the EU.
As an aside, I do wonder how long NI's "special status" regarding abortion will last once Brexit is over and done with and Arlene and chums have burned their bridges with the UK Govt by holding them hostage over it. They'll have to come to an agreement with Sinn Fein and get the Assembly working pronto, otherwise they may find that they won't enjoy direct rule quite as much as they once did.
Difference is we've been suffering waves of terror attacks from radical Muslims over the last two decades. We've had zero terror attacks from radical Jews. Its a lot easier for society and the media to overlook bigotry against a particular community when a radicalised minority of that community regularly carry out acts of violence and mass murder.
I guarantee that this would change in an instant if Jews started detonating bombs in Europe, the media would begin turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism and you'd get the likes of the Daily Mail running the same stores but this time targeting Judaism instead.
I agree. I think it's stupid, given that it's a stated aim of those organising and carrying out the attacks to drive a wedge between muslims and the rest of society to aid in their efforts to recruit more terrorists, and the likes of the "patriotic" Daily Mail play right into their hands, basically helping the terrorists to achieve their aims. Same can be said for the likes of the Front National. I guess we shouldn't be so surprised, given the extreme Right has a lot in common with radical islamists in how they think about womens rights and so on.
Edit: I would also point out that for a certain part of the Left, the actions of Israel are seen in a very negative light. Some of these people stray from criticism of Israel into antisemitism, and plenty of antisemites use criticism of Israel as cover for what they are really pushing for.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Difference is we've been suffering waves of terror attacks from radical Muslims over the last two decades. We've had zero terror attacks from radical Jews. Its a lot easier for society and the media to overlook bigotry against a particular community when a radicalised minority of that community regularly carry out acts of violence and mass murder.
I guarantee that this would change in an instant if Jews started detonating bombs in Europe, the media would begin turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism and you'd get the likes of the Daily Mail running the same stores but this time targeting Judaism instead.
So you think that's why there's been no coverage of conservative islamophobia in the press, and no calls to tackle racism in the Tory party root and branch?
Isn't that just an excuse to not tackle the issue at all? Are you saying that because there are Muslim terrorists, and attacks that Islamophobia is justified and understandable, and should therefore be ignored?
What happens if we face a resurgence of Irish terrorism. Will it be acceptable to see "no-irish" signs pop up all over the place again?
It seems pretty hypocritical to me especially as we've seen that the conservatives don't just have a problem with islamophobia, but also with racism against pretty much everyone else too. Are the conservatives not obliged to deal with this, just as Labour is obliged to deal with racism and antisemitism? Is the media not obliged to hold conservatives to account the same way they do all other political parties?
Why is there never any real action on this issue? What will it take for us to not accept racism of any kind in any political party?
It's partly Corbyn's fault. He's shilly-shallied and dilly-dalied all round anti-semitism in Labour.
If Corbyn had taken a robust position at the outset, not only would the problem be drifting far astern by now, also he would hold the moral high ground and Labour would be able to spank the government again and again at PMQ.
The Conservative Party is islamophobic because it's composed of people many of who are islamophobic and has a lot of islamophobic supporters. This may seem like a circular argument but it's actually a self-reinforcingThis circle.
The point is that they aren't going to take themselves to task.
Then look at the Conservative supporting press. The Daily Mail, Telegraph, the Sun, etc. I don't think I need to explain any further.
Not wanting to dredge it up, but apparently the defence for the case Robinson was 'reporting on will be filing for a mistrial due to the intimidation. He might have just managed to set these people free in a massive own goal.
I would always advise people to be aware of moral panics regarding Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.
Genuine Anti-Semitism needs to be rooted out. Genuine hatred of a person simply because they are a Muslim needs to be rooted out.
But too often, critics of Israel and critics of Islam, even when they present legitimate arguments of say, Israeli policy towards Palestinians or Islam's compatibility with Democracy, are often accused of being phobic. But I do sympathise with British Jews who are blamed for Israeli policy, even if they've never been to Israel before in their lives.
None the less, Phobic suggests a disease, to pathologise something, as though the person is 'ill.' I needn't remind people that it was an old trick of the Soviet Union to accuse its opponents and critics of being 'mentally ill.'
With regards to the Labour party and anti-Semitism, I do think there is a lot of horsegak surrounding it. If Labour is as anti-Semitic as its critics make it out to be, they wouldn't have elected a Jewish leader, and the fact that millions of Britons voted for Ed Miliband's Labour, suggest the British people are none too bothered about having a Jewish PM either.
This is the crux if the issue as far as I'm concerned. This very thread had pages devoted to anti semitism in the Labour party, yet racism and islamophobia draws a near deathly silence. It's hypocrisy at the very least.
The fact of the matter is that the left has to endure criticism about racism and is expected to do something about it, but the right is allowed to be racist because of"reasons". Frankly it's fething bollocks. I'm just sick of racists, particularly those on the right, getting free reign over this.
r_squared wrote: This is the crux if the issue as far as I'm concerned. This very thread had pages devoted to anti semitism in the Labour party, yet racism and islamophobia draws a near deathly silence. It's hypocrisy at the very least.
The fact of the matter is that the left has to endure criticism about racism and is expected to do something about it, but the right is allowed to be racist because of"reasons". Frankly it's fething bollocks. I'm just sick of racists, particularly those on the right, getting free reign over this.
Well, I don't blame you for being fed up with it. We rarely see eye to eye on the EU, but I'm with you on this one.
As I always remind people on dakka, there are still Tories on the go who had dubious links with the Apartheid South African government or were sympathetic to them, John Bercow being a prime example.
And yet Jeremy Corbyn, the man who has fought racism his whole political career, and who has attended numerous anti-racism rallies, and who had a black girlfriend at one time (Diane Abbott) is the 'racist.'
That's the twilight zone politics we live in.
And the fact that Labour get blamed for 'wrecking' the British economy, despite the Tories being in the majority of government the last one hundred years, is something else that really annoys me.
The Tories gave us Black Wednesday and rail privatization but they still bang on about the 1970s, even though Ted Heath was seriously considering an IMF bailout as well...
I've been on God's earth for 5 decades, and the vast majority of that has been under Tory governments, and I've never voted Tory in my life...
Lorry tailback now stretching all the way to the Roundhill tunnels. Underlines the need for @transportgovuk to get on with dualling the A2 & deliver the long promised lorry parking.
Most terrifying part the most: the Dexeu response saying “none” of this will come to pass.
None
In defiance of official advice, experts and logic and events thus far.
It feels like the absolutism of a cult.
If this is not going to happen then tell/show us the argument or evidence for this, surely it must exist ?
stating with absolute confidence and conviction that we will not face or have to pay any monies to the EU and we will in fact receive a windfall of money .
If you recall this is in fact 100% false, so we can all feel tremendous confidence that we have such razor sharp minds working on our behalfs.
the Port of Dover paid for adverts at the last Tory party conference explaining the issues we will face here -- up to 17 miles of jams
and the response in return thus far ha been Rees-Mogg explaining that if Dover cannot cope then the freight traffic will go elsewhere...
..
.. I mean ...
..what ?
In comparison :
Government*offers personalised 11 page “Brexit impact scan” for millions of small businesses covering issues such as customs, plant, medicine imports, UK passport holder rights for changes from 29.3.2019.
Crash the country, buy up the assets cheap when we're forced to flog them off, strongarm the govt. into giving you outrageous deals and benefits, simply trot out "brexit and will of the people" in respsonse to any complaints for the next 10 years or so.
Then watch as the tories blame it on Labour, for not stopping them.
Disaster capitalism, dressed up as patriotic public will.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Farage is technically correct in that he never said that everyone would be better off, just that a nebulous "we" would be.
Which, of course, only makes him more of a complete git.
Hopefully more Leave voters will come to recognise Farage for the self-serving idiot he is, and perhaps reconsider the whole situation.
Everyday I think a second referendum becomes more likely. It needs a good push by Labour, which requires Corbyn to pull his thumb out and make a decision.
In other Brexit related news, it's rumoured that hard-Brexiteer Tories are trying to dump May in favour of Gove.
I suppose Gove is preferable to Boris Johnson. I could almost like Gove except that he's a core Leaver. I don't know how much of a hard-Brexiteer he is.
Although I"m in the Labour Party, I have to recognise that the Conservatives can choose whoever they want for PM while they are the party of government. If they decide to dump May, I would prefer Hammond because he is soft Brexit.
Kilkrazy wrote: He went to state school, got a scholarship to a private school and went from there to Oxford University, so I think he can't really be an idiot.
Kilkrazy wrote: He went to state school, got a scholarship to a private school and went from there to Oxford University, so I think he can't really be an idiot.
Remember he is the one that noted that the country had enough of experts. It really depends on the definition of 'idiot'. If it is someone that will just do what they think without listening to the evidence then that could quite easily result in someone calling him an idiot when it comes to running the country. His 'strength' is that he is better trained in the use of English and knows more than TM in how to abuse the masses that read certain papers like the Daily Fail. So he's not uneducated, but does spout a lot of idiocy.
It seems a pointless digression. If May goes, someone in the Conservative Party is going to be prime minister until Corbyn gets his thumb out of his bum about Brexit.
Here are the front runners -- Gove, Rees-Mogg, Boris Johnson -- whom do you prefer?
Whichever one has the lowest chance of winning the election. Although Rees-Mogg ruled himself out, didn't he?
Gove might be the best (as in least awful) choice, actually. Do we really want a PM who could be assassinated by sprinkling him with salt, though?
He said he wouldn't challenge TM for being PM. Of course if/when she is kicked out then he would no longer be challenging TM for the position so what he said would be correct.
Here are the front runners -- Gove, Rees-Mogg, Boris Johnson -- whom do you prefer?
None of them. It will be decided mainly by the small number of party faithful; which will support the hardest possible type of Wrexit. There are three possible scenarios that I can see.
(a) The Tories split and we end up with a Remain / Leave candidates - in this case I'd expect the Leave candidate to win
(b) We end up with two leave candidates - In this case we end up with the one that proposes the hardest possible leave option.
(c) The Remainers in the Tory camp effectively split in two to block a Leave candidate going into thr final round (tricky to do but possible) and we end up with two remainer options. Who would then get chosen I am unsure.
So the Guardian is the only news outlet even vaguely interested in institutionalised and acceptable racism on the right and in the Conservative party...
The Conservative party has a problem with Muslims. It is not a few bad apples; not a few social media posts taken out of context. The problem has been growing unchecked for years, despite warnings by Muslim party members, and has now become so normalised that incidents are being reported with alarming frequency. Last week, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) called for an independent inquiry into Islamophobia following more-than-weekly occurrences in the party last month. In these past four weeks alone, Conservative party representatives and candidates have called Islam “the new Nazism”, posted a picture of bacon on a door handle as a way to “protect your house from terrorism”, and shared an article that called Muslims “parasites” who “live off the state and breed like rabbits”.
...Those that have been grappling with the whole “Islam is not a race” diversion for a while now know that it is obvious that hate speech, mockery, calling for internment and damaging people’s employment prospects, as studies have found, is not a legitimate interrogation of a faith. The religion-not-race canard is a threadbare semantic excuse deployed cynically by those who know that, once the religion element is stripped away, all that is left is the racist bigotry.
A party that engages in populist rhetoric against immigration, the party of the Windrush scandal and the “go home” vans, is the natural home for the politics of fear. Zac Goldsmith’s shameful smear campaign against Sadiq Khan still stands as its monument.
The conservatives are not cynically ramping up the right wing racist rhetoric to attract the UKIP and far right vote, they ARE right wing racists, and are completely unwilling to do anything about it because it is hardwired into the majority of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other News...
I wonder if this will be followed through, however Arlene Foster claims that she has had Sinn Fein voters contact her to say that they will vote for the DUP over this issue.
The fact that this "political party" can still treat half of it population like criminals over a medical procedure in a 21st century western democracy, whilst holding the rest of the UK hostage to their vision of a hard BREXIT whilst also only making up a tiny proportion of the whole electorate is staggering.
From a former Unionist perspective, the sooner the Province is re-united with Eire and we're rid of the bastards, the better.
I wonder if this will be followed through, however Arlene Foster claims that she has had Sinn Fein voters contact her to say that they will vote for the DUP over this issue.
The fact that this "political party" can still treat half of it population like criminals over a medical procedure in a 21st century western democracy, whilst holding the rest of the UK hostage to their vision of a hard BREXIT whilst also only making up a tiny proportion of the whole electorate is staggering.
From a former Unionist perspective, the sooner the Province is re-united with Eire and we're rid of the bastards, the better.
I really can't see the DUP gaining much from this, some voters of SF will be put off by the parties stance on abortion but this has happened before and most will either end up going back to SF or else start to follow independent republican politicians.
It's important to remember that there has been nothing to back up these claims by the DUP, who as the RHI scandal has shown are more than will to play fast and loose with the truth.
Da Boss wrote: Aw cheers r-squared, leave us to clean up yer mess, eh?
Yeah, sorry about that. If it helps, you have my sympathy, I know there are many down south who aren't particularly enamoured of the idea of having this bunch suddenly becoming their responsibility. Not withstanding the shift to the right that the DUP and their voters might eventually bring to the Dail.
Da Boss wrote: I also noted the Guardian covering this, though not as thoroughly as the antisemitism thing.
Goes back to the left holding itself to a higher standard than the right. However, the Guardian is pretty anti-social democrat and Corbyn in particular. They're naturally a centre left, nu-labour paper.
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote: ...I really can't see the DUP gaining much from this, some voters of SF will be put off by the parties stance on abortion but this has happened before and most will either end up going back to SF or else start to follow independent republican politicians.
It's important to remember that there has been nothing to back up these claims by the DUP, who as the RHI scandal has shown are more than will to play fast and loose with the truth.
I think it's probably bollocks too. Even if it was vaguely true, I can't imagine more than a handful going for it, and they'd definitely not advertise that either.
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote: ...I really can't see the DUP gaining much from this, some voters of SF will be put off by the parties stance on abortion but this has happened before and most will either end up going back to SF or else start to follow independent republican politicians.
It's important to remember that there has been nothing to back up these claims by the DUP, who as the RHI scandal has shown are more than will to play fast and loose with the truth.
I think it's probably bollocks too. Even if it was vaguely true, I can't imagine more than a handful going for it, and they'd definitely not advertise that either.
Especially Ian Paisley claiming a priest is supporting him and he's going to tell his parishioners to vote DUP, I can't see that going down well!
Da Boss wrote:It also ignores that people could switch to the SDLP if they want an anti abortion republican party.
The SDLP has now moved itself into a more middle ground with members being able to chose to campaign for either side (moving in line with Fianna Fáil with possibilities of a merger?), but this is probably the SDLP's only glimmer of hope when it comes to stopping the bleeding of votes to SF.
So anyone see the "leaked" info about the brexit impact plans 5 potential out comes?
I believe only 2. And 3. We're mentioned and only 2 specifically.
2. The ports grind to a halt within 24 hours and food and medicine run low within the week leading to rationing, chaos and misery for anyone who cannot flee the country. Mince Davis is proven right and it's not like.Mad Max as they had petrol.
3. Was just labelled "Armaggedon"
4. Was a Military coup to try and restore order.
5. Was UK is declared a failed state and the UN take over to ensure the Tories don't trade our nuclear weapons for safe passage out of the UK.
While I really really wish I was joking or making this up this is from a report commissioned and buried by our government. Allegedly they have all ready started work on a rationing system just in case turning Kent into a truck park fails to.work out.
If the Maybot and the brexit death cultists remain in charge and on there current path, then when shopping it maybe worth buying a few extra tins and some bottled water over the coming months.
r_squared wrote: This is the crux if the issue as far as I'm concerned. This very thread had pages devoted to anti semitism in the Labour party, yet racism and islamophobia draws a near deathly silence. It's hypocrisy at the very least.
I'll be honest, I spotted it a few weeks back and meant to do some digging into it, but work is heavy going at the moment. It's something I've mentally marked as one for more investigation at some point.
Those that have been grappling with the whole “Islam is not a race” diversion for a while now know that it is obvious that hate speech, mockery, calling for internment and damaging people’s employment prospects, as studies have found, is not a legitimate interrogation of a faith. The religion-not-race canard is a threadbare semantic excuse deployed cynically by those who know that, once the religion element is stripped away, all that is left is the racist bigotry.
This quote that you linked is interesting. I think it's self-evident that 'Islam' is a religion rather than a race. That doesn't mean however, that people too ill-educated to make that distinction can't direct racist ire at people who adhere to the religion. I can be racist to oranges if I can convince myself that they're a race. 'Bloody orange bastards, not like us normal yellow lemons!'
With regards to any potential Islamophobia in the Tory party, I'm not sure the 'ill education' angle would work. In that case, it would be more of a simple case of racism against people of Middle-Eastern descent.
I'm not a regular commuter so haven't followed the new timetable all too closely, but I was getting a train 3 stops down the line on Saturday for drinks and it was shocking - narrowly missed one heading towards London, and previously you'd have waited for 10 or maybe 15 minutes until another one turned up. However the display showed the next train would be 30 minutes... and then shortly after it was cancelled with the next one 30 minutes after that.
Getting back was a similar story with a long wait on the platform and every service after the one we ended up on cancelled, it wasn't even that late. I felt for the people heading the other way though as every single service was cancelled, not sure if a replacement bus service was operating but getting from St Albans to central London would have taken far longer by road.
Transport Secretary apparently getting an epic grilling in the commons tonight, from his own party as well (given that many MPs from all parties could have affected constituents it will play well locally to join in).
"Say what you want about X, at least the trains ran on time."
LONDON — British negotiators are set to have just a few weeks to renegotiate over 40 trade deals it currently has with other countries, as part of its membership of the European Union, before it leaves the bloc in March 2019.
One of the biggest tasks facing the UK government is to ensure the free trade deals it already has with other non-EU countries continue to apply after it has departed.
EU officials have told Theresa May that the UK's Department for International Trade will not be able to begin renegotiating these trade deals until the Withdrawal Agreement has been signed off at the end of this year.
This would leave Liam Fox's trade department with just weeks between December 2018 and March 2019 to renegotiate over 40 trade deals with numerous countries, which account for around 15% of Britain's imports and exports.
The EU will not let Britain begin looking at post-Brexit trade deals until all issues all of its withdrawal have been resolved. This includes the Irish border dilemma, which has held up negotiations for weeks.
On Sunday, Germany's Brexit coordinator said "not many" people were expecting talks to progress significantly at the next European Council summit this month, and warned it was "unclear" whether there'd be a final deal.
In April, the CBI — Britain's biggest business group — told Business Insider it had a "serious doubts" that Britain would be able to roll over tens of trade deals in time for Brexit, and warned that failure to do so would bankrupt companies.
"The UK fundamentally lacks the experience or the bandwidth to conduct 20 or more trade renegotiations in parallel to complete before the potential cliff edge of January 2021,"the CBI's chief trade spokesperson, James Ashton-Bell, told BI.
"The potential of a cliff edge for these agreements is very real, and potentially hugely damaging at both firm-level and for entire sectors of the UK economy. It could wipe some out overnight. Some export-reliant companies could literally go bankrupt."
The CBI added that May's government "cannot reasonably expect that replications of agreements will be free from prolonged renegotiations," citing a number of concessions third countries have made to the EU which "they'll no longer be willing to give the UK on its own," plus deals which countries have expressed a desire to modernise.
He cited countries like Norway and Switzerland, where trade terms are not written down in a single agreement, and therefore cannot be replicated in any case without a completely new deal being struck.
The CBI's intervention followed a BI report, which revealed the European Commission had warned other EU institutions that it was "deeply concerned" about the UK's lack of preparation for carrying over trade deals after Brexit.
The Commission also cited Fox's "failure to grasp basic concepts and trade-offs" relating to the rollover process.
Numerous figures from across British business have told BI that "large swathes" of Fox's trade department are "reluctant to accept the help of outsiders" when it comes to preparing for Brexit.
We sure are lucky we have disgraced minister Liam Fox on the case.
SeanDrake wrote: So anyone see the "leaked" info about the brexit impact plans 5 potential out comes?
I believe only 2. And 3. We're mentioned and only 2 specifically.
2. The ports grind to a halt within 24 hours and food and medicine run low within the week leading to rationing, chaos and misery for anyone who cannot flee the country. Mince Davis is proven right and it's not like.Mad Max as they had petrol.
3. Was just labelled "Armaggedon"
4. Was a Military coup to try and restore order.
5. Was UK is declared a failed state and the UN take over to ensure the Tories don't trade our nuclear weapons for safe passage out of the UK.
While I really really wish I was joking or making this up this is from a report commissioned and buried by our government. Allegedly they have all ready started work on a rationing system just in case turning Kent into a truck park fails to.work out.
If the Maybot and the brexit death cultists remain in charge and on there current path, then when shopping it maybe worth buying a few extra tins and some bottled water over the coming months.
Day ninety three day after Wrexit….
Also May is yet again acting like the Dictator she is.
15 amendments to discuss on the withdrawl bill, no more than 12 hours to raise, debate and vote on the issues. Don't think she even cares about Parliamentary process anymore.
If Labour thinks they're going to be rewarded for standing back and letting the Tories destroy the country without challenge, they might be in for a disappointment. People are surely not dumb enough to think that an utterly ineffective opposition party will magically morph into an effective government once elected.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Oh but they are resisting. They’re calling out and challenging Tory bs, whilst keeping their own cards close to their chest.
Whilst not risk free, it’s quite a shrewd move if you want to bury a particular political ideology, such as Neo Liberalism.
Labour needs to declare their cards as anti Hard Brexit, make a firm stand for prosperity through EFTA membership, collapse the government, and force a general election at which they can gain power to put their own agenda into effect.
Otherwise Corbo will find himself at best being elected to govern a smoking boot with no money to do anything.
Smoking boot is a reference to the good old Paranoia RPG in which one of the figures produced by GW was a single boot and pile of ash, representing an agent who has been almost completely disintegrated.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: if you want to bury a particular political ideology, such as Neo Liberalism.
"Neoliberalism" is mostly just a meaningless snarl word these days. I see no evidence that any political ideology is going to get "buried" any time soon.
And if Labour does come to power following an economically devastating hard Brexit, the last thing I want them doing is turning their backs on free trade or embracing massive increases in borrow-and-spend in the name of sticking it to the Neoliberals. I want a government whose priority is the good of the country, not destroying their ideological enemies while the country burns down around them.
Duskweaver wrote: ... I want a government whose priority is the good of the country, not destroying their ideological enemies while the country burns down around them.
So, anybody except the Conservatives then?
The Guardian continues to be the only media outlet even mildly interested in the embedded racism of the Tories.
I'm pretty shocked that this close to the next summit we are not hearing anything with regard to the EU negotiations. There is a huge distance between the UK government position and the EU position still, and the EU is apparently talking about using the June summit to discuss other issues since there is so little progress on Brexit.
It gets really dangerously close to hard brexit by default the longer the cabinet procrastinates on the hard choices. If the summit in October goes badly, then that does not leave a lot of wiggle room for getting the agreement ratified by all the EU parliaments. The higher the pressure, the greater the chance for mischief from one of the parliaments to reject the deal.
It seems like the British press is burned out on covering Brexit and doesn't much want to talk about it any more, but a hard brexit by default due to nothing being done would be a total disaster. I wonder if the EU would allow it to happen?
The government is in a shambles. They don't have a shred of a plan and don't seem to be any nearer to getting one than a year ago, but the government has decided to ram their Leave bill through parliament in a single day. This is where the opposition has to stand up for something.
There needs to be a second referendum. It probably needs to be alternative vote with three or four options on the ballot, but we still don't have any middle-ground options the government can present.
Duskweaver wrote: If Labour thinks they're going to be rewarded for standing back and letting the Tories destroy the country without challenge, they might be in for a disappointment. People are surely not dumb enough to think that an utterly ineffective opposition party will magically morph into an effective government once elected.
People still blame Gordon Brown for the deregulation of the banks whilst totally ignoring that the Tories were screaming that it didn’t go nearly far enough, and give him pelters for bailing out the banks, whoch Tories demanded, and then rewarded them with two governments almost directly as a result. Admittedly Labour (nor any other party) never get as easy a ride from the press, so they wont be totally off the hook, but the Tories will be the ones left holdibg the wreckage. Well, more likely, Theresa May will.
Da Boss wrote: I'm pretty shocked that this close to the next summit we are not hearing anything with regard to the EU negotiations. There is a huge distance between the UK government position and the EU position still, and the EU is apparently talking about using the June summit to discuss other issues since there is so little progress on Brexit.
It gets really dangerously close to hard brexit by default the longer the cabinet procrastinates on the hard choices. If the summit in October goes badly, then that does not leave a lot of wiggle room for getting the agreement ratified by all the EU parliaments. The higher the pressure, the greater the chance for mischief from one of the parliaments to reject the deal.
It seems like the British press is burned out on covering Brexit and doesn't much want to talk about it any more, but a hard brexit by default due to nothing being done would be a total disaster. I wonder if the EU would allow it to happen?
May has made any progress impossible with her red lines. There just aren't anything but hard brexit that can work out. So hard brexit it will be.
Interesting how EU will make sure EU suffers least. There's that port for example that is used to bring stuff to UK from Asia. If that clogs up and it causes trouble for EU...Well easy and rather obvious solution is no UK bound stuff through there period. If it means UK gets no stuff from Asia until they can get port of their own big enough "tough luck".
Well that's what you get when people vote on ideals rather than facts. Brexit was always going to end up hurting up. People have weird habit of voting against their best interest. First brexit, then Trump. Trump voters are in for rude suprise when he promises jobs and tradewar he began will cost them. Especially as EU/China are targeting specifically products that most hurt Trump's base.
Well, Irish people did not vote for Brexit, even in the part of Ireland that was allowed to vote. We are 70-80% in favour of the EU.
That is why I am concerned about the future, because I think the EU's ability to protect us from British self harm is going to be fairly limited due to geography and economic reality. (Again.)
Forget Brexit for a minute. Crime has reared its ugly head again
That comedian guy was robbed. It's obvious that London is now the Wild West. Teenagers dying by the bushel, moped gangs terrorising law-abiding citizens.
The Police are clearly not up to it, and even when they didn't have budget cuts, they were still bloody useless. Hence why criminal gangs roam the streets with impunity.
If the government grows a backbone, and gives the green light, then authorised citizens' patrols of some kind could reclaim our streets.
There must still be tons of old war surplus Lee Enfields and Bren guns laying around. Ex-police and army vets of good standing and character could fill the void and at least they'd have some degree of training.
People may scoff at the idea but what's the alternative? Anarchy, ladies and gentlemen. Anarchy.
So a comedian gets robbed and all of a sudden London has fallen? Crime does seem to be a problem in London recently but they way you post in this matter makes it seem that no one is safe, and your answer is some sort of modern day Black and Tans?
The answer is not to start armingpeople and sending them on some sort of Ghetto safari.
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote: So a comedian gets robbed and all of a sudden London has fallen? Crime does seem to be a problem in London recently but they way you post in this matter makes it seem that no one is safe, and your answer is some sort of modern day Black and Tans?
The answer is not to start armingpeople and sending them on some sort of Ghetto safari.
It's not an isolated incident, and the softly softly, go easy on them because they had trouble with potty training approach, isn't working either.
Months ago, the official crime figures were released and they showed that crime was on the rise
It was there in black and white.
I posted a link to them on the BBC, and I was shot down in flames.
People accuse me of ignoring Brexit and EU evidence, but there are people on dakka who have a blind spot when law and order is breaking down.
The first duty of any government is defence of the realm and maintaining law and order.
If we have to arm people with old Webley revolvers and Lewis guns, to re-claim the streets, then so be it, because the current approach is clearly failing
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Because armed militias roaming around with surplus war equipment worked out so well for the Weimar Republic.
DINLT, your ideas become even more ridiculous with each post.
If a world famous and millionaire comedian is getting fleeced in broad daylight, then what chance does the average man in the street have?
None!
I'm not arguing for battleships to be moored in The Thames, but feth me, if something is not done by official channels, then don't be surprised to see people take the law into their own hands with vigilante groups.
A world famous comedian, sitting in his car, waiting outside a school.
This was not a targeted attack, it was simply an opportunistic smash and grab which happened to hit a famous person. But pointing that out doesn't fit your "armed gangs roaming the streets like something out of a Michael Jackson music video or The Warriors" narrative.
Also, it isn't like Michael Mcintyre travels with a close protection detail at all times, so he is no more resistant to a random opportunistic robbery than anyone else.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Because armed militias roaming around with surplus war equipment worked out so well for the Weimar Republic.
DINLT, your ideas become even more ridiculous with each post.
Yeah let's make sure it becomes bloodpath with innocent bystanders getting caught in it. Yey. That is good idea!
Besides it's not like London is even some hellhole super dangerous. There's 1st world cities that have it much worse yet where's the calls for vigilantes to hunt down anybody they feel are criminals(because that's what vigilantes always end up doing and that's what armed civilian patrols always end up being. Vigilantes)
I said in my post that crime is clearly a problem, but the fact that in your head there is no middle ground between the current strategy being used and just giving untrained people a load of guns to roam the streets taking out who they see fit is frankly scary.
What does him being a world famous millionaire comedian have to do with what appears to be a smash and grab, it could just have easily been a normal person.
We've went soft on crime and the end result is this: teenagers dead on the streets with a knife between the shoulder blades. Acid attacks. Moped gangs. Rural crime is up. Homeowners grappling with burglars.
I could go on all day...
Even when we do catch the fethers, our court and prison service is collpasing around our ears.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Because armed militias roaming around with surplus war equipment worked out so well for the Weimar Republic.
DINLT, your ideas become even more ridiculous with each post.
Yeah let's make sure it becomes bloodpath with innocent bystanders getting caught in it. Yey. That is good idea!
Besides it's not like London is even some hellhole super dangerous. There's 1st world cities that have it much worse yet where's the calls for vigilantes to hunt down anybody they feel are criminals(because that's what vigilantes always end up doing and that's what armed civilian patrols always end up being. Vigilantes)
Innocent bystanders are getting caught up in it anyway.
Fair enough, we may not be approaching a Mad Max situation, but this constant drip drip of crime will end up taking us down that road.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: We've went soft on crime and the end result is this: teenagers dead on the streets with a knife between the shoulder blades. Acid attacks. Moped gangs. Rural crime is up. Homeowners grappling with burglars.
I could go on all day...
Even when we do catch the fethers, our court and prison service is collpasing around our ears.
And your solution to this was to vote for something which would damage the economy, resulting in less money to tackle these problems. Excellent idea!
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote: I said in my post that crime is clearly a problem, but the fact that in your head there is no middle ground between the current strategy being used and just giving untrained people a load of guns to roam the streets taking out who they see fit is frankly scary.
What does him being a world famous millionaire comedian have to do with what appears to be a smash and grab, it could just have easily been a normal person.
They wouldn't be untrained, because they'd be ex-police, army vets or TA or something. People used to bullets whizzing past their ears. People who've had training in the past. People who can handle themselves in tense situations.
We could draw on a pool of say, up too 10,000 people ready answer their nation's call in its hour of need.
You may laugh now, but I hope nobody on dakka ever has to hear the smashing of glass at 3am as their laying in their beds...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: We've went soft on crime and the end result is this: teenagers dead on the streets with a knife between the shoulder blades. Acid attacks. Moped gangs. Rural crime is up. Homeowners grappling with burglars.
I could go on all day...
Even when we do catch the fethers, our court and prison service is collpasing around our ears.
And your solution to this was to vote for something which would damage the economy, resulting in less money to tackle these problems. Excellent idea!
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote: I said in my post that crime is clearly a problem, but the fact that in your head there is no middle ground between the current strategy being used and just giving untrained people a load of guns to roam the streets taking out who they see fit is frankly scary.
What does him being a world famous millionaire comedian have to do with what appears to be a smash and grab, it could just have easily been a normal person.
They wouldn't be untrained, because they'd be ex-police, army vets or TA or something. People used to bullets whizzing past their ears. People who've had training in the past. People who can handle themselves in tense situations.
We could draw on a pool of say, up too 10,000 people ready answer their nation's call in its hour of need.
You may laugh now, but I hope nobody on dakka ever has to hear the smashing of glass at 3am as their laying in their beds...
The vast majority of our police are not trained to use firearms.
And the vast majority of our police do not want firearms. What are you going to do, forcibly conscript people into your extra-judicial death squads?
And using the military for police is not a good idea. They are not trained in the same way. Putting people into these kinds if situations is how you end up with stuff like Bloody Sunday.
A visible presence to deter would be criminals would be the primary purpose.
I'm not calling for Weimar Germany street battles
But one of the reasons why these brazen attacks are increasing is because the crooks know they won't get their collars felt by the law.
As I've said before, I can draw on 2 faithful hounds, a stout wooden club by the bed, and an assortment of kitchen knives to defend my property from a 3am visit.
I would advise my fellow dakka member to take similar measures to protect their loved ones and property.
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote: I said in my post that crime is clearly a problem, but the fact that in your head there is no middle ground between the current strategy being used and just giving untrained people a load of guns to roam the streets taking out who they see fit is frankly scary.
What does him being a world famous millionaire comedian have to do with what appears to be a smash and grab, it could just have easily been a normal person.
They wouldn't be untrained, because they'd be ex-police, army vets or TA or something. People used to bullets whizzing past their ears. People who've had training in the past. People who can handle themselves in tense situations.
We could draw on a pool of say, up too 10,000 people ready answer their nation's call in its hour of need.
You may laugh now, but I hope nobody on dakka ever has to hear the smashing of glass at 3am as their laying in their beds...
Being in the army doesn't qualify someone to be a part of the police force that became perfectly clear in Ireland, mainly because the armies first response is to kill. What are your actual plans for these roaming armed gangs? To just shoot on site anyone they feel doesn't look right or they don't agree with something they've said? Going by the term ex these will mos probably be armed middle age white men patrolling neighbourhoods with large black populations, that's not going to play out well ands will probably result in more people losing there lives.
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote: I said in my post that crime is clearly a problem, but the fact that in your head there is no middle ground between the current strategy being used and just giving untrained people a load of guns to roam the streets taking out who they see fit is frankly scary.
What does him being a world famous millionaire comedian have to do with what appears to be a smash and grab, it could just have easily been a normal person.
Maybe he wants UK to borrow page from Indonesia and Philippine. That has obviously worked so well there. No innocent casualties at all.
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote: I said in my post that crime is clearly a problem, but the fact that in your head there is no middle ground between the current strategy being used and just giving untrained people a load of guns to roam the streets taking out who they see fit is frankly scary.
What does him being a world famous millionaire comedian have to do with what appears to be a smash and grab, it could just have easily been a normal person.
They wouldn't be untrained, because they'd be ex-police, army vets or TA or something. People used to bullets whizzing past their ears. People who've had training in the past. People who can handle themselves in tense situations.
We could draw on a pool of say, up too 10,000 people ready answer their nation's call in its hour of need.
You may laugh now, but I hope nobody on dakka ever has to hear the smashing of glass at 3am as their laying in their beds...
Being in the army doesn't qualify someone to be a part of the police force that became perfectly clear in Ireland, mainly because the armies first response is to kill. What are your actual plans for these roaming armed gangs? To just shoot on site anyone they feel doesn't look right or they don't agree with something they've said? Going by the term ex these will mos probably be armed middle age white men patrolling neighbourhoods with large black populations, that's not going to play out well ands will probably result in more people losing there lives.
Remember when Mark Duggan was shot?
Why are you asking for details from DINLT? He only deals with the Big PictureTM.
gianlucafiorentini123 wrote: What are your actual plans for these roaming armed gangs? To just shoot on site anyone they feel doesn't look right or they don't agree with something they've said?
Since that's what always happens with these 3rd party death squads either that or he's rather ignorant of history and thinks he has first time in human history thought of this great idea. "Nothing can go wrong! Honest!"
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A visible presence to deter would be criminals would be the primary purpose.
I'm not calling for Weimar Germany street battles
It doesn't matter what you're calling for. It matters what you will end up with. Basically you're making the exact same mistake you did with brexit, pushing an idea based on the best outcome when reality makes such an outcome impossible.
We don't like in a world where groups of people roaming around with rifles and machine guns will not result in lots of people getting shot.
Why are you asking for details from DINLT? He only deals with the Big PictureTM.
I was going to say, it's a good job he is only a big picture person... as if this is what happens when he attempts details it's best that he doesn't bother.
Actually the UK has been tough on crime. We've got record numbers of people in prison because recent governments (New Labour and Conservative) pushed up the length of sentences for many offences.
We're not tough on the causes of crime (poverty, alienation, poor life prospects) and we're not good at rehabilitation.
All that having been said, despite an uptick in the past couple of years, crime is still at a relatively low level compared to longer term records.
It's not a situation for complacency. but equally it's not a situation that demands a panic response.
It was there in black and white.
I posted a link to them on the BBC, and I was shot down in flames.
Because you do this thing repeatedly of reading the headlines (and usually just the sensationalist ones), going no further and ignoring the detail or the actual analysis, and letting you're hysteria grab you by your pants and whisk you off to la-la land.
People accuse me of ignoring Brexit and EU evidence, but there are people on dakka who have a blind spot when law and order is breaking down.
No, people just read beyond the sensationalist headlines and get to grips with the details and actual analysis, instead of jumping on the hysteria train.
If we have to arm people with old Webley revolvers and Lewis guns, to re-claim the streets, then so be it, because the current approach is clearly failing
And this new approach is workable? Lol, I guess the D in DINLT should stand for Duerte. Black and Tans and B Specials much? No, they've nevertheless done anything wrong.
Or will you do your usual thing of let your hysteria whip you into a frenzy, come up with some hair brained scheme that is nothing short of disastrous and completely out of sync with reality, and then when the consequences of your ideas prove to be as disastrous as initially suspected, you shrug your shoulders, wash your hands of them and try to deny any and all responsibility?
If a world famous and millionaire comedian is getting fleeced in broad daylight, then what chance does the average man in the street have?
None!
Probably more, to be fair. Macintyre is a juicer target, with obvious wealth who has probsbly been under surveillance by a gang. Precisely for this opportunity.
I'm not arguing for battleships to be moored in The Thames, but feth me, if something is not done by official channels, then don't be surprised to see people take the law into their own hands with vigilante groups.
Battleships - maybe not. But you are talking about Black and Tans and B Specials. Or brownshirts. Which is far more insidious
. What happens when they shoot some kid with his hood up? Armed gangs on the street make things less safe for everyone, not more.
Why are you asking for details from DINLT? He only deals with the Big PictureTM.
I was going to say, it's a good job he is only a big picture person... as if this is what happens when he attempts details it's best that he doesn't bother.
The alternative plan as advocated by you and A Town Called Malus, is to roll up the white flag to the criminals.
Not on my watch. I'll be damned if I see the nation I love turn into a takeaway for any member of the criminal fraternity. .
Why are you asking for details from DINLT? He only deals with the Big PictureTM.
Correction.
the Big PictureTM Now with added hysteria.
And no, I don't want a new generation of Black and Tans, or B Specials on the streets, thank you very much.
I'm not calling for a return to 1970s Northern Ireland. That was a unique set of circumstances that are obviously not replicated on the streets of London.
I'm just looking for some law and order. Is that too much to ask for? What do I pay my taxes for?
Why are you asking for details from DINLT? He only deals with the Big PictureTM.
I was going to say, it's a good job he is only a big picture person... as if this is what happens when he attempts details it's best that he doesn't bother.
The alternative plan as advocated by you and A Town Called Malus, is to roll up the white flag to the criminals.
Not on my watch. I'll be damned if I see the nation I love turn into a takeaway for any member of the criminal fraternity. .
Now you've gone from being just incompetent to being incompetent and a liar. What sort of insane mental gymnastics does it take to come to the conclusion that the only thing that works to fight crime is armed gangs of your own?!
Why are you asking for details from DINLT? He only deals with the Big PictureTM.
I was going to say, it's a good job he is only a big picture person... as if this is what happens when he attempts details it's best that he doesn't bother.
The alternative plan as advocated by you and A Town Called Malus, is to roll up the white flag to the criminals.
Not on my watch. I'll be damned if I see the nation I love turn into a takeaway for any member of the criminal fraternity. .
Ah yes armed gangsters shooting anybody they don't like led by you is obviously only way to deal with criminals. Lol. Nevermind London is still safer than many 1st world big cities.
I'm not calling for a return to 1970s Northern Ireland. That was a unique set of circumstances that are obviously not replicated on the streets of London.
There must still be tons of old war surplus Lee Enfields and Bren guns laying around. Ex-police and army vets of good standing and character could fill the void and at least they'd have some degree of training.
Who do you think they hired to 'pacify the streets of ireland'? It wasnt scumbags or criminals. They were the 'war heroes' of their day.
I'm just looking for some law and order. Is that too much to ask for? What do I pay my taxes for?
No, you are looking for anarchy in the U.K.
You pay your taxes for many things, as do I. Armed death squads on the streets is not something I, or any other sensibly minded person wants, just to placate your hysteria and insecurity
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Black and Tans? This is the first time I've mentioned them in any post. It's other people banging on about B Specials and Black and Tans, not me.
This is Britain in 2018, not 1920s Ireland.
Armed paramilitaries on the streets? Yeah, you just called them by a different name.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Black and Tans? And in respnse to deadnight, if a government's first duty is not protection of the nation, then I don't know what the hell is.
I said it was debateable. I'd argue the governments first duty is to look after its people, with things like healthcare being amongst those things, not just protection in the 'armed paramilitaries on the streets' sense. But go ahead and misquote me Duerte.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Black and Tans? See how long a country lasts for when it has no police or military.
Which is a far cry from arming paramilitaries and having them on our streets. Tell me, how long before they shoot thr wrong person, or tell the actual police 'yeah, we're in charge now'. But of course, you'll have washed your hands of it by then, because the consequences of your ideas are never your fault. eh Duerte?
Why are you asking for details from DINLT? He only deals with the Big PictureTM.
I was going to say, it's a good job he is only a big picture person... as if this is what happens when he attempts details it's best that he doesn't bother.
The alternative plan as advocated by you and A Town Called Malus, is to roll up the white flag to the criminals.
Not on my watch. I'll be damned if I see the nation I love turn into a takeaway for any member of the criminal fraternity. .
Ah yes armed gangsters shooting anybody they don't like led by you is obviously only way to deal with criminals. Lol. Nevermind London is still safer than many 1st world big cities.
Have you ever been to London?
It's all very well for you to be sitting in the middle of nowhere in Finland and commenting on the crime that blights Britain. No offence intended.
And we already have armed gangsters shooting people.
MrDwhitey wrote: I'm wondering if after all this time he'll use the "I was only pretending to be" line.
Well, everybody think crime is something that only affects other people...and then you get a knife waved before your eyes, or a cosh to the back of the head, or somebody creeping about your house at 3am...
It always embarrassed Samuel Vimes when civilians tried to speak to him in what they thought was “policeman.” If it came to that, he hated thinking of them as civilians. What was a policeman, if not a civilian with a uniform and a badge? But they tended to use the term these days as a way of describing people who were not policemen. It was a dangerous habit: once policemen stopped being civilians the only other thing they could be was soldiers.
Have you? How do you avoid the gangs that are besieging your farm?
Once again you show little understanding of the people or places of the rest of the UK...
I'm fairly regularly in London (less so in the last few weeks whilst they sort the trains out, being stranded is a very real and costly possibility) and have never felt unsafe walking the streets.
Can we just Godwin this suggestion and move on to the next ridiculous thing, I really can't be bothered going through the rigmarole of "London is a hive of scum and villainy" thing for what must be the 3rd or 4th time.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Can we just Godwin this suggestion and move on to the next ridiculous thing, I really can't be bothered going through the rigmarole of "London is a hive of scum and villainy" thing for what must be the 3rd or 4th time.
But it's not far from the truth though, is it?
At the top, we have billons of pounds of dodgy money stashed away in London on a daily basis.
At the bottom, we seem to have this Darwinian battle between rival street gangs.
From top to bottom, London is going to the dogs.
I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade here, and If I get criticised for it, then so be it. At least I tried to do something...
MrDwhitey wrote: I'm wondering if after all this time he'll use the "I was only pretending to be" line.
Well, everybody think crime is something that only affects other people...and then you get a knife waved before your eyes, or a cosh to the back of the head, or somebody creeping about your house at 3am...
My wife is Scottish. She's absolutely terrifying to me if I have to get up at 3am. Anyone else skulking in our flat better watch out. Especially when she sleeps next to a baseball bat.
And no, those things suck, but they're still not an excuse to get hysterical and turn to having armed paramilitaries, with surplus military gear on the streets. Or in this case, will we also need armed paramilitaries with free access to our houses too? Just in case...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Well, don't come running to me or start bleating about it on dakka if crooks fleece you of your hard earned money...
My response will be this:
And when your armed paramilitaries kill the wrong people on the streets and cause absolute chaos, can we come along and say 'told you so', or will you just shrug it off and claim you weren't responsible...
At the top, we have billons of pounds of dodgy money stashed away in London on a daily basis.
At the bottom, we seem to have this Darwinian battle between rival street gangs.
From top to bottom, London is going to the dogs.
And everywhere else, between the 'top' and 'bottom', lifes goes on and people go through their day, live their lives and don't have to deal with any hassle beyond the usual daily grind.
Londons all right. It's a far cry from 'going to the dogs'.
See how long a country lasts for when it has no police or military.
Yes. Of course you are talking about adding in non-police non-military guys into street with guns...In otherwords vigilantes. Which never ends up in good.
Oh and "special situation that won't happen again".
The moment people think that is the moment that repetition is very much going to happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, don't come running to me or start bleating about it on dakka if crooks fleece you of your hard earned money...
My response will be this:
Ah yes your typical black and white view. If world isn't 100% safe it's all hell on streets and armed vigilantes must be let loose to gun down innocent people just to ensure there's no other criminals on the streets...
...nevermind London isn't even particularly unsafe city in the world. Even on 1st world grade.
DINLT, I hate to have to disagree with you, seeing as though you’re one of the few friends I have in here, but the answer to the current crime wave in London isn’t to recreate Dad’s Army with untrained civies using surplus WW2 gear.
Grayling is trying to blame Network Rail and the operating companies for the new timetable omnishambles, but the "word on the street" is that they were force to move their schedule unrealistically forwards to satisfy Department of Transport demands.
The figures on investment per head are pretty shocking. Even if you acknowledge that tunnelling under central London is a lot more expensive than upgrading the track around Newcastle, it's still a massive disparity.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Can we just Godwin this suggestion and move on to the next ridiculous thing, I really can't be bothered going through the rigmarole of "London is a hive of scum and villainy" thing for what must be the 3rd or 4th time.
To be fair, it is, but the scum and villains are mostly in that big building by the river - the one next to the famous bell tower.
Was their headline rationed? Could they not afford the five additional letters to correctly write "England" instead of "UK" there? It's not even the usual "England and Wales" this time.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Can we just Godwin this suggestion and move on to the next ridiculous thing, I really can't be bothered going through the rigmarole of "London is a hive of scum and villainy" thing for what must be the 3rd or 4th time.
To be fair, it is, but the scum and villains are mostly in that big building by the river - the one next to the famous bell tower.
Was their headline rationed? Could they not afford the five additional letters to correctly write "England" instead of "UK" there? It's not even the usual "England and Wales" this time.
I guess Cornwall got their independence too when I wasn’t looking; that’ll cheer them up!
In all seriousness, the disparity in funding between London and the rest of the country is criminal; I honestly wonder whether there is a legal recourse for misappropriation of public funds. As for Killkrazy’s point about tunnelling being more expensive, true, but public transport in a dense urban area is much more efficient (I.e. one bus travelling through a London borough is going to serve a lot more people than one going over the Pennines). I think that will balance out somewhat in a per capita figure.
The thing is, while Gordo is correct that the UK needs to address problems like stagnant wages, low productivity and the NHS, he is wrong to describe these are the main drivers of the Leave vote. The key factor was white English identity crisis, primarily among older, more conservative people.
This isn't a point which can be addressed by addressing economic factors. It's a matter of identity politics, based on an emotional reaction against the modern world.
Negotiations going badly, rebellious divided party, rail chaos challenging the neo-liberal free makeyt ideology, chronic underfunding of essential services causing widespread misery and dissatisfaction, institutionalised racismin in govt and party, enormous national debt, and every day something new that ends up as a serious challenge for this Govt.
Almost sorry, until you remember that they've had nearly a decade to get their gak in a sock, and the rest of the problems they've caused themselves by implementing their own policies.
It's laughable how anybody can trust the conservatives, or say that they are the best hope for Britain. Anyone who still claims that in face of the evidence probably needs to ease off the medication. The conservatives thought they'd lost their nasty party image, but it's just got worse. Their decisions and leadership have directly lead this country to the worst and most vulnerable position it's been in in decades, and yet the partisan, and the slightly dim still seem determined to vote for them regardless of what they do.
They need kicking out before they do anymore harm to the country, but at this stage I'm struggling to think what that could possibly be. Maybe the dissolution of the Union, the loss of our overseas territories and our position as a respected nation on the world stage. Oh wait....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The key factor was white English identity crisis, primarily among older, more conservative people.
This isn't a point which can be addressed by addressing economic factors. It's a matter of identity politics, based on an emotional reaction against the modern world.
Not just older people, its pretty much all right wingers these days regardless of age. They're more obsessed with identity politics than your average lefty student.
Isn't the issue here that Corbyn's Labour just don't appeal to the centre ground of voters, which makes it harder for them to boost polls above 40% (which keeps Labour 2-3% below the Tories)?
Also his own personal politics allow the Tories to play up the 'red scare' to their base to consolidate their vote.
Even if Corbyn were to win more votes than May at a near-future hypothetical GE, there's no chance in hell that he's winning an overall majority in parliament, and would have to compromise any principles in a coalition or similar. Labour have been very quick to rule this option out in the run up to the last two elections so who knows how it would pan out?
Riquende wrote: Isn't the issue here that Corbyn's Labour just don't appeal to the centre ground of voters, which makes it harder for them to boost polls above 40% (which keeps Labour 2-3% below the Tories)?
Also his own personal politics allow the Tories to play up the 'red scare' to their base to consolidate their vote.
The statistics show that this isn't strictly correct. The major influence on voting intentions is age. The older the more likely you are to vote Tory, this at the moment favours them because of the higher proportion of old people that vote. The question is whether this is a trend about age, or whether those under 40 are starting to reject the Tory ideology and that as they age that will push the Tories further and further into the grass (we can only hope).
Even if Corbyn were to win more votes than May at a near-future hypothetical GE, there's no chance in hell that he's winning an overall majority in parliament, and would have to compromise any principles in a coalition or similar. Labour have been very quick to rule this option out in the run up to the last two elections so who knows how it would pan out?
I have no particular issue with a centre left coalition made up of Labour/LD/SNP and so forth. We need more compromise in politics rather than the Tories do it our way or we'll send you to a Grenfell Tower near you. We amy also get a change in the voting method to PR which should benefit all areas.
Riquende wrote: Isn't the issue here that Corbyn's Labour just don't appeal to the centre ground of voters, which makes it harder for them to boost polls above 40% (which keeps Labour 2-3% below the Tories)?
Also his own personal politics allow the Tories to play up the 'red scare' to their base to consolidate their vote.
Even if Corbyn were to win more votes than May at a near-future hypothetical GE, there's no chance in hell that he's winning an overall majority in parliament, and would have to compromise any principles in a coalition or similar. Labour have been very quick to rule this option out in the run up to the last two elections so who knows how it would pan out?
Actually, a lot of the Labour manifesto was popular, however, the conservative PR machine is rampant demonising the very idea that social-democracy is even a valid or reasonable political position.
It's market led neo-liberalism or nothing. The centre ground is now firmly entrenched in the right.
Whirlwind wrote: The question is whether this is a trend about age, or whether those under 40 are starting to reject the Tory ideology and that as they age that will push the Tories further and further into the grass (we can only hope).
It would be excellent if true, but the usual course of action is that the marginalised party moves towards the centre to start recapturing that middle vote. It's entirely possible it never reverts away from the new, more moderate position (after all, the 19th century Tory manifestoes must make chilling reading these days). Very rarely is a party so out of touch that a new challenger sweeps in entirely (and who would replace the Tories anyway?)
The Conservatives have managed to turn themselves into the party of economic failure, incompetence, misery for disabled people, declining living standards for 90% of the population, no houses, burning people alive in tower blocks with zero safety standards, no trains, selling off banks cheaply to the private investors who shat them into bankruptcy in the first place, "free" academy schools which teach social isolation and creationism at taxpayer expense, the Garden Bridge, armed services that have withered almost into irrelevance, an NHS in constant crisis, doctors refused visas because of a non-existent immigration target, university student loans over £50,000 which will never be paid back, a state visit for Trump, tax havens for the rich and Russian oligarchs and Chinese government bigwigs, the collapse of the diesel car industry combined with record illegal pollution in all our cities, Hinckley B selling us electricity at double the market price, roads so full of potholes they are like a tank training ground, the gig economy of insecure casualized labour, arms sales to the Saudis, the crisis in social care, the about to explode crisis in sexual health, Voter ID, the Windrush nationality scandal..
All this and Brexit too...
How the feth have the Conservatives managed to keep a majority in Parliament? Oh, wait! They didn't!! They had to bribe the DUP with half a billion to vote with them.
Live on Sky News Tonight - new #BrexitForensics story as European Governments issue advice to their exporters not to use parts from Britain - Top car exec tells me “catastrophe” for UK auto
Dutch Government official advice to its business community warns its manufacturers “if a large part of your product consists of parts from the UK” they may lose free trade terms for exports.
“After Brexit, parts made in UK no longer count towards this minimum production in EU”
The Government would argue that this is premature, but the likes of the Dutch are already advising their manufacturers to reduce dependence on UK:
“Trade with the UK will become more difficult after Brexit... consider looking for alternatives”
Dutch Gov advice to its biz:
“opps for market access for UK competitors are deteriorating. Their access to EU countries is deteriorating. Your UK competitors may also not be able to use EU trade agreements. Check whether to strengthen your competitive position in these markets”
While we were working on this Dutch story, the European Commission put out a similar technical note on the rules of origin issue: “As of withdrawal date, the UK becomes a third country. UK inputs are considered 'non-originating'," it says.
In theory could be sorted by 1. Being in customs union 2. something called cumulation (both bilateral and diagonal, of course)... but that definitively requires A Deal - ie forget No Deal if you want this sorted. Indeed even the THREAT of No Deal has allowed the Dutch to do this
Government was told about all of this rules of origin stuff about a month after the referendum by Civil Servants, and in detail by the Japanese memo from Sept 2016:
I agree that women in Northern Ireland ought to have the same rights as the rest of the UK (and now, the Republic of Ireland) but Northern Ireland has a devolved government. Shouldn't this be a matter for the Northern Irish Assembly to decide, not Westminster?
Or is the Good Friday Agreement and Northern Irish devolution now to be ignored whenever Westminster finds it convenient?
And if that's the case, that Northern Irish devolution should be overruled by Westminster, doesn't that mean all the people making a fuss over Brexit violating the GFA but now calling for a Westminster intervention are hypocrites?
The problem is that:
A) Northern Ireland does not have a functioning government and long talks to try and set one up completely collapsed.
B) The petition of concern mechanism has been used by the DUP to block any reform to Northern Ireland's abortion laws. This was generally ignored by most people in the UK as long as the Republic of Ireland had regressive abortion laws, I suppose because it was easy to just blame those wacky Irish for it. Now a spotlight has been put on the socially regressive laws in NI.
May didn’t even want this being debated, she doesn’t want it going to a referendum, so much for democracy. The DUP can bring down her government any time they like. This is what happens when you make a pact with such people to prop you up in government. There’s only three DUP MPs and they’re the tail wagging the dog.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I agree that women in Northern Ireland ought to have the same rights as the rest of the UK (and now, the Republic of Ireland) but Northern Ireland has a devolved government. Shouldn't this be a matter for the Northern Irish Assembly to decide, not Westminster?
Or is the Good Friday Agreement and Northern Irish devolution now to be ignored whenever Westminster finds it convenient?
And if that's the case, that Northern Irish devolution should be overruled by Westminster, doesn't that mean all the people making a fuss over Brexit violating the GFA but now calling for a Westminster intervention are hypocrites?
It's not Westminster overruling a devolved government, if that devolved government is not functioning due to their own intractable positions. The DUP has been delighted by the prospect of direct rule from Westminster, but now its inconvenient? They can't have it all ways.
Either they form their devolved government, or accept the rule of Westminster which inclues potentially changing their laws. They need to choose what they want, and accept the results of their choice. At least they have a choice.
Their abortion laws are at odds with the human rights act and ECHR, it’s shocking it’s been allowed to slide this long. The DUP don’t want NI to be treated ‘differently’ post brexit, yet insist they can continue to ban abortions and same sex marriage unlike the rest of the UK, or indeed the rest of the developed world.
May didn’t even want this being debated, she doesn’t want it going to a referendum, so much for democracy. The DUP can bring down her government any time they like. This is what happens when you make a pact with such people to prop you up in government. There’s only three DUP MPs and they’re the tail wagging the dog.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I agree that women in Northern Ireland ought to have the same rights as the rest of the UK (and now, the Republic of Ireland) but Northern Ireland has a devolved government. Shouldn't this be a matter for the Northern Irish Assembly to decide, not Westminster?
Or is the Good Friday Agreement and Northern Irish devolution now to be ignored whenever Westminster finds it convenient?
And if that's the case, that Northern Irish devolution should be overruled by Westminster, doesn't that mean all the people making a fuss over Brexit violating the GFA but now calling for a Westminster intervention are hypocrites?
It's not Westminster overruling a devolved government, if that devolved government is not functioning due to their own intractable positions. The DUP has been delighted by the prospect of direct rule from Westminster, but now its inconvenient? They can't have it all ways.
Either they form their devolved government, or accept the rule of Westminster which inclues potentially changing their laws. They need to choose what they want, and accept the results of their choice. At least they have a choice.
Thankyou for informing me. I know next to nothing about Northern Ireland.
I see no problem with Westminster legislating if the Northern Irish arrangement has broken down. Somebody has to run the country. If they'd like to settle the matter themselves and hold a referendum on the matter, that would be equally acceptable.
As long as the latter option is there and proffered freely, there's really no question of rule from Westminster being imposed against the will of the population; they are still part of the UK after all, and Westminster is the ultimate arbiter. I'm reasonably certain that Westminster has the right to hold a referendum there regardless of any question of the rights of the assembly; in the same way NI voted on Brexit. And if the referendum returns a result similar to Southern Ireland, there's nothing more to be said on the matter but to alter the law. Certainly, the local parties wouldn't be able to complain it was overriding the will of the people.
And if the local parties want to complain that the will of the people shouldn't be heard because it might return an unpalatable result, tough.
So the conservative Muslim forum have stated that the Tories have "given excessive priority to electoral consideration rather than taking decisive action" and "have wished the problem would go away".
Still not a peep from the rest of the national media, too busy complaining about runways, fawning over Love Island, or discussing the scandal of Heinz ditching salad cream.
r_squared wrote: So the conservative Muslim forum have stated that the Tories have "given excessive priority to electoral consideration rather than taking decisive action" and "have wished the problem would go away".
Still not a peep from the rest of the national media, too busy complaining about runways, fawning over Love Island, or discussing the scandal of Heinz ditching salad cream.
Or they are deliberately trying to ignore the issue and hope it goes away. It shows just how far we still have to go and despite what the government keeps saying we are getting much worse at the moment in being an inclusive society.
but they still bang on about the 1970s, even though Ted Heath was seriously considering an IMF bailout as well...
