Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, I've voted in every election since 1981 and I've never had to produce my voting card, though usually I do take it because it makes things quicker. OTOH I have always been checked off the register. This covers IDK how many local, general and EU elections and referendums at five different polling stations, three in London and two outside it.

Foreigners get NI numbers, by the way.

I love the level of "analysis" being carried out by a supposed analyst here. I've been working as an banking & financial analyst for over a decade and I wouldn't have lasted 3 months in the job if I'd quoted anecdotal and heavily biased newspaper articles over evidenced based figures provided by a reputable source.

The way go steal a vote is to take the voting return forms, find someone who wants to vote in person and tick the box requesting a postal ballot, include the postal ballot address and vote by postal ballot the day before. The victim turns up on polling day to found they have 'already voted'. As the data is not digitised but kept on the paper one cna only effectively contest the theft of your ballot after the fact, and have only fourteen days to do so under law.

And this would be reported to the electoral commission and we'd have hard data on how often this happens. Perhaps you'd like to provide us with this data?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Who predicted Trump?

Scott Adams, he has a lot to say on system thinking and the principle of slow moving disasters. I imagine that, as ever, chaos and confusiion will be exploited by those best positioned to do so, and intend to be one of them

 malamis wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Who predicted Trump?

Scott Adams, he has a lot to say on system thinking and the principle of slow moving disasters. I imagine that, as ever, chaos and confusiion will be exploited by those best positioned to do so, and intend to be one of them

People have been exploiting chaos and confusion since the days of Stonehenge - it's nothing new.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, I've voted in every election since 1981 and I've never had to produce my voting card, though usually I do take it because it makes things quicker. OTOH I have always been checked off the register. This covers IDK how many local, general and EU elections and referendums at five different polling stations, three in London and two outside it.

Foreigners get NI numbers, by the way.

In my case, it also helps if it's the same people at the polling station who've been doing it for years, so they recognize you.

 Orlanth wrote:


First, the Tower Hamlets scandal IS evidence., not 'evidence'. Nothing fake about what was/is going on.

Second it is prevalent in our society. You keep on bringing up the 1000 registered election frauds from the Elecrtoral Commission. If so also take the same Electoral Commissions word for it that there is endemic electoral corrruption in Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. This isn't just my words, its theirs. If you hold to their figures also hold to their stated assessments, it is logically consistent to do so.opinions.

You are misreading the reports. Even in the Telegraph it quotes that such areas are "vulnerable" to electoral fraud because the political parties are not engaging with those communities (probably most likely because it is heavily weighted in favour of Labour and hence no campaigning is undertaken there). The same goes for a lot of areas; I live in a very Tory dominated area so I don't think I've ever seen a local councillor campaign in the area never mind an MP. The difference is that it is a relatively well off community and hence has decent access to the internet/TV/mobile and other broader community facilities. However if a person doesn't have access to these, perhaps because they live in poorer areas) then their world is limited by the local interactions they have is with elders, community leaders. Hence political views can become streamlined because there are no debates from other sides of the argument. That makes such areas vulnerable to manipulation if there are people living there that are so inclined. However what it does not say is that political fraud *is* prevalent in such areas, only that they are vulnerable to it because none of the political parties actually engage in such areas. This doesn't apply to just 'asian' communities - how many of us were brought up with the 'british' values of respecting those older than you are. Put 'white british' people in the same situation and they are just as vulnerable, the difference comes from access to different sources of information (which is linked to wealth). Tower Hamlets was one specific case where this had crept into the local society, the report looking into why it may have happened. What the report does not say is that such cases are prevalent!

Why do postal votes increase voting fraud? Where is the quantative evidence for this? How do you know that there was not more fraud in the 50's or 60's? You are making sweeping claims that it 'just is' and that it was all New Labour's fault. There was indeed caution as to how to present issues in certain areas but you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. It wasn't because of worry that it might be deemed racist, it was more that those people already racist would use it as 'evidence' to reinforce there already biased views that these communities were 'bad'. It's subtle but distinct difference. That then does run the risk that things that should be openly investigated are managed in a more constrained way that allows situations to become even worse.

Electoral fraud = use Tower Hamlets example, Islamification of schools = Birmingham example, Asian rape gangs = Rotherham example.
Large scale child abuse is not limited to Rotherham, but now the police are doing something about it. They are being told they will get support if they investigate asian communities for these crimes and not be written off as 'racist'. The press are still not printing all there is to say on these issues, especially the other sites where it is happening, the press info is kept deliberately vague. The crimes are just dealt with as ordinary crimes.

You are deliberately picking and choosing examples that agree with your argument rather than looking at things from a wider perspective. You are using individual cases and ignoring any wider evidence. You refer to Islamification of Birmingham Schools but ignore the fact that we have had Catholic, protestant and other religious schools for years and in some cases abuse has been identified in these. You talk about Asian rape gangs in Rotherham whilst ignoring that British people go to Thailand to abuse children, or the Jimmy Saville cases and so on. You are highlighting that cover ups are endemic because of race yet there are plenty of other examples where 'white british' people are just as involved in similar or worse issues.

Where to begin with this. For a start everyone is biased. I however can think through it, you cannot. It is not the case of just swallowing every right wing press story, you have to look for patterns. Hence in my example when the news broke on Blacko I kept it in the back of my mind and didn't properly notice the pattern until corroberation in 2001. This is the mental discipline known as multiple sourcing.

No it's not you are sub-consciously confirming bias, it's poor scientific form. You noted one event that was retained in your selective memory (for unknown nature or nurture reasons, it happens to us all) and then when another incident happened you've said 'a ha' look this proves what I thought because of this new example. What you are failing to understand that statistically it is inevitable that there will be another case at some point in the future if the possibility of it happening is greater than 0% (and for electoral fraud the only way to do that would be have no elections) and that linking the two events may result in an incorrect conclusion. That's why you need wide spread broad data on the issues taken consistently over time, not just a selection of events as evidence (especially when they arise from potentially biased reporting sources).

Ok. If the press is not evidence why are you even here, most of what we discuss is based on reports in media, and you comment on them often enough. Try, just try for some intellectual consistency. What level of evidence satisfies you. Note for the hard of thinking - level of evidence doesnt mean 'evidence that agrees with your assumptions'.

The raw data to back up your claims that's all. Something that actually you can point to as actual numbers that political fraud is prevalent throughout the country (or even those communities you claim it is problematic in, though I would also want data to show that this is worse than other communities with similar socio-economic circumstances)

In a nutshell:
You dont know that a political analyst works on filling in the gaps in missing data, and interpretation of existing data. If it was just plain rewading we wouldnt need politiial analysts.

I'm aware of what an analyst is thanks, I wasn't asking that but rather what field of analytics you were in?

Now in the post Labour era still only some newspapers cover the story at all. The left wing press still holds to the mantra that investigating large scale ethnic crime is a form of racism, due to advantage or conditioning. The Guardian wishes Rotherham and similar scandals just went away.

Yes I am sure you are correct on this one. I'm fairly certain that these left wing papers would have preferred for Rotherham never to have occurred because of the horrific and long term damage they caused to the people it affected. Whether the Daily Fail feels the same way I wouldn't like to guess.

First is not a 'few thousand' each case reported can be of multiple vote thefts, and do do it properly usually is. Normally about 100-1000 votes. If it was a thousand cases of a thousands votes then it would be a million votes.
Also a lot of this is unreported, people find their vote is stolen get miffed about it but then don't do anything as its too much bother.
Remember there is a two week window to report cases. All in all the figures are easy to manipulate.

So you are saying approx. 2% of votes cast in any election could be fraudulent? I presume you have written to the government on this issue and demanded another EU referendum as at this level the result could be completely different!

International politics is about how you wield the stick, fair has nothing to do with it.
France in particular is pushing for a hard brexit, either that or highly unfavourable terms, either will satisfy them.

The EU countries have no obligation to think about what is best for the UK. We decided (wrongly in my opinion) to go it alone. Expecting them to look after the UK just because isn't sensible. So yes obviously the EU countries are going to want what's best for them. They have no reason to think of anything but the UK as a competitor now.

Every newspaper runs a bad story every now and then, especially with personal anecdotal stories When the Daily Mail do it its Daily Fail, then the Guardian do it, its ignored.

The Daily Fail is as it does. The Guardian less so, but would get just criticised if it started down that route!

Northern Ireland is to all intents and purposes an ex-warzone, photo ID and security checks/checkpoints etc are accepted there. Also there is a hard land border.

Might I suggest you go to an actual warzone like Aleppo maybe and then make that comparison?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Hurrah I'm back!

I enjoyed Christmas and I hope everybody else did as well.

Back OT.

Latest predictions for Britain in 2017 and beyond can be summed up as thus: We're DOOMED!

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/29/uk-in-2030-older-more-unequal-and-blighted-by-brexit-report-predicts

Brexit will be a mess, massive job losses, robots taking over, ageing population leading to the collpase of the NHS etc etc

These may well come to pass BUT

Who predicted Trump? Or Brexit?

And on the flip side, as I've said many a time, even remaining in the EU would not have shielded us from these problems.

Climate change for example will not give two hoots for the EU or any other nation for that matter.

I remain cautiously optimistic for 2017, whilst acknowledging the fact that big challenges lie ahead.

I wonder what excuses European governments will be making for all the future job losses in their countries.

I think Europe is fethed, Brexit or no Brexit. Better to leave the sinking ship before it drags us down with it.

 Daedleh wrote:
I love the level of "analysis" being carried out by a supposed analyst here. I've been working as an banking & financial analyst for over a decade and I wouldn't have lasted 3 months in the job if I'd quoted anecdotal and heavily biased newspaper articles over evidenced based figures provided by a reputable source.

You are a data analyst, all you can do is process and regurgitate data. A political analyst has to do more than that.

What do you consider unbiased newspaper articles, nice lefty ones you like?

 Daedleh wrote:

And this would be reported to the electoral commission and we'd have hard data on how often this happens. Perhaps you'd like to provide us with this data?

Its reported if a report is made. It is discovered by individuals finding their vote is stolen, those individuals make comment on the theft through varioius means, including commenting to the press, the police, complaining to local authorities etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Hurrah I'm back!

I enjoyed Christmas and I hope everybody else did as well.

Back OT.

Latest predictions for Britain in 2017 and beyond can be summed up as thus: We're DOOMED!

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/29/uk-in-2030-older-more-unequal-and-blighted-by-brexit-report-predicts

Brexit will be a mess, massive job losses, robots taking over, ageing population leading to the collpase of the NHS etc etc

These may well come to pass BUT

Who predicted Trump? Or Brexit?

And on the flip side, as I've said many a time, even remaining in the EU would not have shielded us from these problems.

Climate change for example will not give two hoots for the EU or any other nation for that matter.

I remain cautiously optimistic for 2017, whilst acknowledging the fact that big challenges lie ahead.

I wonder what excuses European governments will be making for all the future job losses in their countries.

I think Europe is fethed, Brexit or no Brexit. Better to leave the sinking ship before it drags us down with it.

The EU is fethed, so are we. Something can be done.

 Orlanth wrote:
A political analyst has to do more than that.

Spin, spin, spin!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Hurrah I'm back!

I enjoyed Christmas and I hope everybody else did as well.

Back OT.

Latest predictions for Britain in 2017 and beyond can be summed up as thus: We're DOOMED!

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/29/uk-in-2030-older-more-unequal-and-blighted-by-brexit-report-predicts

Brexit will be a mess, massive job losses, robots taking over, ageing population leading to the collpase of the NHS etc etc

These may well come to pass BUT

Who predicted Trump? Or Brexit?

And on the flip side, as I've said many a time, even remaining in the EU would not have shielded us from these problems.

Climate change for example will not give two hoots for the EU or any other nation for that matter.

I remain cautiously optimistic for 2017, whilst acknowledging the fact that big challenges lie ahead.

I wonder what excuses European governments will be making for all the future job losses in their countries.

I think Europe is fethed, Brexit or no Brexit. Better to leave the sinking ship before it drags us down with it.

I've often speculated as to what would have happened had we voted Remain.

Firstly, Cameron and Osborne would have felt vindicated, and we would have gotten maxed out Osborne-omics until 2020, and all the damage that would have done to the economy

Then, the EU, with some justification, would have said, you've had 2 referendums, you've voted to stay in both of them, time to take your EU medicine to the max i.e full integration.

I've always said there would be problems with Brexit, I don't deny that, but it's silly to think that nothing would have changed with a Remain vote.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:
I love the level of "analysis" being carried out by a supposed analyst here. I've been working as an banking & financial analyst for over a decade and I wouldn't have lasted 3 months in the job if I'd quoted anecdotal and heavily biased newspaper articles over evidenced based figures provided by a reputable source.

You are a data analyst, all you can do is process and regurgitate data. A political analyst has to do more than that.

What do you consider unbiased newspaper articles, nice lefty ones you like?

Then take it from me, a bona fide political scientist, that you don't know what you're on about. You keep linking newspapers and opinion pieces when we're asking for proof and evidence.

Abandon ship! Abandon ship!

There is talk of David Cameron being lined up as the new head of NATO

you have to be kidding me!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/29/no-10-david-cameron-nato-job-theresa-may

Hopefully, this is being pushed because it's a slow news day and can be chalked off as idle tongue wagging, but God help us if it ever comes true.

Had to laugh at this quote: "One minister was quoted by the Mail as saying: “We’ve got to find a role for him – he has so much to offer. We have got to get him batting for Britain again.”

I think they're quoting Cameron's mother

My role is most certainly not limited to producing reports. Insight and analysis forms 80% of my working time.

I don't consider any newspaper articles unbiased, nor did I give any indication of where I sit on the left-right spectrum. Of all articles though, one whose headline includes the eye rolling phrase of "PC Police" is probably about as biased as you can possibly get.

I wouldn't use newspaper articles as evidence of anything more than an isolated incident. I certainly wouldn't continue to claim that newspaper articles examining these isolated anecdotes take precedence over a primary data source, such as the electoral commissions investigations into the matter.

If reports are made then the statistics will be made public. Please provide those statistics.

Yes, not all incidents will be reported. We know that. It's the same with crime, however reported crime statistics and their overall trend still provide valuable insight and are hard evidence supporting or refuting claims about crime rates.

 Whirlwind wrote:

You are misreading the reports. Even in the Telegraph it quotes that such areas are "vulnerable" to electoral fraud because the political parties are not engaging with those communities (probably most likely because it is heavily weighted in favour of Labour and hence no campaigning is undertaken there).

People who dont vote will not notice if their vote is stolen. It makes sense f0r frausters to find habitual non voters and steal thier votes as priority.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Why do postal votes increase voting fraud?

I explained at least twice already and gave a step by step detail. Reading isnt hard.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Where is the quantative evidence for this?

Nowhere.

Does this shock you? It shouldn't, Analysts can read from a void of information, if they have any sill at what they do. You will see evidence of this further down the post, and not just from me either.
Its not a complete void though. Testimonial evidence has weighting, most usefully when double sourced.

Remember the worst of this happened under New Labour, which was not strong on accumulating and making available data that would hurt them. We didn't get to prove much but we could see the patterns.

 Whirlwind wrote:

How do you know that there was not more fraud in the 50's or 60's?

No postal votes and greater integrity of the system. The UK was known for a craftsmanlike attitude for its officialdom back then. Voting integrity was important and ensuring a fair election was thus more important. activities that require careful scrutiny are sleepier now and precision is not highly evident in our national character anymore.

 Whirlwind wrote:

You are making sweeping claims that it 'just is' and that it was all New Labour's fault.

With good reason, but it is not 'all' New Labours fault. They just decided to overlook it as they were the prime beneficiaries.

 Whirlwind wrote:

It wasn't because of worry that it might be deemed racist, it was more that those people already racist would use it as 'evidence' to reinforce there already biased views that these communities were 'bad'. It's subtle but distinct difference.

You need to change your thinking. It was because of this indoctrination that many many problems were left to fester, problems that are now surfacing with the evidence of them intact. We couldnt talk of Rotherham prior to 2010 because the evidence was suppressed, we can now. The voting fraud issue is no different.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Electoral fraud = use Tower Hamlets example, Islamification of schools = Birmingham example, Asian rape gangs = Rotherham example.
Large scale child abuse is not limited to Rotherham, but now the police are doing something about it. They are being told they will get support if they investigate asian communities for these crimes and not be written off as 'racist'. The press are still not printing all there is to say on these issues, especially the other sites where it is happening, the press info is kept deliberately vague. The crimes are just dealt with as ordinary crimes.

You are deliberately picking and choosing examples that agree with your argument rather than looking at things from a wider perspective.

No I am not. I already had the wider perspective because I already knew it was going on and not in denial. However I use Rotherham as an example because its well documented , not because its cherry picked. You have to understand how Westminster works. You don't point out that a social problem is happening everywhere, it freaks out the electorate and causes more harm than good, unless that is the desired result. Instead you highlight on one instance, and then tell the authorities that the MO has changed.
So school inspectors outside Birmingham are no longer turning a blind eye to Islamification, and those who would are being replaced. Police outside of Rotherham are investigating child rape gangs and not taking the accusation 'thats racist to investigate asians' as a smokescreen etc etc.
These issues then get dealt with in the legal system. Occasionally stories hit the press but at a trickle so as not to paint a bigger picture for most.

 Whirlwind wrote:

You refer to Islamification of Birmingham Schools but ignore the fact that we have had Catholic, protestant and other religious schools for years and in some cases abuse has been identified in these.

Ok, thats not ignored, its categorised separately and not relevant. First sexual predators are not restricted to religious schools. i went to a secular boarding school in the 70's and there was an active sex offender sacked the first term I was there. The police contacted me for evidence about two years ago - nothing happened to me and I didn't know anything except third hand rumours which I didn't understand being a six year old.
Anyway this is not the same whether Catholic protestant secular or Islamic. I am not talking about predatory staff as perverted individuals, I am talking about wholescale indoctrination, non Islamic pupils being treated as second class citizens in just about every way, including access to facilities and resources and a policy of public shaming of parental occupations the staff did not approve of, such as armed forces membership.
Reinforced indoctrination of very young children ends up badly.

 Whirlwind wrote:

You talk about Asian rape gangs in Rotherham whilst ignoring that British people go to Thailand to abuse children, or the Jimmy Saville cases and so on.

The Rotherham rape gangs were on a different scale, they were also being overlooked deliberately because of their ethnicity. Saville was an individual with connexions. Victims of Savillew were ot beleived as Saville was a public figure, Rotherham abuse victims were beleived but thier suffereing was not relevant compared to ethnic cohesion. This was reinforced to the pont where parents who tried to act on their own initiative were arrested or otherwise leaned on while the rapists were ignored.

You are highlighting that cover ups are endemic because of race yet there are plenty of other examples where 'white british' people are just as involved in similar or worse issues.

 Whirlwind wrote:

No it's not you are sub-consciously confirming bias, it's poor scientific form. You noted one event that was retained in your selective memory (for unknown nature or nurture reasons, it happens to us all) and then when another incident happened you've said 'a ha' look this proves what I thought because of this new example. .

No not at all. I was already looking at patterns in the press and holding connexions for later. Its how its done in early stages.

 Whirlwind wrote:

What you are failing to understand that statistically it is inevitable that there will be another case at some point in the future if the possibility of it happening is greater than 0% (and for electoral fraud the only way to do that would be have no elections) and that linking the two events may result in an incorrect conclusion. That's why you need wide spread broad data on the issues taken consistently over time, not just a selection of events as evidence (especially when they arise from potentially biased reporting sources).

I am not failing to understand mate, far from it. The issue is that you cant see beyond data analysis to political analysis.
Its not a case of comparing figures etc. A lot of the time the figures don't exist, the patterns however are far harder to hide.
New Labour was very effective at hiding its tracks, this is why it takes time for the supporting evidence to appear. If you have skill to read the patterns, and some analysts do you can glean a lot from that, and the solutions and conclusions are actionable, but it isn't data based.
Please remember this goes both ways. The police for instance were 'institutionally racist' not based on data, which is hard to quantify but on a public inquiry set up to come to that conclusion. However once the conclusion is delivered it becomes flat fact.

The Electoral Commission didnt see anything wrong during the New Labour years, so everything is fine right. Now post New Labour its an ongoing problem of fraud ie going back. The conclusions change with the party in power. Political analysis is not about the data, much available data is BS even prior to processing, there are too many vested interests, it can be used for figurative examples, the main work is about the patterns one sees forming.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Now in the post Labour era still only some newspapers cover the story at all. The left wing press still holds to the mantra that investigating large scale ethnic crime is a form of racism, due to advantage or conditioning. The Guardian wishes Rotherham and similar scandals just went away.

Yes I am sure you are correct on this one. I'm fairly certain that these left wing papers would have preferred for Rotherham never to have occurred because of the horrific and long term damage they caused to the people it affected. Whether the Daily Fail feels the same way I wouldn't like to guess.

You have a twisted little mind. Back in the New Labour years the Daily Mail tried to print stuff like that, and got the Daily Fail label from people like you. The Guardian didnt care enough to write about these issues.
Its plain as day which side took an interest in child welfare. The left wing press didn't care about victims, so long as multicultualism was intact.

I can quantify this further.

I know of a case study from close hand - not directly- it involved a family in Birmingham which had expereinced the Ialamification of schools (and one of my sources that led me to see the probem was happening). Anyway they lived in a block of flats with a heavy islamic population. Thees neighbours didn't like to share the flats with infidel and attacked the flat with machetes. When the police turned up they arrested the victims not the attackers, and they were made homeless by the council for having 'provoked' the attack, based on false testimony of the attackers. With some persuading the family was rehoused and the father released, were it not for connexions working to give them a voice nobody would have cared. Their treatment by council officials varied with the ethnicity of the officials asian officials automatically sided with the attackers and were going to blacklist the family for housing as 'racists'. They were overturned by non asian officials who were persuaded to look at the evidence.
It was decided to look at airing this issue in the press to help the family. Only one paper was interested in printing a story about an innocent family framed by an gang attacked with machetes in their home without provocation, victimised by the police while the attackers walked away -literally, victimised by local council officials who instantly believed the attackers side of the story without investigation.
If you think it was the loving caring Guardian who was interested in fairness and application of equal opportunities you would be wrong.
Because only the Daily Mail wax prepare to print the family was advised to decline interview, because of the Daily Fail meme.

The Guardian et al knows the same stories that Daily Mail, knows, but didnt give a feth.

 Whirlwind wrote:

So you are saying approx. 2% of votes cast in any election could be fraudulent?

No not saying that. Look for patterns not for raw data. You don't end up making rough additions and end up with strange numbers.

A case might be 1000 stolen votes or 100, but a case might also duplicate another case. If your vote is stolen and another person in your ward has the same problem and both of you fully report it it will be two cases, but only one batch of stolen votes. We cant tell how big it is without looking at the data, and that is both difficult and time consuming.

Notice how the Electoral Commission is using pattern based analysis to make claim that the electoral fraud is centred around the asian communities. they have the weight to say that, but its likely not based on raw data either, but on patterns.

 Whirlwind wrote:

I presume you have written to the government on this issue and demanded another EU referendum as at this level the result could be completely different!

Allowing for who is defrauding the elections and by what means I wont need to. Fiddling Brexit will not get an extended family member elected to office, and that is the common pattern.

 Whirlwind wrote:

The EU countries have no obligation to think about what is best for the UK. We decided (wrongly in my opinion) to go it alone. Expecting them to look after the UK just because isn't sensible. So yes obviously the EU countries are going to want what's best for them. They have no reason to think of anything but the UK as a competitor now.

A fair assessment but it doesn't go far enough, some in Europe have an active hate agenda and want to stick the knife in. <cough> France <cough> Others smell opportunity by weakening our position. Normally these intentions are voiced indirectly. Though one of Trumps advisors was more candid recently.

https://www.rt.com/business/371908-brexit-trump-wilbur-ross/

What Ross is saying is what some European countries are already doing, you can see this by reading the patterns of existing actions.


Again here is an example of pattern based analysis. What can you make of this?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-negotiator-talks-french-michel-barnier-negotiation-insists-eu-article-50-conducted-a7373556.html

It doesnt involve data to crunch, and its a good example of how to think as a political analyst through patterns. What is being said here and how?

 Whirlwind wrote:

Might I suggest you go to an actual warzone like Aleppo maybe and then make that comparison?

Boo hoo you been triggered!

Come on, I mentioned that there were comparisons. I even quantified the comparisons. Belfast doesn't have to be regularly hit by airstrikes for the comparisons to be valid.

Think about it for a minute. What are the comprisons (hint - I mentioned them in a prior post) and how does it make the situation compatible with issuing mandatory ID.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Hurrah I'm back!

I enjoyed Christmas and I hope everybody else did as well.

Back OT.

Latest predictions for Britain in 2017 and beyond can be summed up as thus: We're DOOMED!

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/29/uk-in-2030-older-more-unequal-and-blighted-by-brexit-report-predicts

Brexit will be a mess, massive job losses, robots taking over, ageing population leading to the collpase of the NHS etc etc

These may well come to pass BUT

Who predicted Trump? Or Brexit?

And on the flip side, as I've said many a time, even remaining in the EU would not have shielded us from these problems.

Climate change for example will not give two hoots for the EU or any other nation for that matter.

I remain cautiously optimistic for 2017, whilst acknowledging the fact that big challenges lie ahead.

I wonder what excuses European governments will be making for all the future job losses in their countries.

I think Europe is fethed, Brexit or no Brexit. Better to leave the sinking ship before it drags us down with it.

I've often speculated as to what would have happened had we voted Remain.

Firstly, Cameron and Osborne would have felt vindicated, and we would have gotten maxed out Osborne-omics until 2020, and all the damage that would have done to the economy

Then, the EU, with some justification, would have said, you've had 2 referendums, you've voted to stay in both of them, time to take your EU medicine to the max i.e full integration.

I've always said there would be problems with Brexit, I don't deny that, but it's silly to think that nothing would have changed with a Remain vote.

We would have had what we've always had from the EU: "ever close integration". And a Referendum vote to Remain would have given the EU the excuse to start taking away what few "red lines" we have left.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Abandon ship! Abandon ship!

There is talk of David Cameron being lined up as the new head of NATO

you have to be kidding me!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/29/no-10-david-cameron-nato-job-theresa-may

Hopefully, this is being pushed because it's a slow news day and can be chalked off as idle tongue wagging, but God help us if it ever comes true.

Had to laugh at this quote: "One minister was quoted by the Mail as saying: “We’ve got to find a role for him – he has so much to offer. We have got to get him batting for Britain again.”

I think they're quoting Cameron's mother

The head of NATO? He'll be a fething armchair general.

Personally I'd prefer an actual general. Somebody who has experienced combat and war and understands the horrors of it, over somebody who wanted to risk World War fething 3 by bombing the Syrian government to aid the Islamist rebels just so he can gallivant and look tough on the world stage like his idol Tony Blair.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Abandon ship! Abandon ship!
There is talk of David Cameron being lined up as the new head of NATO
you have to be kidding me!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/29/no-10-david-cameron-nato-job-theresa-may
Hopefully, this is being pushed because it's a slow news day and can be chalked off as idle tongue wagging, but God help us if it ever comes true.
Had to laugh at this quote: "One minister was quoted by the Mail as saying: “We’ve got to find a role for him – he has so much to offer. We have got to get him batting for Britain again.”
I think they're quoting Cameron's mother

Not a bad move actually. Cameron holds some respect in Europe and in North America, he held weight in international circles and did a lot to build up gravitas lost by Gordon Brown. Cameron has allies in Europe and Brexit is not seen as his fault on the continent, though it is here. He got on well with Merkel and is not going to be a push-over when talking to Putin.

It makes a hell of a lot more sense than making Blair a peace envoy to the Middle East.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:
I love the level of "analysis" being carried out by a supposed analyst here. I've been working as an banking & financial analyst for over a decade and I wouldn't have lasted 3 months in the job if I'd quoted anecdotal and heavily biased newspaper articles over evidenced based figures provided by a reputable source.

You are a data analyst, all you can do is process and regurgitate data. A political analyst has to do more than that.

What do you consider unbiased newspaper articles, nice lefty ones you like?

Then take it from me, a bona fide political scientist, that you don't know what you're on about. You keep linking newspapers and opinion pieces when we're asking for proof and evidence.

If you were a bona fide political scientist you would know that in political circles there is no such thing as proof until way too late. If you want to catch what is going on while it is happening you need to analyse patterns.

Besides you are the type of political scientist that believes in the spin, or 'professional' enough to claim to do so. I roll eyes at that, with good reason. Though actually I am not surprised you are in that field because of prior post history. Even ready to provide the discredited statistics to back up denial culture while your nation burns around you. I saw this before, a lot, from two decades ago in the UK.

Also take what I linked. Yes opinion pieces FROM THE ELECTORAL COMMISSIONS MOUTH. Surely that holds some weight, yes.

 Orlanth wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:
I love the level of "analysis" being carried out by a supposed analyst here. I've been working as an banking & financial analyst for over a decade and I wouldn't have lasted 3 months in the job if I'd quoted anecdotal and heavily biased newspaper articles over evidenced based figures provided by a reputable source.

You are a data analyst, all you can do is process and regurgitate data. A political analyst has to do more than that.

What do you consider unbiased newspaper articles, nice lefty ones you like?

Then take it from me, a bona fide political scientist, that you don't know what you're on about. You keep linking newspapers and opinion pieces when we're asking for proof and evidence.

If you were a bona fide political scientist you would know that in political circles there is no such thing as proof until way too late. If you want to catch what is going on while it is happening you need to analyse patterns.

Besides you are the type of political scientist that believes in the spin, or 'professional' enough to claim to do so. I roll eyes at that, with good reason. Though actually I am not surprised you are in that field because of prior post history. Even ready to provide the discredited statistics to back up denial culture while your nation burns around you. I saw this before, a lot, from two decades ago in the UK.

Also take what I linked. Yes opinion pieces FROM THE ELECTORAL COMMISSIONS MOUTH. Surely that holds some weight, yes.

The electoral commission is an excellen source, sure. Your insistence on linking opinion pieces and think tanks in other cases, not so much. This is the part I'm talking about, you keep linking stuff like the Gatestone Institute and the Daily Mail, which are rubbish sources because they're both immensely biased and because they are not primary sources. You're building your arguments based on the way someone else is interpreting data, rather than presenting the data and then using that to make your own argument. Your "analysis" is thus rubbish, because it's based on second-hand information and hypotheticals.

The "discredited" statistics you're referring to are only discredited in your mind, becasue you never actually provided anything solid to base your argument on. You sure as gak didn't discredit them anywhere, and when the Gatestone Institute dealt with the topic they dismissed issues with their methodology entirely without even bothering to adress the issues. I'll bow out of this thread for a bit because our back-and-forth is almost certainly off-topic in this thread, though.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
A political analyst has to do more than that.

Spin, spin, spin!

That can be very true, but analysts are normally separate from spin doctors. Though you can have overlap. Analysts find out what the feth is going on past the spin, fake stats etc. Spin doctors make a meal of what they find. Spin doctors also do the damage limitation, not the analysts. Analysts do risk assessments a priori which is different.

Countering spin is different from counter spin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
.
The "discredited" statistics you're referring to are only discredited in your mind, becasue you never actually provided anything solid to base your argument on. You sure as gak didn't discredit them anywhere, and when the Gatestone Institute dealt with the topic they dismissed issues with their methodology entirely without even bothering to adress the issues. I'll bow out of this thread for a bit because our back-and-forth is almost certainly off-topic in this thread, though.

When people report that town centres are no longer safe for women that counts more than every doctored data set you can provide.
The data sets are discredited in more than just my own fiat.
But you are right this is a topic for another thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


We would have had what we've always had from the EU: "ever close integration". And a Referendum vote to Remain would have given the EU the excuse to start taking away what few "red lines" we have left.

I agree. Brexit might be like Black Wednesday, a disaster we walk away from and end up being on the better side of long term; but the raod to walk has sharp rocks, and some of those are thrown.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The head of NATO? He'll be a fething armchair general.

Personally I'd prefer an actual general. Somebody who has experienced combat and war and understands the horrors of it, over somebody who wanted to risk World War fething 3 by bombing the Syrian government to aid the Islamist rebels just so he can gallivant and look tough on the world stage like his idol Tony Blair.

Actually its a political post. Washington fills the senior military post 100% of the time. That should tell you something.

I'm angry about assaults on our free press again. We need to kill this section 40 bollocks dead. Press freedom is one of the cornerstones of our democracy and I'll be fethed if I'll let Max Mosley dictate what can and can't be published.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm angry about assaults on our free press again. We need to kill this section 40 bollocks dead. Press freedom is one of the cornerstones of our democracy and I'll be fethed if I'll let Max Mosley dictate what can and can't be published.

The press would have to pay for all plantif legal cost in court cases?

That's... absurdly dumb.... that article gotta be wrong.

If not, expect an exponential increase in lawfare.

It's not wrong. I wish it was but it's exactly that.

I really don't understand why there's a jump from 'if the newspaper loses' to "all the time."

In saying that, it is just a consultation and the result could very well be, "this is a load of tripe."

I certainly wouldn't say I'm a fan of the way newspapers work right now and would certainly be along with something to be done. I'm pretty sure that's not the something though...

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm angry about assaults on our free press again. We need to kill this section 40 bollocks dead. Press freedom is one of the cornerstones of our democracy and I'll be fethed if I'll let Max Mosley dictate what can and can't be published.

The linked article was written in the future.

 Orlanth wrote:
The linked article was written in the future.

So it was. I didn't notice that.

So it will be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Interesting that the press is being dishonest about a piece of legislation that seeks to harness the press.
There is the actual legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/22/section/40

This isnt a case of the press having to pay plaintiff costs even if they win.

Its about the press, if they refuse to operate beyond the auspices of a regulator being liable for costs unless costs are not awarded or if the press is operating in a manner which would have complied with regulator instructions had they been party to them.

The press wants to have its cake and eat it. In their freedom they seek to avoid regulation that was necessary since it was discovered that the press was abusing investigatory powers. Currently a lawsuit for libel only tests the validity of the press claims, not the method by which they were attained. The new act will address that.

What the Spectator wants is the 'right' for journalists to hack phones or obtain information by other illegal means and print it with impunity so long as it's accurate. Now even if a libel suit would be lost on a point of accuracy by the plaintiff they can gain damages if the sourcing was illegal and against regulatory admission, such as having your private life uncovered because your texts were hacked by a journalist.

As expected this is being turned into a right for free speech curtailed by the evil government, and not what it is: informing the press that peoples private lives are not their plaything and the ends do not justify the means to generate hot gossip that sells papers.

Nowhere.

Does this shock you? It shouldn't, Analysts can read from a void of information, if they have any sill at what they do. You will see evidence of this further down the post, and not just from me either.
Its not a complete void though. Testimonial evidence has weighting, most usefully when double sourced.

Not shocked at all! Basically you are admitting that your ideas are all based on conjecture and hyperbole based on biased sampling of certain parts of the media and other reports. Your sample is obviously flawed and being used to undermine accurate reporting of data to further an extremely biased perspective on UK society that certain elements are intrinsically causing fraud within our election system. All whilst completely ignoring (a) that the number of actual reported cases is very low (<1000); and (b) that because some of these cases, specifically highlighted by the right wing press, are a result of the areas ethnic background without any proper research as to whether it could be due to poverty, poor levels of education, political disenchantment, being ignored by party politics generally. The actual pieces of work that have been undertaken you blithely discard in favour of unscientific press articles because it reinforces a position you have become entrenched in. The risk being that this further compounds the issue because root cause of the issues are being ignored resulting in sledge hammer approaches that neither solve the issue and potentially conversely disengage more of the public in the future.

This has been an issue for many governments and is the infamous "we know best attitude" and yet results in many people 5 years down the line wondering why their strategy failed to make a difference.

 Whirlwind wrote:
How do you know that there was not more fraud in the 50's or 60's?

No postal votes and greater integrity of the system. The UK was known for a craftsmanlike attitude for its officialdom back then. Voting integrity was important and ensuring a fair election was thus more important. activities that require careful scrutiny are sleepier now and precision is not highly evident in our national character anymore.

On what basis? You weren't alive then, so it can't be your own personal perspective? That you haven't heard about it, but have you trawled all the data archives for this? What happens if the 50s and 60's this sort of abuse was all hushed up as you are claiming happened during New Labour years - how do you know that didn't happen. Is it just because your Dad said it was happy times back then?

No I am not. I already had the wider perspective because I already knew it was going on and not in denial. However I use Rotherham as an example because its well documented , not because its cherry picked. You have to understand how Westminster works. You don't point out that a social problem is happening everywhere, it freaks out the electorate and causes more harm than good, unless that is the desired result. Instead you highlight on one instance, and then tell the authorities that the MO has changed.
So school inspectors outside Birmingham are no longer turning a blind eye to Islamification, and those who would are being replaced. Police outside of Rotherham are investigating child rape gangs and not taking the accusation 'thats racist to investigate asians' as a smokescreen etc etc.
These issues then get dealt with in the legal system. Occasionally stories hit the press but at a trickle so as not to paint a bigger picture for most.

So you are saying that the current government is deliberately colluding with the police and other authorities to ensure that the truth is not revealed because of the impact on society. Maybe I would propose that if such a thing is happening that it is nothing to do with the populace 'freaking out' but more to save governments collective ass to ensure that bad news is hidden as much as possible. However I think you give the populace less credit than it is worth and implies a type of populace control that I find unpalatable. However I am extremely sceptical. It's easy to say these things and then when something happens you can just point to it and say 'see told you so' when we have no idea whether they are linked or known about a priori. So unless you can provide something specific, that has not been published, that can be investigated now fully without restriction then I simply don't believe you and making assertions without any real evidence to back it up. I can tell you now there will be more abuse and exploitation cases, in different communities in the future. It's not because I know anything, it is because it has a high statistical probability. However if you know these things are happening then I presume you have reported them all to the police as a good citizen, as if not are you just not hiding the truth from people like New Labour which you state you despise?

Anyway this is not the same whether Catholic protestant secular or Islamic. I am not talking about predatory staff as perverted individuals, I am talking about wholescale indoctrination, non Islamic pupils being treated as second class citizens in just about every way, including access to facilities and resources and a policy of public shaming of parental occupations the staff did not approve of, such as armed forces membership.

Why is it any different, just because the principles are different? What about public shaming of those that became pregnant out or wedlock; or those that used contraception if it occurred in a catholic school. What difference is this to having an Islamic School that teaches their principles. It appears you are OK with other methods of indoctrination by 'accepted' religions, but anything else should be abhorred. This is not to say radicalisation should be accepted anywhere. In my view there should be no religious schools. Schools are for educating children to allow them to fundamentally think for themselves and make their own decisions. However to say any one religion should not be tolerated whilst others, simply because they have been around for a while, are is just a type of bigotry.

The Rotherham rape gangs were on a different scale, they were also being overlooked deliberately because of their ethnicity. Saville was an individual with connexions. Victims of Savillew were ot beleived as Saville was a public figure, Rotherham abuse victims were beleived but thier suffereing was not relevant compared to ethnic cohesion. This was reinforced to the pont where parents who tried to act on their own initiative were arrested or otherwise leaned on while the rapists were ignored.

Not really, there were what a couple of thousand people abused in the Rotherham case and potentially a thousand or so with regards Jimmy Saville. The numbers are comparable, the nature of the crime comparable. The one thing in common is the victims 'trusted' their abusers and didn't have the ability to speak out against the abuse. You are supposing that they are two are separate and that the one is ethnically based, yet there with JS there is obviously an example where it isn't the same ethnicity so the idea that the system was afraid on 'race' grounds isn't believable. What they both have is a lack of the ability of authorities to believe that such things could actually be happening.

Please remember this goes both ways. The police for instance were 'institutionally racist' not based on data, which is hard to quantify but on a public inquiry set up to come to that conclusion. However once the conclusion is delivered it becomes flat fact.

They were found institutionally racist because of the data. Data on stop and search, number of people arrested and so on. It *was* hard data that was used to determine this. They didn't just wave a magic wand and decide it was. It happened because researcher poured through national data to identify trends. It didn't come about because the Daily Fail said so!

Notice how the Electoral Commission is using pattern based analysis to make claim that the electoral fraud is centred around the asian communities. they have the weight to say that, but its likely not based on raw data either, but on patterns.

To reiterate they say they are vulnerable because of lack of engagement by the political parties, not that it is actually happening in large numbers. The actual reported numbers are low. The report is trying to highlight issues that need to be resolved (like actually getting politicians to turn up in those areas) to reduce the chance of future 'Tower Hamlets'.

A fair assessment but it doesn't go far enough, some in Europe have an active hate agenda and want to stick the knife in. <cough> France <cough> Others smell opportunity by weakening our position. Normally these intentions are voiced indirectly. Though one of Trumps advisors was more candid recently. Again here is an example of pattern based analysis. What can you make of this?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-negotiator-talks-french-michel-barnier-negotiation-insists-eu-article-50-conducted-a7373556.html

No one hates us, they just see an opportunity to improve the growth of their country at the expense of our own idiocy. That's not really a surprise, that happens in business and life in general. If we want to hamstring ourselves before a 100m race then that's our problem.

France has always wanted to use it's own language whether in the UN, EU or elsewhere. Contract negotiations are complex and you are always going to prefer one language over another. The only reason English is used as an international language is because the US uses it as it's main language. France has always been passionate about protecting it's own language because it is being squeezed by English, Spanish (and likely Chinese eventually). That they want negotiations to include French is not a surprise at all and nothing to do with 'screwing over the British'. The converse question could also be asked, why should it be done in English, it's not after all the first majority language for the EU. Why not German, or if we wanted to keep it neutral Japanese?

Come on, I mentioned that there were comparisons. I even quantified the comparisons. Belfast doesn't have to be regularly hit by airstrikes for the comparisons to be valid.

Belfast is nothing like a warzone. The idea that because there are armed police around makes a comparison to a warzone is a farcical idea. Every US cop has a gun on their belt, by your comparison that would make the whole of the US a 'comparable warzone'. You are taking a few ideas and exaggerating them to the extreme to try and artificially reinforce your point. Therefore as I suggest maybe you should take sojourn out to a real warzone and the suffering that causes before you actually make *any* comparisons.

Finally, as it appears you have deleted the comment on your field of work...but I find the idea that you are political analyst for Whitehall (and well thought of) makes me :-
(a) laugh;
(b) sigh in despair;
(c) terrified;
(d) unsurprised;
(e) wonder whether you work for M. Gove;
(f) wonder whether you are Nigel Farage in disguise!
(g) hope its not true!

 Whirlwind wrote:

Nowhere.

Does this shock you? It shouldn't, Analysts can read from a void of information, if they have any sill at what they do. You will see evidence of this further down the post, and not just from me either.
Its not a complete void though. Testimonial evidence has weighting, most usefully when double sourced.

Not shocked at all! Basically you are admitting that your ideas are all based on conjecture and hyperbole based on biased sampling of certain parts of the media and other reports.

No detected pattens are not conjecture, multiple sourced cases are not hyperbole. There is a reason why multiple sourcing is considered good sourcing, its the reason why you at a minimum double source. This is not considered anecdotal, its considered the beginnings of evidence of a trend.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Your sample is obviously flawed and being used to undermine accurate reporting of data to further an extremely biased perspective on UK society that certain elements are intrinsically causing fraud within our election system. All whilst completely ignoring (a) that the number of actual reported cases is very low (<1000);

You are clutching at straws with white knuckle desperation. The very source you are harping on about one thousand cases is from the very same source which is since that time handing out warnings that THERE IS A PROBLEM. If you wont take it from me, take it from them.

 Whirlwind wrote:

and (b) that because some of these cases, specifically highlighted by the right wing press, are a result of the areas ethnic background without any proper research as to whether it could be due to poverty, poor levels of education, political disenchantment, being ignored by party politics generally.

Sigh. We know it is due to extended asian families because in the known cases the postal votes were tracked there. Too late to take action legally, but the paper trail was clear and unambiguous.

You are making the standard excuse of the left wing press. Ethnic illegal activity is due to underrepresentation or lack of opportunity. Its always someone else fault. Again, this doesn't bear up with the facts known, from where the paper trails lead time and again, to extended family of candidates. Elected officialdom is not an underclass.

 Whirlwind wrote:

The actual pieces of work that have been undertaken you blithely discard in favour of unscientific press articles because it reinforces a position you have become entrenched in.

Politics is art not science. As stated earlier to more eloquent critics, if you wait for proof through data its too late. You look at patterns. Tried to teach you this, but you just aren't listening to reason.
I am not 'entrenched', I am standing on logical grounds. Perhaps you are entrenched, in a policy of denial of logical conclusion you dislike. Its odd that you consistently accuse me of what you are in fact doing, and are continuing to do so even when my position is now supported by the primary electoral ombudsman in the UK.

 Whirlwind wrote:

The risk being that this further compounds the issue because root cause of the issues are being ignored resulting in sledge hammer approaches that neither solve the issue and potentially conversely disengage more of the public in the future.

What root causes? You are looking for secondary factors that were never there. Again the perpetrators are time and again shown to be extended family. The Electoral Commission in their warning labels these 'community' problems, its a problem due to networking of people in a community for dishonest ends.
What is your solution to community problems, a ban on brothers-in-law? criminalise second cousins?

 Whirlwind wrote:

On what basis? You weren't alive then, so it can't be your own personal perspective?

I will burn your strawman. Why ask the question if this would be your reply. You could say that of anyone but the oldest.

My first basis is the one I use logically throughout. Postal votes, the major vector for electoral fraud, were not introduced until 1997.
As for the perspective of life in the 50's and our nations decline in precision, there is truth to this. The information age makes people lazy, administration in a pre-computer age required greater mental discipline. This is a noted phenomena worldwide.

 Whirlwind wrote:

That you haven't heard about it, but have you trawled all the data archives for this? What happens if the 50s and 60's this sort of abuse was all hushed up as you are claiming happened during New Labour years - how do you know that didn't happen. Is it just because your Dad said it was happy times back then?

You would like to insist on this. It is the standpoint of a weak mind to make the opposing positions arguments for them and represent them heavily in order to try and si argument.
Why don't you ask rather than assume.

As evidenced above, I looked for the patterns, the change in how procedures are operated, and the fact that the major fraud vector didn't at the time exist in the system. I could add that the 60's was a more patriotic age, and that the sanctity of the vote was better understood then, but while I do believe this I cant include them as flat factors as indeed nostalgia does get in the way of those who know the age.

 Whirlwind wrote:

So you are saying that the current government is deliberately colluding with the police and other authorities to ensure that the truth is not revealed because of the impact on society.

Don't be surprised governments do this all the time. It's what a D-notice is for.

 Whirlwind wrote:

However I think you give the populace less credit than it is worth and implies a type of populace control that I find unpalatable.

Think about it for a minute. We know for a flat fact that in many cases excesses are not reported or dealt with because of inflaming multicultural tensions. Whether over rotherham, or vote rigging etc.
Why would this be?
The general excuse is because of how the public might react.

 Whirlwind wrote:

However I am extremely sceptical.

I doubt that. To be sceptical you have to think through the issue, there is no evidence for rationality in your replies.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Why is it any different, just because the principles are different?

The scale is different. We cannot abolish excess and crime, or dark perversions in man. They rise as individuals and they must be detected and dealt with in law. However large scale societal excesses are different.

 Whirlwind wrote:

It appears you are OK with other methods of indoctrination by 'accepted' religions, but anything else should be abhorred.

No it doesnt 'appear' that way at all. You are being intentionally dishonest by placing words in my mouth in order to make your critique manageable.
Indoctrination by any group is unacceptable. There are faith schools and secular schools and they can exist under law, as they are open parents know what they get and choose to sent children to a school that reflects their outlook. I defend this with no exception for Islamic faith schools. However the Islamification goes to indoctrination stages well beyond the soft introduction to specific faiths in faith schools, furthermore it happens at a far younger age - in the UK there is no religious education at primary school level. In addition in the Trojan horse schools not only was the indoctrination overt but the discrimination against non-Moslem students was direct and very heavy. Non Moslem students did not receive one-to-one attention, or access to consumable resources, and were directly treated as inferiors at a very impressionable age.

 Whirlwind wrote:

This is not to say radicalisation should be accepted anywhere. In my view there should be no religious schools. Schools are for educating children to allow them to fundamentally think for themselves and make their own decisions. However to say any one religion should not be tolerated whilst others, simply because they have been around for a while, are is just a type of bigotry.

Then you should include a provision from banning atheism from schools also, you cant have everything, of course this would not work. Also the faith schools are consistently the best performing in the nation, particularly the CoE ones, much to New Labour's chagrin, why ban whats working? Also parents have the right also to their opinion, I would judge a parents right to choose a faith school for thier child as weighted higher than your call for all children to obtain a fully secular education. The former is freedom and equality, the latter intolerance and doctrinarian.. Why should you have the right to refuse a child a place in a faith school? Why should you choose to ban them? Frankly you would be the bigot for doing so and would have zero room to accuse bigotry in others.

Also on your bigotry jibe, nobody is saying ban Moslem faith schools. You are just insisting that is my position because its easier to assume than to read and see accurately what my position is. I am against Islamification of schools not Islamic schools, notice the difference. You can have a Moslem school, you shouldn't have a school which is secular by the front door but 'infiltrated' with hardcore Islamic teaching staff who treat non-Moslems as second class citizens.
I challenge you to find anything I wrote that implied that a Moslem faith school is the problem.
On that note have you actually read anything on the Trojan Horse school plot in Birmingham, or are you just making random assumptions on problems you are ignorant of......again.

Also note that a number of ethnic minorities especially Jews would insist one way or another in having Jewish schools, and banning them would be problematic diplomatically. If you decided to thus allow one you should allow them all.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Not really, there were what a couple of thousand people abused in the Rotherham case and potentially a thousand or so with regards Jimmy Saville.

Actually reports indicate the two thousand in Rotherham might be the 'tip of the iceberg'. I had a link to that earlier. Also police knew about it while it was happening.

With aville police knew little, the cases were not linked because Saville was in the public eye and the abuse took place so close to the spotlight, but not in the spotlight people just didn't believe the testimonies. Now there is evidence there was collusion over Saville, but that again was be individuals in the BBC.
Rotherham was different the collusion was doctrinal, its not happening because large scale ethnic imbalances cant happen in multicultural Britain.

 Whirlwind wrote:

What they both have is a lack of the ability of authorities to believe that such things could actually be happening.

In the case of Rotherham the authorities definitely knew it was happening, it took a change of regime, not a revelation of events for action to be taken. Saville's past caught up because he died and people long silent started speaking. In Rotherham people were already speaking but nothing was being done because of policy decisions. Cameron stopped that pretty much immediately after to took office.

 Whirlwind wrote:

They were found institutionally racist because of the data. Data on stop and search, number of people arrested and so on. It *was* hard data that was used to determine this.

Actually it wasn't, it was the arbitrary conclusion of the head of the public inquiry. Stop and search data was actually inconclusive.

 Whirlwind wrote:

It didn't come about because the Daily Fail said so!

That Daily Mail got Rotherham right, and they got Gibraltar right, and other things they alone dared print.

 Whirlwind wrote:

To reiterate they say they are vulnerable because of lack of engagement by the political parties, not that it is actually happening in large numbers.

You reiterate, but you do not understand.
I explained why the lack of engagement made a difference.
If people do not habitually vote their vote is easier to steal while evading detection doing so.

Disillusion with politicians of itself does not of itself lead to ballot fraud. "The politicians don't engage me so lets rig the ballot" doesn;t really make logical sense of itself.

If you were to think through this you would realise that people who were unengaged with their politicians would of themselves be less likely to be motivated to rig a ballot, not more. Why would someone go to the risk and trouble of rigging a ballot if they didn't care about who was to be elected? Think about that a bit to understand more of what it means, interpretation is an integral part of analysis.

 Whirlwind wrote:

A fair assessment but it doesn't go far enough, some in Europe have an active hate agenda and want to stick the knife in. <cough> France <cough> Others smell opportunity by weakening our position. Normally these intentions are voiced indirectly. Though one of Trumps advisors was more candid recently. Again here is an example of pattern based analysis. What can you make of this?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-negotiator-talks-french-michel-barnier-negotiation-insists-eu-article-50-conducted-a7373556.html

No one hates us, they just see an opportunity to improve the growth of their country at the expense of our own idiocy. That's not really a surprise, that happens in business and life in general. If we want to hamstring ourselves before a 100m race then that's our problem.

France has always wanted to use it's own language whether in the UN, EU or elsewhere. Contract negotiations are complex and you are always going to prefer one language over another. The only reason English is used as an international language is because the US uses it as it's main language. France has always been passionate about protecting it's own language because it is being squeezed by English, Spanish (and likely Chinese eventually). That they want negotiations to include French is not a surprise at all and nothing to do with 'screwing over the British'. The converse question could also be asked, why should it be done in English, it's not after all the first majority language for the EU. Why not German, or if we wanted to keep it neutral Japanese?

Fairly simple political pattern reading test I actually thought you should be able to read, it was very unsubtle move of Barnier to demand this, it had a specific meaning that is easy to read. Ok, so I overestimated your ability. There were plenty of clues in the article, did you read it?

 Whirlwind wrote:

Come on, I mentioned that there were comparisons. I even quantified the comparisons. Belfast doesn't have to be regularly hit by airstrikes for the comparisons to be valid.

Belfast is nothing like a warzone. The idea that because there are armed police around makes a comparison to a warzone is a farcical idea. Every US cop has a gun on their belt, by your comparison that would make the whole of the US a 'comparable warzone'. You are taking a few ideas and exaggerating them to the extreme to try and artificially reinforce your point. Therefore as I suggest maybe you should take sojourn out to a real warzone and the suffering that causes before you actually make *any* comparisons.

That one was easy too, Let me help you here. Belfast had checkpoints, armed soldiers on the streets, snipers frequently active etc, that aspect of a warzone. I never said it was a warzone it just had certain characteristics of a warzone. Nothing to be triggered over. Now one of the things that comes with checkpoints are.... wait for it.... security passes! Yay. So you had checkpoints in NI so you had mandatory passes, so you have a culture of accepting carrying of mandatory ID cards.
Hence Northern Ireland accepts photo ID cards while the mainland UK would not.
Easy.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Finally, as it appears you have deleted the comment on your field of work...

Yes I did, at first I answered your question, but I am not answerable to you.

Wait, isn't hacking someone's phone or emails already illegal anyway? If journalists resort to that then yes, bring charges against them, but otherwise to me this proposed legislation just sounds like they're* trying to muzzle the press to guard against investigations into their sorted dealings.

* they being the usual suspects of course.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Wait, isn't hacking someone's phone or emails already illegal anyway? If journalists resort to that then yes, bring charges against them, but otherwise to me this proposed legislation just sounds like they're* trying to muzzle the press to guard against investigations into their sorted dealings.

* they being the usual suspects of course.

Indeed; Ian Hislop gave some excellent statements at the various investigations into the press, basically saying that pretty much everything that was done which people were complaining about was already illegal, and was a result of the law not actually being applied.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Wait, isn't hacking someone's phone or emails already illegal anyway? If journalists resort to that then yes, bring charges against them, but otherwise to me this proposed legislation just sounds like they're* trying to muzzle the press to guard against investigations into their sorted dealings.

* they being the usual suspects of course.

Indeed; Ian Hislop gave some excellent statements at the various investigations into the press, basically saying that pretty much everything that was done which people were complaining about was already illegal, and was a result of the law not actually being applied.

There is more. Look at the act.

The illegality was a part of criminal law not libel law.

So a hacker could hack your phone, find you are secretly having an affair and publish the scandal in the local paper if they are interested.
While the police could take action on the phone hacking this doesnt help the victim.
What is changing is thsat up until now the only personal recourse, a libel suit is solely concerned with the truth of the scandal, and the press can point to any validity in their juicy story and stick the finger to you.
Now however even if they validate their claims as true, the plaintiff is still entitled to costs if the method of gaining the juicy scandal was illegal, by phone hacking et al. In which case there is nothing to lose by getting an expensive libel lawyer, which is otherwise a huge drain as if it is provable the journalist used illegal means to gain the data they might save themselves from punitive damages by proving accuracy, but the plaintiff can still get costs and thus can afford to go to could no a win/win basis. It is win/win because the illegality of the journalists actions will have already been predefined by how the police react; a minor fine for trespass in the act of gleaning the information is enough toautomatically cover costs of a lawsuit and thus get one back.

Its an intelligent way forward as it doesn't lead to cover ups, a libel claim is more exposure not less, but it does provide monetary incentive (the only incentive that works) for journalists to play by the rules.. If the police action shows the journalist broke the law even a little to get the info used to splash your private life in the papers you have nothing to lose at that point in getting an expensive libel lawyer and unleashing him, and all his costs, which can be very substantial will be placed at the door of the newspaper.

I doff my hat to whoever dreamed this one up, its a smart way to curb the paparazzi without actually fething on real press freedoms, a very hard balance to get right. Hence why the press are trying desperately to mislabel this as they are onto a real loser here.

The only downside is that its yet another moneysink for lawyers, plaintiffs/victims don't get the extra, the lawyers do. Our current system likes these 'solutions', this at least is a clever one with arguably having real teeth against press abuses.

There is possibly even somethign for the victim. Once the pres realikse that if they use phone hacks et al to get their gossip stories the victim will hire a very expensive libel lawyer - who will first do a pro bono assessment to see if the police have proven criminality a priori, which shouldn't take much effort. If the answer is positive they are engafged by the client, who will give the lawyer free reign to spend as many hours on the case as they wish, probably at about £150/hour. There is a real incentive at that point for the newspaper to make a plaintiff a settlement to make the issue go away before the lawyers bills the newspaper for six months research, and that would happen even if the gossip was true.

I can really see the tabloids hating this.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Wait, isn't hacking someone's phone or emails already illegal anyway? If journalists resort to that then yes, bring charges against them, but otherwise to me this proposed legislation just sounds like they're* trying to muzzle the press to guard against investigations into their sorted dealings.

* they being the usual suspects of course.

Indeed; Ian Hislop gave some excellent statements at the various investigations into the press, basically saying that pretty much everything that was done which people were complaining about was already illegal, and was a result of the law not actually being applied.

The press has a right and duty to use its journalistic powers of investigation to uncover bad behaviour, corruption and so on. This is in the public interest. The problem is that some newspapers, mainly tabloids, have used their journalism to muck-rake stuff that isn't remotely in the public interest except for prurient entertainment value.

In the Millie Dowler case, the misuse of phone hacking potentially compromised the police investigation, and definitely affected her family's life. This was unconscionable and it was quite right that the papers involved got spanked. They should have got spanked harder.