Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

The WH2024 primaries will be different from what we are used to. – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,014
edited November 2023 in General
imageThe WH2024 primaries will be different from what we are used to. – politicalbetting.com

Next year’s White House Race will be the sixth to be covered since PB was founded in 2024. But there will be one big difference and that is the order in which states hold their primaries. We are all used to the Iowa caucuses being the first State to divide with the first proper primary being in New Hampshire.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Options
    Some of us can never remember the order anyway.
  • Options

    Some of us can never remember the order anyway.

    Sad.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,709
    edited November 2023
    I look forward to PB being founded next year.

    Thanks for the update
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,980
    Given there is no serious opponent to President Biden in the Democratic primaries now Robert Kennedy Jnr has gone Independent it won't make a huge difference. The focus will be on Iowa and the GOP caucuses and whether Trump wins comfortably or a challenger gets close or even beats him
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,279
    fpt sozza
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Given there is no serious opponent to President Biden in the Democratic primaries now Robert Kennedy Jnr has gone Independent it won't make a huge difference. The focus will be on Iowa and the GOP caucuses and whether Trump wins comfortably or a challenger gets close or even beats him

    And, yet, I still feel nervous betting on him.

    Guy could fall over at any minute.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911
    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,279
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,403

    Some of us can never remember the order anyway.

    Sad.
    South Carolina, Alabama, Delaware?

    What next? Needs a longer mnemonic, surely?
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
  • Options

    HYUFD said:

    Given there is no serious opponent to President Biden in the Democratic primaries now Robert Kennedy Jnr has gone Independent it won't make a huge difference. The focus will be on Iowa and the GOP caucuses and whether Trump wins comfortably or a challenger gets close or even beats him

    And, yet, I still feel nervous betting on him.

    Guy could fall over at any minute.
    I think the election will be decided by the debates and one that is most cogent/less doddery wins.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,980
    edited November 2023

    HYUFD said:

    Given there is no serious opponent to President Biden in the Democratic primaries now Robert Kennedy Jnr has gone Independent it won't make a huge difference. The focus will be on Iowa and the GOP caucuses and whether Trump wins comfortably or a challenger gets close or even beats him

    And, yet, I still feel nervous betting on him.

    Guy could fall over at any minute.
    Even if he falls over, has a heart attack and goes into a permanent coma he would still get 45% of the vote against Trump.

    The battle is to get him back to the 51% he got in 2020 and much of that likely depends on the outcome of Trump's courtcases
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,698
    edited November 2023

    HYUFD said:

    Given there is no serious opponent to President Biden in the Democratic primaries now Robert Kennedy Jnr has gone Independent it won't make a huge difference. The focus will be on Iowa and the GOP caucuses and whether Trump wins comfortably or a challenger gets close or even beats him

    And, yet, I still feel nervous betting on him.

    Guy could fall over at any minute.
    "How RFK Could Ruin The 2024 Election", YouTube, Monsieur Z, Nov 3 2023, 8 minutes, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u62C4lwZcec
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,279
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    edited November 2023
    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    What?

    If you are, say, a disaffected young black man from Lewisham - aggrieved at the perceived injustice of white society - then you will look for a belief system that empowers and embodies your anger. That role used to be fulfilled by radical left wing thought - eg the Black Panthers

    However, left wing thought has largely collapsed as a coherent ideology, or it has folded itself into the worldwide creed of Islam. This is an ancient global religion which is seen as opposed to the West, as powerful in itself, and- not least- gives young men a self respect and a sense of deep superiority over women and non believers = Kaffirs

    Suddenly you are not the abject descendant of slaves you are a member of the chosen, A devout Muslim.

    I can absolutely see why this appeals to angry black men - and indeed angry white men. And all else being equal I would say good luck to them, Islam is a noble religion, at its best, and surely offers a happier, more meaningful life than base materialism on the lower rungs of capitalist society. Cf Muhammad Ali

    The trouble is many are attracted to the more extreme forms of Islam which require violent attack on westerners and the West
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited November 2023
    Leon said:

    I am surprised the BBC documentary on catching a Rochdale OCG hasn't got more publicity. More grooming of kids, jury tampering, corrupt police....only thing missing was if local politicians had been bought off in the way others had.

    Its not as if Rochdale hasn't got form.


    I’ve not followed this. Is it a new scandal or historic?
    They followed the plod for 2 years investigating an organised crime gang in Rochdale. Its starts with a random axe attack on a totally innocent bloke after a minor car crash. Then we get into the axe attacker is high up in an organised crime gang they have been trying to nail for 10 years.

    However, what the plod didn't realise was the gang were grooming kids as young as 10 or 11 to do their dealing work for them. One victim said he knew of 40-50 other kids recruited to do this. But there was also weirdness that was never really explained e.g. they found videos of very young kids saying they loved a particular couple of individuals in this gang in the backs of their cars.

    Long and short of it this gang ran all the drugs in Rochdale, they were paying off members of the public to not go through with prosecutions, they corrupted a jury, they found police officer was very close with them, constant phone calls and had been taking CPS case files home with them (but the documentary said CPS decided not to prosecute nor plod authorities which stank).

    I think the trial was 2019/2020. But I don't think it had ever been shown the true extent of this gangs activities. Not only did they run 15 different drugs lines in Rochdale and surrounding areas, they were involved in all sorts of things.

    Also, never really explained how the head of the gang could run large establishments in the town that needed permits etc, but had registered he had no income, and seems common knowledge he was involved in all of this.

    The whole thing stinks from top to bottom and I don't believe such a gang can operate so openly for 10+ years without help.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,279
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    I can absolutely see why this appeals to angry black men - and indeed angry white men.
    Indeed.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994

    Leon said:

    I am surprised the BBC documentary on catching a Rochdale OCG hasn't got more publicity. More grooming of kids, jury tampering, corrupt police....only thing missing was if local politicians had been bought off in the way others had.

    Its not as if Rochdale hasn't got form.


    I’ve not followed this. Is it a new scandal or historic?
    They followed the plod for 2 years investigating an organised crime gang in Rochdale. Its starts with a random axe attack on a totally innocent bloke after a minor car crash. Then we get into the axe attacker is high up in an organised crime gang they have been trying to nail for 10 years.

    However, what the plod didn't realise was the gang were grooming kids as young as 10 or 11 to do their dealing work for them. But there was also weirdness that was never really explained e.g. they found videos of very young kids saying they loved a particular couple of individuals in this gang.

    Long and short of it this gang ran all the drugs in Rochdale, they were paying off members of the public to not go through with prosecutions, they corrupted a jury, they found police officer was very close with them, constant phone calls and had been taking CPS case files home with them (but the documentary said CPS decided not to prosecute nor plod authorities).

    I think the trial was 2019/2020. But I don't think it had ever been shown the true extent of this gangs activities. Not only did they run 15 different drugs lines in Rochdale and surrounding areas, they were involved in all sorts.

    Also, never really explained how the head of the gang could run large establishments in the town that needed permits etc, but had no official income and seems common knowledge he was involved in all of this.

    The whole thing stinks from top to bottom and I don't believe such a gang can operate so openly for 10+ years without help.
    Bleak. But thanks
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911
    edited November 2023
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited November 2023
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I am surprised the BBC documentary on catching a Rochdale OCG hasn't got more publicity. More grooming of kids, jury tampering, corrupt police....only thing missing was if local politicians had been bought off in the way others had.

    Its not as if Rochdale hasn't got form.


    I’ve not followed this. Is it a new scandal or historic?
    They followed the plod for 2 years investigating an organised crime gang in Rochdale. Its starts with a random axe attack on a totally innocent bloke after a minor car crash. Then we get into the axe attacker is high up in an organised crime gang they have been trying to nail for 10 years.

    However, what the plod didn't realise was the gang were grooming kids as young as 10 or 11 to do their dealing work for them. But there was also weirdness that was never really explained e.g. they found videos of very young kids saying they loved a particular couple of individuals in this gang.

    Long and short of it this gang ran all the drugs in Rochdale, they were paying off members of the public to not go through with prosecutions, they corrupted a jury, they found police officer was very close with them, constant phone calls and had been taking CPS case files home with them (but the documentary said CPS decided not to prosecute nor plod authorities).

    I think the trial was 2019/2020. But I don't think it had ever been shown the true extent of this gangs activities. Not only did they run 15 different drugs lines in Rochdale and surrounding areas, they were involved in all sorts.

    Also, never really explained how the head of the gang could run large establishments in the town that needed permits etc, but had no official income and seems common knowledge he was involved in all of this.

    The whole thing stinks from top to bottom and I don't believe such a gang can operate so openly for 10+ years without help.
    Bleak. But thanks
    The saddest of all of it, the guy who got axe stuck in his side and they tried to chop his hand off (all because he bumped one of their cars), who had to go through two trials to get the guy convicted, he killed himself the day the programme came out.

    Oh and the mastermind of the operation, only got 2 years for money laundering, so is probably out now.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    I had an interesting discussion about all this with that young French PR hotel woman at lunch (turns out she knows Macron’s wife’s family very well….)

    She said she felt London - which she knows quite deeply - is much more successfully multiracial than Paris; I agreed - tho it is a low bar, given the friction in Paris

    Sadly, I had to explain to her that things are much worse in smaller northern towns. She has never been to Bradford or Rochdale…
  • Options
    The House of Commons Library has published GPs by constituency.
    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/constituency-data-gps-and-gp-practices/
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    Immigration is not associated with increased crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ has figures.
  • Options
    viewcode said:

    The Bristol Bus Shelter has had over 1 million views on twitter....

    All publicity is good publicity.

    They'll be doing pilgrimages there next.

    Which, when you think about it, may be apt. :)


    Someone's put it in Duke Nuke 'Em

    https://twitter.com/dandouglas/status/1728025018561368154?t=09bV1RI94JJltd7EqcW0_w&s=19
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    Apropos of nothing, I went on a Tuktuk food tour of Phnom Penh with a very interesting guy last night. His name is Yi, he’s in his mid 30s. By the 5th beer we got talking about Cambodian history and inevitably the Khmer Rouge

    He told me that whenever he asks his grandparents about it, they literally cannot talk about it, and they start crying. He told me that is extremely common in Cambodia. The people that remember it vividly cannot even mention it, they simply burst into tears

    imagine that level of trauma across an entire generation, of an entire country

    And we thought the Truss lettuce month was bad
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,279
    edited November 2023
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    But you can segment society any way you want. People from single parent families (to avoid the eg those with red hair), those whose household income is X, those who were bullied at school.

    There are plenty of reasons why people turn to crime. You are saying that peoples' race or religion is one such factor. I am not so sure. You also say that "black immigration has had its problems too". Damn right it has. There has since the outset been the most shocking degree of racism directed at black people and frankly if there is an overshoot (I think BLM are a bunch of tossers but am quite content to see footballers demonstrate that they are against racism) then so what.

    What I am not clear is what sort of Britain you want to live in. Is it one without crime but with all flavours of the globe living here; is it one whereby all children of Ghanaian parents go to Eton and speak proper; is it one where there is just as much crime as there is now but it is committed by (presumably white) British people?

    And where would you draw the line of who gets in and who doesn't? Before or after Huguenots? Jews? Ugandan Asians? Windrush?

    What sort of Britain are people supposed to assimilate into?
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911
    edited November 2023

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    Immigration is not associated with increased crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ has figures.
    This really is like talking each brick in a massive wall

    Would 7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby or the mass rape of northern girls by Asian taxi drivers in the North have happened without mass immigration and the lack of assimilation that followed?

    The answer is no

    The question is, ‘Is it a price worth paying?’, most people on here seem to think ‘Yes’
  • Options

    viewcode said:

    The Bristol Bus Shelter has had over 1 million views on twitter....

    All publicity is good publicity.

    They'll be doing pilgrimages there next.

    Which, when you think about it, may be apt. :)


    Someone's put it in Duke Nuke 'Em

    https://twitter.com/dandouglas/status/1728025018561368154?t=09bV1RI94JJltd7EqcW0_w&s=19
    He has some stellar earlier work...

    7 bins..
    https://x.com/dandouglas/status/1704622305748390312?s=20
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911
    edited November 2023
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    But you can segment society any way you want. People from single parent families (to avoid the eg those with red hair), those whose household income is X, those who were bullied at school.

    There are plenty of reasons why people turn to crime. You are saying that peoples' race or religion is one such factor. I am not so sure. You also say that "black immigration has had its problems too". Damn right it has. There has since the outset been the most shocking degree of racism directed at black people and frankly if there is an overshoot (I think BLM are a bunch of tossers but am quite content to see footballers demonstrate that they are against racism) then so what.

    What I am not clear is what sort of Britain you want to live in. Is it one without crime but with all flavours of the globe living here; is it one whereby all children of Ghanaian parents go to Eton and speak proper; is it one where there is just as much crime as there is now but it is committed by (presumably white) British people?

    And where would you draw the line of who gets in and who doesn't? Before or after Huguenots? Jews? Ugandan Asians? Windrush?

    What sort of Britain are people supposed to assimilate into?
    Possibly one where a Political Party representing a religious group with wildly different views to the rest of society isn’t on the cards
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,698
    kjh said:

    Update on the dog playing 'Find the lady' or which cup has the treat under it. He can now put his paw on the right cup before they are moved, but can't cope with the cups being moved (picks the cup in the original position of the treat). Not bad considering this morning I couldn't get him put a paw on a cup regardless of whether there was a treat or not.

    Much more interesting than the rise of the racists.

    That is the sweetest thing I have read all day.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,279
    edited November 2023
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    But you can segment society any way you want. People from single parent families (to avoid the eg those with red hair), those whose household income is X, those who were bullied at school.

    There are plenty of reasons why people turn to crime. You are saying that peoples' race or religion is one such factor. I am not so sure. You also say that "black immigration has had its problems too". Damn right it has. There has since the outset been the most shocking degree of racism directed at black people and frankly if there is an overshoot (I think BLM are a bunch of tossers but am quite content to see footballers demonstrate that they are against racism) then so what.

    What I am not clear is what sort of Britain you want to live in. Is it one without crime but with all flavours of the globe living here; is it one whereby all children of Ghanaian parents go to Eton and speak proper; is it one where there is just as much crime as there is now but it is committed by (presumably white) British people?

    And where would you draw the line of who gets in and who doesn't? Before or after Huguenots? Jews? Ugandan Asians? Windrush?

    What sort of Britain are people supposed to assimilate into?
    Possibly one where a Political Party representing a religious group with wildly different views to the rest of society isn’t on the cards
    "On the cards". Maybe it is but it doesn't exist today and we are supposed to be swimming in rivers of blood.

    Plus you haven't answered my question(s).
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    kjh said:

    Update on the dog playing 'Find the lady' or which cup has the treat under it. He can now put his paw on the right cup before they are moved, but can't cope with the cups being moved (picks the cup in the original position of the treat). Not bad considering this morning I couldn't get him put a paw on a cup regardless of whether there was a treat or not.

    Much more interesting than the rise of the racists.

    The way to train him that the treat can move around, is to use clear cups.

    As demonstrated very well by magicians Penn & Teller. https://youtube.com/watch?v=i0m8CC7Ovj8
  • Options
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    But you can segment society any way you want. People from single parent families (to avoid the eg those with red hair), those whose household income is X, those who were bullied at school.

    There are plenty of reasons why people turn to crime. You are saying that peoples' race or religion is one such factor. I am not so sure. You also say that "black immigration has had its problems too". Damn right it has. There has since the outset been the most shocking degree of racism directed at black people and frankly if there is an overshoot (I think BLM are a bunch of tossers but am quite content to see footballers demonstrate that they are against racism) then so what.

    What I am not clear is what sort of Britain you want to live in. Is it one without crime but with all flavours of the globe living here; is it one whereby all children of Ghanaian parents go to Eton and speak proper; is it one where there is just as much crime as there is now but it is committed by (presumably white) British people?

    And where would you draw the line of who gets in and who doesn't? Before or after Huguenots? Jews? Ugandan Asians? Windrush?

    What sort of Britain are people supposed to assimilate into?
    Possibly one where a Political Party representing a religious group with wildly different views to the rest of society isn’t on the cards
    I’m surprised you’ve never heard about the DUP.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586
    edited November 2023
    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    Immigration is not associated with increased crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ has figures.
    This really is like talking each brick in a massive wall

    Would 7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby or the mass rape of northern girls by Asian taxi drivers in the North have happened without mass immigration and the lack of assimilation that followed?

    The answer is no

    The question is, ‘Is it a price worth paying?’, most people on here seem to think ‘Yes’
    The number Leon posts about mass rape is propaganda lifted from far right websites and unrelated to facts. The Government's report on grooming gangs, done under Priti Patel, concluded:

    "Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White.4 Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations.5 However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending. This is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected.6 During our conversations with police forces, we have found that in the operations reflected, offender groups come from diverse backgrounds, with each group being broadly ethnically homogenous. However, there are cases where offenders within groups come from different backgrounds.7"

    You have picked out 2 individual occurrences of terrorism committed by (first or second generation) immigrants, but how representative is that? The source I gave looks at total numbers through sound statistical approaches. It gives multiple citations. You can go read them all. Immigration is not associated with violent crime.

    If you want to talk about terrorism specifically, the 3500 killed in The Troubles by home-grown, white terrorists was far, far larger.
  • Options
    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    Immigration is not associated with increased crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ has figures.
    This really is like talking each brick in a massive wall

    Would 7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby or the mass rape of northern girls by Asian taxi drivers in the North have happened without mass immigration and the lack of assimilation that followed?

    The answer is no

    The question is, ‘Is it a price worth paying?’, most people on here seem to think ‘Yes’
    My brother in law is an immigrant and a neonatal paediatrician who goes to work to save the lives of tiny babies every day. So you can put that in the plus column.
  • Options

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    Immigration is not associated with increased crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ has figures.
    This really is like talking each brick in a massive wall

    Would 7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby or the mass rape of northern girls by Asian taxi drivers in the North have happened without mass immigration and the lack of assimilation that followed?

    The answer is no

    The question is, ‘Is it a price worth paying?’, most people on here seem to think ‘Yes’
    My brother in law is an immigrant and a neonatal paediatrician who goes to work to save the lives of tiny babies every day. So you can put that in the plus column.
    Think of all the great leaders immigration has brought us too: Rishi Sunak, Humza Yousaf, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson, King Charles... hmmm, maybe I need to work on this line of argument. Let's go back to your brother-in-law.
    Don’t forget me!
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,635
    edited November 2023

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    But you can segment society any way you want. People from single parent families (to avoid the eg those with red hair), those whose household income is X, those who were bullied at school.

    There are plenty of reasons why people turn to crime. You are saying that peoples' race or religion is one such factor. I am not so sure. You also say that "black immigration has had its problems too". Damn right it has. There has since the outset been the most shocking degree of racism directed at black people and frankly if there is an overshoot (I think BLM are a bunch of tossers but am quite content to see footballers demonstrate that they are against racism) then so what.

    What I am not clear is what sort of Britain you want to live in. Is it one without crime but with all flavours of the globe living here; is it one whereby all children of Ghanaian parents go to Eton and speak proper; is it one where there is just as much crime as there is now but it is committed by (presumably white) British people?

    And where would you draw the line of who gets in and who doesn't? Before or after Huguenots? Jews? Ugandan Asians? Windrush?

    What sort of Britain are people supposed to assimilate into?
    Possibly one where a Political Party representing a religious group with wildly different views to the rest of society isn’t on the cards
    I’m surprised you’ve never heard about the DUP.
    It's been startling how much the discussion on PB of the last two days has ignored the Irish/British element. Sure, it was within the UK from 1800, but ...
  • Options
    Egyptian sources have told the BBC that Egyptian officials have received the Israeli hostages from the Red Cross and Red Crescent at Rafah crossing.
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,499
    edited November 2023
    The Biden administration having chosen to bypass Iowa and New Hampshire may be giving the Loser's opponents, especially Haley, some help. Independents will be more likely to particpate in the Republican contests -- and most of them dislike the Loser.

    That would be especially true in New Hampshire.
  • Options

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    Immigration is not associated with increased crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ has figures.
    This really is like talking each brick in a massive wall

    Would 7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby or the mass rape of northern girls by Asian taxi drivers in the North have happened without mass immigration and the lack of assimilation that followed?

    The answer is no

    The question is, ‘Is it a price worth paying?’, most people on here seem to think ‘Yes’
    The number Leon posts about mass rape is propaganda lifted from far right websites and unrelated to facts. The Government's report on grooming gangs, done under Priti Patel, concluded:

    "Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White.4 Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations.5 However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending. This is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected.6 During our conversations with police forces, we have found that in the operations reflected, offender groups come from diverse backgrounds, with each group being broadly ethnically homogenous. However, there are cases where offenders within groups come from different backgrounds.7"

    You have picked out 2 individual occurrences of terrorism committed by (first or second generation) immigrants, but how representative is that? The source I gave looks at total numbers through sound statistical approaches. It gives multiple citations. You can go read them all. Immigration is not associated with violent crime.

    If you want to talk about terrorism specifically, the 3500 killed in The Troubles by home-grown, white terrorists was far, far larger.
    You think that South Asian grooming and gang rape will only be a problem when it reaches that 50% target that Whitey has set?
  • Options
    On topic, clearly the equitable and fair way of actually choosing a nominee would be for all states to hold a primary on the same date. The current system gives disproportionate influence to voters in early states.

    Though this year, I will allow it if only because I think there is an outside chance that Haley could - just could - cause an upset in one of the early states and turn this into a 1-on-1 contest with Trump.
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    But you can segment society any way you want. People from single parent families (to avoid the eg those with red hair), those whose household income is X, those who were bullied at school.

    There are plenty of reasons why people turn to crime. You are saying that peoples' race or religion is one such factor. I am not so sure. You also say that "black immigration has had its problems too". Damn right it has. There has since the outset been the most shocking degree of racism directed at black people and frankly if there is an overshoot (I think BLM are a bunch of tossers but am quite content to see footballers demonstrate that they are against racism) then so what.

    What I am not clear is what sort of Britain you want to live in. Is it one without crime but with all flavours of the globe living here; is it one whereby all children of Ghanaian parents go to Eton and speak proper; is it one where there is just as much crime as there is now but it is committed by (presumably white) British people?

    And where would you draw the line of who gets in and who doesn't? Before or after Huguenots? Jews? Ugandan Asians? Windrush?

    What sort of Britain are people supposed to assimilate into?
    Possibly one where a Political Party representing a religious group with wildly different views to the rest of society isn’t on the cards
    I’m surprised you’ve never heard about the DUP.
    It's been startling how much the discussion on PB of the last two days has ignored the Irish element. Sure, it was within the UK from 1800, but ...
    Now Ireland was the victim of an invasion/mass immigration.

    The original invasion was sanctioned by the Pope, just imagine the reaction if it was sanctioned by a Caliph or an Ayatollah.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,987
    HYUFD said:

    Given there is no serious opponent to President Biden in the Democratic primaries now Robert Kennedy Jnr has gone Independent it won't make a huge difference. The focus will be on Iowa and the GOP caucuses and whether Trump wins comfortably or a challenger gets close or even beats him

    I'm interested in whether Biden persuades Michelle Obama to stand as Democrat nominee and steps down in her place. If she agrees, she'd surely get the nomination and beat Trump.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    Immigration is not associated with increased crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ has figures.
    This really is like talking each brick in a massive wall

    Would 7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby or the mass rape of northern girls by Asian taxi drivers in the North have happened without mass immigration and the lack of assimilation that followed?

    The answer is no

    The question is, ‘Is it a price worth paying?’, most people on here seem to think ‘Yes’
    The number Leon posts about mass rape is propaganda lifted from far right websites and unrelated to facts. The Government's report on grooming gangs, done under Priti Patel, concluded:

    "Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White.4 Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations.5 However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending. This is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected.6 During our conversations with police forces, we have found that in the operations reflected, offender groups come from diverse backgrounds, with each group being broadly ethnically homogenous. However, there are cases where offenders within groups come from different backgrounds.7"

    You have picked out 2 individual occurrences of terrorism committed by (first or second generation) immigrants, but how representative is that? The source I gave looks at total numbers through sound statistical approaches. It gives multiple citations. You can go read them all. Immigration is not associated with violent crime.

    If you want to talk about terrorism specifically, the 3500 killed in The Troubles by home-grown, white terrorists was far, far larger.
    You think that South Asian grooming and gang rape will only be a problem when it reaches that 50% target that Whitey has set?
    That's a ridiculous mischaracterisation of what I've said. I think group-based child sexual offences are an important problem, but regurgitating lies from far right websites isn't doing anything to solve the problem. The Government's report into the matter decided that any evidence that these crimes might be commoner in South Asian offenders was insufficient to form a conclusion. If you have any update on research in this area, please share it.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,635

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    Immigration is not associated with increased crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ has figures.
    This really is like talking each brick in a massive wall

    Would 7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby or the mass rape of northern girls by Asian taxi drivers in the North have happened without mass immigration and the lack of assimilation that followed?

    The answer is no

    The question is, ‘Is it a price worth paying?’, most people on here seem to think ‘Yes’
    My brother in law is an immigrant and a neonatal paediatrician who goes to work to save the lives of tiny babies every day. So you can put that in the plus column.
    Think of all the great leaders immigration has brought us too: Rishi Sunak, Humza Yousaf, Suella Braverman, Boris Johnson, King Charles... hmmm, maybe I need to work on this line of argument. Let's go back to your brother-in-law.
    Don't forget Mr Sarwar. He's a dentist. Valuable member of society.
  • Options
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given there is no serious opponent to President Biden in the Democratic primaries now Robert Kennedy Jnr has gone Independent it won't make a huge difference. The focus will be on Iowa and the GOP caucuses and whether Trump wins comfortably or a challenger gets close or even beats him

    I'm interested in whether Biden persuades Michelle Obama to stand as Democrat nominee and steps down in her place. If she agrees, she'd surely get the nomination and beat Trump.
    I’m intrigued where this perennial Michelle Obama thing comes from.

    She’s been as adamant as anyone can be on these things that she will never, ever, run for elected office. Full stop.
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,499
    edited November 2023
    FPT: Since some of you were discussin iatrogenesis, I thought I would pass along this story -- which I read years ago -- about a clever way to prevent one kind.

    When antibiotics became common, some American doctors became careless about washing their hands between patients. One pediatric hospital found a clever way to encourage them: Instead of ordering them to, or having the nurses rat on them, they enlisted the children, who were told to ask their doctor, when he came to see them, if he had washed his hands. As I recall, this did cut down on hospital-acquired infections.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given there is no serious opponent to President Biden in the Democratic primaries now Robert Kennedy Jnr has gone Independent it won't make a huge difference. The focus will be on Iowa and the GOP caucuses and whether Trump wins comfortably or a challenger gets close or even beats him

    I'm interested in whether Biden persuades Michelle Obama to stand as Democrat nominee and steps down in her place. If she agrees, she'd surely get the nomination and beat Trump.
    I’m intrigued where this perennial Michelle Obama thing comes from.

    She’s been as adamant as anyone can be on these things that she will never, ever, run for elected office. Full stop.
    I think it comes from her (a) being popular and (b) being connected to politics. It is a very silly suggestion based on wish-fulfilment.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    Immigration is not associated with increased crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ has figures.
    This really is like talking each brick in a massive wall

    Would 7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby or the mass rape of northern girls by Asian taxi drivers in the North have happened without mass immigration and the lack of assimilation that followed?

    The answer is no

    The question is, ‘Is it a price worth paying?’, most people on here seem to think ‘Yes’
    The number Leon posts about mass rape is propaganda lifted from far right websites and unrelated to facts. The Government's report on grooming gangs, done under Priti Patel, concluded:

    "Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White.4 Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations.5 However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending. This is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected.6 During our conversations with police forces, we have found that in the operations reflected, offender groups come from diverse backgrounds, with each group being broadly ethnically homogenous. However, there are cases where offenders within groups come from different backgrounds.7"

    You have picked out 2 individual occurrences of terrorism committed by (first or second generation) immigrants, but how representative is that? The source I gave looks at total numbers through sound statistical approaches. It gives multiple citations. You can go read them all. Immigration is not associated with violent crime.

    If you want to talk about terrorism specifically, the 3500 killed in The Troubles by home-grown, white terrorists was far, far larger.
    The number of white victims of Asian grooming gangs that I have cited - 100,000 - is actually an UNDERESTIMATE according to many

    Another estimate says the true figure could be as high as one million. From which far right website did I get that? Ah yes, the Labour MP for Rotherham, Sarah Champion. Who, I suspect, might just know more about this than some dull witted semi academic like you


    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/child-sex-abuse-gangs-could-5114029

    Other estimates range from 100,000 to 500,000. All quite believable when you realise that a mid size city like Rotherham (population 260,000) yielded 1400 victims by itself

    Can I just say, however, what a brilliant addition you are to PB. Simultaneously full of pious conviction yet entertainingly thick as shit. Do keep posting
  • Options

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    Immigration is not associated with increased crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ has figures.
    This really is like talking each brick in a massive wall

    Would 7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby or the mass rape of northern girls by Asian taxi drivers in the North have happened without mass immigration and the lack of assimilation that followed?

    The answer is no

    The question is, ‘Is it a price worth paying?’, most people on here seem to think ‘Yes’
    The number Leon posts about mass rape is propaganda lifted from far right websites and unrelated to facts. The Government's report on grooming gangs, done under Priti Patel, concluded:

    "Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White.4 Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations.5 However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending. This is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected.6 During our conversations with police forces, we have found that in the operations reflected, offender groups come from diverse backgrounds, with each group being broadly ethnically homogenous. However, there are cases where offenders within groups come from different backgrounds.7"

    You have picked out 2 individual occurrences of terrorism committed by (first or second generation) immigrants, but how representative is that? The source I gave looks at total numbers through sound statistical approaches. It gives multiple citations. You can go read them all. Immigration is not associated with violent crime.

    If you want to talk about terrorism specifically, the 3500 killed in The Troubles by home-grown, white terrorists was far, far larger.
    You think that South Asian grooming and gang rape will only be a problem when it reaches that 50% target that Whitey has set?
    That's a ridiculous mischaracterisation of what I've said. I think group-based child sexual offences are an important problem, but regurgitating lies from far right websites isn't doing anything to solve the problem. The Government's report into the matter decided that any evidence that these crimes might be commoner in South Asian offenders was insufficient to form a conclusion. If you have any update on research in this area, please share it.
    You quoted genius research that shows that more than 50% of CSE offences are committed by homegrown perverts, as if that is some kind of killer point

    Why did you tell us that?
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    Immigration is not associated with increased crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ has figures.
    This really is like talking each brick in a massive wall

    Would 7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby or the mass rape of northern girls by Asian taxi drivers in the North have happened without mass immigration and the lack of assimilation that followed?

    The answer is no

    The question is, ‘Is it a price worth paying?’, most people on here seem to think ‘Yes’
    The number Leon posts about mass rape is propaganda lifted from far right websites and unrelated to facts. The Government's report on grooming gangs, done under Priti Patel, concluded:

    "Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White.4 Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations.5 However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending. This is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected.6 During our conversations with police forces, we have found that in the operations reflected, offender groups come from diverse backgrounds, with each group being broadly ethnically homogenous. However, there are cases where offenders within groups come from different backgrounds.7"

    You have picked out 2 individual occurrences of terrorism committed by (first or second generation) immigrants, but how representative is that? The source I gave looks at total numbers through sound statistical approaches. It gives multiple citations. You can go read them all. Immigration is not associated with violent crime.

    If you want to talk about terrorism specifically, the 3500 killed in The Troubles by home-grown, white terrorists was far, far larger.
    My apologies: I should've given the URL earlier for the Govt report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fd87e348fa8f54d5733f532/Group-based_CSE_Paper.pdf
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,499
    FPT: I don't think anyone mentioned this aspect of Brazilian politics:

    "Abstract
    Scholars recognize that individuals change how they racially identify themselves over time and even from situation to situation. Politicians, however, are typically presumed to have stable, innate racial identities. In this article, I contend that politicians strategically change their self-professed race in response to electoral incentives. Using original data from Brazilian elections, I show that more than a quarter of the political candidates that competed in Brazil’s 2014 and 2016 elections changed their publicly declared race from one election to the next. My analysis indicates the racial composition of the electorate and the electoral rules that govern competition affect patterns of racial change. These results suggest that candidates “racially position” themselves as members of the racial group that provides the greatest electoral rewards. This strategic behavior calls into question extant theories which assume elite racial group membership is fixed and exogenous to electoral outcomes."
    source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379421000603

  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    Immigration is not associated with increased crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ has figures.
    This really is like talking each brick in a massive wall

    Would 7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby or the mass rape of northern girls by Asian taxi drivers in the North have happened without mass immigration and the lack of assimilation that followed?

    The answer is no

    The question is, ‘Is it a price worth paying?’, most people on here seem to think ‘Yes’
    The number Leon posts about mass rape is propaganda lifted from far right websites and unrelated to facts. The Government's report on grooming gangs, done under Priti Patel, concluded:

    "Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White.4 Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations.5 However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending. This is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected.6 During our conversations with police forces, we have found that in the operations reflected, offender groups come from diverse backgrounds, with each group being broadly ethnically homogenous. However, there are cases where offenders within groups come from different backgrounds.7"

    You have picked out 2 individual occurrences of terrorism committed by (first or second generation) immigrants, but how representative is that? The source I gave looks at total numbers through sound statistical approaches. It gives multiple citations. You can go read them all. Immigration is not associated with violent crime.

    If you want to talk about terrorism specifically, the 3500 killed in The Troubles by home-grown, white terrorists was far, far larger.
    You think that South Asian grooming and gang rape will only be a problem when it reaches that 50% target that Whitey has set?
    That's a ridiculous mischaracterisation of what I've said. I think group-based child sexual offences are an important problem, but regurgitating lies from far right websites isn't doing anything to solve the problem. The Government's report into the matter decided that any evidence that these crimes might be commoner in South Asian offenders was insufficient to form a conclusion. If you have any update on research in this area, please share it.
    You quoted genius research that shows that more than 50% of CSE offences are committed by homegrown perverts, as if that is some kind of killer point

    Why did you tell us that?
    I quoted a paragraph. Read the whole paragraph. Better still, read the whole report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fd87e348fa8f54d5733f532/Group-based_CSE_Paper.pdf again.

    If you don't like how they've written it, take it up with them. They being:
    - Chief Constable Simon Bailey QPM (National Police Chiefs Council lead on
    child protection)
    - Dr Helen Beckett (Director, The International Centre: Researching child sexual
    exploitation, violence and trafficking, University of Bedfordshire)
    - Sarah Champion MP (Member of Parliament for Rotherham)
    - Rosina Cottage QC (Barrister QC and member of the Sentencing Council)
    - Donald Findlater (Director of Stop It Now!, Lucy Faithfull Foundation)
    - Imran Khan MP (Member of Parliament for Wakefield)
    - Dr Sophie Laws (Deputy Director Research and Evaluation, Centre of expertise
    on child sexual abuse)
    - Anne Longfield (Children’s Commissioner for England)
    - Fay Maxted (CEO, The Survivors Trust)
    - Trevor Pearce CBE QPM (Chair of UK Anti-Doping, previously Director General
    of the National Crime Squad and the Serious Organised Crime Agency)
    - Sheila Taylor MBE (CEO, NWG Network)
    - Sammy Woodhouse (CSE Survivor and Campaigner)
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,987
    edited November 2023

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given there is no serious opponent to President Biden in the Democratic primaries now Robert Kennedy Jnr has gone Independent it won't make a huge difference. The focus will be on Iowa and the GOP caucuses and whether Trump wins comfortably or a challenger gets close or even beats him

    I'm interested in whether Biden persuades Michelle Obama to stand as Democrat nominee and steps down in her place. If she agrees, she'd surely get the nomination and beat Trump.
    I’m intrigued where this perennial Michelle Obama thing comes from.

    She’s been as adamant as anyone can be on these things that she will never, ever, run for elected office. Full stop.
    That's true. But she might be persuadable if she is the only person who can save the constitution and the country (and her husband) from Trump.
    Bookmark this. Currently 18 to be the Democrat nominee.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586
    Twitter has become obsessed with what we will presumably call hammergate, how Sunak uses a hammer: https://x.com/Flip5ide666/status/1728015910013706432
  • Options
    CatManCatMan Posts: 2,765
    I like immigration because it gives the England cricket team good spinners
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited November 2023
    This is quite an incredible state of affairs....

    Almost every Palestinian family in the West Bank is thought to have had a relative detained by Israel at some point in the past

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67522703
  • Options

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    Immigration is not associated with increased crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ has figures.
    This really is like talking each brick in a massive wall

    Would 7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby or the mass rape of northern girls by Asian taxi drivers in the North have happened without mass immigration and the lack of assimilation that followed?

    The answer is no

    The question is, ‘Is it a price worth paying?’, most people on here seem to think ‘Yes’
    The number Leon posts about mass rape is propaganda lifted from far right websites and unrelated to facts. The Government's report on grooming gangs, done under Priti Patel, concluded:

    "Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White.4 Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations.5 However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending. This is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected.6 During our conversations with police forces, we have found that in the operations reflected, offender groups come from diverse backgrounds, with each group being broadly ethnically homogenous. However, there are cases where offenders within groups come from different backgrounds.7"

    You have picked out 2 individual occurrences of terrorism committed by (first or second generation) immigrants, but how representative is that? The source I gave looks at total numbers through sound statistical approaches. It gives multiple citations. You can go read them all. Immigration is not associated with violent crime.

    If you want to talk about terrorism specifically, the 3500 killed in The Troubles by home-grown, white terrorists was far, far larger.
    You think that South Asian grooming and gang rape will only be a problem when it reaches that 50% target that Whitey has set?
    That's a ridiculous mischaracterisation of what I've said. I think group-based child sexual offences are an important problem, but regurgitating lies from far right websites isn't doing anything to solve the problem. The Government's report into the matter decided that any evidence that these crimes might be commoner in South Asian offenders was insufficient to form a conclusion. If you have any update on research in this area, please share it.
    You quoted genius research that shows that more than 50% of CSE offences are committed by homegrown perverts, as if that is some kind of killer point

    Why did you tell us that?
    I quoted a paragraph. Read the whole paragraph. Better still, read the whole report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fd87e348fa8f54d5733f532/Group-based_CSE_Paper.pdf again.

    If you don't like how they've written it, take it up with them. They being:
    - Chief Constable Simon Bailey QPM (National Police Chiefs Council lead on
    child protection)
    - Dr Helen Beckett (Director, The International Centre: Researching child sexual
    exploitation, violence and trafficking, University of Bedfordshire)
    - Sarah Champion MP (Member of Parliament for Rotherham)
    - Rosina Cottage QC (Barrister QC and member of the Sentencing Council)
    - Donald Findlater (Director of Stop It Now!, Lucy Faithfull Foundation)
    - Imran Khan MP (Member of Parliament for Wakefield)
    - Dr Sophie Laws (Deputy Director Research and Evaluation, Centre of expertise
    on child sexual abuse)
    - Anne Longfield (Children’s Commissioner for England)
    - Fay Maxted (CEO, The Survivors Trust)
    - Trevor Pearce CBE QPM (Chair of UK Anti-Doping, previously Director General
    of the National Crime Squad and the Serious Organised Crime Agency)
    - Sheila Taylor MBE (CEO, NWG Network)
    - Sammy Woodhouse (CSE Survivor and Campaigner)
    What a list. I'm impressed

    Why did you pick out the bit that said more than half of it is done by ninety percent of the population?

    What does that tell us, other than the suggestion that you might think that one ethnic group committing over half of the offences is relevant, whatever the proportion of that ethnic group within the population?

    If you do want a crime that a minority group commits more than half of; check out female "circumcision"

  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911
    edited November 2023
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    But you can segment society any way you want. People from single parent families (to avoid the eg those with red hair), those whose household income is X, those who were bullied at school.

    There are plenty of reasons why people turn to crime. You are saying that peoples' race or religion is one such factor. I am not so sure. You also say that "black immigration has had its problems too". Damn right it has. There has since the outset been the most shocking degree of racism directed at black people and frankly if there is an overshoot (I think BLM are a bunch of tossers but am quite content to see footballers demonstrate that they are against racism) then so what.

    What I am not clear is what sort of Britain you want to live in. Is it one without crime but with all flavours of the globe living here; is it one whereby all children of Ghanaian parents go to Eton and speak proper; is it one where there is just as much crime as there is now but it is committed by (presumably white) British people?

    And where would you draw the line of who gets in and who doesn't? Before or after Huguenots? Jews? Ugandan Asians? Windrush?

    What sort of Britain are people supposed to assimilate into?
    Possibly one where a Political Party representing a religious group with wildly different views to the rest of society isn’t on the cards
    "On the cards". Maybe it is but it doesn't exist today and we are supposed to be swimming in rivers of blood.

    Plus you haven't answered my question(s).
    I’ve had this argument so many times on here that I can’t be bothered now really. I end up becoming a board on to which people can project
    their wilful misunderstandings & virtue signalling
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,994
    edited November 2023

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    Immigration is not associated with increased crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ has figures.
    This really is like talking each brick in a massive wall

    Would 7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby or the mass rape of northern girls by Asian taxi drivers in the North have happened without mass immigration and the lack of assimilation that followed?

    The answer is no

    The question is, ‘Is it a price worth paying?’, most people on here seem to think ‘Yes’
    The number Leon posts about mass rape is propaganda lifted from far right websites and unrelated to facts. The Government's report on grooming gangs, done under Priti Patel, concluded:

    "Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White.4 Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations.5 However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending. This is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected.6 During our conversations with police forces, we have found that in the operations reflected, offender groups come from diverse backgrounds, with each group being broadly ethnically homogenous. However, there are cases where offenders within groups come from different backgrounds.7"

    You have picked out 2 individual occurrences of terrorism committed by (first or second generation) immigrants, but how representative is that? The source I gave looks at total numbers through sound statistical approaches. It gives multiple citations. You can go read them all. Immigration is not associated with violent crime.

    If you want to talk about terrorism specifically, the 3500 killed in The Troubles by home-grown, white terrorists was far, far larger.
    You think that South Asian grooming and gang rape will only be a problem when it reaches that 50% target that Whitey has set?
    That's a ridiculous mischaracterisation of what I've said. I think group-based child sexual offences are an important problem, but regurgitating lies from far right websites isn't doing anything to solve the problem. The Government's report into the matter decided that any evidence that these crimes might be commoner in South Asian offenders was insufficient to form a conclusion. If you have any update on research in this area, please share it.
    This far right website I have cited is…. The Daily Mirror, quoting Labour MP for Rotherham Sarah Champion, and I’ve actually lowered her estimate by a factor of ten, so as to not overstrain your rudimentary nervous system

    You can reach tens of thousands of victims just by adding up the cases we actually know of, specifically. 1400 in Rotherham, 1000 in Telford, and so on and so forth

    At least 50 towns have now seen court cases judging crimes of this nature:

    Keighley (2005 and 2013), Blackpool (2006), Oldham (2007 and 2008), Blackburn (2007, 2008 and 2009), Sheffield (2008), Manchester (2008 and 2013) Skipton (2009), Rochdale (two cases in 2010, one in 2012 and another in 2013), Nelson (2010), Preston (2010) Derby (2010), Bradford (2012), Ipswich (2013), Birmingham (2013), Oxford (2013), Barking (2013) and Peterborough (2013). And on and on and on
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    Immigration is not associated with increased crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ has figures.
    This really is like talking each brick in a massive wall

    Would 7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby or the mass rape of northern girls by Asian taxi drivers in the North have happened without mass immigration and the lack of assimilation that followed?

    The answer is no

    The question is, ‘Is it a price worth paying?’, most people on here seem to think ‘Yes’
    My brother in law is an immigrant and a neonatal paediatrician who goes to work to save the lives of tiny babies every day. So you can put that in the plus column.
    Ahhh
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited November 2023

    Twitter has become obsessed with what we will presumably call hammergate, how Sunak uses a hammer: https://x.com/Flip5ide666/status/1728015910013706432

    In the full clip, the woman besides instructs him specifically to use the side of the hammer.

    https://x.com/KEdge23/status/1728073563645632666?s=20

    Even the bloke who doesn't know how to use contactless payments or fill his car up says what the side of the hammer, are you sure...to which the response is, yes.

    Shock horror tw@tter spreading BS. But I bet HIGNFY will show it out of context.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,162
    edited November 2023
    kjh said:

    Update on the dog playing 'Find the lady' or which cup has the treat under it. He can now put his paw on the right cup before they are moved, but can't cope with the cups being moved (picks the cup in the original position of the treat). Not bad considering this morning I couldn't get him put a paw on a cup regardless of whether there was a treat or not.

    Much more interesting than the rise of the racists.

    It sure is. I'm anxious around dogs (wish I wasn't) but a big thing has happened recently which is that we have sort of got a cat. What an appealing and interesting creature it is! You should see all the heart-warming kooky things it does. It's the first time I've ever had proper affection for an animal and I've fallen hard. I'd actually call it love. And the great thing is it's all upside. I love this cat but it doesn't mean I love other things (eg the people close to me) any the less. It's just a straightforward piece of added value in my life.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,279
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    But you can segment society any way you want. People from single parent families (to avoid the eg those with red hair), those whose household income is X, those who were bullied at school.

    There are plenty of reasons why people turn to crime. You are saying that peoples' race or religion is one such factor. I am not so sure. You also say that "black immigration has had its problems too". Damn right it has. There has since the outset been the most shocking degree of racism directed at black people and frankly if there is an overshoot (I think BLM are a bunch of tossers but am quite content to see footballers demonstrate that they are against racism) then so what.

    What I am not clear is what sort of Britain you want to live in. Is it one without crime but with all flavours of the globe living here; is it one whereby all children of Ghanaian parents go to Eton and speak proper; is it one where there is just as much crime as there is now but it is committed by (presumably white) British people?

    And where would you draw the line of who gets in and who doesn't? Before or after Huguenots? Jews? Ugandan Asians? Windrush?

    What sort of Britain are people supposed to assimilate into?
    Possibly one where a Political Party representing a religious group with wildly different views to the rest of society isn’t on the cards
    "On the cards". Maybe it is but it doesn't exist today and we are supposed to be swimming in rivers of blood.

    Plus you haven't answered my question(s).
    I’ve had this argument so many times on here that I can’t be bothered now really. I end up becoming a board on to which people can project
    their wilful misunderstandings & virtue signalling
    I'm sorry you feel that. To me your position is illogical. You haven't explained what people are assimilating into but that's cool we can go back to STV/AV vs FPTP.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    But you can segment society any way you want. People from single parent families (to avoid the eg those with red hair), those whose household income is X, those who were bullied at school.

    There are plenty of reasons why people turn to crime. You are saying that peoples' race or religion is one such factor. I am not so sure. You also say that "black immigration has had its problems too". Damn right it has. There has since the outset been the most shocking degree of racism directed at black people and frankly if there is an overshoot (I think BLM are a bunch of tossers but am quite content to see footballers demonstrate that they are against racism) then so what.

    What I am not clear is what sort of Britain you want to live in. Is it one without crime but with all flavours of the globe living here; is it one whereby all children of Ghanaian parents go to Eton and speak proper; is it one where there is just as much crime as there is now but it is committed by (presumably white) British people?

    And where would you draw the line of who gets in and who doesn't? Before or after Huguenots? Jews? Ugandan Asians? Windrush?

    What sort of Britain are people supposed to assimilate into?
    Possibly one where a Political Party representing a religious group with wildly different views to the rest of society isn’t on the cards
    I’m surprised you’ve never heard about the DUP.
    Yes, they’ve been a beacon for social cohesion, let’s have more of it
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    Immigration is not associated with increased crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ has figures.
    This really is like talking each brick in a massive wall

    Would 7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby or the mass rape of northern girls by Asian taxi drivers in the North have happened without mass immigration and the lack of assimilation that followed?

    The answer is no

    The question is, ‘Is it a price worth paying?’, most people on here seem to think ‘Yes’
    The number Leon posts about mass rape is propaganda lifted from far right websites and unrelated to facts. The Government's report on grooming gangs, done under Priti Patel, concluded:

    "Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White.4 Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations.5 However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending. This is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected.6 During our conversations with police forces, we have found that in the operations reflected, offender groups come from diverse backgrounds, with each group being broadly ethnically homogenous. However, there are cases where offenders within groups come from different backgrounds.7"

    You have picked out 2 individual occurrences of terrorism committed by (first or second generation) immigrants, but how representative is that? The source I gave looks at total numbers through sound statistical approaches. It gives multiple citations. You can go read them all. Immigration is not associated with violent crime.

    If you want to talk about terrorism specifically, the 3500 killed in The Troubles by home-grown, white terrorists was far, far larger.
    You think that South Asian grooming and gang rape will only be a problem when it reaches that 50% target that Whitey has set?
    That's a ridiculous mischaracterisation of what I've said. I think group-based child sexual offences are an important problem, but regurgitating lies from far right websites isn't doing anything to solve the problem. The Government's report into the matter decided that any evidence that these crimes might be commoner in South Asian offenders was insufficient to form a conclusion. If you have any update on research in this area, please share it.
    You quoted genius research that shows that more than 50% of CSE offences are committed by homegrown perverts, as if that is some kind of killer point

    Why did you tell us that?
    I quoted a paragraph. Read the whole paragraph. Better still, read the whole report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fd87e348fa8f54d5733f532/Group-based_CSE_Paper.pdf again.

    If you don't like how they've written it, take it up with them. They being:
    - Chief Constable Simon Bailey QPM (National Police Chiefs Council lead on
    child protection)
    - Dr Helen Beckett (Director, The International Centre: Researching child sexual
    exploitation, violence and trafficking, University of Bedfordshire)
    - Sarah Champion MP (Member of Parliament for Rotherham)
    - Rosina Cottage QC (Barrister QC and member of the Sentencing Council)
    - Donald Findlater (Director of Stop It Now!, Lucy Faithfull Foundation)
    - Imran Khan MP (Member of Parliament for Wakefield)
    - Dr Sophie Laws (Deputy Director Research and Evaluation, Centre of expertise
    on child sexual abuse)
    - Anne Longfield (Children’s Commissioner for England)
    - Fay Maxted (CEO, The Survivors Trust)
    - Trevor Pearce CBE QPM (Chair of UK Anti-Doping, previously Director General
    of the National Crime Squad and the Serious Organised Crime Agency)
    - Sheila Taylor MBE (CEO, NWG Network)
    - Sammy Woodhouse (CSE Survivor and Campaigner)
    What a list. I'm impressed

    Why did you pick out the bit that said more than half of it is done by ninety percent of the population?

    What does that tell us, other than the suggestion that you might think that one ethnic group committing over half of the offences is relevant, whatever the proportion of that ethnic group within the population?

    If you do want a crime that a minority group commits more than half of; check out female "circumcision"

    I quoted a full paragraph. I didn't want to take anything out of context. I am unclear why you are stuck on the first sentence of the paragraph I quoted and are unable to read on.

    If this is a topic you are concerned about, I recommend the full report.

    Female "circumcision" is a hugely concerning problem too. I am glad the government has taken action on it. When we look at crime more generally, there is minimal link between immigration and crime, and studies that have found small links have found decreases as often as increases, as per sources given in the last thread.
  • Options
    The decision to prosecute an armed officer who crashed while racing to the scene of a terrorist attack has been described as “appalling” by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

    Sir Mark Rowley said no other country in the world would haul one of its most highly trained officers before the courts for bravely trying to preserve life, as he called for the system of accountability to be urgently reviewed.

    His comments came after a jury at Southwark Crown Court cleared Pc Paul Fisher of dangerous driving following a six-day trial.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/24/mark-rowley-prosecution-of-policeman-terror-attack-london/
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,554

    Twitter has become obsessed with what we will presumably call hammergate, how Sunak uses a hammer: https://x.com/Flip5ide666/status/1728015910013706432

    Wouldn't see the Son of a Toolmaker (TM) hammering like that.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,162
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    But you can segment society any way you want. People from single parent families (to avoid the eg those with red hair), those whose household income is X, those who were bullied at school.

    There are plenty of reasons why people turn to crime. You are saying that peoples' race or religion is one such factor. I am not so sure. You also say that "black immigration has had its problems too". Damn right it has. There has since the outset been the most shocking degree of racism directed at black people and frankly if there is an overshoot (I think BLM are a bunch of tossers but am quite content to see footballers demonstrate that they are against racism) then so what.

    What I am not clear is what sort of Britain you want to live in. Is it one without crime but with all flavours of the globe living here; is it one whereby all children of Ghanaian parents go to Eton and speak proper; is it one where there is just as much crime as there is now but it is committed by (presumably white) British people?

    And where would you draw the line of who gets in and who doesn't? Before or after Huguenots? Jews? Ugandan Asians? Windrush?

    What sort of Britain are people supposed to assimilate into?
    Possibly one where a Political Party representing a religious group with wildly different views to the rest of society isn’t on the cards
    "On the cards". Maybe it is but it doesn't exist today and we are supposed to be swimming in rivers of blood.

    Plus you haven't answered my question(s).
    I’ve had this argument so many times on here that I can’t be bothered now really. I end up becoming a board on to which people can project
    their wilful misunderstandings & virtue signalling
    There's no big misunderstanding. You think the country has been despoiled by mass immigration esp of Muslims.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,554
    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    Update on the dog playing 'Find the lady' or which cup has the treat under it. He can now put his paw on the right cup before they are moved, but can't cope with the cups being moved (picks the cup in the original position of the treat). Not bad considering this morning I couldn't get him put a paw on a cup regardless of whether there was a treat or not.

    Much more interesting than the rise of the racists.

    It sure is. I'm anxious around dogs (wish I wasn't) but a big thing has happened recently which is that we have sort of got a cat. What an appealing and interesting creature it is! You should see all the heart-warming kooky things it does. It's the first time I've ever had proper affection for an animal and I've fallen hard. I'd actually call it love. And the great thing is it's all upside. I love this cat but it doesn't mean I love other things (eg the people close to me) any the less. It's just a straightforward piece of added value in my life.
    As an owner of 2 cats I regret to say your newfound love is probably unrequited.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,635
    edited November 2023
    TimS said:

    Twitter has become obsessed with what we will presumably call hammergate, how Sunak uses a hammer: https://x.com/Flip5ide666/status/1728015910013706432

    Wouldn't see the Son of a Toolmaker (TM) hammering like that.
    Just possible they don't want to use the hardened head [edit] of the hammer on the die/punch (for risk of chips in the eye)? But if so, then the lady ought to be provided with an appropriate tool such as a wooden, plastic or otherwise suitable metal hammer.
  • Options

    isam said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt sozza

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It’s not about being “far right”, these latest numbers are an astonishing number for any western democracy outside wartime.

    I think the argument is still stuck inside the prison of ten or twenty years ago.

    But these figures suggest very profound societal change within only a few years.

    While the public has also experienced the biggest drop in living standards.

    I believe the projection is that these numbers will fall. But my cursory sweep of Twitter is that both left and right are just rehashing stale arguments pro and anti immigration in the abstract.

    Well this is the thing that happened with Enoch Powell; he predicted profound societal change was inevitable due to a large increase in immigration, and that change/those numbers happened. But people who rubbished him at the time over the numbers and their effects changed the argument rather than admit he was correct.

    That’s what will happen in the future you envisage; People won’t focus on the numbers, but say that the profound societal change is a benefit.
    What profound societal change have we witnessed since Enoch made his dire prophecy? I'm genuinely interested to hear views on this.
    White British people being a minority in London seems a good place to start. Unthinkable in the 1960s

    Tell people in Delhi that brown skinned Indians will be a minority in 50 years time and see if they think of that as a profound societal change or not

    I don't think it is.

    Powell was predicting violence, rivers of blood etc - instead we've had a peaceful transition from one irrelevant characteristic to another irrelevant characteristic.

    Someone's skin colour means no more than their hair colour or anything else. Is going from a town of gingers to a town of brunettes a profound societal change?
    We’ve had 100,000+ underage white girls raped, trafficked and tortured by “Asian grooming gangs”

    Does that count as violence or not?
    7/7
    Lee Rigby
    London Bridge

    The 7/7 bombers were British, weren't they? Same Lee Rigby and probably the same London Bridge. They were in each instance criminals and, I'd say, terrorists, as defined by seeking to effect political change via acts of violence towards the "civilian" population.

    I used to go to a boxing gym in SE London which a lot of West Indian Muslim converts went to. Including, for example, Anthony Small - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Small. Anthony was born in Lewisham. He could as easily have perpetrated any of the incidents you described.

    It is the criminals that are the issue (same with the "Asian" grooming gangs). People can be criminal whether they come from Lewisham, Lewes, or Lesotho. There are hundreds of thousands of people from Lewisham, as an example, who are not criminals or violent extremists. Should we somehow ban those people from taking the tube to Oxford Circus?

    It is the fact that people are criminals that is the issue not where they are from. Being from Lewisham or Lahore doesn't inherently mean you are a criminal. Oh but there is a culture in eg Pakistan wrt girls. No there isn't there is a culture within criminals of such things.

    The issue arises if people come from a culture, a violent repressive state, say an Islamic theocracy, who want to continue the behaviours of that state. In that case we have to rely on the rule of law here to prevent them from indulging in those behaviours. I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you say ok no more immigration from those countries.
    They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate
    But why would someone whose parents are, say, from the Caribbean be taken with Salafism. There is nothing inherent in anyone from the Caribbean such that they would want to convert to Islam. Nor blow up the tube.
    Why mention the Caribbean?
    Because Anthony Small's parents came from Jamaica IIRC.
    What?
    You said this, when talking about the 7/7 bombers et al:

    "They were the descendants of the immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited. Powell’s argument was almost completely centred on the fact that the dependents of the immigrants would struggle to assimilate"

    I said that Anthony Small was likewise a descendant of immigrants whose numbers Powell wanted to be limited, coming as they did from Jamaica, but this doesn't correlate with those descendants' ability to assimilate, nor with their radicalisation. They are Brits and have been radicalised.

    As for Powell's (and your?) point about descendants of immigrants struggling to assimilate I would disagree with that very strongly. Just look around you. Unless you base it on the colour of their skin only.
    Sorry, is what your point that, because not all of the 1960s immigrants and their descendants turned out to be perpetrators of terrorism or industrial scale rapes motivated by religion/sectarianism, it’s not worth worrying about? Or that these crimes would have been committed anyway by white British people?

    I’d say the Islamic immigrants have struggled to assimilate, and that BLM shows that black immigration has had its problems too, else there’d be no BLM
    Immigration is not associated with increased crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ has figures.
    This really is like talking each brick in a massive wall

    Would 7/7, the murder of Lee Rigby or the mass rape of northern girls by Asian taxi drivers in the North have happened without mass immigration and the lack of assimilation that followed?

    The answer is no

    The question is, ‘Is it a price worth paying?’, most people on here seem to think ‘Yes’
    The number Leon posts about mass rape is propaganda lifted from far right websites and unrelated to facts. The Government's report on grooming gangs, done under Priti Patel, concluded:

    "Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White.4 Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations.5 However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending. This is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected.6 During our conversations with police forces, we have found that in the operations reflected, offender groups come from diverse backgrounds, with each group being broadly ethnically homogenous. However, there are cases where offenders within groups come from different backgrounds.7"

    You have picked out 2 individual occurrences of terrorism committed by (first or second generation) immigrants, but how representative is that? The source I gave looks at total numbers through sound statistical approaches. It gives multiple citations. You can go read them all. Immigration is not associated with violent crime.

    If you want to talk about terrorism specifically, the 3500 killed in The Troubles by home-grown, white terrorists was far, far larger.
    You think that South Asian grooming and gang rape will only be a problem when it reaches that 50% target that Whitey has set?
    That's a ridiculous mischaracterisation of what I've said. I think group-based child sexual offences are an important problem, but regurgitating lies from far right websites isn't doing anything to solve the problem. The Government's report into the matter decided that any evidence that these crimes might be commoner in South Asian offenders was insufficient to form a conclusion. If you have any update on research in this area, please share it.
    You quoted genius research that shows that more than 50% of CSE offences are committed by homegrown perverts, as if that is some kind of killer point

    Why did you tell us that?
    I quoted a paragraph. Read the whole paragraph. Better still, read the whole report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fd87e348fa8f54d5733f532/Group-based_CSE_Paper.pdf again.

    If you don't like how they've written it, take it up with them. They being:
    - Chief Constable Simon Bailey QPM (National Police Chiefs Council lead on
    child protection)
    - Dr Helen Beckett (Director, The International Centre: Researching child sexual
    exploitation, violence and trafficking, University of Bedfordshire)
    - Sarah Champion MP (Member of Parliament for Rotherham)
    - Rosina Cottage QC (Barrister QC and member of the Sentencing Council)
    - Donald Findlater (Director of Stop It Now!, Lucy Faithfull Foundation)
    - Imran Khan MP (Member of Parliament for Wakefield)
    - Dr Sophie Laws (Deputy Director Research and Evaluation, Centre of expertise
    on child sexual abuse)
    - Anne Longfield (Children’s Commissioner for England)
    - Fay Maxted (CEO, The Survivors Trust)
    - Trevor Pearce CBE QPM (Chair of UK Anti-Doping, previously Director General
    of the National Crime Squad and the Serious Organised Crime Agency)
    - Sheila Taylor MBE (CEO, NWG Network)
    - Sammy Woodhouse (CSE Survivor and Campaigner)
    What a list. I'm impressed

    Why did you pick out the bit that said more than half of it is done by ninety percent of the population?

    What does that tell us, other than the suggestion that you might think that one ethnic group committing over half of the offences is relevant, whatever the proportion of that ethnic group within the population?

    If you do want a crime that a minority group commits more than half of; check out female "circumcision"

    I quoted a full paragraph. I didn't want to take anything out of context. I am unclear why you are stuck on the first sentence of the paragraph I quoted and are unable to read on.

    If this is a topic you are concerned about, I recommend the full report.

    Female "circumcision" is a hugely concerning problem too. I am glad the government has taken action on it. When we look at crime more generally, there is minimal link between immigration and crime, and studies that have found small links have found decreases as often as increases, as per sources given in the last thread.
    Including that line at the front of your quote is extremely unhelpful to your/their argument

    It's like saying "this six sided die isn't loaded - it doesn't roll a one more than half of the time. Now listen to some more of our stats"
  • Options
    CatManCatMan Posts: 2,765
    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    Update on the dog playing 'Find the lady' or which cup has the treat under it. He can now put his paw on the right cup before they are moved, but can't cope with the cups being moved (picks the cup in the original position of the treat). Not bad considering this morning I couldn't get him put a paw on a cup regardless of whether there was a treat or not.

    Much more interesting than the rise of the racists.

    It sure is. I'm anxious around dogs (wish I wasn't) but a big thing has happened recently which is that we have sort of got a cat. What an appealing and interesting creature it is! You should see all the heart-warming kooky things it does. It's the first time I've ever had proper affection for an animal and I've fallen hard. I'd actually call it love. And the great thing is it's all upside. I love this cat but it doesn't mean I love other things (eg the people close to me) any the less. It's just a straightforward piece of added value in my life.
    https://x.com/SarahCAndersen/status/1691819686655062059?s=20



  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095

    This is quite an incredible state of affairs....

    Almost every Palestinian family in the West Bank is thought to have had a relative detained by Israel at some point in the past

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67522703

    "They're villains, Sir..."
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,530
    Geert Wilders' latest statement.

    "Geert Wilders
    @geertwilderspvv
    So it’s news that we won the Dutch elections. Get used to it. Many more European countries will follow. Freedom and patriotism - our own nations and people first - is the new political reality. "

    https://twitter.com/geertwilderspvv/status/1728056875290067289
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,162

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given there is no serious opponent to President Biden in the Democratic primaries now Robert Kennedy Jnr has gone Independent it won't make a huge difference. The focus will be on Iowa and the GOP caucuses and whether Trump wins comfortably or a challenger gets close or even beats him

    I'm interested in whether Biden persuades Michelle Obama to stand as Democrat nominee and steps down in her place. If she agrees, she'd surely get the nomination and beat Trump.
    I’m intrigued where this perennial Michelle Obama thing comes from.

    She’s been as adamant as anyone can be on these things that she will never, ever, run for elected office. Full stop.
    I think it comes from her (a) being popular and (b) being connected to politics. It is a very silly suggestion based on wish-fulfilment.
    I agree she's too short a price now but I take issue with 'very silly'. I tipped and backed her @ 120 because I could just about imagine a scenario where Trump looks a cert and the Dems conclude that persuading her to run is literally the only way that 'cannot happen' catastrophe for the US and the wider world can be prevented.
  • Options
    Is Sunak having not the faintest clue how to use a hammer…

    (Watch the clip it’s delicious) https://x.com/edwardthardy/status/1728064088201412830?s=61&t=R6lKH2EZT0v_boZqogHuwA
    … more or less excruciating than Miliband eating that sarnie?
  • Options
    sarissasarissa Posts: 1,770

    The House of Commons Library has published GPs by constituency.
    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/constituency-data-gps-and-gp-practices/

    Your daily reminder: England only.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052

    Twitter has become obsessed with what we will presumably call hammergate, how Sunak uses a hammer: https://x.com/Flip5ide666/status/1728015910013706432

    In the full clip, the woman besides instructs him specifically to use the side of the hammer.

    https://x.com/KEdge23/status/1728073563645632666?s=20

    Even the bloke who doesn't know how to use contactless payments or fill his car up says what the side of the hammer, are you sure...to which the response is, yes.

    Shock horror tw@tter spreading BS. But I bet HIGNFY will show it out of context.
    Embarrassing for the Labour Party:

    https://x.com/uklabour/status/1728068987047584222
  • Options
    sarissasarissa Posts: 1,770
    kjh said:

    Update on the dog playing 'Find the lady' or which cup has the treat under it. He can now put his paw on the right cup before they are moved, but can't cope with the cups being moved (picks the cup in the original position of the treat). Not bad considering this morning I couldn't get him put a paw on a cup regardless of whether there was a treat or not.

    Much more interesting than the rise of the racists.

    That's because you can't tell either and he's reading you!
  • Options
    CiceroCicero Posts: 2,207
    Andy_JS said:

    Geert Wilders' latest statement.

    "Geert Wilders
    @geertwilderspvv
    So it’s news that we won the Dutch elections. Get used to it. Many more European countries will follow. Freedom and patriotism - our own nations and people first - is the new political reality. "

    https://twitter.com/geertwilderspvv/status/1728056875290067289

    You missed the "thanks Vladimir for the dosh and kompromat".
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,554
    Cicero said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Geert Wilders' latest statement.

    "Geert Wilders
    @geertwilderspvv
    So it’s news that we won the Dutch elections. Get used to it. Many more European countries will follow. Freedom and patriotism - our own nations and people first - is the new political reality. "

    https://twitter.com/geertwilderspvv/status/1728056875290067289

    You missed the "thanks Vladimir for the dosh and kompromat".
    He's winning, isn't he. Slowly but surely.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052
    Cicero said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Geert Wilders' latest statement.

    "Geert Wilders
    @geertwilderspvv
    So it’s news that we won the Dutch elections. Get used to it. Many more European countries will follow. Freedom and patriotism - our own nations and people first - is the new political reality. "

    https://twitter.com/geertwilderspvv/status/1728056875290067289

    You missed the "thanks Vladimir for the dosh and kompromat".
    If mass immigration is fueling the rise of people like Wilders, should those responsible for it be under suspcicion of working for Putin?
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,586
    Andy_JS said:

    Geert Wilders' latest statement.

    "Geert Wilders
    @geertwilderspvv
    So it’s news that we won the Dutch elections. Get used to it. Many more European countries will follow. Freedom and patriotism - our own nations and people first - is the new political reality. "

    https://twitter.com/geertwilderspvv/status/1728056875290067289

    He won in that his 24% is higher than any other party's vote share. However, 24% is also about what the Conservatives are currently polling at here and we don't see that as winning!
  • Options
    sarissasarissa Posts: 1,770

    Twitter has become obsessed with what we will presumably call hammergate, how Sunak uses a hammer: https://x.com/Flip5ide666/status/1728015910013706432

    I pray he never watches Misery!
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,199
    edited November 2023

    Is Sunak having not the faintest clue how to use a hammer…

    (Watch the clip it’s delicious) https://x.com/edwardthardy/status/1728064088201412830?s=61&t=R6lKH2EZT0v_boZqogHuwA
    … more or less excruciating than Miliband eating that sarnie?

    When are Labour going to apologise to the lady who told Rishi to do it that way?

    When you childishly go "duuurrrhhh!!!" At the wrong person..
  • Options
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given there is no serious opponent to President Biden in the Democratic primaries now Robert Kennedy Jnr has gone Independent it won't make a huge difference. The focus will be on Iowa and the GOP caucuses and whether Trump wins comfortably or a challenger gets close or even beats him

    I'm interested in whether Biden persuades Michelle Obama to stand as Democrat nominee and steps down in her place. If she agrees, she'd surely get the nomination and beat Trump.
    I’m intrigued where this perennial Michelle Obama thing comes from.

    She’s been as adamant as anyone can be on these things that she will never, ever, run for elected office. Full stop.
    That's true. But she might be persuadable if she is the only person who can save the constitution and the country (and her husband) from Trump.
    Bookmark this. Currently 18 to be the Democrat nominee.
    Hmm. Im sceptical. It’s one thing being persuaded to run if you are politically minded but you don’t really fancy the job or have some reservations. It’s another thing entirely to have a deep seated aversion to the idea of being involved in politics in toto, when you have never held elected office before.

    I don’t think she would want the pressure of being labelled the only person who could save the country. From everything I have seen of her, she is a very intelligent and independent-minded person who has her principles and isn’t one to bend. But hey, you could say stranger things have happened. I’m just not tempted to put money on it. I’d actually be looking for longer odds than that.
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,403

    Twitter has become obsessed with what we will presumably call hammergate, how Sunak uses a hammer: https://x.com/Flip5ide666/status/1728015910013706432

    In the full clip, the woman besides instructs him specifically to use the side of the hammer.

    https://x.com/KEdge23/status/1728073563645632666?s=20

    Even the bloke who doesn't know how to use contactless payments or fill his car up says what the side of the hammer, are you sure...to which the response is, yes.

    Shock horror tw@tter spreading BS. But I bet HIGNFY will show it out of context.
    Embarrassing for the Labour Party:

    https://x.com/uklabour/status/1728068987047584222
    As a clip, it works well. Far more people will see it than the full version with the explanation of why he's doing that. Unfair, of course, but so was baconsandwichgate and many others (I do think it sucks that we're at this level).

    The only danger for Lab is that the woman who instructed him to do it that way takes it up and it turns into a Lab dissing her story, particularly if it's a Lab metropolitan liberal elite tweeter sticking it to a hard working salt of the earth type from the red wall and/or can be spun that way.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,162
    TimS said:

    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    Update on the dog playing 'Find the lady' or which cup has the treat under it. He can now put his paw on the right cup before they are moved, but can't cope with the cups being moved (picks the cup in the original position of the treat). Not bad considering this morning I couldn't get him put a paw on a cup regardless of whether there was a treat or not.

    Much more interesting than the rise of the racists.

    It sure is. I'm anxious around dogs (wish I wasn't) but a big thing has happened recently which is that we have sort of got a cat. What an appealing and interesting creature it is! You should see all the heart-warming kooky things it does. It's the first time I've ever had proper affection for an animal and I've fallen hard. I'd actually call it love. And the great thing is it's all upside. I love this cat but it doesn't mean I love other things (eg the people close to me) any the less. It's just a straightforward piece of added value in my life.
    As an owner of 2 cats I regret to say your newfound love is probably unrequited.
    Yes the love back is an illusion, isn't it. They're not like eg dogs in that way. But it's not actually our cat, it just visits a lot, so we're not responsible for it. Best of both worlds as it were.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,189

    Twitter has become obsessed with what we will presumably call hammergate, how Sunak uses a hammer: https://x.com/Flip5ide666/status/1728015910013706432

    In the full clip, the woman besides instructs him specifically to use the side of the hammer.

    https://x.com/KEdge23/status/1728073563645632666?s=20

    Even the bloke who doesn't know how to use contactless payments or fill his car up says what the side of the hammer, are you sure...to which the response is, yes.

    Shock horror tw@tter spreading BS. But I bet HIGNFY will show it out of context.
    Embarrassing for the Labour Party:

    https://x.com/uklabour/status/1728068987047584222
    Will Labour be brave enough to correct this? Looks like fake news to me.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,189
    Selebian said:

    Twitter has become obsessed with what we will presumably call hammergate, how Sunak uses a hammer: https://x.com/Flip5ide666/status/1728015910013706432

    In the full clip, the woman besides instructs him specifically to use the side of the hammer.

    https://x.com/KEdge23/status/1728073563645632666?s=20

    Even the bloke who doesn't know how to use contactless payments or fill his car up says what the side of the hammer, are you sure...to which the response is, yes.

    Shock horror tw@tter spreading BS. But I bet HIGNFY will show it out of context.
    Embarrassing for the Labour Party:

    https://x.com/uklabour/status/1728068987047584222
    As a clip, it works well. Far more people will see it than the full version with the explanation of why he's doing that. Unfair, of course, but so was baconsandwichgate and many others (I do think it sucks that we're at this level).

    The only danger for Lab is that the woman who instructed him to do it that way takes it up and it turns into a Lab dissing her story, particularly if it's a Lab metropolitan liberal elite tweeter sticking it to a hard working salt of the earth type from the red wall and/or can be spun that way.
    Hang on, didn't Ed Miliband invite the press to photograph him eating a bacon sandwich?
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549
    TimS said:

    Cicero said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Geert Wilders' latest statement.

    "Geert Wilders
    @geertwilderspvv
    So it’s news that we won the Dutch elections. Get used to it. Many more European countries will follow. Freedom and patriotism - our own nations and people first - is the new political reality. "

    https://twitter.com/geertwilderspvv/status/1728056875290067289

    You missed the "thanks Vladimir for the dosh and kompromat".
    He's winning, isn't he. Slowly but surely.
    I'd quite like to believe that Putin is pulling strings and responsible for all the world's ills, unfortunately I'm fairly certain that a lot of political parties across Europe also bear the blame for ignoring the problems that are aflicting the continent.

    As issues like migration, citizenship, multi-culturalism, race relations, and the place of religion in modern society, are touchy at best, and downright dangerous if you get it wrong the political classes as a whole have preferred to tell people "that thing you see happening isn't happening" or entirely ignore the issues altogether. If mainstream politicians keep doing that eventually the people will start electing the cranks who will touch such issues. Which is what keeps happening, and will keep happening until people who consider themselves to be smarter, and better, and progressive start engaging with such issues.
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,403
    TimS said:

    Twitter has become obsessed with what we will presumably call hammergate, how Sunak uses a hammer: https://x.com/Flip5ide666/status/1728015910013706432

    Wouldn't see the Son of a Toolmaker (TM) hammering like that.
    I am eagerly awaiting the Labour PPB with the cover of the Dusty Springfield hit as the backing music.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,596
    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    Update on the dog playing 'Find the lady' or which cup has the treat under it. He can now put his paw on the right cup before they are moved, but can't cope with the cups being moved (picks the cup in the original position of the treat). Not bad considering this morning I couldn't get him put a paw on a cup regardless of whether there was a treat or not.

    Much more interesting than the rise of the racists.

    It sure is. I'm anxious around dogs (wish I wasn't) but a big thing has happened recently which is that we have sort of got a cat. What an appealing and interesting creature it is! You should see all the heart-warming kooky things it does. It's the first time I've ever had proper affection for an animal and I've fallen hard. I'd actually call it love. And the great thing is it's all upside. I love this cat but it doesn't mean I love other things (eg the people close to me) any the less. It's just a straightforward piece of added value in my life.
    As an owner of 2 cats I regret to say your newfound love is probably unrequited.
    Yes the love back is an illusion, isn't it. They're not like eg dogs in that way. But it's not actually our cat, it just visits a lot, so we're not responsible for it. Best of both worlds as it were.
    We have that relationship with a neighbour's cat. Pops round to ours for some treats and a stroke. Especially when they are away on holiday and it is home alone.

  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,636
    Selebian said:

    Twitter has become obsessed with what we will presumably call hammergate, how Sunak uses a hammer: https://x.com/Flip5ide666/status/1728015910013706432

    In the full clip, the woman besides instructs him specifically to use the side of the hammer.

    https://x.com/KEdge23/status/1728073563645632666?s=20

    Even the bloke who doesn't know how to use contactless payments or fill his car up says what the side of the hammer, are you sure...to which the response is, yes.

    Shock horror tw@tter spreading BS. But I bet HIGNFY will show it out of context.
    Embarrassing for the Labour Party:

    https://x.com/uklabour/status/1728068987047584222
    As a clip, it works well. Far more people will see it than the full version with the explanation of why he's doing that. Unfair, of course, but so was baconsandwichgate and many others (I do think it sucks that we're at this level).

    The only danger for Lab is that the woman who instructed him to do it that way takes it up and it turns into a Lab dissing her story, particularly if it's a Lab metropolitan liberal elite tweeter sticking it to a hard working salt of the earth type from the red wall and/or can be spun that way.
    Do we know why she told him to use the side of the hammer? Perhaps she decided he was going to miss if he tried to use the hammer face.
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,403
    tlg86 said:

    Selebian said:

    Twitter has become obsessed with what we will presumably call hammergate, how Sunak uses a hammer: https://x.com/Flip5ide666/status/1728015910013706432

    In the full clip, the woman besides instructs him specifically to use the side of the hammer.

    https://x.com/KEdge23/status/1728073563645632666?s=20

    Even the bloke who doesn't know how to use contactless payments or fill his car up says what the side of the hammer, are you sure...to which the response is, yes.

    Shock horror tw@tter spreading BS. But I bet HIGNFY will show it out of context.
    Embarrassing for the Labour Party:

    https://x.com/uklabour/status/1728068987047584222
    As a clip, it works well. Far more people will see it than the full version with the explanation of why he's doing that. Unfair, of course, but so was baconsandwichgate and many others (I do think it sucks that we're at this level).

    The only danger for Lab is that the woman who instructed him to do it that way takes it up and it turns into a Lab dissing her story, particularly if it's a Lab metropolitan liberal elite tweeter sticking it to a hard working salt of the earth type from the red wall and/or can be spun that way.
    Hang on, didn't Ed Miliband invite the press to photograph him eating a bacon sandwich?
    Maybe.* But the press never showed the woman from Greggs instructing him on how to eat it in a non-conventional way. :wink:

    *Did he?! It's believable, unfortunately. He had some very bad advisers, I think. No one ever looks good eating things.
  • Options
    Selebian said:

    TimS said:

    Twitter has become obsessed with what we will presumably call hammergate, how Sunak uses a hammer: https://x.com/Flip5ide666/status/1728015910013706432

    Wouldn't see the Son of a Toolmaker (TM) hammering like that.
    I am eagerly awaiting the Labour PPB with the cover of the Dusty Springfield hit as the backing music.
    The only boy who could ever fool me
This discussion has been closed.