No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Incels are bad we all agree, should we however prosecute people for saying for example women are bad drivers ( clue they are not I agree as do insurance companies) when however do you draw the line between having an opinion and not being able to say that?
Ah ha!
And that's where you are wrong.
Women are not better drivers than men, they just drive fewer miles on average.
He actually said women are not bad drivers, not that they are better drivers. My experience tells me that bad driving is reasonably equally shared amongst the genders.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
How does one criticise unprecedentedly high levels of immigration today without being labelled hard/far/extreme right?
Tell me one person who does criticise such levels of immigration and is spared these labels
One can justify limiting immigration on the basis that we haven't got appropriate infrastructure. It may or may not be a spurious argument but it's inoffensive.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
How does one criticise unprecedentedly high levels of immigration today without being labelled hard/far/extreme right?
Tell me one person who does criticise such levels of immigration and is spared these labels
Let's test it. Me. I think net migration levels are substantially too high and have been for some years. I am also an old fashioned liberal, voted Labour in the last election, would vote Tory if it was still 'One Nation' and don't like Reform.
If you want to understand the rise of Donald Trump, this may help: 'In 2013, [Les] Moonves was inducted into the Television Hall of Fame.[27] He became chairman of CBS in February 2016.[6][7][8]
Of the tone of the 2016 Republican presidential campaign, and the advertising dollars it delivered, Moonves said, "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS ... Man, who would have expected the ride we're all having right now? ... The money's rolling in and this is fun ... I've never seen anything like this, and this [is] going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going."[28] He added, "Donald's place in this election is a good thing."' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Moonves
(It would be interesting to see how much more TV coverage Trump got in that primary campaign than the other candidates. I haven't checked recently, but I believe he received more than all the other candidates -- combined.)
Yep. They didn't create the monster (that was his ma and pa) but they sure fed and watered it.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
I thought you said you were pro free speech?
Calling someone racist, if you think they are, is in itself an exercise in free speech.
I didn't dispute that, feel free to call them out. It is a legal opinion if you think they are racist. Let them defend their view. I am not objecting to people being called racist....I am objecting to yes its an opinion you can hold but you aren't allowed to voice it.
There’s a difference between censorship and editing. You have no more right to have your opinions posted on PB than I do having an article published in the Daily Mail. The editors of the Daily Mail have every right not to print me. The editors of PB can ban me when they like. It’s their show in both cases.
Its feels rather distractory. Knife crime is a huge problem, the small boats are still coming thick and fast and still they haven't found anybody to head up thr task force, county lines, 30-40k suspected Islamists and its headlines about looking to basically create a law to go after Andrew Tate and send some of his most hardcore fans to Prevent.
It really is an atrocious Government. One of the absolute all time worst. It will be a pleasure to see the back of this lot - hopefully before the end of their five year term.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
It's really tedious. It's like the annual stories we used to get "they've banned Christmas!!!" Despite not being to avoid Christmas from August to December. Very similar.
Except the stakes are higher because we've got racist riots thrown in.
I always wonder, do people actually take Andrew Tate seriously or is he just another one of this outlandish online personalities like Paul brothers, that do and say outrageous stuff and the kids copy the saying to be cool...how much are that actually believing it and how much is just repeating the catchphrases? I genuinely don't know the answer.
I do know that Tate business funnel is say outlandish stutt, get clicks, upsell you subscription to some very boring, poor value, but not really a scam set of courses about business, stock trading etc that aren't taught be him and nothing like the bitches and whores stuff he posts on social media.
I think most people do not take others' extremist views seriously, or will apply some critical thinking when considering what is being said, but when those extremist views are widely disseminated on the Internet there will be, unfortunately, a significant number of the gullible who will swallow it and believe
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
I thought you said you were pro free speech?
Calling someone racist, if you think they are, is in itself an exercise in free speech.
I didn't dispute that, feel free to call them out. It is a legal opinion if you think they are racist. Let them defend their view. I am not objecting to people being called racist....I am objecting to yes its an opinion you can hold but you aren't allowed to voice it.
There’s a difference between censorship and editing. You have no more right to have your opinions posted on PB than I do having an article published in the Daily Mail. The editors of the Daily Mail have every right not to print me. The editors of PB can ban me when they like. It’s their show in both cases.
That was not the point though, the point is being liable because you post perfectly legal opinion and then the police decide it isn't. The quote from algakirk for example yes you can have that opinion its legal...you just aren't allowed to say it publically ( yes I paraphrased)
I always wonder, do people actually take Andrew Tate seriously or is he just another one of this outlandish online personalities like Paul brothers, that do and say outrageous stuff and the kids copy the saying to be cool...how much are that actually believing it and how much is just repeating the catchphrases? I genuinely don't know the answer.
I do know that Tate business funnel is say outlandish stutt, get clicks, upsell you subscription to some very boring, poor value, but not really a scam set of courses about business, stock trading etc that aren't taught be him and nothing like the bitches and whores stuff he posts on social media.
I wouldn’t have heard of this guy had the BBC not obsessively reported about him.
Its feels rather distractory. Knife crime is a huge problem, the small boats are still coming thick and fast and still they haven't found anybody to head up thr task force, county lines, 30-40k suspected Islamists and its headlines about looking to basically create a law to go after Andrew Tate and send some of his most hardcore fans to Prevent.
It really is an atrocious Government. One of the absolute all time worst. It will be a pleasure to see the back of this lot - hopefully before the end of their five year term.
Its feels rather distractory. Knife crime is a huge problem, the small boats are still coming thick and fast and still they haven't found anybody to head up thr task force, county lines, 30-40k suspected Islamists and its headlines about looking to basically create a law to go after Andrew Tate and send some of his most hardcore fans to Prevent.
It really is an atrocious Government. One of the absolute all time worst. It will be a pleasure to see the back of this lot - hopefully before the end of their five year term.
It’s not even the worst government of the last two years. That honour belongs to the Liz Truss administration which, incidentally, was in power slightly longer at this point. People of the right, used to untrammelled power and influence, are simply throwing tantrums against the liberal left majority that finally asserted itself through highly effective tactical voting. That’s all it is.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
How does one criticise unprecedentedly high levels of immigration today without being labelled hard/far/extreme right?
Tell me one person who does criticise such levels of immigration and is spared these labels
One can justify limiting immigration on the basis that we haven't got appropriate infrastructure. It may or may not be a spurious argument but it's inoffensive.
That's just cold, stark reality; we have near 99% occupancy in this country
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
Being called a racist is not the same as being outlawed. You are such a sheltered snowflake.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
I’m not a woke centrist dad however I would suggest that although a lot of the low wage immigrants don’t “pay their way” they allow those that do pay their way to get on with paying their way.
So low paid immigrant carers potentially free up the couple who otherwise would have to look after an aging parent. The ten baristas take the money and make the drinks that contribute to the bottom line of a company such as Pret which then goes on to pay corporation tax and national insurance contributions.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
The King has heaped further pressure on the Duke of York by axing his ten-strong private security team, it has emerged...It means that Prince Andrew will be forced to find millions of pounds to fund future security operations at Royal Lodge, his Windsor home, if he wants to avoid eviction.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
I thought you said you were pro free speech?
Calling someone racist, if you think they are, is in itself an exercise in free speech.
I didn't dispute that, feel free to call them out. It is a legal opinion if you think they are racist. Let them defend their view. I am not objecting to people being called racist....I am objecting to yes its an opinion you can hold but you aren't allowed to voice it.
There’s a difference between censorship and editing. You have no more right to have your opinions posted on PB than I do having an article published in the Daily Mail. The editors of the Daily Mail have every right not to print me. The editors of PB can ban me when they like. It’s their show in both cases.
That was not the point though, the point is being liable because you post perfectly legal opinion and then the police decide it isn't. The quote from algakirk for example yes you can have that opinion its legal...you just aren't allowed to say it publically ( yes I paraphrased)
The courts decide who is liable based on laws Parliament pass, not the police. You’re just making shit up now.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
The King has heaped further pressure on the Duke of York by axing his ten-strong private security team, it has emerged...It means that Prince Andrew will be forced to find millions of pounds to fund future security operations at Royal Lodge, his Windsor home, if he wants to avoid eviction.
Who would bother killing him as he is a non entity apart from women he has potentially abused
The King has heaped further pressure on the Duke of York by axing his ten-strong private security team, it has emerged...It means that Prince Andrew will be forced to find millions of pounds to fund future security operations at Royal Lodge, his Windsor home, if he wants to avoid eviction.
Who would bother killing him as he is a non entity apart from women he has potentially abused
He will definitely be able to visit Pizza Express Woking without anybody noticing now.
Its feels rather distractory. Knife crime is a huge problem, the small boats are still coming thick and fast and still they haven't found anybody to head up thr task force, county lines, 30-40k suspected Islamists and its headlines about looking to basically create a law to go after Andrew Tate and send some of his most hardcore fans to Prevent.
It really is an atrocious Government. One of the absolute all time worst. It will be a pleasure to see the back of this lot - hopefully before the end of their five year term.
Oh dear. I fear you will be posting similar in 10 years' time, with the addition of 'third' before 'five year term'.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Well, there are many ways to fight back against them. Banning misogyny is not one of them.
Isn't the key thing proposed is that "violent misogyny" rather than "misogyny" is banned? So being sexist is legal, but advocating rape is not.
Is that currently allowed?
There’s a difference. Incitement is proven in by demonstrating that the defendant intentionally encouraged or assisted an offence, and that their behaviour was capable of actually persuading another person to commit that offence. This is determined based on the circumstances and the type of statements or actions involved. So encouraging someone to assault an identifiable person will get a conviction, not saying “x crime should be legal”.
However, there’s a crime of inciting hatred against other ethnic groups e.g. advocating that a group should be eliminated or enslaved. Women are not covered by that. The new legislation, I think, expand that. That would mean that advocating rape would come under that general heading rather than incitement to commit an offence.
In an ideal world you wouldn't make inciting hatred against one group of people worse than any other group, such behaviour should be punished equally (e.g. why is inciting rape of women worse than inciting rape of men?). But how do we get there?
The King has heaped further pressure on the Duke of York by axing his ten-strong private security team, it has emerged...It means that Prince Andrew will be forced to find millions of pounds to fund future security operations at Royal Lodge, his Windsor home, if he wants to avoid eviction.
Who would bother killing him as he is a non entity apart from women he has potentially abused
He will definitely be able to visit Pizza Express Woking without anybody noticing now.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Well, there are many ways to fight back against them. Banning misogyny is not one of them.
Isn't the key thing proposed is that "violent misogyny" rather than "misogyny" is banned? So being sexist is legal, but advocating rape is not.
Is that currently allowed?
There’s a difference. Incitement is proven in by demonstrating that the defendant intentionally encouraged or assisted an offence, and that their behaviour was capable of actually persuading another person to commit that offence. This is determined based on the circumstances and the type of statements or actions involved. So encouraging someone to assault an identifiable person will get a conviction, not saying “x crime should be legal”.
However, there’s a crime of inciting hatred against other ethnic groups e.g. advocating that a group should be eliminated or enslaved. Women are not covered by that. The new legislation, I think, expand that. That would mean that advocating rape would come under that general heading rather than incitement to commit an offence.
In an ideal world you wouldn't make inciting hatred against one group of people worse than any other group, such behaviour should be punished equally (e.g. why is inciting rape of women worse than inciting rape of men?). But how do we get there?
No group should have violence incited against them, whether on race, sex, or religion. The question is where do you draw the line on incitedment, for example if I say (and no not something I would say) Jewish men have really tight arseholes which makes buggering them a pleasure. Is that incitement?
Its feels rather distractory. Knife crime is a huge problem, the small boats are still coming thick and fast and still they haven't found anybody to head up thr task force, county lines, 30-40k suspected Islamists and its headlines about looking to basically create a law to go after Andrew Tate and send some of his most hardcore fans to Prevent.
You don’t need to break a law to be referred to Prevent.
The whole idea is to intervene before it becomes a legal thing.
FWIW my guess is that the next switch in this tale will be for the race to narrow once again. Whether that comes from an unpersuasive Convention speech by Harris or a refocusing of the artillery by Trump I can feel it coming. In fact we are seeing signs already that the gap between them is starting to narrow rather than continuing to widen.
This is going to the wire but I still think Harris is favourite.
FWIW my guess is that the next switch in this tale will be for the race to narrow once again. Whether that comes from an unpersuasive Convention speech by Harris or a refocusing of the artillery by Trump I can feel it coming. In fact we are seeing signs already that the gap between them is starting to narrow rather than continuing to widen.
This is going to the wire but I still think Harris is favourite.
I wouldn’t be so definite that it is going to narrow. But Harris is only slightly in front at the moment.
Some people seem to be acting as if she is looking at winning 50 states.
Its feels rather distractory. Knife crime is a huge problem, the small boats are still coming thick and fast and still they haven't found anybody to head up thr task force, county lines, 30-40k suspected Islamists and its headlines about looking to basically create a law to go after Andrew Tate and send some of his most hardcore fans to Prevent.
You don’t need to break a law to be referred to Prevent.
The whole idea is to intervene before it becomes a legal thing.
I didn't say you did, I said this announcement seems squarely as devising a law aimed at Andrew Tate and in the briefings the government have given they have talked about the review might want to consider actions such as sending people sucked into this world to Prevent.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Well, there are many ways to fight back against them. Banning misogyny is not one of them.
Lucky that the government review and the article linked makes no claim to be 'banning misogyny'. Just another thing for the free speech union loons to get their knickers in a twist about.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Well, there are many ways to fight back against them. Banning misogyny is not one of them.
Isn't the key thing proposed is that "violent misogyny" rather than "misogyny" is banned? So being sexist is legal, but advocating rape is not.
Is that currently allowed?
There’s a difference. Incitement is proven in by demonstrating that the defendant intentionally encouraged or assisted an offence, and that their behaviour was capable of actually persuading another person to commit that offence. This is determined based on the circumstances and the type of statements or actions involved. So encouraging someone to assault an identifiable person will get a conviction, not saying “x crime should be legal”.
However, there’s a crime of inciting hatred against other ethnic groups e.g. advocating that a group should be eliminated or enslaved. Women are not covered by that. The new legislation, I think, expand that. That would mean that advocating rape would come under that general heading rather than incitement to commit an offence.
In an ideal world you wouldn't make inciting hatred against one group of people worse than any other group, such behaviour should be punished equally (e.g. why is inciting rape of women worse than inciting rape of men?). But how do we get there?
That’s not how the law works. For example the Public Order Act 1986 (as amended by the Blair Govt) says -
29CPublishing or distributing written material
(1)A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
(2)References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.
The new law will probably say something similar but replacing “religious hatred” with “hatred on the grounds of sex or gender”. That would mean that someone saying “Men deserve to be raped” could be prosecuted. But in truth that rarely happens. Similarly we get few people saying “Christians should all be deported” (although sentiments like that regarding Catholics existed in our not so distant past) so few prosecutions.
FWIW my guess is that the next switch in this tale will be for the race to narrow once again. Whether that comes from an unpersuasive Convention speech by Harris or a refocusing of the artillery by Trump I can feel it coming. In fact we are seeing signs already that the gap between them is starting to narrow rather than continuing to widen.
This is going to the wire but I still think Harris is favourite.
I wouldn’t be so definite that it is going to narrow. But Harris is only slightly in front at the moment.
Some people seem to be acting as if she is looking at winning 50 states.
If you look at some of the more credible aggregates, such as 538, the gap between them was much wider than RCP has indicated but it peaked at about 2.9% and is now down to 2.6%. Its not much but the big Mo that people have been talking about has somewhat run out of steam.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
yeah there is a problem there are locals aren't well educated. Increasing the market I work in (software engineer) is getting in apprentices becase graduate don't know there arse from their elbows....no idea what they are being taught but last two companies I have worked for throw comp sci graduates with no experience in the bin
Its feels rather distractory. Knife crime is a huge problem, the small boats are still coming thick and fast and still they haven't found anybody to head up thr task force, county lines, 30-40k suspected Islamists and its headlines about looking to basically create a law to go after Andrew Tate and send some of his most hardcore fans to Prevent.
It really is an atrocious Government. One of the absolute all time worst. It will be a pleasure to see the back of this lot - hopefully before the end of their five year term.
It’s not even the worst government of the last two years. That honour belongs to the Liz Truss administration which, incidentally, was in power slightly longer at this point. People of the right, used to untrammelled power and influence, are simply throwing tantrums against the liberal left majority that finally asserted itself through highly effective tactical voting. That’s all it is.
It's not even the worst government in the last two months.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
Not sure about this. The simple fact is that a lot of the people who live in this country are not capable of producing high value added contributions. It is important that our society still gives a meaningful life to those of more limited abilities and makes them feel a part of us.
Its feels rather distractory. Knife crime is a huge problem, the small boats are still coming thick and fast and still they haven't found anybody to head up thr task force, county lines, 30-40k suspected Islamists and its headlines about looking to basically create a law to go after Andrew Tate and send some of his most hardcore fans to Prevent.
It really is an atrocious Government. One of the absolute all time worst. It will be a pleasure to see the back of this lot - hopefully before the end of their five year term.
Oh dear. I fear you will be posting similar in 10 years' time, with the addition of 'third' before 'five year term'.
FWIW my guess is that the next switch in this tale will be for the race to narrow once again. Whether that comes from an unpersuasive Convention speech by Harris or a refocusing of the artillery by Trump I can feel it coming. In fact we are seeing signs already that the gap between them is starting to narrow rather than continuing to widen.
This is going to the wire but I still think Harris is favourite.
That's my view: I think she's getting a bit more scrutiny, and he's getting a bit more focused. But I think the abortion referendums are going to be a massive driver of Democrat turnout in States like Arizona and Florida. My gut is that the Dems lose Nevada and Georgia from their 2016 set, while possibly gaining North Carolina or Florida. (Polls show that Florida is one of the most pro-abortion states in the US, so the Republican legislature passed an unpopular extremely restrictive law.)
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
Issue is they will not do any job , far better to take the benefits. We have a surplus of people who would have trouble counting their fingers. The countries you mention do not featherbed people.
Its feels rather distractory. Knife crime is a huge problem, the small boats are still coming thick and fast and still they haven't found anybody to head up thr task force, county lines, 30-40k suspected Islamists and its headlines about looking to basically create a law to go after Andrew Tate and send some of his most hardcore fans to Prevent.
It really is an atrocious Government. One of the absolute all time worst. It will be a pleasure to see the back of this lot - hopefully before the end of their five year term.
It’s not even the worst government of the last two years. That honour belongs to the Liz Truss administration which, incidentally, was in power slightly longer at this point. People of the right, used to untrammelled power and influence, are simply throwing tantrums against the liberal left majority that finally asserted itself through highly effective tactical voting. That’s all it is.
On Friday this week Starmer will pass Truss in terms of duration of premiership.
Its feels rather distractory. Knife crime is a huge problem, the small boats are still coming thick and fast and still they haven't found anybody to head up thr task force, county lines, 30-40k suspected Islamists and its headlines about looking to basically create a law to go after Andrew Tate and send some of his most hardcore fans to Prevent.
It really is an atrocious Government. One of the absolute all time worst. It will be a pleasure to see the back of this lot - hopefully before the end of their five year term.
It’s not even the worst government of the last two years. That honour belongs to the Liz Truss administration which, incidentally, was in power slightly longer at this point. People of the right, used to untrammelled power and influence, are simply throwing tantrums against the liberal left majority that finally asserted itself through highly effective tactical voting. That’s all it is.
Keep whistling a happy tune. It might distract you from the deeply Orwellian instincts of the frankly useless Government that you support. I mean seriously, *this* is the cherished reform agenda that they nurtured for over 14 years?
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
That only works if the low-skilled immigrants are treated as temporary workers, have no recourse to public funds, and their employers are expected to pay for their healthcare and education.
FWIW my guess is that the next switch in this tale will be for the race to narrow once again. Whether that comes from an unpersuasive Convention speech by Harris or a refocusing of the artillery by Trump I can feel it coming. In fact we are seeing signs already that the gap between them is starting to narrow rather than continuing to widen.
This is going to the wire but I still think Harris is favourite.
That's my view: I think she's getting a bit more scrutiny, and he's getting a bit more focused. But I think the abortion referendums are going to be a massive driver of Democrat turnout in States like Arizona and Florida. My gut is that the Dems lose Nevada and Georgia from their 2016 set, while possibly gaining North Carolina or Florida. (Polls show that Florida is one of the most pro-abortion states in the US, so the Republican legislature passed an unpopular extremely restrictive law.)
I agree. But anyone who thinks this is a walk in the park or that Trump is out of this is frankly deluding themselves.
Its feels rather distractory. Knife crime is a huge problem, the small boats are still coming thick and fast and still they haven't found anybody to head up thr task force, county lines, 30-40k suspected Islamists and its headlines about looking to basically create a law to go after Andrew Tate and send some of his most hardcore fans to Prevent.
It really is an atrocious Government. One of the absolute all time worst. It will be a pleasure to see the back of this lot - hopefully before the end of their five year term.
Oh dear. I fear you will be posting similar in 10 years' time, with the addition of 'third' before 'five year term'.
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Well, there are many ways to fight back against them. Banning misogyny is not one of them.
Isn't the key thing proposed is that "violent misogyny" rather than "misogyny" is banned? So being sexist is legal, but advocating rape is not.
Is that currently allowed?
There’s a difference. Incitement is proven in by demonstrating that the defendant intentionally encouraged or assisted an offence, and that their behaviour was capable of actually persuading another person to commit that offence. This is determined based on the circumstances and the type of statements or actions involved. So encouraging someone to assault an identifiable person will get a conviction, not saying “x crime should be legal”.
However, there’s a crime of inciting hatred against other ethnic groups e.g. advocating that a group should be eliminated or enslaved. Women are not covered by that. The new legislation, I think, expand that. That would mean that advocating rape would come under that general heading rather than incitement to commit an offence.
In an ideal world you wouldn't make inciting hatred against one group of people worse than any other group, such behaviour should be punished equally (e.g. why is inciting rape of women worse than inciting rape of men?). But how do we get there?
That’s not how the law works. For example the Public Order Act 1986 (as amended by the Blair Govt) says -
29CPublishing or distributing written material
(1)A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
(2)References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.
The new law will probably say something similar but replacing “religious hatred” with “hatred on the grounds of sex or gender”. That would mean that someone saying “Men deserve to be raped” could be prosecuted. But in truth that rarely happens. Similarly we get few people saying “Christians should all be deported” (although sentiments like that regarding Catholics existed in our not so distant past) so few prosecutions.
I wasn’t commenting on how the law works now, but rather how it should work. All incitement of violence towards other people is bad, regardless of who is involved.
FWIW my guess is that the next switch in this tale will be for the race to narrow once again. Whether that comes from an unpersuasive Convention speech by Harris or a refocusing of the artillery by Trump I can feel it coming. In fact we are seeing signs already that the gap between them is starting to narrow rather than continuing to widen.
This is going to the wire but I still think Harris is favourite.
That's my view: I think she's getting a bit more scrutiny, and he's getting a bit more focused. But I think the abortion referendums are going to be a massive driver of Democrat turnout in States like Arizona and Florida. My gut is that the Dems lose Nevada and Georgia from their 2016 set, while possibly gaining North Carolina or Florida. (Polls show that Florida is one of the most pro-abortion states in the US, so the Republican legislature passed an unpopular extremely restrictive law.)
I agree. But anyone who thinks this is a walk in the park or that Trump is out of this is frankly deluding themselves.
I don't think either, but I do think that the odds are in Harris' favour and that Trump is a lay at current odds.
FWIW my guess is that the next switch in this tale will be for the race to narrow once again. Whether that comes from an unpersuasive Convention speech by Harris or a refocusing of the artillery by Trump I can feel it coming. In fact we are seeing signs already that the gap between them is starting to narrow rather than continuing to widen.
This is going to the wire but I still think Harris is favourite.
I wouldn’t be so definite that it is going to narrow. But Harris is only slightly in front at the moment.
Some people seem to be acting as if she is looking at winning 50 states.
If you look at some of the more credible aggregates, such as 538, the gap between them was much wider than RCP has indicated but it peaked at about 2.9% and is now down to 2.6%. Its not much but the big Mo that people have been talking about has somewhat run out of steam.
0.3% variation in a polling average isn’t data - that’s noise.
Apparently, pensioners, I am told, are going to freeze to death this winter with the removal of the winter fuel allowance but there are over 850,000 pensioners on low incomes who are eligible for pension credit but don't (for whatever reason) claim it. Good news for the public finances as there's £1.7 billion or so to go toward debt interest payments but shouldn't we (and to be fair the last Government did try) be doing everything we can to ensure those eligible for ANY benefit should be able to claim it?
I suspect the claiming process has been deliberately complex to put people off but that would just be cynical, wouldn't it?
No I really don't. If encouraging "incel ideology" is leading to inadequate young men taking their bizarre "revenge" on innocent women and girls bring it on.
Have you not come across the work of Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Well, there are many ways to fight back against them. Banning misogyny is not one of them.
Isn't the key thing proposed is that "violent misogyny" rather than "misogyny" is banned? So being sexist is legal, but advocating rape is not.
Is that currently allowed?
There’s a difference. Incitement is proven in by demonstrating that the defendant intentionally encouraged or assisted an offence, and that their behaviour was capable of actually persuading another person to commit that offence. This is determined based on the circumstances and the type of statements or actions involved. So encouraging someone to assault an identifiable person will get a conviction, not saying “x crime should be legal”.
However, there’s a crime of inciting hatred against other ethnic groups e.g. advocating that a group should be eliminated or enslaved. Women are not covered by that. The new legislation, I think, expand that. That would mean that advocating rape would come under that general heading rather than incitement to commit an offence.
In an ideal world you wouldn't make inciting hatred against one group of people worse than any other group, such behaviour should be punished equally (e.g. why is inciting rape of women worse than inciting rape of men?). But how do we get there?
That’s not how the law works. For example the Public Order Act 1986 (as amended by the Blair Govt) says -
29CPublishing or distributing written material
(1)A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
(2)References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.
The new law will probably say something similar but replacing “religious hatred” with “hatred on the grounds of sex or gender”. That would mean that someone saying “Men deserve to be raped” could be prosecuted. But in truth that rarely happens. Similarly we get few people saying “Christians should all be deported” (although sentiments like that regarding Catholics existed in our not so distant past) so few prosecutions.
I wasn’t commenting on how the law works now, but rather how it should work. All incitement of violence towards other people is bad, regardless of who is involved.
You implied that the law considers inciting hatred against one group as being worse than against another. It doesn’t. I will concede that charging decisions etc tend to prioritise charging when a minority group is the subject of the attack. That is because minorities are, well, minorities and logic dictates they are at greater threat than majorities, which hade, by definition, safety in numbers.
Women are not a minority but sex or gender based hate crime against men by women is a tiny, almost non-existent, problem. Legislation is designed to solve problems (badly usually but that’s another discussion) so coverage focusses on the problem.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
That only works if the low-skilled immigrants are treated as temporary workers, have no recourse to public funds, and their employers are expected to pay for their healthcare and education.
Sure: but the UK has done that for decades with - say - working holiday visas. Heck, my wife's visa when she came to the UK had "no recourse to public funds" printed in large letters on it.
I'm struggling to see the problem.
Now, sure, some will end up staying: permanently they will marry Brits, or end up doing more high skilled jobs that expected, or get educated while they are here.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
Issue is they will not do any job , far better to take the benefits. We have a surplus of people who would have trouble counting their fingers. The countries you mention do not featherbed people.
FWIW my guess is that the next switch in this tale will be for the race to narrow once again. Whether that comes from an unpersuasive Convention speech by Harris or a refocusing of the artillery by Trump I can feel it coming. In fact we are seeing signs already that the gap between them is starting to narrow rather than continuing to widen.
This is going to the wire but I still think Harris is favourite.
I wouldn’t be so definite that it is going to narrow. But Harris is only slightly in front at the moment.
Some people seem to be acting as if she is looking at winning 50 states.
If you look at some of the more credible aggregates, such as 538, the gap between them was much wider than RCP has indicated but it peaked at about 2.9% and is now down to 2.6%. Its not much but the big Mo that people have been talking about has somewhat run out of steam.
0.3% variation in a polling average isn’t data - that’s noise.
But it was consistently growing week after week, day after day. Until about 7 days ago when the trend changed. Trump is looking more incoherent and demented by the day and Vance is not helping but people are finally starting to look at what Harris is offering and her "profit gouging" price control mechanisms is not a good start. Her commitment to more social housing is somewhat better.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
That only works if the low-skilled immigrants are treated as temporary workers, have no recourse to public funds, and their employers are expected to pay for their healthcare and education.
Sure: but the UK has done that for decades with - say - working holiday visas. Heck, my wife's visa when she came to the UK had "no recourse to public funds" printed in large letters on it.
I'm struggling to see the problem.
Now, sure, some will end up staying: permanently they will marry Brits, or end up doing more high skilled jobs that expected, or get educated while they are here.
But again, I'm struggling to see the problem.
I don’t have a problem with it, you don’t have a problem with it, but the whole human rights industrial complex would very much have a problem with it. Yes, it would be in effect an expansion of temporary agricultural visas to minimum wage staff everywhere.
But the housing issues need fixing first, which is at least a decade away.
FWIW my guess is that the next switch in this tale will be for the race to narrow once again. Whether that comes from an unpersuasive Convention speech by Harris or a refocusing of the artillery by Trump I can feel it coming. In fact we are seeing signs already that the gap between them is starting to narrow rather than continuing to widen.
This is going to the wire but I still think Harris is favourite.
I wouldn’t be so definite that it is going to narrow. But Harris is only slightly in front at the moment.
Some people seem to be acting as if she is looking at winning 50 states.
If you look at some of the more credible aggregates, such as 538, the gap between them was much wider than RCP has indicated but it peaked at about 2.9% and is now down to 2.6%. Its not much but the big Mo that people have been talking about has somewhat run out of steam.
0.3% variation in a polling average isn’t data - that’s noise.
But it was consistently growing week after week, day after day. Until about 7 days ago when the trend changed. Trump is looking more incoherent and demented by the day and Vance is not helping but people are finally starting to look at what Harris is offering and her "profit gouging" price control mechanisms is not a good start. Her commitment to more social housing is somewhat better.
More to do with the limited pool of voters
45% will vote for Trump if he engages in a threesome with Putin and Xi. On stage.
45% will vote for the opponent of Trump. Even if that is Cuthulu’s younger, worse, brother.
So you are looking at 10% of voters.
This does ignore the possibility of differential turnout, but is a fair guess.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
That only works if the low-skilled immigrants are treated as temporary workers, have no recourse to public funds, and their employers are expected to pay for their healthcare and education.
Sure: but the UK has done that for decades with - say - working holiday visas. Heck, my wife's visa when she came to the UK had "no recourse to public funds" printed in large letters on it.
I'm struggling to see the problem.
Now, sure, some will end up staying: permanently they will marry Brits, or end up doing more high skilled jobs that expected, or get educated while they are here.
But again, I'm struggling to see the problem.
I don’t have a problem with it, you don’t have a problem with it, but the whole human rights industrial complex would very much have a problem with it. Yes, it would be in effect an expansion of temporary agricultural visas to minimum wage staff everywhere.
But the housing issues need fixing first, which is at least a decade away.
But we do this now. We do it with seasonal worker visas, and working holiday visas.
Apparently, pensioners, I am told, are going to freeze to death this winter with the removal of the winter fuel allowance but there are over 850,000 pensioners on low incomes who are eligible for pension credit but don't (for whatever reason) claim it. Good news for the public finances as there's £1.7 billion or so to go toward debt interest payments but shouldn't we (and to be fair the last Government did try) be doing everything we can to ensure those eligible for ANY benefit should be able to claim it?
I suspect the claiming process has been deliberately complex to put people off but that would just be cynical, wouldn't it?
In this case Stodge, yes, you are being cynical. Pension Credit is a piece of piss to claim compared with Universal Credit, PIP, Attendance Allowance, ESA, indeed just about any other benefit apart from State Pension and Child Benefit.
You can call the Pension Credit claim line on 0800 99 1234 and they will fill in the application for you over the phone.
Why don't more people claim? Many don't realise they are eligible; some are too 'proud' to claim.
Its feels rather distractory. Knife crime is a huge problem, the small boats are still coming thick and fast and still they haven't found anybody to head up thr task force, county lines, 30-40k suspected Islamists and its headlines about looking to basically create a law to go after Andrew Tate and send some of his most hardcore fans to Prevent.
It really is an atrocious Government. One of the absolute all time worst. It will be a pleasure to see the back of this lot - hopefully before the end of their five year term.
Sadly there aren't many precedents for a government with a large majority falling apart significantly before its time. As turkeys don't generally vote for Christmas if they're very unpopular by the end I think they'll go the full five years.
Sunak's bizarre decision to call an election six months early is the only slight exception to this pattern. And he and his wife had their billions to fall back on, in the way that Starmer doesn't.
Its feels rather distractory. Knife crime is a huge problem, the small boats are still coming thick and fast and still they haven't found anybody to head up thr task force, county lines, 30-40k suspected Islamists and its headlines about looking to basically create a law to go after Andrew Tate and send some of his most hardcore fans to Prevent.
It really is an atrocious Government. One of the absolute all time worst. It will be a pleasure to see the back of this lot - hopefully before the end of their five year term.
Sadly there aren't many precedents for a government with a large majority falling apart significantly before its time. As turkeys don't generally vote for Christmas if they're very unpopular by the end I think they'll go the full five years.
Sunak's bizarre decision to call an election six months early is the only slight exception to this pattern. And he and his wife had their billions to fall back on, in the way that Starmer doesn't.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
That only works if the low-skilled immigrants are treated as temporary workers, have no recourse to public funds, and their employers are expected to pay for their healthcare and education.
Sure: but the UK has done that for decades with - say - working holiday visas. Heck, my wife's visa when she came to the UK had "no recourse to public funds" printed in large letters on it.
I'm struggling to see the problem.
Now, sure, some will end up staying: permanently they will marry Brits, or end up doing more high skilled jobs that expected, or get educated while they are here.
But again, I'm struggling to see the problem.
I don’t have a problem with it, you don’t have a problem with it, but the whole human rights industrial complex would very much have a problem with it. Yes, it would be in effect an expansion of temporary agricultural visas to minimum wage staff everywhere.
But the housing issues need fixing first, which is at least a decade away.
But we do this now. We do it with seasonal worker visas, and working holiday visas.
Seasonal visas work best, unsurprisingly, for jobs that are seasonal. Do a job for a couple of months then go back home.
Permanent job roles is a different matter and needs a better solution.
And importing unskilled people to press down on the wages of the poorest in society is a deeply regressive policy as well as being economically counterproductive.
Its ridiculous. The number of state polls with Harris in the lead they have simply ignored. 538 has had Harris ahead there for about 3 weeks. And as soon as they concede reality with Pennsylvania they are conceding that Trump is behind in the EC. They seem extremely reluctant to do that.
FWIW my guess is that the next switch in this tale will be for the race to narrow once again. Whether that comes from an unpersuasive Convention speech by Harris or a refocusing of the artillery by Trump I can feel it coming. In fact we are seeing signs already that the gap between them is starting to narrow rather than continuing to widen.
This is going to the wire but I still think Harris is favourite.
I wouldn’t be so definite that it is going to narrow. But Harris is only slightly in front at the moment.
Some people seem to be acting as if she is looking at winning 50 states.
If you look at some of the more credible aggregates, such as 538, the gap between them was much wider than RCP has indicated but it peaked at about 2.9% and is now down to 2.6%. Its not much but the big Mo that people have been talking about has somewhat run out of steam.
0.3% variation in a polling average isn’t data - that’s noise.
But it was consistently growing week after week, day after day. Until about 7 days ago when the trend changed. Trump is looking more incoherent and demented by the day and Vance is not helping but people are finally starting to look at what Harris is offering and her "profit gouging" price control mechanisms is not a good start. Her commitment to more social housing is somewhat better.
Are you really torturing this?
If so, meet me at low tide by Tower Bridge. I can sell you some nice beach property, a bridge *and* some Scottish sub samples.
"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
Can I just remind all anti-Zionists that if they want Israel to be allowed to exist, then they are in fact Zionists
There is no middle ground. If you're anti-Zionist you're on the side that means no Israel, and no Jews anywhere near it
But how do we criticize Israeli policy towards the Palestinians without being branded antisemitic?
I generally find one says "Israeli Government policy" rather than "Israeli policy" it takes the sting out of any accusations of antisemitism as you're not even criticising "Israel" per se, just its government. Its a few more keystrokes but it makes difference to all but those determined to find offence whatever
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
That only works if the low-skilled immigrants are treated as temporary workers, have no recourse to public funds, and their employers are expected to pay for their healthcare and education.
Sure: but the UK has done that for decades with - say - working holiday visas. Heck, my wife's visa when she came to the UK had "no recourse to public funds" printed in large letters on it.
I'm struggling to see the problem.
Now, sure, some will end up staying: permanently they will marry Brits, or end up doing more high skilled jobs that expected, or get educated while they are here.
But again, I'm struggling to see the problem.
I don’t have a problem with it, you don’t have a problem with it, but the whole human rights industrial complex would very much have a problem with it. Yes, it would be in effect an expansion of temporary agricultural visas to minimum wage staff everywhere.
But the housing issues need fixing first, which is at least a decade away.
But we do this now. We do it with seasonal worker visas, and working holiday visas.
Seasonal visas work best, unsurprisingly, for jobs that are seasonal. Do a job for a couple of months then go back home.
Permanent job roles is a different matter and needs a better solution.
And importing unskilled people to press down on the wages of the poorest in society is a deeply regressive policy as well as being economically counterproductive.
I'm suggesting a goal: that Brits are so well educated, they all have high skilled jobs and don't want to work in old age people's homes.
I'm not suggesting a wholesale change if policy, merely pointing out that Switzerland and Singapore have an awful lot of low skilled immigration, because of how good their education systems are.
Can I just remind all anti-Zionists that if they want Israel to be allowed to exist, then they are in fact Zionists
There is no middle ground. If you're anti-Zionist you're on the side that means no Israel, and no Jews anywhere near it
Can I just remind you that most people in this country don't give it a moment's thought?
I spent this weekend with extended family, catching up. Topics we talked about which might be deemed 'political' included: the recent riots, immigration, benefits, drug gangs, the NHS, crime, mortgage rates, the cost of living, the economy, social media, prisons, the police, racism, the US election, Starmer, Sunak, Harris, Trump, the state pension age, the Ukraine war, China, education, strikes, taxation, public spending and transport.
Apparently, pensioners, I am told, are going to freeze to death this winter with the removal of the winter fuel allowance but there are over 850,000 pensioners on low incomes who are eligible for pension credit but don't (for whatever reason) claim it. Good news for the public finances as there's £1.7 billion or so to go toward debt interest payments but shouldn't we (and to be fair the last Government did try) be doing everything we can to ensure those eligible for ANY benefit should be able to claim it?
I suspect the claiming process has been deliberately complex to put people off but that would just be cynical, wouldn't it?
In this case Stodge, yes, you are being cynical. Pension Credit is a piece of piss to claim compared with Universal Credit, PIP, Attendance Allowance, ESA, indeed just about any other benefit apart from State Pension and Child Benefit.
You can call the Pension Credit claim line on 0800 99 1234 and they will fill in the application for you over the phone.
Why don't more people claim? Many don't realise they are eligible; some are too 'proud' to claim.
I sit corrected but the fact remains ignorance of eligibility and "pride" shouldn't stand in the way of being warm in the middle of winter.
There needs to be a much more concerted and multi-agency approach around ensuring pensioners know or understand they are entitled to additional help and while I accept the pride thing isn't going to be easy to get round that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
If a scintilla of the anger around the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance were directed toward communicating rhe eligibility rules (and communicating with and to pensioners isn't easy and needs the right people and the right words at the right time) to those pensioners who could benefit we'd be in a much better place.
The Conservatives did try in June 2023 but it was a half hearted effort. This needs to be a concerted attempt to get the message over to people.
"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
Its my wife's birthday on 7th September and she has finally conceded that she needs a smartphone. Any recommendations? She needs to pick up emails and text messages from our needy kids, phone messages from her mother and the unending supply of agencies involved in her care and she likes some games like Candy crush. Nothing too fancy.
"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
Its my wife's birthday on 7th September and she has finally conceded that she needs a smartphone. Any recommendations? She needs to pick up emails and text messages from our needy kids, phone messages from her mother and the unending supply of agencies involved in her care and she likes some games like Candy crush. Nothing too fancy.
iPhone SE. cheapest one.
Think of it as the cheapest house on the nicest street.
Apparently, pensioners, I am told, are going to freeze to death this winter with the removal of the winter fuel allowance but there are over 850,000 pensioners on low incomes who are eligible for pension credit but don't (for whatever reason) claim it. Good news for the public finances as there's £1.7 billion or so to go toward debt interest payments but shouldn't we (and to be fair the last Government did try) be doing everything we can to ensure those eligible for ANY benefit should be able to claim it?
I suspect the claiming process has been deliberately complex to put people off but that would just be cynical, wouldn't it?
In this case Stodge, yes, you are being cynical. Pension Credit is a piece of piss to claim compared with Universal Credit, PIP, Attendance Allowance, ESA, indeed just about any other benefit apart from State Pension and Child Benefit.
You can call the Pension Credit claim line on 0800 99 1234 and they will fill in the application for you over the phone.
Why don't more people claim? Many don't realise they are eligible; some are too 'proud' to claim.
I sit corrected but the fact remains ignorance of eligibility and "pride" shouldn't stand in the way of being warm in the middle of winter.
There needs to be a much more concerted and multi-agency approach around ensuring pensioners know or understand they are entitled to additional help and while I accept the pride thing isn't going to be easy to get round that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
If a scintilla of the anger around the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance were directed toward communicating rhe eligibility rules (and communicating with and to pensioners isn't easy and needs the right people and the right words at the right time) to those pensioners who could benefit we'd be in a much better place.
The Conservatives did try in June 2023 but it was a half hearted effort. This needs to be a concerted attempt to get the message over to people.
Family and friends have a big role to play.
We have finally (after several years of trying) persuaded my father-in-law to claim Attendance Allowance. Posted the completed application form today.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
Issue is they will not do any job , far better to take the benefits. We have a surplus of people who would have trouble counting their fingers. The countries you mention do not featherbed people.
Who is "they"?
Lots of the ones that never ever have employment or even look for it, for sure it is hard to believe that the UK can have an incredibly higher number of people who will not or cannot work than the rest of the developed world.
Apparently, pensioners, I am told, are going to freeze to death this winter with the removal of the winter fuel allowance but there are over 850,000 pensioners on low incomes who are eligible for pension credit but don't (for whatever reason) claim it. Good news for the public finances as there's £1.7 billion or so to go toward debt interest payments but shouldn't we (and to be fair the last Government did try) be doing everything we can to ensure those eligible for ANY benefit should be able to claim it?
I suspect the claiming process has been deliberately complex to put people off but that would just be cynical, wouldn't it?
In this case Stodge, yes, you are being cynical. Pension Credit is a piece of piss to claim compared with Universal Credit, PIP, Attendance Allowance, ESA, indeed just about any other benefit apart from State Pension and Child Benefit.
You can call the Pension Credit claim line on 0800 99 1234 and they will fill in the application for you over the phone.
Why don't more people claim? Many don't realise they are eligible; some are too 'proud' to claim.
I sit corrected but the fact remains ignorance of eligibility and "pride" shouldn't stand in the way of being warm in the middle of winter.
There needs to be a much more concerted and multi-agency approach around ensuring pensioners know or understand they are entitled to additional help and while I accept the pride thing isn't going to be easy to get round that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
If a scintilla of the anger around the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance were directed toward communicating rhe eligibility rules (and communicating with and to pensioners isn't easy and needs the right people and the right words at the right time) to those pensioners who could benefit we'd be in a much better place.
The Conservatives did try in June 2023 but it was a half hearted effort. This needs to be a concerted attempt to get the message over to people.
It would be a good idea for the government/DWP to send a letter to every single OAP stating: a) WFA is no longer automatic, and b) if you have a low income from the State Pension and elsewhere, here's an easy way to apply for pension credit and make sure your WFA continues.
"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
Its my wife's birthday on 7th September and she has finally conceded that she needs a smartphone. Any recommendations? She needs to pick up emails and text messages from our needy kids, phone messages from her mother and the unending supply of agencies involved in her care and she likes some games like Candy crush. Nothing too fancy.
iPhone SE. cheapest one.
Think of it as the cheapest house on the nicest street.
Heck, it doesn't bother me, as I think they all have some of Mrs J's circuitry in.
But I'd argue Samsung. Don't feed the Apple monster...
"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
Its my wife's birthday on 7th September and she has finally conceded that she needs a smartphone. Any recommendations? She needs to pick up emails and text messages from our needy kids, phone messages from her mother and the unending supply of agencies involved in her care and she likes some games like Candy crush. Nothing too fancy.
iPhone SE. cheapest one.
Think of it as the cheapest house on the nicest street.
Yes, she loves her Ipads and the phone being able to speak to them would be helpful.
"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
Its my wife's birthday on 7th September and she has finally conceded that she needs a smartphone. Any recommendations? She needs to pick up emails and text messages from our needy kids, phone messages from her mother and the unending supply of agencies involved in her care and she likes some games like Candy crush. Nothing too fancy.
If you're not locked into the Apple ecosystem then almost any Android.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
That only works if the low-skilled immigrants are treated as temporary workers, have no recourse to public funds, and their employers are expected to pay for their healthcare and education.
Sure: but the UK has done that for decades with - say - working holiday visas. Heck, my wife's visa when she came to the UK had "no recourse to public funds" printed in large letters on it.
I'm struggling to see the problem.
Now, sure, some will end up staying: permanently they will marry Brits, or end up doing more high skilled jobs that expected, or get educated while they are here.
But again, I'm struggling to see the problem.
I don’t have a problem with it, you don’t have a problem with it, but the whole human rights industrial complex would very much have a problem with it. Yes, it would be in effect an expansion of temporary agricultural visas to minimum wage staff everywhere.
But the housing issues need fixing first, which is at least a decade away.
But we do this now. We do it with seasonal worker visas, and working holiday visas.
Seasonal visas work best, unsurprisingly, for jobs that are seasonal. Do a job for a couple of months then go back home.
Permanent job roles is a different matter and needs a better solution.
And importing unskilled people to press down on the wages of the poorest in society is a deeply regressive policy as well as being economically counterproductive.
I'm suggesting a goal: that Brits are so well educated, they all have high skilled jobs and don't want to work in old age people's homes.
I'm not suggesting a wholesale change if policy, merely pointing out that Switzerland and Singapore have an awful lot of low skilled immigration, because of how good their education systems are.
I'm curious as to what effect UBI would have on social care in the UK. Carer's allowance (for full time care) is currently £81.20 per week.
I'm sure someone will have done some work on it - I'll have a dig around.
Comments
My experience tells me that bad driving is reasonably equally shared amongst the genders.
Except the stakes are higher because we've got racist riots thrown in.
Of course, SKS is not Ms Truss.
Is there a safe cultural argument to be made?
So low paid immigrant carers potentially free up the couple who otherwise would have to look after an aging parent. The ten baristas take the money and make the drinks that contribute to the bottom line of a company such as Pret which then goes on to pay corporation tax and national insurance contributions.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
Immediately.
J D Vance is not much help.
That should be of help to Trump.
The whole idea is to intervene before it becomes a legal thing.
This is going to the wire but I still think Harris is favourite.
Some people seem to be acting as if she is looking at winning 50 states.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
29CPublishing or distributing written material
(1)A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
(2)References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.
The new law will probably say something similar but replacing “religious hatred” with “hatred on the grounds of sex or gender”. That would mean that someone saying “Men deserve to be raped” could be prosecuted. But in truth that rarely happens. Similarly we get few people saying “Christians should all be deported” (although sentiments like that regarding Catholics existed in our not so distant past) so few prosecutions.
Laying Trump below 3 is I think value.
There is no middle ground. If you're anti-Zionist you're on the side that means no Israel, and no Jews anywhere near it
Apparently, pensioners, I am told, are going to freeze to death this winter with the removal of the winter fuel allowance but there are over 850,000 pensioners on low incomes who are eligible for pension credit but don't (for whatever reason) claim it. Good news for the public finances as there's £1.7 billion or so to go toward debt interest payments but shouldn't we (and to be fair the last Government did try) be doing everything we can to ensure those eligible for ANY benefit should be able to claim it?
I suspect the claiming process has been deliberately complex to put people off but that would just be cynical, wouldn't it?
Women are not a minority but sex or gender based hate crime against men by women is a tiny, almost non-existent, problem. Legislation is designed to solve problems (badly usually but that’s another discussion) so coverage focusses on the problem.
I'm struggling to see the problem.
Now, sure, some will end up staying: permanently they will marry Brits, or end up doing more high skilled jobs that expected, or get educated while they are here.
But again, I'm struggling to see the problem.
But the housing issues need fixing first, which is at least a decade away.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/president/2024/no-toss-up/electoral-college
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/pennsylvania/trump-vs-harris
45% will vote for Trump if he engages in a threesome with Putin and Xi. On stage.
45% will vote for the opponent of Trump. Even if that is Cuthulu’s younger, worse, brother.
So you are looking at 10% of voters.
This does ignore the possibility of differential turnout, but is a fair guess.
You can call the Pension Credit claim line on 0800 99 1234 and they will fill in the application for you over the phone.
Why don't more people claim? Many don't realise they are eligible; some are too 'proud' to claim.
Sunak's bizarre decision to call an election six months early is the only slight exception to this pattern. And he and his wife had their billions to fall back on, in the way that Starmer doesn't.
Soaring prices and a lack of meaningful innovation have created a rising tide of smartphone apathy"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/18/why-britain-stopped-buying-mobile-phones/
Permanent job roles is a different matter and needs a better solution.
And importing unskilled people to press down on the wages of the poorest in society is a deeply regressive policy as well as being economically counterproductive.
If so, meet me at low tide by Tower Bridge. I can sell you some nice beach property, a bridge *and* some Scottish sub samples.
Draft budget reveals funds for Kyiv will amount to a mere €500 million in 2027"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/08/18/germany-plans-cut-ukraine-aid/
1) Netanyahu is a lying, racist sack of shit who should be in prison. Not Racist.
2) Jews bake the blood of children into bread. Racist.
Also, free from Malmesbury’s Simple Rules For a Simple Life
126) If you set fire to immigrants, you may be mistaken for a racist. Don’t do this.
Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
I'm not suggesting a wholesale change if policy, merely pointing out that Switzerland and Singapore have an awful lot of low skilled immigration, because of how good their education systems are.
I spent this weekend with extended family, catching up. Topics we talked about which might be deemed 'political' included: the recent riots, immigration, benefits, drug gangs, the NHS, crime, mortgage rates, the cost of living, the economy, social media, prisons, the police, racism, the US election, Starmer, Sunak, Harris, Trump, the state pension age, the Ukraine war, China, education, strikes, taxation, public spending and transport.
Not one mention of Israel or Gaza by anyone.
I very much doubt we were atypical.
There needs to be a much more concerted and multi-agency approach around ensuring pensioners know or understand they are entitled to additional help and while I accept the pride thing isn't going to be easy to get round that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
If a scintilla of the anger around the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance were directed toward communicating rhe eligibility rules (and communicating with and to pensioners isn't easy and needs the right people and the right words at the right time) to those pensioners who could benefit we'd be in a much better place.
The Conservatives did try in June 2023 but it was a half hearted effort. This needs to be a concerted attempt to get the message over to people.
Don't chant, or support chanting of, "From the river to the sea"
It means no Israel
It's one of those black and white ones again
Think of it as the cheapest house on the nicest street.
We have finally (after several years of trying) persuaded my father-in-law to claim Attendance Allowance. Posted the completed application form today.
a) WFA is no longer automatic, and
b) if you have a low income from the State Pension and elsewhere, here's an easy way to apply for pension credit and make sure your WFA continues.
But I'd argue Samsung. Don't feed the Apple monster...
I prefer Samsung but others are pretty good too.
I'm sure someone will have done some work on it - I'll have a dig around.
Or is that Islamophobic?