The European Commission has issued a warning that it is going to impose penalties on Chinese companies accused of dumping telecommunication equipment. Would the UK really be in a position to make that kind of threat on its own or would we have to sit and take it?
There are clearly downsides to being a part of a large trading entity like the EU (such as not having our own agreement with NAFTA) but there are advantages as well. Whatever you think of the merits think about the EC campaigns against Microsoft when it was allegedly abusing a dominant position. Again how realistic would it be for the UK to do that on its own?
One commonality in many of these cases, whether committed by ethnic minorities or luvvies, are children homes and the care systems. That is one aspect that needs addressing as a matter of urgency. Quite how it is addressed is another matter.
But the biggest problem is a matter of respect. Too many children in this country - both girls and boys - are being raised to have no respect for themselves. They need to know that they have an intellect, they are precious, and they could be the next Einstein or Hurst. They can say no.
They need to love themselves, not look for love from others.
Again I completely agree. Another element is the attitude where women feel that having children without having the means to support them is OK. There are some cases where young women have children to give them preferential treatment for social housing or to keep a male companion. Even more distressing is having a child to give them something to love.
We need to change the way people think about themselves and the society they live in. My personal view is that this can be achieved by reducing/eliminating the need for state support. This seems to have taken over from the normal social support networks that were available.
Savile wasn't convicted. Yet the PB tories dribbled and rooled over that case for weeks, because it involved the BBC. OK they slowed down when it became clear he was given the keys to Broadmoor by a Tory govt and was a close friend of a Tory PM.
But did I see you objecting because he hadn't been convicted?
No I didn't, because you are a hypocrite
It'd be quite hard to get a conviction on Saville given the circumstances. Or various other people who are now dead. We can only say that, in lieu of a court case, they are probably guilty of some heinous crimes.
I probably didn't comment at the time, not because I'm a hypocrite, but because discussion on here was banned.
I have probably more reason than most on here not to want to stir any anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant feeling or resentment. Yet I can see that there is some commonality in the recent gang grooming cases that may need investigating, and the causes addressing.
You do not. You would rather brush it under the carpet because it suits your political ends.
I care about the poor kids involved, and want to understand the reasons, to try and prevent it happening again (and that also includes other cases).
You just want your political party to win, whatever the cost.
Like Stafford. Like these cases.
And a little more:
One commonality in many of these cases, whether committed by ethnic minorities or luvvies, are children homes and the care systems. That is one aspect that needs addressing as a matter of urgency. Quite how it is addressed is another matter.
But the biggest problem is a matter of respect. Too many children in this country - both girls and boys - are being raised to have no respect for themselves. They need to know that they have an intellect, they are precious, and they could be the next Einstein or Hurst. They can say no.
They need to love themselves, not look for love from others.
The thing about children is that they need, almost biologically, to be loved and cherished by others (adults and friends). Those that prey on vulnerable chiildren who may be starved of this love for one reason or another - they come from broken homes, they live in care, their parents neglect them - know exactly what they are doing.
Many are against it. I'm intensely relaxed, as long as the detailed plans are sensible and relevant services are put in place. The village is a maximum of 13 years old: I think it needs to be at least 30 years before NIMBYism can take hold.
One commonality in many of these cases, whether committed by ethnic minorities or luvvies, are children homes and the care systems. That is one aspect that needs addressing as a matter of urgency. Quite how it is addressed is another matter.
But the biggest problem is a matter of respect. Too many children in this country - both girls and boys - are being raised to have no respect for themselves. They need to know that they have an intellect, they are precious, and they could be the next Einstein or Hurst. They can say no.
They need to love themselves, not look for love from others.
Again I completely agree. Another element is the attitude where women feel that having children without having the means to support them is OK. There are some cases where young women have children to give them preferential treatment for social housing or to keep a male companion. Even more distressing is having a child to give them something to love.
We need to change the way people think about themselves and the society they live in. My personal view is that this can be achieved by reducing/eliminating the need for state support. This seems to have taken over from the normal social support networks that were available.
Child prostitution was endemic in the era before the welfare state; as was forced child labour.
Many are against it. I'm intensely relaxed, as long as the detailed plans are sensible and relevant services are put in place. The village is a maximum of 13 years old: I think it needs to be at least 30 years before NIMBYism can take hold.
My goodness that's a huge extension. I hope the infra-structure will be improved to cope
I don't think anyone on here should be required to condemn cases of child abuse,I'd hope it went unsaid.
Your focus seems to be solely on child abuse when the perpetrators are not white. Is that correct or have you posted on other cases?
And there's clearly an issue among some Muslim men and on street grooming, but If i were to judge child abuse by your posts I have to come to the conclusion that it's race which is driving your interest.
I dont think I have posted on any cases. I havent even said anything much about this case itself, other than the BBC and yourself having double standards when choosing when to mention race and it being equally bad if it were white men and Asian girls.
I responded to DavidLs comment about multi culturalism, splitting people up into ethnic and religious groups, causing race relations problems because it is something I think is madness not to expect. When I mention race, as you will see if you look through my posts, it is never derogatory about anyone. What drives me mad is the different rules for different races approach of self flagellating lefties.
If the breaking news was the conviction of the North Wales abusers and I started banging on about this case you would have a point, but the roles are reversed. The breaking news is this case but you tried to divert attention to a different one.
Savile wasn't convicted. Yet the PB tories dribbled and rooled over that case for weeks, because it involved the BBC. OK they slowed down when it became clear he was given the keys to Broadmoor by a Tory govt and was a close friend of a Tory PM.
But did I see you objecting because he hadn't been convicted?
No I didn't, because you are a hypocrite
It'd be quite hard to get a conviction on Saville given the circumstances. Or various other people who are now dead. We can only say that, in lieu of a court case, they are probably guilty of some heinous crimes.
I probably didn't comment at the time, not because I'm a hypocrite, but because discussion on here was banned.
I have probably more reason than most on here not to want to stir any anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant feeling or resentment. Yet I can see that there is some commonality in the recent gang grooming cases that may need investigating, and the causes addressing.
You do not. You would rather brush it under the carpet because it suits your political ends.
I care about the poor kids involved, and want to understand the reasons, to try and prevent it happening again (and that also includes other cases).
You just want your political party to win, whatever the cost.
Like Stafford. Like these cases.
And a little more:
One commonality in many of these cases, whether committed by ethnic minorities or luvvies, are children homes and the care systems. That is one aspect that needs addressing as a matter of urgency. Quite how it is addressed is another matter.
But the biggest problem is a matter of respect. Too many children in this country - both girls and boys - are being raised to have no respect for themselves. They need to know that they have an intellect, they are precious, and they could be the next Einstein or Hurst. They can say no.
They need to love themselves, not look for love from others.
The thing about children is that they need, almost biologically, to be loved and cherished by others (adults and friends). Those that prey on vulnerable chiildren who may be starved of this love for one reason or another - they come from broken homes, they live in care, their parents neglect them - know exactly what they are doing.
Yep, they do. Unlike it appears the people paid to look after them. If a 13 or 14 year child is out overnight and does not return to the Care Home that is surely a matter justifying a detailed criminal investigation to ascertain where they went and who they were with. Similarly, how can those responsible for such children not be aware that they are drinking or taking drugs or not attending school, or are being collected from school by people that have not been vetted and approved? We have been around this so many times now it truly is depressing but until we start to genuinely value these children this will not stop.
Savile wasn't convicted. Yet the PB tories dribbled and rooled over that case for weeks, because it involved the BBC. OK they slowed down when it became clear he was given the keys to Broadmoor by a Tory govt and was a close friend of a Tory PM.
But did I see you objecting because he hadn't been convicted?
No I didn't, because you are a hypocrite
It'd be quite hard to get a conviction on Saville given the circumstances. Or various other people who are now dead. We can only say that, in lieu of a court case, they are probably guilty of some heinous crimes.
I probably didn't comment at the time, not because I'm a hypocrite, but because discussion on here was banned.
I have probably more reason than most on here not to want to stir any anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant feeling or resentment. Yet I can see that there is some commonality in the recent gang grooming cases that may need investigating, and the causes addressing.
You do not. You would rather brush it under the carpet because it suits your political ends.
I care about the poor kids involved, and want to understand the reasons, to try and prevent it happening again (and that also includes other cases).
You just want your political party to win, whatever the cost.
Like Stafford. Like these cases.
And a little more:
One commonality in many of these cases, whether committed by ethnic minorities or luvvies, are children homes and the care systems. That is one aspect that needs addressing as a matter of urgency. Quite how it is addressed is another matter.
But the biggest problem is a matter of respect. Too many children in this country - both girls and boys - are being raised to have no respect for themselves. They need to know that they have an intellect, they are precious, and they could be the next Einstein or Hurst. They can say no.
They need to love themselves, not look for love from others.
The thing about children is that they need, almost biologically, to be loved and cherished by others (adults and friends). Those that prey on vulnerable chiildren who may be starved of this love for one reason or another - they come from broken homes, they live in care, their parents neglect them - know exactly what they are doing.
Absolutely, with caveats. ;-)
There was a heartbreaking R5L interview with a girl at the centre of one of the recent cases. She was not from a care home; she was from a middle-class background with two loving parents, who were at a loss about how to help her. A natural instinct of teenage rebellion was preyed on.
The police were less than helpful when the parents complained, as was the social system.
Her great advantage was she had two loving parents to help pick up the pieces.
Although the care system is a large part of this, it is not the whole story.
I can feel Dan Hannan's irritation with the toddlers from here:
"The prime minister has declared that the issue of our EU membership won’t be left to the politicians and officials who got us into our present mess. It will instead be determined by the electorate as a whole. This is what 82 per cent of us say we want. It’s what I have dedicated my adult life to securing. It’s what Ukip was founded to achieve. Indeed, had an In/Out poll been offered a couple of years ago, it would almost certainly have been enough to persuade Ukip to throw in its lot with the Tories.
Human nature, of course, isn’t always rational. We become curiously attached to our battles, reluctant to accept when we’ve won them. When the referendum was announced, some observers doubted – or, at least, affected to doubt – that David Cameron meant it. Accordingly, he has published the legislation for any pro-referendum backbencher to take up as a Private Member’s Bill. If 100 MPs can be mustered, such a Bill can be forced to Second Reading. Voters will then be able to see who goes through which lobby, and weigh their support accordingly. We may be surprised by how many individual Labour and Lib Dem MPs back the idea of consulting the people: they have constituents too.
In any event, tomorrow’s division is now an irrelevance. The vote that matters is the one on the referendum Bill itself which, unlike the declaratory amendment to the Queen’s Speech, will have legislative force. Supporters of an In/Out vote, in all parties, should focus on that Bill when it comes.
My impression, having taken soundings this morning, is that most of the people for whom the EU is the main issue are now satisfied. The comment thread that follows will, of course, tell a different story. ‘We want a referendum now!’ Well, fine: and your plan to get Lib-Lab MPs to vote for one is…? ‘You can’t trust Cameron’s word!’ You don’t have to: he’s issued the sodding Bill, for Heaven’s sake. ‘No Parliament can bind its successor!’ All the more reason to re-elect the MPs who vote for an In/Out referendum and replace the ones who don’t..." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100216918/an-inout-referendum-and-a-bill-in-this-session-david-cameron-has-delivered/
The breaking news is this case but you tried to divert attention to a different one.
The breaking news today also includes an horrific child murder, but the perpetrator was white.
Yet I don't see you theorising about that very much. As I say, you appear to judge crime like this by the racial profile of the offender, post solely about those committed by non whites and then rant about society being split along ethnic lines by others.
Well you are wrong. You just like to smear people.
I didnt bring the subject up, it was the topic of debate.... and I didnt offer any theory! Are you crazy?
I commented about the Tia case at the time. I said how weird was it for him to have had realtionships with the Mother and Grandmother, and how bizarre for the Grandmother to be in her 40s.
You probably dont remember it because it didnt dog whistle your lefty ears.
Incumbent BC Liberal Party Premier Christie Clark has never before led her party in a general election. She & BC Libs have been in doghouse for last few years. HOWEVER the BC New Democratic Party led by Adrian Dix has been out of power since 2001. And recent polls have showed the race tightening.
Does PB has a poster/lurker in Kamloops? OR Kelowna? Or Castlegar or Cragalachiie? What about Nanaimo or Osoyos? Or in the riding of Boundary-Similkimeen????
Savile wasn't convicted. Yet the PB tories dribbled and drooled over that case for weeks, because it involved the BBC. OK they slowed down when it became clear he was given the keys to Broadmoor by a Tory govt and was a close friend of a Tory PM.
But did I see you objecting because he hadn't been convicted?
No I didn't, because you are a hypocrite
And another counterpoint to your post:
I talked about the Australian church rape cases on here in the last year, including listing them.
But you sort of ignored that, didn't you?
84 suspected abusers. I know you're a tribal Labour supporter, and therefore these things need explaining to you in very simple terms, but they have not been convicted.
Don't let a minor thing like the law get in the way of your hatred.
How many convictions in the Australia church rape cases last year? Or have you pulled this convictions argument from nowhere simply to attack my post?
And because a friend of mine, who has just taken his own life, was affected you **** ****** The inquiry was announced in November. His final descent started in December. I'll never know if there's a connection, but it's a blooming great coincidence if it is.
But remember the 'senior Tory in child abuse'; scandal which Tom Watson pulled out of his ample backside, which you witter endlessly about? Except suddenly it's not North Wales, but South London?
Savile wasn't convicted. Yet the PB tories dribbled and drooled over that case for weeks, because it involved the BBC. OK they slowed down when it became clear he was given the keys to Broadmoor by a Tory govt and was a close friend of a Tory PM.
But did I see you objecting because he hadn't been convicted?
No I didn't, because you are a hypocrite
And another counterpoint to your post:
I talked about the Australian church rape cases on here in the last year, including listing them.
But you sort of ignored that, didn't you?
84 suspected abusers. I know you're a tribal Labour supporter, and therefore these things need explaining to you in very simple terms, but they have not been convicted.
Don't let a minor thing like the law get in the way of your hatred.
How many convictions in the Australia church rape cases last year? Or have you pulled this convictions argument from nowhere simply to attack my post?
Except suddenly it's not North Wales, but South London?
And how a senior Labour politician (not remotely connected with the abuse allegations) but local at the time, has absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about it....
One commonality in many of these cases, whether committed by ethnic minorities or luvvies, are children homes and the care systems. That is one aspect that needs addressing as a matter of urgency. Quite how it is addressed is another matter.
But the biggest problem is a matter of respect. Too many children in this country - both girls and boys - are being raised to have no respect for themselves. They need to know that they have an intellect, they are precious, and they could be the next Einstein or Hurst. They can say no.
They need to love themselves, not look for love from others.
Again I completely agree. Another element is the attitude where women feel that having children without having the means to support them is OK. There are some cases where young women have children to give them preferential treatment for social housing or to keep a male companion. Even more distressing is having a child to give them something to love.
We need to change the way people think about themselves and the society they live in. My personal view is that this can be achieved by reducing/eliminating the need for state support. This seems to have taken over from the normal social support networks that were available.
Child prostitution was endemic in the era before the welfare state; as was forced child labour.
I couldn't agree more Blue_rog. And to Southam I can say so what has your interjection to do with what has happened in Oxford and other areas, of Muslim men grooming white girls for sex. If these same Muslim men tried it on their own muslim girls, they would have long had their throats cut by that very community. That same communities silence for white girls is shameful. But so is the appalling conduct of the white community and authorities, in thrall and afraid to appear racist, if they spoke out.
Child abuse - whether it's committed by repellent chavs who prey on women and their daughters/grand-daughters or celebrities or people taking advantage of abandoned youngsters in care homes or Asian men with scant regard for white girls or priests or anyone else - is an an appalling crime, which should be condemned by all.
I hope we can all agree on that.
The reasons why it happens are various and we should discuss - openly without fear or favour - what those reasons are, without shying away from those which are embarrassing, whether to churches, the BBC or any community anywhere.
But really the crime is so widespread that trying to make a party political point out of it is both pointless and a bit gross, frankly.
I accused Josias of being MODERATEDfor going on about only commenting on cases with convictions,after he's done exactly the same re Australia and not criticised the PB Tories using the Savile case, despite no convictions, to attack the BBC Your posts have a remarkably high degree of correlation with those of someone obsessed by race.
But I like your betting posts.
The hypocrisy of lefties about race is something that fascinates me and political correctness, a lot of it race related, is damaging for society in my opinion and ... maybe I am obsessed with that
I am also obsessed with the attitude of the media to Paul Elliotts use of racist language as opposed to John Terrys . It leaves me dumbfounded.
When is Elliotts court case by the way?
This Oxford paedophile case isnt interesting to me because of the race element in itself, I wouldnt dream of smearing all Muslims as one thing or another, that is ridiculous, but because people tried to sweep it under the carpet for so long BECAUSE of the race element
Double standards
I personally treat people the same whatever their race, why would it bother me?
I am an honest person, if I were racist I would openly dislike people of other races and join the BNP, but thats not the kind of person I am
OT - Just watching S3 of CSI NYork and its already had Kid Rock and John McEnroe as themselves playing potential murder suspects - crikey, I had no idea the series had such pulling power back in 2006ish.
Good on them for playing along - it makes James Patterson et al in Castle look tame ;^ )
I think you're going to look very very stupid regarding your point about Tom Watson. Very very stupid indeed.
I will not be silly, because I am not throwing around accusations to try and smear people. If charges are laid and people convicted, then fair enough. At the moment that is not the case.
But your intense interest in Watson's currently unsubstantiated accusations are dramatically different to your intense attempts to shut up the debate around the much more substantiated cases that have ended in convictions.
It's just like MMR and Stafford. You see political capital in one, so you mention it endlessly, whilst trying to shut up debate about the other.
The council in Oxford trot out the usual platitudes .... eg lessons have been learned.
Obviously they've just learned that that girls as young as these staying out very late, associating with older men, and coming back smelling of alcohol might not be appropriate.
Well done!
Being in care might mean taking care of them, even if they're not that keen on it.
And at least the leaders of this Muslim community admit there may be a cultural problem and they intend to do something about it.
One commonality in many of these cases, whether committed by ethnic minorities or luvvies, are children homes and the care systems. That is one aspect that needs addressing as a matter of urgency. Quite how it is addressed is another matter.
But the biggest problem is a matter of respect. Too many children in this country - both girls and boys - are being raised to have no respect for themselves. They need to know that they have an intellect, they are precious, and they could be the next Einstein or Hurst. They can say no.
They need to love themselves, not look for love from others.
Again I completely agree. Another element is the attitude where women feel that having children without having the means to support them is OK. There are some cases where young women have children to give them preferential treatment for social housing or to keep a male companion. Even more distressing is having a child to give them something to love.
We need to change the way people think about themselves and the society they live in. My personal view is that this can be achieved by reducing/eliminating the need for state support. This seems to have taken over from the normal social support networks that were available.
Child prostitution was endemic in the era before the welfare state; as was forced child labour.
I couldn't agree more Blue_rog. And to Southam I can say so what has your interjection to do with what has happened in Oxford and other areas, of Muslim men grooming white girls for sex. If these same Muslim men tried it on their own muslim girls, they would have long had their throats cut by that very community. That same communities silence for white girls is shameful. But so is the appalling conduct of the white community and authorities, in thrall and afraid to appear racist, if they spoke out.
Don't be silly Mike, you can't be racist towards white people, Jo Brand says so.
On a completely separate subject: Given the controversy about Unite's influence on Labour parliamentary selections, is Nick P of this parish quite such a shoo-in for the Broxtowe candidacy as we've been assuming?
I do hope so ! Got a few pennies on Labour there, and I'd feel safer about my cash with Nick P as the candidate there.
Well, I'm a Unite member myself, though another Unite member who is currently active in the union may be their first preference. Anyone encouraging people to join the party is fine with me, since my experience is that once people join they think for themselves. Broxtowe isn't heavily unionised, being a commuter constituency. There will be lots of applicants and the position may be clearer when we get to the shortlist stage in (I expect) a couple of months. I remain pretty hopeful.
The Conservative position is also not yet clear, as I was told by a senior Conservative that the possibility of Anna switching to Rushcliffe if Ken Clarke calls it a day has been "under discussion". Possibly best to wait for clarity on both sides before betting much more!
A friend in Hove, where Labour is currently selecting, comments how much Labour selection has changed over the years. 15 years ago CLPs would get a stack of CVs and invite the most promising ones to come and talk, then members would decide. I was thought to be a bit daring because I had an A3 CV instead of A4. Now it's more like a hard-fought by-election, with all the main candidates sending out full-colour election addresses, canvassing every member personally, writing targeted direct mails, and so on. Is the same true in the other parties?
One commonality in many of these cases, whether committed by ethnic minorities or luvvies, are children homes and the care systems. That is one aspect that needs addressing as a matter of urgency. Quite how it is addressed is another matter.
But the biggest problem is a matter of respect. Too many children in this country - both girls and boys - are being raised to have no respect for themselves. They need to know that they have an intellect, they are precious, and they could be the next Einstein or Hurst. They can say no.
They need to love themselves, not look for love from others.
Again I completely agree. Another element is the attitude where women feel that having children without having the means to support them is OK. There are some cases where young women have children to give them preferential treatment for social housing or to keep a male companion. Even more distressing is having a child to give them something to love.
We need to change the way people think about themselves and the society they live in. My personal view is that this can be achieved by reducing/eliminating the need for state support. This seems to have taken over from the normal social support networks that were available.
Child prostitution was endemic in the era before the welfare state; as was forced child labour.
I couldn't agree more Blue_rog. And to Southam I can say so what has your interjection to do with what has happened in Oxford and other areas, of Muslim men grooming white girls for sex. If these same Muslim men tried it on their own muslim girls, they would have long had their throats cut by that very community. That same communities silence for white girls is shameful. But so is the appalling conduct of the white community and authorities, in thrall and afraid to appear racist, if they spoke out.
My interjection had nothing to do with the Oxford case, it was in response to this from Blue_Rog:
"We need to change the way people think about themselves and the society they live in. My personal view is that this can be achieved by reducing/eliminating the need for state support. This seems to have taken over from the normal social support networks that were available."
The point being that before state support there was widespread sexual and physical abuse of children.
Lower bills would go “to the more vulnerable in society who are less likely to switch, and more likely to be on poor value “dead” tariffs”, it said. Sounds good to me.
A friend in Hove, where Labour is currently selecting, comments how much Labour selection has changed over the years. 15 years ago CLPs would get a stack of CVs and invite the most promising ones to come and talk, then members would decide. I was thought to be a bit daring because I had an A3 CV instead of A4. Now it's more like a hard-fought by-election, with all the main candidates sending out full-colour election addresses, canvassing every member personally, writing targeted direct mails, and so on. Is the same true in the other parties?
Well, we have email after email, endless phone calls, election communications in increasingly stridgent language using all persuasive techniques possible, and then we just have to force someone to be the candidate.
Child abuse - whether it's committed by repellent chavs who prey on women and their daughters/grand-daughters or celebrities or people taking advantage of abandoned youngsters in care homes or Asian men with scant regard for white girls or priests or anyone else - is an an appalling crime, which should be condemned by all.
I hope we can all agree on that.
The reasons why it happens are various and we should discuss - openly without fear or favour - what those reasons are, without shying away from those which are embarrassing, whether to churches, the BBC or any community anywhere.
But really the crime is so widespread that trying to make a party political point out of it is both pointless and a bit gross, frankly.
If we're going to change attitudes towards children/young people I think not using terms like 'chavs' would be a start.
Reluctant to wade into the debate on race and rape, since as Cyclefree observes it gets gross when people try to make it into something party political. But briefly, isn't the position this?
1. Some people systematically prey on young girls, often from disorganised backgrounds, whom they find easy to persuade with a mixture of compliments, blandishments and threats. Some of them are organised in gangs. Some of the gangs are of Asian origin. All of them of vile criminals who should be locked up for many years. If anyone in authority feels inhibited in tackling rape or intimidation because of the abuser's ethnic group, he should be sacked.
2. Some political people object strongly to immigration, and seize on the Asian gangs to suggest that this is what you get if you have a lot of immigration. There is often a false implication, usually unstated, that this is common or even the norm among Asian men. This group appears more motivated by racial dislike than opposition to rape, since they don't usually make an issue of other rapes, whereas they frequently expound on their views about immigration.
3. Those of us who don't object to immigration naturally do object to rape. But the eagerness which the people in (2) seize on the issue makes us reluctant to comment because we don't really want to be in their company. It overstates it to say we're in a conspiracy of silence; rather, we don't want to be part of a conspiracy of incitement. The main issue is not race or immigration but law enforcement. I do agree that it's important that this reluctance to join in anti-immigrant talk doesn't inhibit police investigation - see (1).
Much the same applies to the less emotive issue of the NHS. Obviously the findings in Stafford are horrible. But it's notable that people who are all over the Stafford case, and explicitly keen to "pin it on Labour", are not bothering to comment on the recent investigation showing poor standards in a private hospital. Anyone who likes the NHS would gladly join a discussion on how to improve its standards and avoid more Stafford cases. But in any national hospital system there will be one that is worse than the others, and the issue is how to tackle that, not to jump from "hospital X was appalling" to "the entire system needs to change to my preferred political model". I'm as political as anyone else, but not everything that goes wrong proves a political point.
Many are against it. I'm intensely relaxed, as long as the detailed plans are sensible and relevant services are put in place. The village is a maximum of 13 years old: I think it needs to be at least 30 years before NIMBYism can take hold.
Re the Oxford rapes, I find it annoying that the police and the council seem to be taking the rap. For sure, they are partly responsible for letting this happen. But so are the BBC and the CPS who chose to scandalise and prosecute Griffin when he talked about drug rapes in that pub in Keighley nine years ago. It was the BBC, the CPS and the politicians who chose to villainise Griffin and hence shut down debate about these gang rapes. That set the tone for a decade.
They gave a clear signal as to what the priority was. They signalled that it is worse to say something that might be construed as racist than it was to groom young teenagers. And so child-grooming flourished because everyone was too scared to even talk about it. It's time the BBC, the CPS and politicians owned up and admitted that their actions (or lack of) allowed the problem to get worse.
Reluctant to wade into the debate on race and rape, since as Cyclefree observes it gets gross when people try to make it into something party political. But briefly, isn't the position this?
Well said. I'm sure that it's only a coincidence that these decade old cases are being dealt with now.
@Carola: "If we're going to change attitudes towards children/young people I think not using terms like 'chavs' would be a start."
Fair point. I was not trying to smear a particular group merely trying to find a shorthand way of describing Stuart Hazell and people like him. The most accurate way of describing people like him is certainly unprintable in such a blog.
It's all a bit unfortunate for David Cameron. After all, this wasn't what he signed up for.
Remember his alleged claim to be the heir to Blair? Cameron was at his best in the hug-a-hoodie era, he was elected as the Blair of the Conservative party. He too wanted to sweep away the archaic elements of his party, re-brand it, and preside over a moderate government in a time of steady economic growth, essentially continuing on from New Labour (as opposed to Brown Labour). He is popular with the electorate on a personal level and united the Tories sufficiently to gain a reliable poll lead until the TV debates exposed his relaxed, entitled attitude.
Instead of getting to be a Blair, though, he is now expected to be a Thatcher, and the party is angry; the problem is they knew what they were getting, but the context changed.
It was the BBC, the CPS and the politicians who chose to villainise Griffin and hence shut down debate about these gang rapes. That set the tone for a decade.
Reluctant to wade into the debate on race and rape, since as Cyclefree observes it gets gross when people try to make it into something party political. But briefly, isn't the position this?
1. Some people systematically prey on young girls, often from disorganised backgrounds, whom they find easy to persuade with a mixture of compliments, blandishments and threats. Some of them are organised in gangs. Some of the gangs are of Asian origin. All of them of vile criminals who should be locked up for many years. If anyone in authority feels inhibited in tackling rape or intimidation because of the abuser's ethnic group, he should be sacked.
2. Some political people object strongly to immigration, and seize on the Asian gangs to suggest that this is what you get if you have a lot of immigration. There is often a false implication, usually unstated, that this is common or even the norm among Asian men. This group appears more motivated by racial dislike than opposition to rape, since they don't usually make an issue of other rapes, whereas they frequently expound on their views about immigration.
3. Those of us who don't object to immigration naturally do object to rape. But the eagerness which the people in (2) seize on the issue makes us reluctant to comment because we don't really want to be in their company. It overstates it to say we're in a conspiracy of silence; rather, we don't want to be part of a conspiracy of incitement. The main issue is not race or immigration but law enforcement. I do agree that it's important that this reluctance to join in anti-immigrant talk doesn't inhibit police investigation - see (1).
Much the same applies to the less emotive issue of the NHS. Obviously the findings in Stafford are horrible. But it's notable that people who are all over the Stafford case, and explicitly keen to "pin it on Labour", are not bothering to comment on the recent investigation showing poor standards in a private hospital. Anyone who likes the NHS would gladly join a discussion on how to improve its standards and avoid more Stafford cases. But in any national hospital system there will be one that is worse than the others, and the issue is how to tackle that, not to jump from "hospital X was appalling" to "the entire system needs to change to my preferred political model". I'm as political as anyone else, but not everything that goes wrong proves a political point.
Two points:
1) I really hope you are not trying to downgrade what happened at Stafford as just 'poor standards'. If so, you may want to read the Francis report. Some (not all) left-leaning people on here have been constantly downgrading what happened at the hospital. Do you think that is right, either politically or morally?
As it happens, I was unaware of the private hospital case: can you provide details, please?
2) The issue here is sexual abuse of young children on a mass scale by organised, predatory gangs. Do you not think it is important to work out why and how these gangs operate? There are two ends of this story that needs addressing - stopping boys and girls from falling for them, and stopping the gangs from operating.
As an aside, have there been any recent non-Asian gangs convicted of organised abuse here in the UK in recent years? I'm not sure the CofE and Catholic church abuses count in quite the same way: their horror is all their own. In this case, we are talking about large gangs of men grooming, abusing and even selling young children. Not even the Catholic church went that far.
The list of ruined lives will become longer if we do not understand the why.
1) I really hope you are not trying to downgrade what happened at Stafford as just 'poor standards'. If so, you may want to read the Francis report. Some (not all) left-leaning people on here have been constantly downgrading what happened at the hospital. Do you think that is right, either politically or morally? .
Francis: "Asked about the use of mortality rates, Mr Francis said: “To assert that no deaths were caused by poor care at Stafford is equally as unacceptable as saying 150 were caused by poor care. It is rather sad we can’t come to a conclusion one way or the other.
“The important thing is not to be diverted by an arid argument about overall mortality rates from the horror of the care being provided to a significant number of patients at Stafford.”
I agree with Francis. Do you? Or is he downgrading Stafford?
Instead of getting to be a Blair, though, he is now expected to be a Thatcher, and the party is angry; the problem is they knew what they were getting, but the context changed.
Well put. Hence his difficulty in managing it, I suppose; this is not the fight he equipped himself for.
@Carola: "If we're going to change attitudes towards children/young people I think not using terms like 'chavs' would be a start."
Fair point. I was not trying to smear a particular group merely trying to find a shorthand way of describing Stuart Hazell and people like him. The most accurate way of describing people like him is certainly unprintable in such a blog.
I appreciate that. But it's a term that's often used to describe the children most likely to fall victim to such abuse. Sometimes by the very same people who turn defender when cases like this arise.
Reluctant to wade into the debate on race and rape, since as Cyclefree observes it gets gross when people try to make it into something party political. But briefly, isn't the position this?
1. Some people systematically prey on young girls, often from disorganised backgrounds, whom they find easy to persuade with a mixture of compliments, blandishments and threats. Some of them are organised in gangs. Some of the gangs are of Asian origin. All of them of vile criminals who should be locked up for many years. If anyone in authority feels inhibited in tackling rape or intimidation because of the abuser's ethnic group, he should be sacked.
2. Some political people object strongly to immigration, and seize on the Asian gangs to suggest that this is what you get if you have a lot of immigration. There is often a false implication, usually unstated, that this is common or even the norm among Asian men. This group appears more motivated by racial dislike than opposition to rape, since they don't usually make an issue of other rapes, whereas they frequently expound on their views about immigration.
3. Those of us who don't object to immigration naturally do object to rape. But the eagerness which the people in (2) seize on the issue makes us reluctant to comment because we don't really want to be in their company. It overstates it to say we're in a conspiracy of silence; rather, we don't want to be part of a conspiracy of incitement. The main issue is not race or immigration but law enforcement. I do agree that it's important that this reluctance to join in anti-immigrant talk doesn't inhibit police investigation - see (1).
Much the same applies to the less emotive issue of the NHS. Obviously the findings in Stafford are horrible. But it's notable that people who are all over the Stafford case, and explicitly keen to "pin it on Labour", are not bothering to comment on the recent investigation showing poor standards in a private hospital. Anyone who likes the NHS would gladly join a discussion on how to improve its standards and avoid more Stafford cases. But in any national hospital system there will be one that is worse than the others, and the issue is how to tackle that, not to jump from "hospital X was appalling" to "the entire system needs to change to my preferred political model". I'm as political as anyone else, but not everything that goes wrong proves a political point.
Two points:
1) I really hope you are not trying to downgrade what happened at Stafford as just 'poor standards'. If so, you may want to read the Francis report. Some (not all) left-leaning people on here have been constantly downgrading what happened at the hospital. Do you think that is right, either politically or morally?
As it happens, I was unaware of the private hospital case: can you provide details, please?
2) The issue here is sexual abuse of young children on a mass scale by organised, predatory gangs. Do you not think it is important to work out why and how these gangs operate? There are two ends of this story that needs addressing - stopping boys and girls from falling for them, and stopping the gangs from operating.
As an aside, have there been any recent non-Asian gangs convicted of organised abuse here in the UK in recent years? I'm not sure the CofE and Catholic church abuses count in quite the same way: their horror is all their own. In this case, we are talking about large gangs of men grooming, abusing and even selling young children. Not even the Catholic church went that far.
The list of ruined lives will become longer if we do not understand the why.
- the report is from December and some aspects are I think still sub judice. My point is that I wouldn't suggest that this shows that all private facilities are substandard or it's somehow a failure of the Government.
Saw a tiny bit of a BBC News mini-debate about race/rape. A chap from STREET in Leeds sounded convincing when he said that there was a general problem regarding masculinity amongst young men, in such a way that rape was seen as acceptable.
He didn't say this (that I saw) but it reminded me of a few years ago when I read of gangs using rape (for both male and female members, although with the males as perpetrators, if you will) as price for membership.
On-topic, I'm inclined to support the view we are still essentially a duopoly (the allocation of seats, if not votes, confirms that). The Alliance might have broken the duopoly with a different set of events and I think the Conservatives were on the edge of the abyss when they ousted IDS in 2003. Otherwise, it's stood the test of the better part of a century -the last real three-party election was 1923 when the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties captured 99.6% of the vote between them.
On matters European, I note David Cameron's counterattack is to claim that the Conservatives are the only party offering a "choice" on EU membership. Strange, I thought that was UKIP's line and I don't think either Labour or the Liberal Democrats have expressly ruled out a referendum in the future, just this side of the election (which Cameron has as well). As to what either party will put in their 2015 manifestos, that remains to be seen.
Of course, those who don't believe (and with justifcation) that ANY party can be trusted on this won't be convinced by any of the Prime Minister's politicking.
I am sorry to report that even as late as last year, their follow up procedures are still poor. It was very difficult making arrangements by telephone, emailing is a technology which they didn't appear to use.
I have no axes to grind over the initial assessment by the doctors on duty at the time, but I really ought to have logged a formal complaint.
1) I really hope you are not trying to downgrade what happened at Stafford as just 'poor standards'. If so, you may want to read the Francis report. Some (not all) left-leaning people on here have been constantly downgrading what happened at the hospital. Do you think that is right, either politically or morally? .
Francis: "Asked about the use of mortality rates, Mr Francis said: “To assert that no deaths were caused by poor care at Stafford is equally as unacceptable as saying 150 were caused by poor care. It is rather sad we can’t come to a conclusion one way or the other.
“The important thing is not to be diverted by an arid argument about overall mortality rates from the horror of the care being provided to a significant number of patients at Stafford.”
I agree with Francis. Do you? Or is he downgrading Stafford?
I'm not sure you've read that correctly. It backs up what I've been saying since the report came out. Yet some on here have been trying to downgrade that horror.
It is inconceivable that they will not qualify. It's done and dusted. Newcastle will lay themselves down to die on Sunday. And just in case they don't Spurs will not beat Sunderland. It was all written a long time ago.
- the report is from December and some aspects are I think still sub judice. My point is that I wouldn't suggest that this shows that all private facilities are substandard or it's somehow a failure of the Government.
Ah, I thought you were referring to something more recent.
That is a terrible case.
But note that I have never said all NHS hospitals are substandard, and I don't think anyone on here has. Also, criticising what happened at Stafford is not the same as criticising the whole NHS.
In fact I was praising some NHS treatment earlier in the year. And lambasting some other treatment I had.
But a government that takes pride and yells from the rooftops about falling waiting lists, more nurses employed etc, in their hospitals should also take note when there are failures, and not try to wash their hands of it. If you take credit when things go well, you should take responsibility when it fails.
And I will say the same when it happens once again, as I have said it will all along. And very probably that will happen under this government, and the next.
It is inconceivable that they will not qualify. It's done and dusted. Newcastle will lay themselves down to die on Sunday. And just in case they don't Spurs will not beat Sunderland. It was all written a long time ago.
I have a feeling it could be sunderland laying down,knowing they safe and Arsenal having the trickier match at Newcastle ;-)
A question of swing: according to the Parliamentary Briefing Paper on 'Electoral Swing' [www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN02608.pdf] it states that as the concept of swing is essentially a two-dimensional construct it is only useful when the same two parties occupy the first two places at successive elections. So, in other words, if a particular party (lets say 'C') came third in one election but came second in more recent election and the party that won (Party A) saw an increase in it's share of the vote, would it be meaningless/misleading to calculating the electoral swing from Party C to Party A? My interpretation of the briefing paper is that it be would be more accurate to calculate the electoral swing from Party B (the party that came second but now came third) to Party A.
Reluctant to wade into the debate on race and rape, since as Cyclefree observes it gets gross when people try to make it into something party political. But briefly, isn't the position this?
1. Some people systematically prey on young girls, often from disorganised backgrounds, whom they find easy to persuade with a mixture of compliments, blandishments and threats. Some of them are organised in gangs. Some of the gangs are of Asian origin. All of them of vile criminals who should be locked up for many years. If anyone in authority feels inhibited in tackling rape or intimidation because of the abuser's ethnic group, he should be sacked.
2. Some political people object strongly to immigration, and seize on the Asian gangs to suggest that this is what you get if you have a lot of immigration. There is often a false implication, usually unstated, that this is common or even the norm among Asian men. This group appears more motivated by racial dislike than opposition to rape, since they don't usually make an issue of other rapes, whereas they frequently expound on their views about immigration.
3. Those of us who don't object to immigration naturally do object to rape. But the eagerness which the people in (2) seize on the issue makes us reluctant to comment because we don't really want to be in their company. It overstates it to say we're in a conspiracy of silence; rather, we don't want to be part of a conspiracy of incitement. The main issue is not race or immigration but law enforcement. I do agree that it's important that this reluctance to join in anti-immigrant talk doesn't inhibit police investigation - see (1).
Much the same applies to the less emotive issue of the NHS. Obviously the findings in Stafford are horrible. But it's notable that people who are all over the Stafford case, and explicitly keen to "pin it on Labour", are not bothering to comment on the recent investigation showing poor standards in a private hospital. Anyone who likes the NHS would gladly join a discussion on how to improve its standards and avoid more Stafford cases. But in any national hospital system there will be one that is worse than the others, and the issue is how to tackle that, not to jump from "hospital X was appalling" to "the entire system needs to change to my preferred political model". I'm as political as anyone else, but not everything that goes wrong proves a political point.
Two points:
1) I really hope you are not trying to downgrade what happened at Stafford as just 'poor standards'. If so, you may want to read the Francis report. Some (not all) left-leaning people on here have been constantly downgrading what happened at the hospital. Do you think that is right, either politically or morally?
As it happens, I was unaware of the private hospital case: can you provide details, please?
2) The issue here is sexual abuse of young children on a mass scale by organised, predatory gangs. Do you not think it is important to work out why and how these gangs operate? There are two ends of this story that needs addressing - stopping boys and girls from falling for them, and stopping the gangs from operating.
As an aside, have there been any recent non-Asian gangs convicted of organised abuse here in the UK in recent years? I'm not sure the CofE and Catholic church abuses count in quite the same way: their horror is all their own. In this case, we are talking about large gangs of men grooming, abusing and even selling young children. Not even the Catholic church went that far.
The list of ruined lives will become longer if we do not understand the why.
I don't remember lefties like Nick Palmer "contextualising" the murder of Stephen Lawrence by saying "murders by gangs happen all the time, for many reasons"
Yet here we have a series of gang rapes on an unprecedented scale with a clear racial motive and the Left is suddenly less interested. Odd.
This has little to do with party politics. Few rational people would claim, on the basis of the Stephen Lawrence case, that there was a problem in the "white community" at large of committing racially aggravated homicides. Yet that is the implication mutatis mutandis of the arguments being made about the Oldham, Rochdale and Oxford cases in respect of the "Asian community".
It is inconceivable that they will not qualify. It's done and dusted. Newcastle will lay themselves down to die on Sunday. And just in case they don't Spurs will not beat Sunderland. It was all written a long time ago.
You are more pessimistic about Spurs than you were about Romney. At leas Tottenham have some sort of a chance
Spurs exist solely to torture Spurs fans and to provide entertinament to Arsenal supprters. The only club with a remotely similar ability to inflict misery on its supporters is Man City. It is no coincidence that the one time Spurs got into the Champions League it was at their expense. But even they have had a few things to celebrate recently. With Spurs it is constant, grinding let-down. All true followers of Spurs know exactly what won't happen on Sunday.
It won't have the Tory party as part of the system for much longer. At least as an electoral force after today's outpouring of madness, hara-kiri and lemming syndrome. The average Tory MP is mad and has destroyed the party's electoral prospects. I'd go as far as saying that they will never win an absolute majority again.
Russian analysis seemed to be that some kind of Western intervention is inevitable but as Obama has talked and not much else Moscow has concluded its going to take on what it perceives as a weak heart.
Alongside the influx of not two but threee additional sources of manpower for Assad, Hizbollah, Basij militia direct from Iran and a mixed Iranian/Iraqi/Lebanese Shiite import militia (largely organised by the Iranians) to add to the 'Popular Committe' local defence units raised by Assad, Russia has pushed on in its support for Bashar.
Some of this material support has been evidenced in the destruction by the Israeli airforce of Russian shipped gear around Damascus airport. Russia has responded with a promise, more than a threat, to equip Assad with theatre air defence systems known as the S300 (think of the Patriot system but with far longer range).
This weapon is seen as a game changer designed to frighten off Israeli and Western intervention by air and essentially provide a no fly zone of cover for Assad without a plane in the air. In fact the Russians have leaked that the systems are already delivered. Chances are the West may be cowed but the Israelis may not be so easy to dissaude.
The Israeli PM met with Putin to attempt to stop the missile ship but hasnt a hope of having that requested granted/. If Russia chooses to send the gear it will and all that will stop it is West yielding on Assad's demise by force. There is a suspicion being noted by Tehran Moscow and Damascus that the West is indeed going to blink.
That leaves Jerusalem with a question whether to attack again, and indeed attack any missile systems or not. Rumours have the launch units predicted for delivery number anywhere between twelve and sixteen.
History suggests the Israelis will attack as it is unlikely to just let anyone pose a direct threat to their air superiority. The S300 has been painted as a super weapon, it isn't, but its range and reported performance means that unless countermeasures are in place its a screen that can do damage subject to it being a) used properly and b) having some kind of system integration. It is unlikely that a ship will come without Russian support personnel to make sure it works but the latter pre requisite is less certain. Assad's air defence system, s long used an an excuse why active intervention would be fraught is nothing of the sort and may not readily integrate usefully with S300.
For Israel the calculus is complicated. To attack may mean creating a showdown with Moscow to step back leaves them in a position where they may have to let Assad carry on, have air superiority put under threat and see heavy weapons transfers to Hizbollah.
It is inconceivable that they will not qualify. It's done and dusted. Newcastle will lay themselves down to die on Sunday. And just in case they don't Spurs will not beat Sunderland. It was all written a long time ago.
You are more pessimistic about Spurs than you were about Romney. At leas Tottenham have some sort of a chance
Spurs exist solely to torture Spurs fans and to provide entertinament to Arsenal supprters. The only club with a remotely similar ability to inflict misery on its supporters is Man City. It is no coincidence that the one time Spurs got into the Champions League it was at their expense. But even they have had a few things to celebrate recently. With Spurs it is constant, grinding let-down. All true followers of Spurs know exactly what won't happen on Sunday.
When you start looking in even a little detail you find that there are so many cases of organised paedophilia and sex abuse of children here and all across the world that you despair. The Rochdale, Oxford and other cases have quite rightly attracted a great deal of coverage and do raise questions about the willingness of the authorities and others to delve too deeply into immigrant communities, but the fact is that violent, sexual crime inflicted on young people is deep-seated and goes across all communities, religions, ethnicities and the rest of it. How you deal with it except to hunt it down relentlessly and ruthlessly is beyond me.
I'm not sure you've read that correctly. It backs up what I've been saying since the report came out. Yet some on here have been trying to downgrade that horror.
Or upgrade. He gives two examples of numbers of deaths - zero and 150 - and calls them both "equally unacceptable".
Are we agreed, with Francis, that we should not give estimates of death tolls until there is solid evidence?
Haven't been on much today, but the more I hear about this Oxford case the more distressing it is.
However, given my previous criticism, I just wanted to congratulate the BBC on first rate coverage of what is an awful, awful crime. They have given it the attention that something so appalling deserves, and hopefully this will prompt action from our political class. Over the last decade child protection has clearly been broken across the country, from Oxford to Reading to Rochdale. Someone in authority has been asleep at the wheel. There needs to be a lot of change.
I also hope that the Government brings in new legislation for greater punishment for these sorts of crimes. This abuse was so horrific the men that did it should never get out of jail. They deserve to rot in a cell for the rest of their lives. The 23 hours a day they have to spend in a cell at this Serco prison sounds an appropriate environment to keep them in.
I don't remember lefties like Nick Palmer "contextualising" the murder of Stephen Lawrence by saying "murders by gangs happen all the time, for many reasons"
Yet here we have a series of gang rapes on an unprecedented scale with a clear racial motive and the Left is suddenly less interested. Odd.
This has little to do with party politics. Few rational people would claim, on the basis of the Stephen Lawrence case, that there was a problem in the "white community" at large of committing racially aggravated homicides. Yet that is the implication mutatis mutandis of the arguments being made about the Oldham, Rochdale and Oxford cases in respect of the "Asian community".
Of course they did. It wasn't that the police involved were racist. The Metropolitan police service as a whole was "institutionally racist". The whole organisation was condemned.
I don't remember lefties like Nick Palmer "contextualising" the murder of Stephen Lawrence by saying "murders by gangs happen all the time, for many reasons"
Yet here we have a series of gang rapes on an unprecedented scale with a clear racial motive and the Left is suddenly less interested. Odd.
This has little to do with party politics. Few rational people would claim, on the basis of the Stephen Lawrence case, that there was a problem in the "white community" at large of committing racially aggravated homicides. Yet that is the implication mutatis mutandis of the arguments being made about the Oldham, Rochdale and Oxford cases in respect of the "Asian community".
Of course they did. It wasn't that the police involved were racist. The Metropolitan police service as a whole was "institutionally racist". The whole organisation was condemned.
You have misunderstood the point. In any event, the Met does not represent the white community as a whole.
When you start looking in even a little detail you find that there are so many cases of organised paedophilia and sex abuse of children here and all across the world that you despair. The Rochdale, Oxford and other cases have quite rightly attracted a great deal of coverage and do raise questions about the willingness of the authorities and others to delve too deeply into immigrant communities, but the fact is that violent, sexual crime inflicted on young people is deep-seated and goes across all communities, religions, ethnicities and the rest of it. How you deal with it except to hunt it down relentlessly and ruthlessly is beyond me.
All very well. However I know this for a truth, that if a white gang had groomed muslim girls for sex, and only muslim girls, for up to 8 years, everyone would be screaming racism from the top of their voices. Now that a muslim gang - and not the first - have been found out grooming white girls, and only white girls, that charge of racism is muted especially from the BBC and the Lefty world.
When you start looking in even a little detail you find that there are so many cases of organised paedophilia and sex abuse of children here and all across the world that you despair. The Rochdale, Oxford and other cases have quite rightly attracted a great deal of coverage and do raise questions about the willingness of the authorities and others to delve too deeply into immigrant communities, but the fact is that violent, sexual crime inflicted on young people is deep-seated and goes across all communities, religions, ethnicities and the rest of it. How you deal with it except to hunt it down relentlessly and ruthlessly is beyond me.
All very well. However I know this for a truth, that if a white gang had groomed muslim girls for sex, and only muslim girls, for up to 8 years, everyone would be screaming racism from the top of their voices. Now that a muslim gang - and not the first - have been found out grooming white girls, and only white girls, that charge of racism is muted especially from the BBC and the Lefty world.
Well I know this for a truth: they wouldn't. So we will have to agree to disagree.
I'd go as far as saying that they will never win an absolute majority again.
Those of us who've been around for rather a long time can remember the pundits who said exactly the same of Labour after their defeat in 1992.
Oddly, they were mainly the same pundits who a couple of months earlier were saying Kinnock was bound to win.
Well Richard come 2015 it'll be 23 years since the Tories last won a majority and the Labour party has never been through such a drought. And surely even you don't think that today's madness has increased the chances of a Tory majority government next time?
I'd go as far as saying that they will never win an absolute majority again.
Those of us who've been around for rather a long time can remember the pundits who said exactly the same of Labour after their defeat in 1992.
Oddly, they were mainly the same pundits who a couple of months earlier were saying Kinnock was bound to win.
Well Richard come 2015 it'll be 23 years since the Tories last won a majority and the Labour party has never been through such a drought. And surely even you don't think that today's madness has increased the chances of a Tory majority government next time?
This is a betting site...
Labour went nearly 23 years without winning a majority.
It can be argued that they went 31 years without winning a working majority.
I have to admire Dan Hodges, he's got a gig as a Times columnist now, and guess what, it is an Ed is crap piece.
The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that Ed, for lack of a better word, is good. Ed is right, Ed works. Ed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Ed, in all of his forms; Ed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Ed, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.
Well Richard come 2015 it'll be 23 years since the Tories last won a majority and the Labour party has never been through such a drought. And surely even you don't think that today's madness has increased the chances of a Tory majority government next time?.
Actually, I don't know,. The tactics are certainly odd, and the behaviour of many Tory MPs pretty bonkers, but I don't think the probability of a Tory majority (which the betting markets are currently slightly underestimating) has necessarily worsened today, or in the last few weeks.
The most striking new piece of information we have had recently was the lamentable performance of Labour in the locals, and to an extent even in South Shields. It is astonishing that Labour, which we all thought was the only serious opposition party, has failed to capitalise on the fact that the government is having to act in the most difficult peacetime conditions since the 1930s. The short-term symptom of this failure is that mid-term protest votes are going to UKIP, but it's a brave, or naive, pundit who claims to be able to predict whether the UKIP bubble will last, or how those telling pollsters they'll vote UKIP will actually vote in 2015. Who knows? There's nothing substantial behind the UKIP surge, just a list of incoherent gripes:
It really does sound as though they've asked around the pub and written down all the moans, even when they are mutually contradictory. Will they be able to keep it up for two whole years? Dunno.
Edit: This one's particularly funny: Give the public power to require binding local and national referenda on major issues. So they welcome today's announcement, presumably?
Imagine my disappointment not to read text message until several hours later, that a relative was talking with Ed M last week. I could have spoken to him....
Comments
The European Commission has issued a warning that it is going to impose penalties on Chinese companies accused of dumping telecommunication equipment. Would the UK really be in a position to make that kind of threat on its own or would we have to sit and take it?
There are clearly downsides to being a part of a large trading entity like the EU (such as not having our own agreement with NAFTA) but there are advantages as well. Whatever you think of the merits think about the EC campaigns against Microsoft when it was allegedly abusing a dominant position. Again how realistic would it be for the UK to do that on its own?
We need to change the way people think about themselves and the society they live in. My personal view is that this can be achieved by reducing/eliminating the need for state support. This seems to have taken over from the normal social support networks that were available.
My "village" is to be extended.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-22524806
Many are against it. I'm intensely relaxed, as long as the detailed plans are sensible and relevant services are put in place. The village is a maximum of 13 years old: I think it needs to be at least 30 years before NIMBYism can take hold.
We need to change the way people think about themselves and the society they live in. My personal view is that this can be achieved by reducing/eliminating the need for state support. This seems to have taken over from the normal social support networks that were available.
Child prostitution was endemic in the era before the welfare state; as was forced child labour.
I responded to DavidLs comment about multi culturalism, splitting people up into ethnic and religious groups, causing race relations problems because it is something I think is madness not to expect. When I mention race, as you will see if you look through my posts, it is never derogatory about anyone. What drives me mad is the different rules for different races approach of self flagellating lefties.
If the breaking news was the conviction of the North Wales abusers and I started banging on about this case you would have a point, but the roles are reversed. The breaking news is this case but you tried to divert attention to a different one.
There was a heartbreaking R5L interview with a girl at the centre of one of the recent cases. She was not from a care home; she was from a middle-class background with two loving parents, who were at a loss about how to help her. A natural instinct of teenage rebellion was preyed on.
The police were less than helpful when the parents complained, as was the social system.
Her great advantage was she had two loving parents to help pick up the pieces.
Although the care system is a large part of this, it is not the whole story.
"The prime minister has declared that the issue of our EU membership won’t be left to the politicians and officials who got us into our present mess. It will instead be determined by the electorate as a whole. This is what 82 per cent of us say we want. It’s what I have dedicated my adult life to securing. It’s what Ukip was founded to achieve. Indeed, had an In/Out poll been offered a couple of years ago, it would almost certainly have been enough to persuade Ukip to throw in its lot with the Tories.
Human nature, of course, isn’t always rational. We become curiously attached to our battles, reluctant to accept when we’ve won them. When the referendum was announced, some observers doubted – or, at least, affected to doubt – that David Cameron meant it. Accordingly, he has published the legislation for any pro-referendum backbencher to take up as a Private Member’s Bill. If 100 MPs can be mustered, such a Bill can be forced to Second Reading. Voters will then be able to see who goes through which lobby, and weigh their support accordingly. We may be surprised by how many individual Labour and Lib Dem MPs back the idea of consulting the people: they have constituents too.
In any event, tomorrow’s division is now an irrelevance. The vote that matters is the one on the referendum Bill itself which, unlike the declaratory amendment to the Queen’s Speech, will have legislative force. Supporters of an In/Out vote, in all parties, should focus on that Bill when it comes.
My impression, having taken soundings this morning, is that most of the people for whom the EU is the main issue are now satisfied. The comment thread that follows will, of course, tell a different story. ‘We want a referendum now!’ Well, fine: and your plan to get Lib-Lab MPs to vote for one is…? ‘You can’t trust Cameron’s word!’ You don’t have to: he’s issued the sodding Bill, for Heaven’s sake. ‘No Parliament can bind its successor!’ All the more reason to re-elect the MPs who vote for an In/Out referendum and replace the ones who don’t..." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100216918/an-inout-referendum-and-a-bill-in-this-session-david-cameron-has-delivered/
Well you are wrong. You just like to smear people.
I didnt bring the subject up, it was the topic of debate.... and I didnt offer any theory! Are you crazy?
I commented about the Tia case at the time. I said how weird was it for him to have had realtionships with the Mother and Grandmother, and how bizarre for the Grandmother to be in her 40s.
You probably dont remember it because it didnt dog whistle your lefty ears.
Today is Election Day from Esquimault to Crowsnest Pass!
Incumbent BC Liberal Party Premier Christie Clark has never before led her party in a general election. She & BC Libs have been in doghouse for last few years. HOWEVER the BC New Democratic Party led by Adrian Dix has been out of power since 2001. And recent polls have showed the race tightening.
An extra 7.3bn euros (£6.2bn; $9.5bn) is due to be added to the EU's budget for 2013 under a compromise reached between member states in Brussels.
The Council has also allowed room for a further amending budget later in the year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22527437
Thats two people you have accused of only talking about crimes that are ethnically motivated, and twice you have been wrong
Care to apologise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_cases_in_Australia
I produced the list at that time because of the inquiry that had been called, and which coincidentally has just started.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22011598
And because a friend of mine, who has just taken his own life, was affected you **** ****** The inquiry was announced in November. His final descent started in December. I'll never know if there's a connection, but it's a blooming great coincidence if it is.
But remember the 'senior Tory in child abuse'; scandal which Tom Watson pulled out of his ample backside, which you witter endlessly about? Except suddenly it's not North Wales, but South London?
.
But there are many problems. The A14 doesn't effect me that much - we can do the St Neots or A428/M11 run to get to most of the places we need to go.
The A14 needs sorting, and pronto. And Cambridge traffic is a problem at certain times of day, but I can mostly avoid that.
I couldn't agree more Blue_rog. And to Southam I can say so what has your interjection to do with what has happened in Oxford and other areas, of Muslim men grooming white girls for sex. If these same Muslim men tried it on their own muslim girls, they would have long had their throats cut by that very community. That same communities silence for white girls is shameful.
But so is the appalling conduct of the white community and authorities, in thrall and afraid to appear racist, if they spoke out.
I hope we can all agree on that.
The reasons why it happens are various and we should discuss - openly without fear or favour - what those reasons are, without shying away from those which are embarrassing, whether to churches, the BBC or any community anywhere.
But really the crime is so widespread that trying to make a party political point out of it is both pointless and a bit gross, frankly.
I am also obsessed with the attitude of the media to Paul Elliotts use of racist language as opposed to John Terrys . It leaves me dumbfounded.
When is Elliotts court case by the way?
This Oxford paedophile case isnt interesting to me because of the race element in itself, I wouldnt dream of smearing all Muslims as one thing or another, that is ridiculous, but because people tried to sweep it under the carpet for so long BECAUSE of the race element
Double standards
I personally treat people the same whatever their race, why would it bother me?
I am an honest person, if I were racist I would openly dislike people of other races and join the BNP, but thats not the kind of person I am
Good on them for playing along - it makes James Patterson et al in Castle look tame ;^ )
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul 18m
Cameron: "My commitment to a referendum is absolute." (Trans: I have taken my head off & run round in circles.) http://news.conservatives.com/interface/external_view_email.php?P921425822473974226432926303316 …
But your intense interest in Watson's currently unsubstantiated accusations are dramatically different to your intense attempts to shut up the debate around the much more substantiated cases that have ended in convictions.
It's just like MMR and Stafford. You see political capital in one, so you mention it endlessly, whilst trying to shut up debate about the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_cases_in_Australia
And apparently I did not mention any convictions.
It's a strange world.
Anyway, my home-made fish pie and sauted veg await. See you'all.
The council in Oxford trot out the usual platitudes .... eg lessons have been learned.
Obviously they've just learned that that girls as young as these staying out very late, associating with older men, and coming back smelling of alcohol might not be appropriate.
Well done!
Being in care might mean taking care of them, even if they're not that keen on it.
And at least the leaders of this Muslim community admit there may be a cultural problem and they intend to do something about it.
But so is the appalling conduct of the white community and authorities, in thrall and afraid to appear racist, if they spoke out.
Don't be silly Mike, you can't be racist towards white people, Jo Brand says so.
The Conservative position is also not yet clear, as I was told by a senior Conservative that the possibility of Anna switching to Rushcliffe if Ken Clarke calls it a day has been "under discussion". Possibly best to wait for clarity on both sides before betting much more!
A friend in Hove, where Labour is currently selecting, comments how much Labour selection has changed over the years. 15 years ago CLPs would get a stack of CVs and invite the most promising ones to come and talk, then members would decide. I was thought to be a bit daring because I had an A3 CV instead of A4. Now it's more like a hard-fought by-election, with all the main candidates sending out full-colour election addresses, canvassing every member personally, writing targeted direct mails, and so on. Is the same true in the other parties?
But so is the appalling conduct of the white community and authorities, in thrall and afraid to appear racist, if they spoke out.
My interjection had nothing to do with the Oxford case, it was in response to this from Blue_Rog:
"We need to change the way people think about themselves and the society they live in. My personal view is that this can be achieved by reducing/eliminating the need for state support. This seems to have taken over from the normal social support networks that were available."
The point being that before state support there was widespread sexual and physical abuse of children.
it's chucking it down here and the barbecue seems like a relic from a bygone age :-(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-22438623
Sad that the 5cum put [indetured] votes over any child's life. It must be due to Upper-middle-class penchants for English tax-paid dachas....
Sounds good to me.
1. Some people systematically prey on young girls, often from disorganised backgrounds, whom they find easy to persuade with a mixture of compliments, blandishments and threats. Some of them are organised in gangs. Some of the gangs are of Asian origin. All of them of vile criminals who should be locked up for many years. If anyone in authority feels inhibited in tackling rape or intimidation because of the abuser's ethnic group, he should be sacked.
2. Some political people object strongly to immigration, and seize on the Asian gangs to suggest that this is what you get if you have a lot of immigration. There is often a false implication, usually unstated, that this is common or even the norm among Asian men. This group appears more motivated by racial dislike than opposition to rape, since they don't usually make an issue of other rapes, whereas they frequently expound on their views about immigration.
3. Those of us who don't object to immigration naturally do object to rape. But the eagerness which the people in (2) seize on the issue makes us reluctant to comment because we don't really want to be in their company. It overstates it to say we're in a conspiracy of silence; rather, we don't want to be part of a conspiracy of incitement. The main issue is not race or immigration but law enforcement. I do agree that it's important that this reluctance to join in anti-immigrant talk doesn't inhibit police investigation - see (1).
Much the same applies to the less emotive issue of the NHS. Obviously the findings in Stafford are horrible. But it's notable that people who are all over the Stafford case, and explicitly keen to "pin it on Labour", are not bothering to comment on the recent investigation showing poor standards in a private hospital. Anyone who likes the NHS would gladly join a discussion on how to improve its standards and avoid more Stafford cases. But in any national hospital system there will be one that is worse than the others, and the issue is how to tackle that, not to jump from "hospital X was appalling" to "the entire system needs to change to my preferred political model". I'm as political as anyone else, but not everything that goes wrong proves a political point.
They gave a clear signal as to what the priority was. They signalled that it is worse to say something that might be construed as racist than it was to groom young teenagers. And so child-grooming flourished because everyone was too scared to even talk about it. It's time the BBC, the CPS and politicians owned up and admitted that their actions (or lack of) allowed the problem to get worse.
Cogently argued and absolutely correct.
Fair point. I was not trying to smear a particular group merely trying to find a shorthand way of describing Stuart Hazell and people like him. The most accurate way of describing people like him is certainly unprintable in such a blog.
Remember his alleged claim to be the heir to Blair? Cameron was at his best in the hug-a-hoodie era, he was elected as the Blair of the Conservative party. He too wanted to sweep away the archaic elements of his party, re-brand it, and preside over a moderate government in a time of steady economic growth, essentially continuing on from New Labour (as opposed to Brown Labour). He is popular with the electorate on a personal level and united the Tories sufficiently to gain a reliable poll lead until the TV debates exposed his relaxed, entitled attitude.
Instead of getting to be a Blair, though, he is now expected to be a Thatcher, and the party is angry; the problem is they knew what they were getting, but the context changed.
UPIKTips
A UKIP car sticker makes an excellent alternative to a disabled parking permit
Two points:
1) I really hope you are not trying to downgrade what happened at Stafford as just 'poor standards'. If so, you may want to read the Francis report. Some (not all) left-leaning people on here have been constantly downgrading what happened at the hospital. Do you think that is right, either politically or morally?
As it happens, I was unaware of the private hospital case: can you provide details, please?
2) The issue here is sexual abuse of young children on a mass scale by organised, predatory gangs. Do you not think it is important to work out why and how these gangs operate? There are two ends of this story that needs addressing - stopping boys and girls from falling for them, and stopping the gangs from operating.
As an aside, have there been any recent non-Asian gangs convicted of organised abuse here in the UK in recent years? I'm not sure the CofE and Catholic church abuses count in quite the same way: their horror is all their own. In this case, we are talking about large gangs of men grooming, abusing and even selling young children. Not even the Catholic church went that far.
The list of ruined lives will become longer if we do not understand the why.
Francis: "Asked about the use of mortality rates, Mr Francis said: “To assert that no deaths were caused by poor care at Stafford is equally as unacceptable as saying 150 were caused by poor care. It is rather sad we can’t come to a conclusion one way or the other.
“The important thing is not to be diverted by an arid argument about overall mortality rates from the horror of the care being provided to a significant number of patients at Stafford.”
I agree with Francis. Do you? Or is he downgrading Stafford?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8386018/British-police-smash-biggest-ever-paedophile-ring.html
And this ...
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/133584-life-behind-bars-for-vile-paedophile-ring-leaders/
And these ...
http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/were-islington-and-lambeth-paedophile-rings-connected/
And this ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-16545999
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-20078999
- the report is from December and some aspects are I think still sub judice. My point is that I wouldn't suggest that this shows that all private facilities are substandard or it's somehow a failure of the Government.
He didn't say this (that I saw) but it reminded me of a few years ago when I read of gangs using rape (for both male and female members, although with the males as perpetrators, if you will) as price for membership.
On-topic, I'm inclined to support the view we are still essentially a duopoly (the allocation of seats, if not votes, confirms that). The Alliance might have broken the duopoly with a different set of events and I think the Conservatives were on the edge of the abyss when they ousted IDS in 2003. Otherwise, it's stood the test of the better part of a century -the last real three-party election was 1923 when the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties captured 99.6% of the vote between them.
On matters European, I note David Cameron's counterattack is to claim that the Conservatives are the only party offering a "choice" on EU membership. Strange, I thought that was UKIP's line and I don't think either Labour or the Liberal Democrats have expressly ruled out a referendum in the future, just this side of the election (which Cameron has as well). As to what either party will put in their 2015 manifestos, that remains to be seen.
Of course, those who don't believe (and with justifcation) that ANY party can be trusted on this won't be convinced by any of the Prime Minister's politicking.
The Bristol Eye Hospital were criticised over the management of follow up appointments, some patients lost their sight.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-189451/Neglected-patients-went-blind.html
I am sorry to report that even as late as last year, their follow up procedures are still poor. It was very difficult making arrangements by telephone, emailing is a technology which they didn't appear to use.
I have no axes to grind over the initial assessment by the doctors on duty at the time, but I really ought to have logged a formal complaint.
May I recommend this umbrella as being both watertight and tastefully designed.
http://bit.ly/18IX7YN
That is a terrible case.
But note that I have never said all NHS hospitals are substandard, and I don't think anyone on here has. Also, criticising what happened at Stafford is not the same as criticising the whole NHS.
In fact I was praising some NHS treatment earlier in the year. And lambasting some other treatment I had.
But a government that takes pride and yells from the rooftops about falling waiting lists, more nurses employed etc, in their hospitals should also take note when there are failures, and not try to wash their hands of it. If you take credit when things go well, you should take responsibility when it fails.
And I will say the same when it happens once again, as I have said it will all along. And very probably that will happen under this government, and the next.
http://bit.ly/YTXkGK
Selection process reduced to 8 weeks (it was 9-13 recently, has been 4 in the pilot scheme in 2010-12). Branch nominations kept.
Russian analysis seemed to be that some kind of Western intervention is inevitable but as Obama has talked and not much else Moscow has concluded its going to take on what it perceives as a weak heart.
Alongside the influx of not two but threee additional sources of manpower for Assad, Hizbollah, Basij militia direct from Iran and a mixed Iranian/Iraqi/Lebanese Shiite import militia (largely organised by the Iranians) to add to the 'Popular Committe' local defence units raised by Assad, Russia has pushed on in its support for Bashar.
Some of this material support has been evidenced in the destruction by the Israeli airforce of Russian shipped gear around Damascus airport. Russia has responded with a promise, more than a threat, to equip Assad with theatre air defence systems known as the S300 (think of the Patriot system but with far longer range).
This weapon is seen as a game changer designed to frighten off Israeli and Western intervention by air and essentially provide a no fly zone of cover for Assad without a plane in the air. In fact the Russians have leaked that the systems are already delivered. Chances are the West may be cowed but the Israelis may not be so easy to dissaude.
The Israeli PM met with Putin to attempt to stop the missile ship but hasnt a hope of having that requested granted/. If Russia chooses to send the gear it will and all that will stop it is West yielding on Assad's demise by force. There is a suspicion being noted by Tehran Moscow and Damascus that the West is indeed going to blink.
That leaves Jerusalem with a question whether to attack again, and indeed attack any missile systems or not. Rumours have the launch units predicted for delivery number anywhere between twelve and sixteen.
History suggests the Israelis will attack as it is unlikely to just let anyone pose a direct threat to their air superiority. The S300 has been painted as a super weapon, it isn't, but its range and reported performance means that unless countermeasures are in place its a screen that can do damage subject to it being a) used properly and b) having some kind of system integration. It is unlikely that a ship will come without Russian support personnel to make sure it works but the latter pre requisite is less certain. Assad's air defence system, s long used an an excuse why active intervention would be fraught is nothing of the sort and may not readily integrate usefully with S300.
For Israel the calculus is complicated. To attack may mean creating a showdown with Moscow to step back leaves them in a position where they may have to let Assad carry on, have air superiority put under threat and see heavy weapons transfers to Hizbollah.
When you start looking in even a little detail you find that there are so many cases of organised paedophilia and sex abuse of children here and all across the world that you despair. The Rochdale, Oxford and other cases have quite rightly attracted a great deal of coverage and do raise questions about the willingness of the authorities and others to delve too deeply into immigrant communities, but the fact is that violent, sexual crime inflicted on young people is deep-seated and goes across all communities, religions, ethnicities and the rest of it. How you deal with it except to hunt it down relentlessly and ruthlessly is beyond me.
Other qualifiers: Denmark, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Estonia, Lithuania, Ireland, Belgium and Netherlands.
Bad night for the Balkans (Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro and Slovenia out).
Are we agreed, with Francis, that we should not give estimates of death tolls until there is solid evidence?
PS. Don't presume to be able to read my mind.
However, given my previous criticism, I just wanted to congratulate the BBC on first rate coverage of what is an awful, awful crime. They have given it the attention that something so appalling deserves, and hopefully this will prompt action from our political class. Over the last decade child protection has clearly been broken across the country, from Oxford to Reading to Rochdale. Someone in authority has been asleep at the wheel. There needs to be a lot of change.
I also hope that the Government brings in new legislation for greater punishment for these sorts of crimes. This abuse was so horrific the men that did it should never get out of jail. They deserve to rot in a cell for the rest of their lives. The 23 hours a day they have to spend in a cell at this Serco prison sounds an appropriate environment to keep them in.
Oddly, they were mainly the same pundits who a couple of months earlier were saying Kinnock was bound to win.
This is a betting site...
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/78293/daily_express_tuesday_14th_may_2013.html
It can be argued that they went 31 years without winning a working majority.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100216918/an-inout-referendum-and-a-bill-in-this-session-david-cameron-has-delivered/
But the point stands, between 1974 and 1997, Labour didn't win a majority, which is 23 years.
The most striking new piece of information we have had recently was the lamentable performance of Labour in the locals, and to an extent even in South Shields. It is astonishing that Labour, which we all thought was the only serious opposition party, has failed to capitalise on the fact that the government is having to act in the most difficult peacetime conditions since the 1930s. The short-term symptom of this failure is that mid-term protest votes are going to UKIP, but it's a brave, or naive, pundit who claims to be able to predict whether the UKIP bubble will last, or how those telling pollsters they'll vote UKIP will actually vote in 2015. Who knows? There's nothing substantial behind the UKIP surge, just a list of incoherent gripes:
http://www.ukip.org/index.php/issues/policy-pages/what-we-stand-for
It really does sound as though they've asked around the pub and written down all the moans, even when they are mutually contradictory. Will they be able to keep it up for two whole years? Dunno.
Edit: This one's particularly funny: Give the public power to require binding local and national referenda on major issues. So they welcome today's announcement, presumably?
A cross between the least funny viz top tips and the guardian comment is free section
I parodied one of their tweets and they followed me but didn't retweet... Sinister
Imagine my disappointment not to read text message until several hours later, that a relative was talking with Ed M last week. I could have spoken to him....