Point out how protestors in Scotland weren't interested in engaging in debate with you by hanging up the phone during difficult interviews
No, not quite that funny admittedly. I don't erally know why Farage has played it the way he has, he already had the grounds for getting people on his side based on what happened, but made himself appeared thin skinned and overreacting due to histrionics on his part, undermining himself. He's lost sympathy by overplaying things, a common mistake.
Spot on blog re scottish media, farage and bbc Scotland
You obviously know as much about Scotland as Farage. This guy is a nutcase , totally anti - SNP and would not be able to tell the truth if you paid him. He is correct in that the media is left wing but it is labour controlled and only his blind hatred of the SNP could induce this idiot to print that the SNP control the media. He has obviously never read a Scottish newspaper or listened to the BBC.
I am Scottish you fruit loop. You are proving his point - the Scottish media is a monoculture.
Imagine the fuss if Alex Salmond were locked in a pub in the East End of London for his own safety while the EDL hurled abuse at him
You trotted that one out yesterday. Your hypothesis would depend on Salmond being stupid enough to be involved in such tone-deaf grandstanding, unable to engage with aggressive opposition and equates the EDL with a protest made up of Greens, socialists and Labourites (including several English people). Not really a runner, is it?
LOL.
'unable to engage with aggressive opposition'.
It's nearly impossible to engage with anyone in that sort of situation, however good you are as a politician. The opponents have their opinion, and it's not as if they're going to calm down, listen, and say: "Oh, you've got a point there."
Indeed, the very fact they were there stifled debate by preventing a press conference.
They've admitted laughably thinking that Farage was a racist thug. There's no way he could have persuaded them otherwise when they're demonstrating in that manner.
It's good to see that's the way Scotland treats political debate. An independent Scotland will truly be a haven of enlightened thought and debate.
Is it true that it was Gordon Brown mishearing Gillian Duffys "where are they all FLOCKING from" that made himrespond the way he did?
Nobody really knows but Gordon - it's possible, but my guess is that it was just a man under pressure exasperated by having to listen to a lengthy harangue. Most politicians have been there and will have sympathised to some extent; some of us have disciplined ourselves to stay polite even when we think we're private, but maybe that makes us into the inhumanly controlled automatons that people also grumble about. Hard to win sometimes.
There's a lot to be said for the prospects of a socially conservative, relatively centre left economically party along the lines of what Labour under Callaghan and Healey would probably have become shorn of the BeLabour's 1997 and 2001 landslides were the greatest missed opportunities in British political history. Blair and Brown had a chance to fundamentally alter the UK's trajectory on almost every level, but largely blew it by being timid, trying to second guess Daily Mail headlines and fighting each other over what were essentially trivialities. Oh, and Iraq, of course.
Disagree , Blair was elected on a mandate for gradual change and improving public services. That is what he did 97-01.
International events out of his control had a big impact. 500 hanging chads, two towers and one Bush determined what Blair could achieve 2001-05.
"There's a lot to be said for the prospects of a socially conservative, relatively centre left economically party along the lines of what Labour under Callaghan and Healey would probably have become shorn of the Bennite left. It's a party that instinctively probably would have had quite a bit of support - patriotic, strong on law and order, pro-public services, mildly redistributionist. I may not have been that comfortable with the social conservatism, but it would have got my vote every time." - Southam Observer
The trouble is that such a government would not bring in the economic change you argue for in your other posts. We know that because they didn't when they had the chance. They were conservative, statist and hugely unimaginative.
Imagine the fuss if Alex Salmond were locked in a pub in the East End of London for his own safety while the EDL hurled abuse at him
You trotted that one out yesterday. Your hypothesis would depend on Salmond being stupid enough to be involved in such tone-deaf grandstanding, being unable to engage with aggressive opposition and equates the EDL with a protest made up of Greens, socialists and Labourites (including several English people). Not really a runner, is it?
Imagine the fuss if Alex Salmond were locked in a pub in the East End of London for his own safety while the EDL hurled abuse at him
You trotted that one out yesterday. Your hypothesis would depend on Salmond being stupid enough to be involved in such tone-deaf grandstanding, being unable to engage with aggressive opposition and equates the EDL with a protest made up of Greens, socialists and Labourites (including several English people). Not really a runner, is it?
However exactly what you would expect from southerners who know absolutely nothing about Scotland, Scottish politics and make assumptions that Salmond would be as stupid as Westminster politicians. What a laugh that the guy areested is English and says he is proud to be English, deflates all the swivelled eyed loons Nazi quotes.
It is a trade off for Cameron but one he probably has to make in the hope that people come round. The polling already indicates quite large changes in tory supporters views in these matters. Hammond is right in that the tories do not want to keep bashing these voters with issues they don't like. This week will be enough.
That doesn't mean one has to pretend to agree with it. If Cameron and his people calmly said that they understand that people are concerned, no church is being forced to do anything they don't want, but governments have to promote social stability and encouraging marriage between people who love each other is sensible, I don't think he'd be winding people up nearly so much. Any argument that finishes, "And if you disagree with me you're a bigoted loon" is not worth starting.
Soem eminently sensible points, and the tone of argument can shut it down right away of course, although these things are two way of course - Cameron and co may not be adopting the most constructive approach when making their arguments on such matters, but there's also been a lot of less than honest reasoning that doesn't logically hold up in opposition, rather than admitting the princpal reasons behind objection (I'm thinking of the 'this is a waste of time' argument, which even if true, since it is going ahead, is not a point to lay out further, instead one should now deal with it, in favour or in opposition, since it is going ahead) making honest dialog very difficult. So we just getting talking past one another, and then insults. Standard stuff.
Is it true that it was Gordon Brown mishearing Gillian Duffys "where are they all FLOCKING from" that made himrespond the way he did?
Nobody really knows but Gordon - it's possible, but my guess is that it was just a man under pressure exasperated by having to listen to a lengthy harangue. Most politicians have been there and will have sympathised to some extent; some of us have disciplined ourselves to stay polite even when we think we're private, but maybe that makes us into the inhumanly controlled automatons that people also grumble about. Hard to win sometimes.
The problem here is that he appeared to be expressing real views, and to be fair Nick, you are alluding to this in your comments. Mrs Duffy was expressing an opinion, it had some validity, and Gordon Brown's response is telling on a number of levels, as it appears to have come straight from the heart.
Presumably IOS believes Barack Obama was a bigot in 2008.
You are over thinking this. IOS is simply a racist bigot thrashing around in frustration in much the same way that the BNP have done for the last 30 years or more. The only difference is the skin colour of the innocent targets of his bile. One understands his frustration that the world has not turned out as he might have wished it but that really is no excuse for his racist, ageist stereotyping which has no place in the 21st century.
Spot on blog re scottish media, farage and bbc Scotland
You obviously know as much about Scotland as Farage. This guy is a nutcase , totally anti - SNP and would not be able to tell the truth if you paid him. He is correct in that the media is left wing but it is labour controlled and only his blind hatred of the SNP could induce this idiot to print that the SNP control the media. He has obviously never read a Scottish newspaper or listened to the BBC.
I am Scottish you fruit loop. You are proving his point - the Scottish media is a monoculture.
I did not mention your nationality I said you knew nothing about Scotland. I believe it is you that may be the monoculture , back to the lab fridge with you. Gallacher is a bigoted clown , your misguided support and use of his opinion to denegrate the SNP do not alter that.
It's good to see that's the way Scotland treats political debate. An independent Scotland will truly be a haven of enlightened thought and debate.
Bit early for that amount of sanctimonious outrage surely? You'll do yourself a mischief if you're not careful.
It's not sanctimonious outrage; just a reflection that these protesters stopped a legitimate political figure from giving a speech, just because they do not like him.
That's bad for democracy.
Or do you agree with their laughable view that Farage is a 'racist thug'?
It's good to see that's the way Scotland treats political debate. An independent Scotland will truly be a haven of enlightened thought and debate.
Bit early for that amount of sanctimonious outrage surely? You'll do yourself a mischief if you're not careful.
It's never too early for sanctimonious outrage!
Actually, that is a serious point, as one reason UKIP, I think, have been doing better in the past year - in addition to a more favourable atmosphere for their rhetoric - is that Farage in particular has dialled back the outrage just a notch, has not ranted on about the EU quite as strongly no matter what anyone else asks (he sometimes just sort of offhandly mentions it as 'of course this would be better if we'd left the EU' while actually talking about the issue itself more), and so tempered the sense of outrage from rant to merely seething.
It's the same sort of thing that undermines a lot of anti-BBC attacks, where the slightest thing gets jumped on as proof of something so major and structurally wrong, that a lot of people who are not strident defenders of haters of the organization get turned off because, usually the haters, make the point too often and too vociferously from not enough of a basis, such that when there is a very good basis for their outrage, it has less impact.
Imagine the fuss if Alex Salmond were locked in a pub in the East End of London for his own safety while the EDL hurled abuse at him
You trotted that one out yesterday. Your hypothesis would depend on Salmond being stupid enough to be involved in such tone-deaf grandstanding, unable to engage with aggressive opposition and equates the EDL with a protest made up of Greens, socialists and Labourites (including several English people). Not really a runner, is it?
LOL.
'unable to engage with aggressive opposition'.
It's nearly impossible to engage with anyone in that sort of situation, however good you are as a politician. The opponents have their opinion, and it's not as if they're going to calm down, listen, and say: "Oh, you've got a point there."
Indeed, the very fact they were there stifled debate by preventing a press conference.
They've admitted laughably thinking that Farage was a racist thug. There's no way he could have persuaded them otherwise when they're demonstrating in that manner.
It's good to see that's the way Scotland treats political debate. An independent Scotland will truly be a haven of enlightened thought and debate.
Another fruitcake that would have us in a police state. If he cannot handle a few noisy students he should not be where he is and trying to make out that he is a serious politician. Shown up for the donkey he actually is when not up against the effete Westminster opposition.
They've admitted laughably thinking that Farage was a racist thug.
I wonder where they got that idea?
Remarks allegedly made by Farage when speaking to UKIP founder Dr Alan Sked.: “We will never win the ni**er vote, the n*g-no*s will never vote for us’ - Nigel Farage to UKIP founder Alan Sked, who abandoned the party over its adoption of far-right ideologies”.
You think Farage always laughs in his warm bitter about that?
Entirely off topic, the Aberdeen Donside candidate list has been published. Interestingly (to me anyway) the Scottish Democratic Alliance (a kind of Scottish UKIP) are running a candidate for the first time. There're also Scottish National Front and Scottish Christian Party "Proclaiming Christ's Lordship" candidates. The average swivel-eyed loon will hardly know where to put their cross!
They've admitted laughably thinking that Farage was a racist thug.
I wonder where they got that idea?
Remarks allegedly made by Farage when speaking to UKIP founder Dr Alan Sked.: “We will never win the ni**er vote, the n*g-no*s will never vote for us’ - Nigel Farage to UKIP founder Alan Sked, who abandoned the party over its adoption of far-right ideologies”.
You think Farage always laughs in his warm bitter about that?
Note the 'allegedly'.
And what about the 'thug' part?
I have little time for Farage, but will back him over this incident. The protesters were wrong.
Is it true that it was Gordon Brown mishearing Gillian Duffys "where are they all FLOCKING from" that made himrespond the way he did?
Nobody really knows but Gordon - it's possible, but my guess is that it was just a man under pressure exasperated by having to listen to a lengthy harangue. Most politicians have been there and will have sympathised to some extent; some of us have disciplined ourselves to stay polite even when we think we're private, but maybe that makes us into the inhumanly controlled automatons that people also grumble about. Hard to win sometimes.
Yes indeed. On the one hand we condemn politicians for being cliche spewing identikit robots incapable of genuine verbal expression beholden to focus group approved talking points, but on the other we never let go the occasional unguarded or foot in mouth moment, and instead blow
I'm likely as guilty of that as anyone, which is why as mad I get at the political class sometimes (except you of course), or rather how they present themselves to us, I'm madder at myself and the public because we're about as much to blame for why our leaders have developed in certain ways.
It's good to see that's the way Scotland treats political debate. An independent Scotland will truly be a haven of enlightened thought and debate.
Bit early for that amount of sanctimonious outrage surely? You'll do yourself a mischief if you're not careful.
It's not sanctimonious outrage; just a reflection that these protesters stopped a legitimate political figure from giving a speech, just because they do not like him.
That's bad for democracy.
Or do you agree with their laughable view that Farage is a 'racist thug'?
The police did arrest some of the protesters, so it is rather unfair to depict the Scottish authorities as complicit in shutting down debate.
I would have been interested in seeing how Nuttal would have handled it. I suspect that the Protesters would have acted differently and so would he.
It does look as if UKIP would do particularly well if Scotland votes for independence, as most of the support seems to be Anglo Saxon. Perhaps all part of the cunning master plan.
Southam, there will come a time when UKIP's policies are scrutinised in detail, but it would be water off a duck's back at the moment.
Given the nature of UKIP's support, I wouldn't be surprised if they moved a bit leftward on economic issues.
There's a lot to be said for the prospects of a socially conservative, relatively centre left economically party along the lines of what Labour under Callaghan and Healey would probably have become shorn of the Bennite left. It's a party that instinctively probably would have had quite a bit of support - patriotic, strong on law and order, pro-public services, mildly redistributionist. I may not have been that comfortable with the social conservatism, but it would have got my vote every time.
New Labour in other words.
New Labour was none of those things. New Labour *pretended* to be those things to get elected - proving the original point - but the purpose of New Labour was to "destroy the forces of conservatism" that required them to pretend.
It's good to see that's the way Scotland treats political debate. An independent Scotland will truly be a haven of enlightened thought and debate.
Bit early for that amount of sanctimonious outrage surely? You'll do yourself a mischief if you're not careful.
It's not sanctimonious outrage; just a reflection that these protesters stopped a legitimate political figure from giving a speech, just because they do not like him.
That's bad for democracy.
Or do you agree with their laughable view that Farage is a 'racist thug'?
Majority in Scotland are perfectly happy with immigration , we do not have massive support for a "white country" as they do in England. He is not a thug as far as I am aware.
Imagine the fuss if Alex Salmond were locked in a pub in the East End of London for his own safety while the EDL hurled abuse at him
You trotted that one out yesterday. Your hypothesis would depend on Salmond being stupid enough to be involved in such tone-deaf grandstanding, unable to engage with aggressive opposition and equates the EDL with a protest made up of Greens, socialists and Labourites (including several English people). Not really a runner, is it?
LOL.
'unable to engage with aggressive opposition'.
It's nearly impossible to engage with anyone in that sort of situation, however good you are as a politician. The opponents have their opinion, and it's not as if they're going to calm down, listen, and say: "Oh, you've got a point there."
Indeed, the very fact they were there stifled debate by preventing a press conference.
They've admitted laughably thinking that Farage was a racist thug. There's no way he could have persuaded them otherwise when they're demonstrating in that manner.
It's good to see that's the way Scotland treats political debate. An independent Scotland will truly be a haven of enlightened thought and debate.
Another fruitcake that would have us in a police state. If he cannot handle a few noisy students he should not be where he is and trying to make out that he is a serious politician. Shown up for the donkey he actually is when not up against the effete Westminster opposition.
Thanks for the insult. Although I prefer balmpot. ;-)
And the police could not handle the protesters, either.
How was Farage expected to handle them? Fight them?
"Social Conservatives clearly ironically change over time. therefore in 20 years nobody will frankly understand why there was any fuss over gay marriage anyhow." There is a difference between conservatism with a small "c" and Conservatism. In this debate, it is well to be pedantic. Conservatism and conservatism are different things.
We are not discussing in 20 year's time, we are discussing in 2 year's time. The question of homosexual marriage, the legalisation of which has offended many people who supported, or at least acquiesced, to Civil Partnership, will be very much a live issue in 2014 and 2015. It brings home to an increasingly sceptical electorate just how much the EU monster interferes in our daily lives. The fact that homosexual marriage has been forced on the Country by an EU diktat will do little for the Europhile cause in 2014 and nothing for LibLabCon in 2015.
A relatively centre left economically , socially conservative left is what the Methodist roots of the Labour Party once stood for. Unfortunately, Labour have become a party dominated by Marxist zombies tied umbilically to the Public Sector unions, with no discernible moral or ethical base. It is difficult to see how Labour can expand their appeal under Ed's, "One Nation" idea while this state of affairs remains. On the moral and ethical questions,, they are no worse than the Coalition parties. While Cameron clings on to the Party leadership in office, but not in power, and the LibDems continue to do whatever it is that LibDems do, any improvement is moot.
Does IOS get pi55ed every Friday night and then come here and launch his race hate screeds ?
Interesting that he doesn't find the attitudes to homosexuality among Muslims and African Christians objectionable.
And curious that tim and southam have passed no comment on IOS though they were quick to condemn (and justifiably so) LewisDuckworth last week.
I only just read the whoel thread. Of course, IOS's "And price out its lazy white folk for hard working European immigrants" comment is a disgrace. And also somewhat ironic given that the hard working European immigrants are also overwhelmingly white.
It is a trade off for Cameron but one he probably has to make in the hope that people come round. The polling already indicates quite large changes in tory supporters views in these matters. Hammond is right in that the tories do not want to keep bashing these voters with issues they don't like. This week will be enough.
That doesn't mean one has to pretend to agree with it. If Cameron and his people calmly said that they understand that people are concerned, no church is being forced to do anything they don't want, but governments have to promote social stability and encouraging marriage between people who love each other is sensible, I don't think he'd be winding people up nearly so much. Any argument that finishes, "And if you disagree with me you're a bigoted loon" is not worth starting.
Soem eminently sensible points, and the tone of argument can shut it down right away of course, although these things are two way of course - Cameron and co may not be adopting the most constructive approach when making their arguments on such matters, but there's also been a lot of less than honest reasoning that doesn't logically hold up in opposition, rather than admitting the princpal reasons behind objection (I'm thinking of the 'this is a waste of time' argument, which even if true, since it is going ahead, is not a point to lay out further, instead one should now deal with it, in favour or in opposition, since it is going ahead) making honest dialog very difficult. So we just getting talking past one another, and then insults. Standard stuff.
It is a sad fact, that with all this talk of the rights of gay's to a marriage contract; and I presume lesbian women as well as men are included in this, that no one speaks for the rights of a child, harvested from the adoption agences, and brought up without a father, in one case or a mother in the other.
I think that some badly maladjusted children are going go be let loose on society in a few years. I personally would have hated not to have both a father and mother, both of who I can claim kin to. Society is going to greatly regret this.
I have nothing to say about the private sexuaI habits of gays. They can do what they like in private, but for the children of such partnerships it's going to be a nightmare.
It is a trade off for Cameron but one he probably has to make in the hope that people come round. The polling already indicates quite large changes in tory supporters views in these matters. Hammond is right in that the tories do not want to keep bashing these voters with issues they don't like. This week will be enough.
There's a difference between doing things people don't like and rubbing their noses in it. Cameron and his circle appear to be getting advice from IOS on how to engage in dialogue, which is probably unwise in a Prime Minister. The closest parallel is perhaps Gordon and the "just a bigoted woman", but Romney's 47% comes to mind as well.
The starting point for any politician interested in winning a broad range of votes is to respect voters, and you need to do that in private as well - once you get into the habit of writing swathes of the electorate off as idiots, the contempt will show through at some point. Obviously some people are genuinely so extreme or irrational that it's impossible to understand how they arrive at their views, but it's an exception, and social conservatism in the face of a world of accelerating change is understandable.
That doesn't mean one has to pretend to agree with it. If Cameron and his people calmly said that they understand that people are concerned, no church is being forced to do anything they don't want, but governments have to promote social stability and encouraging marriage between people who love each other is sensible, I don't think he'd be winding people up nearly so much. Any argument that finishes, "And if you disagree with me you're a bigoted loon" is not worth starting.
What I can't understand is why churches that do want to conduct gay marriages, like the Quakers, should be stopped from doing so. That surely makes no sense at all, however religious one might be. Can anyone explain that bit?
Absolutely: you need to respect voters in private as well as in public. I remember about 15 years ago I was with a senior managing director of our firm and were calling the CFO of a big Swiss company [not yours, Nick ;-) ]. Left him a voicemail and then hung up and started to chat about the project.
3 minutes in, voice came over the speaker 'your message is too long, please hang up and dial again...' Thank f*** we hadn't said anything rude or inappropriate - but it sure as heck taught me a lesson.
Doesn't look like all those highly educated immigrants have done much good does it or for that matter our record exam marks students.
Though that really isn't their fault more an effect on the changing nature of the UK economy. The shift towards a consumer service economy means that the workforce becomes increasingly dominated by low skilled employment which have much lower rates of productivity improvement.
In the short term this means higher employment which governments like but it has disasterous long term consequences.
Between 1972 and 2002 productivity grew on average by 2.5% per year - which is the rate the government assumes when making its long term spending and investing plans.
If we're now stuck in a phase of productivity growth of less than half that then those spending plans become unaffordable and the debate becomes about which groups in society get the promises made to them broken.
They've admitted laughably thinking that Farage was a racist thug.
I wonder where they got that idea?
Remarks allegedly made by Farage when speaking to UKIP founder Dr Alan Sked.: “We will never win the ni**er vote, the n*g-no*s will never vote for us’ - Nigel Farage to UKIP founder Alan Sked, who abandoned the party over its adoption of far-right ideologies”.
You think Farage always laughs in his warm bitter about that?
Not sure who is the one lying here but Alan Sked did not leave the party because of its adoption of far right policies. He left because he was no longer able to influence its direction and he vehemently opposed its decision to contest the Euro elections.
Given that he stood as a candidate for the Anti-Federalist League on the same platform and was supported by Enoch Powell at the 1993 Newbury by-election, I think his claims of being forced out by right wing ideology should be taken with a pinch of salt.
He is just a bitter old man who, much like Heath, has been on a 20 year sulk, made all the worse for him by the success of the party he helped set up and then left.
Or do you agree with their laughable view that Farage is a 'racist thug'?
I agree with the right of anyone to call Farage a racist thug.
While ultimately preventing him from having a media conference by doing so?
Not that it really matters, as he got another chance to make all the points he would want to make and more soon after of course.
Exactly , the clown was grandstanding and tried to do it in Scotland as he does in England with a pint of bitter and his smug grin. He was found wanting in all departments and sent home to think again. Why he thought speaking in an Edinburgh pub to support UKIP in the Donside by-election says all about his knowledge of Scotland and understanding of politics. He should stick to using dog whistle politics in England where he is more successful or maybe open a map before he travels.
While ultimately preventing him from having a media conference by doing so?
They didn't. The journos simply followed Farage into the pub (reluctantly I'm sure ) and asked him questions there over a drink (or several). The only reason he left the pub was that the barman and staff wanted them all out.
Not that it really matters, as he got another chance to make all the points he would want to make and more soon after of course.
Yep, and the UK media have let him make his points over and over again in the preceding months; I don't think Scotland could be said to be unaware of what he stands for. No other political party that's unable to gain even a councillor in Scotland would get that kind of coverage here.
Imagine the fuss if Alex Salmond were locked in a pub in the East End of London for his own safety while the EDL hurled abuse at him
You trotted that one out yesterday. Your hypothesis would depend on Salmond being stupid enough to be involved in such tone-deaf grandstanding, unable to engage with aggressive opposition and equates the EDL with a protest made up of Greens, socialists and Labourites (including several English people). Not really a runner, is it?
LOL.
'unable to engage with aggressive opposition'.
It's nearly impossible to engage with anyone in that sort of situation, however good you are as a politician. The opponents have their opinion, and it's not as if they're going to calm down, listen, and say: "Oh, you've got a point there."
Indeed, the very fact they were there stifled debate by preventing a press conference.
They've admitted laughably thinking that Farage was a racist thug. There's no way he could have persuaded them otherwise when they're demonstrating in that manner.
It's good to see that's the way Scotland treats political debate. An independent Scotland will truly be a haven of enlightened thought and debate.
Another fruitcake that would have us in a police state. If he cannot handle a few noisy students he should not be where he is and trying to make out that he is a serious politician. Shown up for the donkey he actually is when not up against the effete Westminster opposition.
Thanks for the insult. Although I prefer balmpot. ;-)
And the police could not handle the protesters, either.
How was Farage expected to handle them? Fight them?
A real politician would not have went on the BBC and called them nazi's etc and then claimed BBC were the same. He should have had his pint , laughed at the state of them and toddled off.
Or do you agree with their laughable view that Farage is a 'racist thug'?
I agree with the right of anyone to call Farage a racist thug.
While ultimately preventing him from having a media conference by doing so?
Not that it really matters, as he got another chance to make all the points he would want to make and more soon after of course.
Exactly , the clown was grandstanding and tried to do it in Scotland as he does in England with a pint of bitter and his smug grin. He was found wanting in all departments and sent home to think again. Why he thought speaking in an Edinburgh pub to support UKIP in the Donside by-election says all about his knowledge of Scotland and understanding of politics. He should stick to using dog whistle politics in England where he is more successful or maybe open a map before he travels.
As someone who strongly supports Scottish Independence it is very sad to see the nationalists on here excusing and playing down violent bigoted and undemocratic behaviour just because they disagree with the victim and because the perpetrators claim to be nationalists.
While ultimately preventing him from having a media conference by doing so?
They didn't. The journos simply followed Farage into the pub (reluctantly I'm sure ) and asked him questions there over a drink (or several). The only reason he left the pub was that the barman and staff wanted them all out.
Fair enough - I still say the protesters went too far, and the claims of merely trying to engage from the protestor chap on the BBC ring hollow as an excuse, but it is pretty indisputable that Farage has made much more of a meal out of it than he should have.
On topic... I don't see the difficulty in riding two horses. Most voters are doing it. The trouble comes when you keep jumping from one to the other as they're heading in different directions.
Or do you agree with their laughable view that Farage is a 'racist thug'?
I agree with the right of anyone to call Farage a racist thug.
While ultimately preventing him from having a media conference by doing so?
Not that it really matters, as he got another chance to make all the points he would want to make and more soon after of course.
Exactly , the clown was grandstanding and tried to do it in Scotland as he does in England with a pint of bitter and his smug grin. He was found wanting in all departments and sent home to think again. Why he thought speaking in an Edinburgh pub to support UKIP in the Donside by-election says all about his knowledge of Scotland and understanding of politics. He should stick to using dog whistle politics in England where he is more successful or maybe open a map before he travels.
In his defence, if a tactic works for him, why shouldn't he try it in another place to see if it works? If it is less successful, as it appears at first glance, I'm sure he will adjust tactics in Scotland in future, but even if he's whined about his unfair treatment too much, it was a larger reaction from the protestors than was reasonable for someone they think has no chance in Scotland anyway.
Doesn't look like all those highly educated immigrants have done much good does it or for that matter our record exam marks students.
Though that really isn't their fault more an effect on the changing nature of the UK economy. The shift towards a consumer service economy means that the workforce becomes increasingly dominated by low skilled employment which have much lower rates of productivity improvement.
In the short term this means higher employment which governments like but it has disasterous long term consequences.
Between 1972 and 2002 productivity grew on average by 2.5% per year - which is the rate the government assumes when making its long term spending and investing plans.
If we're now stuck in a phase of productivity growth of less than half that then those spending plans become unaffordable and the debate becomes about which groups in society get the promises made to them broken.
While ultimately preventing him from having a media conference by doing so?
They didn't. The journos simply followed Farage into the pub (reluctantly I'm sure ) and asked him questions there over a drink (or several). The only reason he left the pub was that the barman and staff wanted them all out.
Wrong again. According to the police and the pictures taken by the media the news conference was arranged for the pub. The trouble started only when they came to leave the pub and were then confronted by the mob.
""Officers responded to the address to facilitate a peaceful demonstration which arose during a UKIP meeting that was taking place inside."
According to all the reports in the Guardian, Telegraph and on the BBC the new conference was planned, the police were aware in advance of the planned demonstration and had officers there to police it - seemingly not enough though. The owner of the pub asked for the news conference to end because he was concerned about the protesters outside.
Why do you find it necessary to twist things to make them seem worse for Farage? Are you that insecure in your position?
Imagine the fuss if Alex Salmond were locked in a pub in the East End of London for his own safety while the EDL hurled abuse at him
You trotted that one out yesterday. Your hypothesis would depend on Salmond being stupid enough to be involved in such tone-deaf grandstanding, being unable to engage with aggressive opposition and equates the EDL with a protest made up of Greens, socialists and Labourites (including several English people). Not really a runner, is it?
Also almost no one in London knows or cares who Salmond is I suppose
Or do you agree with their laughable view that Farage is a 'racist thug'?
I agree with the right of anyone to call Farage a racist thug.
While ultimately preventing him from having a media conference by doing so?
Not that it really matters, as he got another chance to make all the points he would want to make and more soon after of course.
Exactly , the clown was grandstanding and tried to do it in Scotland as he does in England with a pint of bitter and his smug grin. He was found wanting in all departments and sent home to think again. Why he thought speaking in an Edinburgh pub to support UKIP in the Donside by-election says all about his knowledge of Scotland and understanding of politics. He should stick to using dog whistle politics in England where he is more successful or maybe open a map before he travels.
As someone who strongly supports Scottish Independence it is very sad to see the nationalists on here excusing and playing down violent bigoted and undemocratic behaviour just because they disagree with the victim and because the perpetrators claim to be nationalists.
I had thought better of you.
There was no violence , it was a few noisy students shouting insults. Politicians give out bigoted undemocratic opinions all the time and do not like to see any in return. If you have looked at the actual pictures and think that was anything other than a laugh you have led a sheltered life. They were a bunch of numpties who managed to show up a donkey who is supposed to be a serious politician. It had absolutely nothing to do with nationalists or Scottish people in general. I personally thought it was extremely funny to see the startled rabbit look on his coupon and the state of the bobbies who had thought they were on a jolly and could not handle a handful of sober noisy students.
Imagine the fuss if Alex Salmond were locked in a pub in the East End of London for his own safety while the EDL hurled abuse at him
You trotted that one out yesterday. Your hypothesis would depend on Salmond being stupid enough to be involved in such tone-deaf grandstanding, unable to engage with aggressive opposition and equates the EDL with a protest made up of Greens, socialists and Labourites (including several English people). Not really a runner, is it?
LOL.
'unable to engage with aggressive opposition'.
It's nearly impossible to engage with anyone in that sort of situation, however good you are as a politician. The opponents have their opinion, and it's not as if they're going to calm down, listen, and say: "Oh, you've got a point there."
Indeed, the very fact they were there stifled debate by preventing a press conference.
They've admitted laughably thinking that Farage was a racist thug. There's no way he could have persuaded them otherwise when they're demonstrating in that manner.
It's good to see that's the way Scotland treats political debate. An independent Scotland will truly be a haven of enlightened thought and debate.
Another fruitcake that would have us in a police state. If he cannot handle a few noisy students he should not be where he is and trying to make out that he is a serious politician. Shown up for the donkey he actually is when not up against the effete Westminster opposition.
Thanks for the insult. Although I prefer balmpot. ;-)
And the police could not handle the protesters, either.
How was Farage expected to handle them? Fight them?
A real politician would not have went on the BBC and called them nazi's etc and then claimed BBC were the same. He should have had his pint , laughed at the state of them and toddled off.
ps it is BAMPOT
I'm not sure he could have finished his pint. From the reports I've read, the landlord understandably got worried about the protesters and asked Farage to leave.
I think Farage made far too much a meal of it afterwards - a sign of a rather immature politician. But I said the same about Salmond and the Economist cover. ;-)
As for Balmpot vs bampot; it depends on which part of the country you are from. In my part of the world it's actually Barmpot, but I prefer Balmpot as taught by my Scottish-heritage grandmother (whose own grandma & grandpa were both from different Shetlands islands)
Southam, there will come a time when UKIP's policies are scrutinised in detail, but it would be water off a duck's back at the moment.
Given the nature of UKIP's support, I wouldn't be surprised if they moved a bit leftward on economic issues.
There's a lot to be said for the prospects of a socially conservative, relatively centre left economically party along the lines of what Labour under Callaghan and Healey would probably have become shorn of the Bennite left. It's a party that instinctively probably would have had quite a bit of support - patriotic, strong on law and order, pro-public services, mildly redistributionist. I may not have been that comfortable with the social conservatism, but it would have got my vote every time.
New Labour in other words.
Not quite, but nearly. New Labour was too elitist and too metropolitan. It was very unconvincing the further away from London it got. Callaghan and Healey were far more rooted in and comfortable with the Labour movement. I doubt they would have been so nonchalant on issues such as immigration and multiculturalism.
Camerons policy is a disaster. The nastiness that needed to be eliminated was the ignorant "losers go by bus" attitude, instead they attacked social conservatives, hardworking honest people, often churchgoing who form the backbone of the true voluntary sector (ie not the government funded left wing pseudo charities) and also the backbone of the local conservative parties who deliver leaflets and get the vote out.
They have done so at a time of high immigration from eastern Europe, Asia and Africa of people who are instinctively socially conservative and have more children than average. I have also noticed a trend for socially conservative white britons to often marry people from abroad and have more than average children (I myself married an African and had 5 children)
Cameron , May, Osborne, Maude & co have destroyed the Conservative party, I suspect it may never recover from this.
Whatever Cameron promises, I will vote UKIP, even if we have to endure Red Ed as a result. It is a neccesary price to pay for the destruction of the cancer of (small l) liberal progressivism in the Conservative Party and its reform or replacement with a centre right party that primarily represents the hard working working classes and lower middle classes, not upper middle class, socially liberal toffs, who have never had to earn a days living because one of their ancestors was a mate of Henry VIII and was given a large chunk of land when Henry VIII did to the Catholic Church what Robert Mugabe did to the Zimbabwe commercial farmers.
Does IOS get pi55ed every Friday night and then come here and launch his race hate screeds ?
Interesting that he doesn't find the attitudes to homosexuality among Muslims and African Christians objectionable.
And curious that tim and southam have passed no comment on IOS though they were quick to condemn (and justifiably so) LewisDuckworth last week.
I only just read the whoel thread. Of course, IOS's "And price out its lazy white folk for hard working European immigrants" comment is a disgrace. And also somewhat ironic given that the hard working European immigrants are also overwhelmingly white.
I don't doubt that you condemn IOS's comments.
While examples of bigotry are always ugly I do think they stand as a warning to the rest of us to be more openminded.
Or do you agree with their laughable view that Farage is a 'racist thug'?
I agree with the right of anyone to call Farage a racist thug.
While ultimately preventing him from having a media conference by doing so?
Not that it really matters, as he got another chance to make all the points he would want to make and more soon after of course.
Exactly , the clown was grandstanding and tried to do it in Scotland as he does in England with a pint of bitter and his smug grin. He was found wanting in all departments and sent home to think again. Why he thought speaking in an Edinburgh pub to support UKIP in the Donside by-election says all about his knowledge of Scotland and understanding of politics. He should stick to using dog whistle politics in England where he is more successful or maybe open a map before he travels.
In his defence, if a tactic works for him, why shouldn't he try it in another place to see if it works? If it is less successful, as it appears at first glance, I'm sure he will adjust tactics in Scotland in future, but even if he's whined about his unfair treatment too much, it was a larger reaction from the protestors than was reasonable for someone they think has no chance in Scotland anyway.
To be fair it was a mix of far left wing extreme types who are students and have little else to occupy their time. For Farage to be shown so wanting against such a puny group is the real talking point. He is obviously fine among white English people who support his opinion but has no answers when he gets a negative response and can only resort to childish insults and crying. He has been shown up as a false God and is no saviour for white England.
Or do you agree with their laughable view that Farage is a 'racist thug'?
I agree with the right of anyone to call Farage a racist thug.
While ultimately preventing him from having a media conference by doing so?
Not that it really matters, as he got another chance to make all the points he would want to make and more soon after of course.
Exactly , the clown was grandstanding and tried to do it in Scotland as he does in England with a pint of bitter and his smug grin. He was found wanting in all departments and sent home to think again. Why he thought speaking in an Edinburgh pub to support UKIP in the Donside by-election says all about his knowledge of Scotland and understanding of politics. He should stick to using dog whistle politics in England where he is more successful or maybe open a map before he travels.
As someone who strongly supports Scottish Independence it is very sad to see the nationalists on here excusing and playing down violent bigoted and undemocratic behaviour just because they disagree with the victim and because the perpetrators claim to be nationalists.
I had thought better of you.
There was no violence , it was a few noisy students shouting insults. Politicians give out bigoted undemocratic opinions all the time and do not like to see any in return. If you have looked at the actual pictures and think that was anything other than a laugh you have led a sheltered life. They were a bunch of numpties who managed to show up a donkey who is supposed to be a serious politician. It had absolutely nothing to do with nationalists or Scottish people in general. I personally thought it was extremely funny to see the startled rabbit look on his coupon and the state of the bobbies who had thought they were on a jolly and could not handle a handful of sober noisy students.
Like I said, trying to defend the indefensible simply destroys your credibility. You see nothing wrong because you agree with their aims. That says a great deal about your failure of logic.
Nick P is totally correct that politicians must respect others' opinions. It may be easier as you get older and less cocksure about everything but screaming insults is always counter-productive. That demo could be a plus for Farage if handled correctly, and Cameron's fruitcakes gibe was always poorly advised.
All UKIP need is for Joyce (the child-catcher) Thacker to pop up on the news again and they're looking at another 5% in the polls (and probably 20% in Rotherham).
IOS going door-to-door would lead to Labour losing their deposit.
It is a trade off for Cameron but one he probably has to make in the hope that people come round. The polling already indicates quite large changes in tory supporters views in these matters. Hammond is right in that the tories do not want to keep bashing these voters with issues they don't like. This week will be enough.
That doesn't mean one has to pretend to agree with it. If Cameron and his people calmly said that they understand that people are concerned, no church is being forced to do anything they don't want, but governments have to promote social stability and encouraging marriage between people who love each other is sensible, I don't think he'd be winding people up nearly so much. Any argument that finishes, "And if you disagree with me you're a bigoted loon" is not worth starting.
Soem eminently sensible points, and the tone of argument can shut it down right away of course, although these things are two way of course - Cameron and co may not be adopting the most constructive approach when making their arguments on such matters, but there's also been a lot of less than honest reasoning that doesn't logically hold up in opposition, rather than admitting the princpal reasons behind objection (I'm thinking of the 'this is a waste of time' argument, which even if true, since it is going ahead, is not a point to lay out further, instead one should now deal with it, in favour or in opposition, since it is going ahead) making honest dialog very difficult. So we just getting talking past one another, and then insults. Standard stuff.
It is a sad fact, that with all this talk of the rights of gay's to a marriage contract; and I presume lesbian women as well as men are included in this, that know one speaks for the rights of a child, harvested from the adoption agences, and brought up without a father, in one case or a mother in the other.
I think that some badly maladjusted children are going go be let loose on society in a few years. I personally would have hated not to have both a father and mother, both of who I can claim kin to. Society is going to greatly regret this.
I have nothing to say about the private sexuaI habits gays. They can do what they like in private, but for the children of such partnerships it's going to be a nightmare.
It might be, but it might not be. Lots of people grow up now without a father figure in the home itself, which causes all sorts of problems for some as I understand - although how much of that is the home being broken, rather than the mere absence of a regular father figure IDK - but many turn out just fine. Since it is therefore not a uniquely homosexual issue, and it is perfectly possible for children from single parent homes to be totally fine too, it's an issue of monitoring tomorrow's children and giving assistance where needed if some are struggling.
Society is more robust than people think. It is natural for us all to fear social changes, with different focuses depending on the individual, but people endure and then thrive through most things. If a home is loving and caring, devloping its members, then children will almost certainly turn out just fine whatever its make up is. Even if some do not, some don't in loving and caring heterosexual families, some do and some don't from broken homes, it doesn't mean we should consider the rise in divorce for instance as the end of society and something that must not be allowed.
Camerons policy is a disaster. The nastiness that needed to be eliminated was the ignorant "losers go by bus" attitude, instead they attacked social conservatives, hardworking honest people, often churchgoing who form the backbone of the true voluntary sector (ie not the government funded left wing pseudo charities) and also the backbone of the local conservative parties who deliver leaflets and get the vote out.
They have done so at a time of high immigration from eastern Europe, Asia and Africa of people who are instinctively socially conservative and have more children than average. I have also noticed a trend for socially conservative white britons to often marry people from abroad and have more than average children (I myself married an African and had 5 children)
Cameron , May, Osborne, Maude & co have destroyed the Conservative party, I suspect it may never recover from this.
Whatever Cameron promises, I will vote UKIP, even if we have to endure Red Ed as a result. It is a neccesary price to pay for the destruction of the cancer of (small l) liberal progressivism in the Conservative Party and its reform or replacement with a centre right party that primarily represents the hard working working classes and lower middle classes, not upper middle class, socially liberal toffs, who have never had to earn a days living because one of their ancestors was a mate of Henry VIII and was given a large chunk of land when Henry VIII did to the Catholic Church what Robert Mugabe did to the Zimbabwe commercial farmers.
While ultimately preventing him from having a media conference by doing so?
They didn't. The journos simply followed Farage into the pub (reluctantly I'm sure ) and asked him questions there over a drink (or several). The only reason he left the pub was that the barman and staff wanted them all out.
Wrong again. According to the police and the pictures taken by the media the news conference was arranged for the pub. The trouble started only when they came to leave the pub and were then confronted by the mob.
""Officers responded to the address to facilitate a peaceful demonstration which arose during a UKIP meeting that was taking place inside."
According to all the reports in the Guardian, Telegraph and on the BBC the new conference was planned, the police were aware in advance of the planned demonstration and had officers there to police it - seemingly not enough though. The owner of the pub asked for the news conference to end because he was concerned about the protesters outside.
Why do you find it necessary to twist things to make them seem worse for Farage? Are you that insecure in your position?
Richard, How could it have been worse, he was shown up as a donkey , bereft of any opinion other than shouting " you are bigger Nazi scum than me "at the students. Can you explain how it could have looked worse for him.
I've always quite liked Hammond and would prefer to see him as Chancellor over Osborne any day.
That said, I didn't agree with his remarks on "gay marriage"
As long as the church's are protected from having to perform ceremonies if they don't want, I really don't see what the problem is with two men or two woment getting married to one another.
I think a lot of the hosility against this is generational.
Imagine the fuss if Alex Salmond were locked in a pub in the East End of London for his own safety while the EDL hurled abuse at him
You trotted that one out yesterday. Your hypothesis would depend on Salmond being stupid enough to be involved in such tone-deaf grandstanding, being unable to engage with aggressive opposition and equates the EDL with a protest made up of Greens, socialists and Labourites (including several English people). Not really a runner, is it?
Also almost no one in London knows or cares who Salmond is I suppose
LOL , your London chip is showing after being corrected for posting twaddle , next you will be whinging for an apology.
Also almost no one in London knows or cares who Salmond is I suppose
Possibly. But in that case what sort of swivel-eyed loon would fantasise about him being barricaded in an east end pub by ravening EDL hordes.
I didnt fantasise about anything!!!
I said imagine the roles were reversed, I couldnt care less about Scottish independence or Alex Salmond, and I doubt if anyone I know has ever heard of him. Means as much to me as France as Hollande.
Because we just don't know. You pays your money you takes your choice.
Remarks allegedly made by Farage when speaking to UKIP founder Dr Alan Sked.: “We will never win the ni**er vote, the n*g-no*s will never vote for us’ - Nigel Farage to UKIP founder Alan Sked, who abandoned the party over its adoption of far-right ideologies”.
Everyone has to make their own minds up about who said what.
but Alan Sked did not leave the party because of its adoption of far right policies. He left because he was no longer able to influence its direction and he vehemently opposed its decision to contest the Euro elections.
Not influencing direction of policy would seem to indicate it adopted policies he didn't approve of. Whether it was just opposing the EU to the extent of no candidates he'd have to answer for himself.
"Given that he stood as a candidate for the Anti-Federalist League on the same platform and was supported by Enoch Powell at the 1993 Newbury by-election, I think his claims of being forced out by right wing ideology should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Powell was actually a tory as well as UUP. Given how much talk there is of UKIP tory pacts and that Powell was never anyone's idea of a Europhile that hardly indicates rabid support for all his views. Indeed there are still PB tories who think Powell misunderstood on race, never mind Europe.
As for the Anti-Federalist League, well they're hardly the EDL are they?
"The Anti-Federalist League was a small cross-party organisation in Britain, formed in 1991 to campaign against the Maastricht Treaty.[1] It is mainly remembered now as the forerunner of the United Kingdom Independence Party.
The main founder of the Anti-Federalist League was Alan Sked, lecturer at the London School of Economics, leading figure in the Bruges Group and former official of the Liberal Party.[2] The Maastricht Treaty, which greatly increased the powers of the European Commission, was widely unpopular according to opinion polls, but all three of the main parties had pledged to support its ratification in the House of Commons. Sked and others felt that this denied voters a say on a crucial constitutional issue. Running AFL candidates was supposed to make good this shortfall in the democratic proces
He is just a bitter old man who, much like Heath, has been on a 20 year sulk, made all the worse for him by the success of the party he helped set up and then left.
Perhaps. I'm certain that's Nigel's view of him. Kilroy Silk presumably falls into that category too. Doesn't mean he's automatically lying though.
Why do you find it necessary to twist things to make them seem better for Farage? Are you that insecure in your position?
OMG! The PB Scottish have certainly got their kilts in a twist this morning. Must be the lack of news this morning.
I now expect some dirty old sporrans to be thrown my way.
Mike , you big yourself up too much. We just enjoyed the supposed saviour of England being shown up to be as bad as the other straw men in Westminster. We now have 4 proven donkeys leading political parties in England.
Imagine the fuss if Alex Salmond were locked in a pub in the East End of London for his own safety while the EDL hurled abuse at him
You trotted that one out yesterday. Your hypothesis would depend on Salmond being stupid enough to be involved in such tone-deaf grandstanding, being unable to engage with aggressive opposition and equates the EDL with a protest made up of Greens, socialists and Labourites (including several English people). Not really a runner, is it?
Also almost no one in London knows or cares who Salmond is I suppose
LOL , your London chip is showing after being corrected for posting twaddle , next you will be whinging for an apology.
Haha ok
It was a false comparison by me, so I should be the one to apoloigise.
As I said, no one in London has heard of Alex Salmond or gives a stroke about Scottish Independence
Or do you agree with their laughable view that Farage is a 'racist thug'?
I agree with the right of anyone to call Farage a racist thug.
While ultimately preventing him from having a media conference by doing so?
Not that it really matters, as he got another chance to make all the points he would want to make and more soon after of course.
Exactly , the clown was grandstanding and tried to do it in Scotland as he does in England with a pint of bitter and his smug grin. He was found wanting in all departments and sent home to think again. Why he thought speaking in an Edinburgh pub to support UKIP in the Donside by-election says all about his knowledge of Scotland and understanding of politics. He should stick to using dog whistle politics in England where he is more successful or maybe open a map before he travels.
In his defence, if a tactic works for him, why shouldn't he try it in another place to see if it works? If it is less successful, as it appears at first glance, I'm sure he will adjust tactics in Scotland in future, but even if he's whined about his unfair treatment too much, it was a larger reaction from the protestors than was reasonable for someone they think has no chance in Scotland anyway.
To be fair it was a mix of far left wing extreme types who are students and have little else to occupy their time. For Farage to be shown so wanting against such a puny group is the real talking point. He is obviously fine among white English people who support his opinion but has no answers when he gets a negative response and can only resort to childish insults and crying. He has been shown up as a false God and is no saviour for white England.
Just to give it a bit of background, in the mid 1980s I was hospitalised after exactly the sort of demonstration you saw in Edinburgh. I was hit in the side of the head either with a crowbar or hammer. The difference was of course that the people on the other side were the far right. But we as a small anti-fascist group hosting a speaker didn't take them seriously and paid the price. After that and having faced many similar mobs since I would never, ever criticise anyone for being concerned about being confronted by a mob that thinks you are the worst sort of scum.
Does IOS get pi55ed every Friday night and then come here and launch his race hate screeds ?
Interesting that he doesn't find the attitudes to homosexuality among Muslims and African Christians objectionable.
And curious that tim and southam have passed no comment on IOS though they were quick to condemn (and justifiably so) LewisDuckworth last week.
I only just read the whoel thread. Of course, IOS's "And price out its lazy white folk for hard working European immigrants" comment is a disgrace. And also somewhat ironic given that the hard working European immigrants are also overwhelmingly white.
I don't doubt that you condemn IOS's comments.
While examples of bigotry are always ugly I do think they stand as a warning to the rest of us to be more openminded.
Indeed. For the same reason that I'd have opposed Lewis Duckworth's comments being moderated I hope that IOS's aren't either.
I've always quite liked Hammond and would prefer to see him as Chancellor over Osborne any day.
That said, I didn't agree with his remarks on "gay marriage"
As long as the church's are protected from having to perform ceremonies if they don't want, I really don't see what the problem is with two men or two woment getting married to one another.
I think a lot of the hosility against this is generational.
Hear hear. I'm sure someone has the figures close to hand right now.
I also don't agree with Hammond on this issue, but a lot of people do hold that view, within his party as well, and so it is probably good if they have someone to rally round and see where the party as a whole will fall on this issue as it develops. The waste of time thing still makes no sense though. It might be so, but since it is to be discussed anyway, repeating that is not helpful or expressing true reasons for not wanting the proposals.
I'm guessing Farage was okay with a bit of argy-bargy when younger but is now at the age where it's no longer viable physically - so mentally he's still up for it but the flesh isn't and he hasn't come to terms yet with smacking people in the mouth not being an option any more. Hence being more angry at the incident than is fitting as part of it is anger at getting older. Most politicians wouldn't react like that cos they'd never have considered smacking them as an option in the first place.
It shows is how much student lefties can get away with though.
It is a trade off for Cameron but one he probably has to make in the hope that people come round. The polling already indicates quite large changes in tory supporters views in these matters. Hammond is right in that the tories do not want to keep bashing these voters with issues they don't like. This week will be enough.
That doesn't mean one has to pretend to agree with it. If Cameron and his people calmly said that they understand that people are concerned, no church is being forced to do anything they don't want, but governments have to promote social stability and encouraging marriage between people who love each other is sensible, I don't think he'd be winding people up nearly so much. Any argument that finishes, "And if you disagree with me you're a bigoted loon" is not worth starting.
Soem eminently sensible points, and the tone of argument can shut it down right away of course, although these things are two way of course - Cameron and co may not be adopting the most constructive approach when making their arguments on such matters, but there's also been a lot of less than honest reasoning that doesn't logically hold up in opposition, rather than admitting the princpal reasons behind objection (I'm thinking of the 'this is a waste of time' argument, which even if true, since it is going ahead, is not a point to lay out further, instead one should now deal with it, in favour or in opposition, since it is going ahead) making honest dialog very difficult. So we just getting talking past one another, and then insults. Standard stuff.
It is a sad fact, that with all this talk of the rights of gay's to a marriage contract; and I presume lesbian women as well as men are included in this, that know one speaks for the rights of a child, harvested from the adoption agences, and brought up without a father, in one case or a mother in the other.
I think that some badly maladjusted children are going go be let loose on society in a few years. I personally would have hated not to have both a father and mother, both of who I can claim kin to. Society is going to greatly regret this.
I have nothing to say about the private sexuaI habits gays. They can do what they like in private, but for the children of such partnerships it's going to be a nightmare.
It might be, but it might not be. Lots of people grow up now without a father figure in the home itself, which causes all sorts of problems for some as I understand - although how much of that is the home being broken, rather than the mere absence of a regular father figure IDK - but many turn out just fine. Since it is therefore not a uniquely homosexual issue, and it is perfectly possible for children from single parent homes to be totally fine too, it's an issue of monitoring tomorrow's children and giving assistance where needed if some are struggling.
Society is more robust than people think. It is natural for us all to fear social changes, with different focuses depending on the individual, but people endure and then thrive through most things. If a home is loving and caring, devloping its members, then children will almost certainly turn out just fine whatever its make up is. Even if some do not, some don't in loving and caring heterosexual families, some do and some don't from broken homes, it doesn't mean we should consider the rise in divorce for instance as the end of society and something that must not be allowed.
Brilliantly put.
15 years ago I lost two colleagues in a tragic car crash whilst they were driving up to head office . One, a brilliant manager, had been trying to have a child with his wife for years. She was heavily pregnant when he died.
I have no doubt that she has brought up the child to the best of her abilities, despite being a single parent in tragic circumstances.
What matters is that the child gets the love, care and attention that they need. And whilst it is undoubtedly harder for one parent to achieve that whilst holding down a job and managing with the traumas that life throws at us, tens of thousands of single parents do a brilliant job.
Another ex-colleague is in a lesbian relationship, and had a couple of children with her partner. The kids are loved and, as far as I can tell, well adjusted.
It is a trade off for Cameron but one he probably has to make in the hope that people come round. The polling already indicates quite large changes in tory supporters views in these matters. Hammond is right in that the tories do not want to keep bashing these voters with issues they don't like. This week will be enough.
That doesn't mean one has to pretend to agree with it. If Cameron and his people calmly said that they understand that people are concerned, no church is being forced to do anything they don't want, but governments have to promote social stability and encouraging marriage between people who love each other is sensible, I don't think he'd be winding people up nearly so much. Any argument that finishes, "And if you disagree with me you're a bigoted loon" is not worth starting.
Soem eminently sensible points, and the tone of argument can shut it down right away of course, although these things are two way of course - Cameron and co may not be adopting the most constructive approach when making their arguments on such matters, but there's also been a lot of less than honest reasoning that doesn't logically hold up in opposition, rather than admitting the princpal reasons behind objection (I'm thinking of the 'this is a waste of time' argument, which even if true, since it is going ahead, is not a point to lay out further, instead one should now deal with it, in favour or in opposition, since it is going ahead) making honest dialog very difficult. So we just getting talking past one another, and then insults. Standard stuff.
It is a sad fact, that with all this talk of the rights of gay's to a marriage contract; and I presume lesbian women as well as men are included in this, that know one speaks for the rights of a child, harvested from the adoption agences, and brought up without a father, in one case or a mother in the other.
I think that some badly maladjusted children are going go be let loose on society in a few years. I personally would have hated not to have both a father and mother, both of who I can claim kin to. Society is going to greatly regret this.
I have nothing to say about the private sexuaI habits gays. They can do what they like in private, but for the children of such partnerships it's going to be a nightmare.
It might be, but it might not be. Lots of people grow up now without a father figure in the home itself, which causes all sorts of problems for some as I understand - although how much of that is the home being broken, rather than the mere absence of a regular father figure IDK - but many turn out just fine. Since it is therefore not a uniquely homosexual issue, and it is perfectly possible for children from single parent homes to be totally fine too, it's an issue of monitoring tomorrow's children and giving assistance where needed if some are struggling.
Society is more robust than people think. It is natural for us all to fear social changes, with different focuses depending on the individual, but people endure and then thrive through most things. If a home is loving and caring, devloping its members, then children will almost certainly turn out just fine whatever its make up is. Even if some do not, some don't in loving and caring heterosexual families, some do and some don't from broken homes, it doesn't mean we should consider the rise in divorce for instance as the end of society and something that must not be allowed.
There are probably not enough children with same sex parents at present to predict what the longterm outcomes are, but having a single parent is quite a strong predictor of academic failure at school. It is quite noticeable that the cultural groups that do best at school also tend to have stable nuclear families. Whether homosexual marriages will prove stable long term we will have to see.
While ultimately preventing him from having a media conference by doing so?
They didn't. The journos simply followed Farage into the pub (reluctantly I'm sure ) and asked him questions there over a drink (or several). The only reason he left the pub was that the barman and staff wanted them all out.
Wrong again. According to the police and the pictures taken by the media the news conference was arranged for the pub. The trouble started only when they came to leave the pub and were then confronted by the mob.
""Officers responded to the address to facilitate a peaceful demonstration which arose during a UKIP meeting that was taking place inside."
According to all the reports in the Guardian, Telegraph and on the BBC the new conference was planned, the police were aware in advance of the planned demonstration and had officers there to police it - seemingly not enough though. The owner of the pub asked for the news conference to end because he was concerned about the protesters outside.
Why do you find it necessary to twist things to make them seem worse for Farage? Are you that insecure in your position?
Richard, How could it have been worse, he was shown up as a donkey , bereft of any opinion other than shouting " you are bigger Nazi scum than me "at the students. Can you explain how it could have looked worse for him.
Most people don't see it that way. Certainly not south of the border. When someone is shouting in your face there is only some much reasoned debate you can have.
From the Guardian:
"After gamely attempting to argue back, trying to hit back at the repeated accusations of racism and homophobia with protests of innocence, Farage finally had to admit his surprise. "We've never, ever, ever had this kind of response. Is this a kind of anti-English thing? It could be," he said to a reporter."
Has this been affected this time by employers opting to keep on staff at reduced rates while the recession lasts, rather than lay off and then re-employ later as had previously been the case. Employment levels have held up remarkably well over the last 5 years.
Or do you agree with their laughable view that Farage is a 'racist thug'?
I agree with the right of anyone to call Farage a racist thug.
While ultimately preventing him from having a media conference by doing so?
Not that it really matters, as he got another chance to make all the points he would want to make and more soon after of course.
Exactly , the clown was grandstanding and tried to do it in Scotland as he does in England with a pint of bitter and his smug grin. He was found wanting in all departments and sent home to think again. Why he thought speaking in an Edinburgh pub to support UKIP in the Donside by-election says all about his knowledge of Scotland and understanding of politics. He should stick to using dog whistle politics in England where he is more successful or maybe open a map before he travels.
As someone who strongly supports Scottish Independence it is very sad to see the nationalists on here excusing and playing down violent bigoted and undemocratic behaviour just because they disagree with the victim and because the perpetrators claim to be nationalists.
I had thought better of you.
There was no violence , it was a few noisy students shouting insults. Politicians give out bigoted undemocratic opinions all the time and do not like to see any in return. If you have looked at the actual pictures and think that was anything other than a laugh you have led a sheltered life. They were a bunch of numpties who managed to show up a donkey who is supposed to be a serious politician. It had absolutely nothing to do with nationalists or Scottish people in general. I personally thought it was extremely funny to see the startled rabbit look on his coupon and the state of the bobbies who had thought they were on a jolly and could not handle a handful of sober noisy students.
Like I said, trying to defend the indefensible simply destroys your credibility. You see nothing wrong because you agree with their aims. That says a great deal about your failure of logic.
Richard , where do you get that I agree with their aims , they are far left nutjobs , exact opposite of my opinion. However as a believer in democracy they are entitled to their opinion whether I like it or not and if Farage wants to parade his views in the royal mile then they have the same rights as long as they are not using violence. What we saw was a blowhard who could not take heckling, Farage was shown up for the empty suit he is , it is refreshing to see that at least in Scotland people are still allowed freedom of speech. For me Farage is a joke politician and as his policies are for England and as such no concern to me , though he did provide me with a great laugh, nearly as good as Gray and the Subway scene and both had the same rabbit in headlights look.
OMG! The PB Scottish have certainly got their kilts in a twist this morning. Must be the lack of news this morning.
I now expect some dirty old sporrans to be thrown my way.
Mike , you big yourself up too much. We just enjoyed the supposed saviour of England being shown up to be as bad as the other straw men in Westminster. We now have 4 proven donkeys leading political parties in England.
With Salmond being a fifth donkey north of the border?
It is a trade off for Cameron but one he probably has to make in the hope that people come round. The polling already indicates quite large changes in tory supporters views in these matters. Hammond is right in that the tories do not want to keep bashing these voters with issues they don't like. This week will be enough.
That doesn't mean one has to pretend to agree with it. If Cameron and his people calmly said that they understand that people are concerned, no church is being forced to do anything they don't want, but governments have to promote social stability and encouraging marriage between people who love each other is sensible, I don't think he'd be winding people up nearly so much. Any argument that finishes, "And if you disagree with me you're a bigoted loon" is not worth starting.
Soem eminently sensible points, and the tone of argument can shut it down right away of course, although these things are two way of course - Cameron and co may not be adopting the most constructive approach when making their arguments on such matters, but there's also been a lot of less than honest reasoning that doesn't logically hold up in opposition, rather than admitting the princpal reasons behind objection (I'm thinking of the 'this is a waste of time' argument, which even if true, since it is going ahead, is not a point to lay out further, instead one should now deal with it, in favour or in opposition, since it is going ahead) making honest dialog very difficult. So we just getting talking past one another, and then insults. Standard stuff.
It is a sad fact, that with all this talk of the rights of gay's to a marriage contract; and I presume lesbian women as well as men are included in this, that know one speaks for the rights of a child, harvested from the adoption agences, and brought up without a father, in one case or a mother in the other.
I think that some badly maladjusted children are going go be let loose on society in a few years. I personally would have hated not to have both a father and mother, both of who I can claim kin to. Society is going to greatly regret this.
I have nothing to say about the private sexuaI habits gays. They can do what they like in private, but for the children of such partnerships it's going to be a nightmare.
It might be, but it might not be. Lots of people grow up now without a father figure in the home itself, which causes all sorts of problems for some as I understand - although how much of that is the home being broken, rather than the mere absence of a regular father figure IDK - but many turn out just fine. Since it is therefore not a uniquely homosexual issue, and it is perfectly possible for children from single parent homes to be totally fine too, it's an issue of monitoring tomorrow's children and giving assistance where needed if some are struggling.
Society is more robust than people think. It is natural for us all to fear social changes, with different focuses depending on the individual, but people endure and then thrive through most things. If a home is loving and caring, devloping its members, then children will almost certainly turn out just fine whatever its make up is. Even if some do not, some don't in loving and caring heterosexual families, some do and some don't from broken homes, it doesn't mean we should consider the rise in divorce for instance as the end of society and something that must not be allowed.
having a single parent is quite a strong predictor of academic failure at school. It is quite noticeable that the cultural groups that do best at school also tend to have stable nuclear familiese.
It is indeed something that needs a lot of work to address.
Also almost no one in London knows or cares who Salmond is I suppose
Possibly. But in that case what sort of swivel-eyed loon would fantasise about him being barricaded in an east end pub by ravening EDL hordes.
I didnt fantasise about anything!!!
I said imagine the roles were reversed, I couldnt care less about Scottish independence or Alex Salmond, and I doubt if anyone I know has ever heard of him. Means as much to me as France as Hollande.
Sam, quit while you are behind and stick to pontificating on % of white faces in areas of London, leave things you know nothing about alone.
"What a great advert that is for tolerance, understanding and debate in the fine country of Scotland."
A rabble rouser who tries to appeal to people's basest instincts deserves different and ruder treatment than normal politicians. As can be seen in this clip it's just speaking to him in his own language. That of a rude vulgarian bigot.
Are Scottish people pro the Scottish or anti the English?
It is normally suggested that when any sporting team plays England, Scottish people consistently support the team playing against England. If this is true it does suggest prejudice of some kind.
Are the English a race however and is being anti English being racist? Not sure.
15 years ago I lost two colleagues in a tragic car crash whilst they were driving up to head office . One, a brilliant manager, had been trying to have a child with his wife for years. She was heavily pregnant when he died.
I have no doubt that she has brought up the child to the best of her abilities, despite being a single parent in tragic circumstances.
What matters is that the child gets the love, care and attention that they need. And whilst it is undoubtedly harder for one parent to achieve that whilst holding down a job and managing with the traumas that life throws at us, tens of thousands of single parents do a brilliant job.
Society has always recognised and given assistance to Widows, who have to bring up children on their own through new fault of theirs - Until new Labour came along and disgracefully abolished the widows pension, by limiting it to one year after their spouses death rather than until the children grew up.
Imagine the fuss if Alex Salmond were locked in a pub in the East End of London for his own safety while the EDL hurled abuse at him
You trotted that one out yesterday. Your hypothesis would depend on Salmond being stupid enough to be involved in such tone-deaf grandstanding, being unable to engage with aggressive opposition and equates the EDL with a protest made up of Greens, socialists and Labourites (including several English people). Not really a runner, is it?
Also almost no one in London knows or cares who Salmond is I suppose
LOL , your London chip is showing after being corrected for posting twaddle , next you will be whinging for an apology.
Haha ok
It was a false comparison by me, so I should be the one to apoloigise.
As I said, no one in London has heard of Alex Salmond or gives a stroke about Scottish Independence
Sam, No need for an apology , and I am sure Salmond does not care whether anybody knows him in London or not. Farage should have stuck to what he knows and saved making a real idiot of himself. Memo to self not to comment on things I know nothing about as well.
Or do you agree with their laughable view that Farage is a 'racist thug'?
I agree with the right of anyone to call Farage a racist thug.
While ultimately preventing him from having a media conference by doing so?
Not that it really matters, as he got another chance to make all the points he would want to make and more soon after of course.
Exactly , the clown was grandstanding and tried to do it in Scotland as he does in England with a pint of bitter and his smug grin. He was found wanting in all departments and sent home to think again. Why he thought speaking in an Edinburgh pub to support UKIP in the Donside by-election says all about his knowledge of Scotland and understanding of politics. He should stick to using dog whistle politics in England where he is more successful or maybe open a map before he travels.
In his defence, if a tactic works for him, why shouldn't he try it in another place to see if it works? If it is less successful, as it appears at first glance, I'm sure he will adjust tactics in Scotland in future, but even if he's whined about his unfair treatment too much, it was a larger reaction from the protestors than was reasonable for someone they think has no chance in Scotland anyway.
To be fair it was a mix of far left wing extreme types who are students and have little else to occupy their time. For Farage to be shown so wanting against such a puny group is the real talking point. He is obviously fine among white English people who support his opinion but has no answers when he gets a negative response and can only resort to childish insults and crying. He has been shown up as a false God and is no saviour for white England.
Just to give it a bit of background, in the mid 1980s I was hospitalised after exactly the sort of demonstration you saw in Edinburgh. I was hit in the side of the head either with a crowbar or hammer. The difference was of course that the people on the other side were the far right. But we as a small anti-fascist group hosting a speaker didn't take them seriously and paid the price. After that and having faced many similar mobs since I would never, ever criticise anyone for being concerned about being confronted by a mob that thinks you are the worst sort of scum.
Richard , In that context I can understand your opinion , violence is never acceptable in any occasion. I do think though that Farage was instrumental in his own downfall and people other than politicians should be able to voice their opinions peacefully , even when they are not exactly pleasant but within the law. Surprise also was the ineptitude of the police.
15 years ago I lost two colleagues in a tragic car crash whilst they were driving up to head office . One, a brilliant manager, had been trying to have a child with his wife for years. She was heavily pregnant when he died.
I have no doubt that she has brought up the child to the best of her abilities, despite being a single parent in tragic circumstances.
What matters is that the child gets the love, care and attention that they need. And whilst it is undoubtedly harder for one parent to achieve that whilst holding down a job and managing with the traumas that life throws at us, tens of thousands of single parents do a brilliant job.
Society has always recognised and given assistance to Widows, who have to bring up children on their own through new fault of theirs - Until new Labour came along and disgracefully abolished the widows pension, by limiting it to one year after their spouses death rather than until the children grew up.
I had not been away of that, though it reminds me of a story I read about (though I don't know if true or not) that the US government is still paying out a couple of Civil War widows pensions.
What's that got to do with anything? Nothing, admittedly, but it just sounded a remarkable story if true.
Doesn't look like all those highly educated immigrants have done much good does it or for that matter our record exam marks students.
Though that really isn't their fault more an effect on the changing nature of the UK economy. The shift towards a consumer service economy means that the workforce becomes increasingly dominated by low skilled employment which have much lower rates of productivity improvement.
In the short term this means higher employment which governments like but it has disasterous long term consequences.
Between 1972 and 2002 productivity grew on average by 2.5% per year - which is the rate the government assumes when making its long term spending and investing plans.
If we're now stuck in a phase of productivity growth of less than half that then those spending plans become unaffordable and the debate becomes about which groups in society get the promises made to them broken.
There's less incentive to improve productivity if you have an endless supply of cheap labour.
True but I think its more than that.
The £100bn+ this country has been living beyond its means for the last decade has been ploughed into personal consumption rather than infrastructure and business investment.
The UK has become a hand carwash and coffee shop economy.
Not areas of high skill or high productivity growth potential.
While ultimately preventing him from having a media conference by doing so?
They didn't. The journos simply followed Farage into the pub (reluctantly I'm sure ) and asked him questions there over a drink (or several). The only reason he left the pub was that the barman and staff wanted them all out.
Wrong again. According to the police and the pictures taken by the media the news conference was arranged for the pub. The trouble started only when they came to leave the pub and were then confronted by the mob.
""Officers responded to the address to facilitate a peaceful demonstration which arose during a UKIP meeting that was taking place inside."
According to all the reports in the Guardian, Telegraph and on the BBC the new conference was planned, the police were aware in advance of the planned demonstration and had officers there to police it - seemingly not enough though. The owner of the pub asked for the news conference to end because he was concerned about the protesters outside.
Why do you find it necessary to twist things to make them seem worse for Farage? Are you that insecure in your position?
Richard, How could it have been worse, he was shown up as a donkey , bereft of any opinion other than shouting " you are bigger Nazi scum than me "at the students. Can you explain how it could have looked worse for him.
Most people don't see it that way. Certainly not south of the border. When someone is shouting in your face there is only some much reasoned debate you can have.
From the Guardian:
"After gamely attempting to argue back, trying to hit back at the repeated accusations of racism and homophobia with protests of innocence, Farage finally had to admit his surprise. "We've never, ever, ever had this kind of response. Is this a kind of anti-English thing? It could be," he said to a reporter."
So your accusations are (yet again) proved wrong.
I don't think so and the fact he said it was anti English only shows how bigoted and stupid he is and immediately jumps to wrong conclusion. The proud English student arrested highlights his stupidity. A serious politician would have read the situation and got out of there, not bandied "Nazi Scum" insults with them.
"As I said, no one in London has heard of Alex Salmond or gives a stroke about Scottish Independence"
Come off it.
800,000 Scots born in Scotland live in other parts of the UK. It would be fair to say that at least a few of them live in London. On top of which, there are quite a few Londoners that follow political developments and given the amount of coverage Salmond personally gets in the English media - see yesterday's conflab with Farage, for example - I'd say it is impossible to make a believable case for him being unknown.
One of my business partners is a Northern Ireland protestant. He lives in London and dislikes Salmond intensely. He also dislikes Farage intensely because he has a Czech wife and, rightly or wrongly, believes UKIP to be distinctly hostile to central and eastern Europeans.
OMG! The PB Scottish have certainly got their kilts in a twist this morning. Must be the lack of news this morning.
I now expect some dirty old sporrans to be thrown my way.
Mike , you big yourself up too much. We just enjoyed the supposed saviour of England being shown up to be as bad as the other straw men in Westminster. We now have 4 proven donkeys leading political parties in England.
With Salmond being a fifth donkey north of the border?
Intelligent answer from you as usual, did you buy that "Dr" in a joke shop.
While ultimately preventing him from having a media conference by doing so?
They didn't. The journos simply followed Farage into the pub (reluctantly I'm sure ) and asked him questions there over a drink (or several). The only reason he left the pub was that the barman and staff wanted them all out.
Wrong again. According to the police and the pictures taken by the media the news conference was arranged for the pub. The trouble started only when they came to leave the pub and were then confronted by the mob.
""Officers responded to the address to facilitate a peaceful demonstration which arose during a UKIP meeting that was taking place inside."
According to all the reports in the Guardian, Telegraph and on the BBC the new conference was planned, the police were aware in advance of the planned demonstration and had officers there to police it - seemingly not enough though. The owner of the pub asked for the news conference to end because he was concerned about the protesters outside.
Why do you find it necessary to twist things to make them seem worse for Farage? Are you that insecure in your position?
Richard, How could it have been worse, he was shown up as a donkey , bereft of any opinion other than shouting " you are bigger Nazi scum than me "at the students. Can you explain how it could have looked worse for him.
Most people don't see it that way. Certainly not south of the border. When someone is shouting in your face there is only some much reasoned debate you can have.
From the Guardian:
"After gamely attempting to argue back, trying to hit back at the repeated accusations of racism and homophobia with protests of innocence, Farage finally had to admit his surprise. "We've never, ever, ever had this kind of response. Is this a kind of anti-English thing? It could be," he said to a reporter."
So your accusations are (yet again) proved wrong.
I don't think so and the fact he said it was anti English only shows how bigoted and stupid he is and immediately jumps to wrong conclusion. The proud English student arrested highlights his stupidity. A serious politician would have read the situation and got out of there, not bandied "Nazi Scum" insults with them.
At best(for him) he was a mere victim int his, but at worst he was no worse than them. Compromise?
Also almost no one in London knows or cares who Salmond is I suppose
Possibly. But in that case what sort of swivel-eyed loon would fantasise about him being barricaded in an east end pub by ravening EDL hordes.
I didnt fantasise about anything!!!
I said imagine the roles were reversed, I couldnt care less about Scottish independence or Alex Salmond, and I doubt if anyone I know has ever heard of him. Means as much to me as France as Hollande.
Sam, quit while you are behind and stick to pontificating on % of white faces in areas of London, leave things you know nothing about alone.
While ultimately preventing him from having a media conference by doing so?
They didn't. The journos simply followed Farage into the pub (reluctantly I'm sure ) and asked him questions there over a drink (or several). The only reason he left the pub was that the barman and staff wanted them all out.
Wrong again. According to the police and the pictures taken by the media the news conference was arranged for the pub. The trouble started only when they came to leave the pub and were then confronted by the mob.
""Officers responded to the address to facilitate a peaceful demonstration which arose during a UKIP meeting that was taking place inside."
According to all the reports in the Guardian, Telegraph and on the BBC the new conference was planned, the police were aware in advance of the planned demonstration and had officers there to police it - seemingly not enough though. The owner of the pub asked for the news conference to end because he was concerned about the protesters outside.
Why do you find it necessary to twist things to make them seem worse for Farage? Are you that insecure in your position?
Richard, How could it have been worse, he was shown up as a donkey , bereft of any opinion other than shouting " you are bigger Nazi scum than me "at the students. Can you explain how it could have looked worse for him.
Most people don't see it that way. Certainly not south of the border. When someone is shouting in your face there is only some much reasoned debate you can have.
From the Guardian:
"After gamely attempting to argue back, trying to hit back at the repeated accusations of racism and homophobia with protests of innocence, Farage finally had to admit his surprise. "We've never, ever, ever had this kind of response. Is this a kind of anti-English thing? It could be," he said to a reporter."
So your accusations are (yet again) proved wrong.
I don't think so and the fact he said it was anti English only shows how bigoted and stupid he is and immediately jumps to wrong conclusion. The proud English student arrested highlights his stupidity. A serious politician would have read the situation and got out of there, not bandied "Nazi Scum" insults with them.
At best(for him) he was a mere victim int his, but at worst he was no worse than them. Compromise?
yes, peace, though it did make me laugh
They should have known, given that he was supposed to have poured a pint over someone, that he could not possibly have been Scottish.
OMG! The PB Scottish have certainly got their kilts in a twist this morning. Must be the lack of news this morning.
I now expect some dirty old sporrans to be thrown my way.
Mike , you big yourself up too much. We just enjoyed the supposed saviour of England being shown up to be as bad as the other straw men in Westminster. We now have 4 proven donkeys leading political parties in England.
With Salmond being a fifth donkey north of the border?
Intelligent answer from you as usual, did you buy that "Dr" in a joke shop.
Salmond's good, much of the time, but given the likelihood of donkeys rising to heads of their parties (4 for 4 south of the border as was suggested), I'd have thought the odds were good for north as well, in the spirit of fairness.
How many of the Scottish leaders are proven donkeys in your estimation? At least 2 I'd have thought.
If you take out the word white, which I admit was an exercise in provocative writing to far, I do think their is a serious point behind my posts.
We need immigrants and immigration benefits Britain hugely. I would go as far to say that Britain has no future economically without attracting lots of hard working, determined foreign born workers.
UKIP voters are people don't like international capital because they lose out from it. But international capital and free movement of labour are hear to stay so they should get with the program.
And as for people who oppose Gay marriage? Sorry, you really have no leg to stand on in my view. It's just the same as saying people of different races shouldn't get married.
Comments
No, not quite that funny admittedly. I don't erally know why Farage has played it the way he has, he already had the grounds for getting people on his side based on what happened, but made himself appeared thin skinned and overreacting due to histrionics on his part, undermining himself. He's lost sympathy by overplaying things, a common mistake.
'unable to engage with aggressive opposition'.
It's nearly impossible to engage with anyone in that sort of situation, however good you are as a politician. The opponents have their opinion, and it's not as if they're going to calm down, listen, and say: "Oh, you've got a point there."
Indeed, the very fact they were there stifled debate by preventing a press conference.
They've admitted laughably thinking that Farage was a racist thug. There's no way he could have persuaded them otherwise when they're demonstrating in that manner.
It's good to see that's the way Scotland treats political debate. An independent Scotland will truly be a haven of enlightened thought and debate.
International events out of his control had a big impact. 500 hanging chads, two towers and one Bush determined what Blair could achieve 2001-05.
"There's a lot to be said for the prospects of a socially conservative, relatively centre left economically party along the lines of what Labour under Callaghan and Healey would probably have become shorn of the Bennite left. It's a party that instinctively probably would have had quite a bit of support - patriotic, strong on law and order, pro-public services, mildly redistributionist. I may not have been that comfortable with the social conservatism, but it would have got my vote every time." - Southam Observer
The trouble is that such a government would not bring in the economic change you argue for in your other posts. We know that because they didn't when they had the chance. They were conservative, statist and hugely unimaginative.
Anyway, Farage knows more about crashing planes than he does about Scotland :^)
What a laugh that the guy areested is English and says he is proud to be English, deflates all the swivelled eyed loons Nazi quotes.
Interesting that he doesn't find the attitudes to homosexuality among Muslims and African Christians objectionable.
And curious that tim and southam have passed no comment on IOS though they were quick to condemn (and justifiably so) LewisDuckworth last week.
That's bad for democracy.
Or do you agree with their laughable view that Farage is a 'racist thug'?
Actually, that is a serious point, as one reason UKIP, I think, have been doing better in the past year - in addition to a more favourable atmosphere for their rhetoric - is that Farage in particular has dialled back the outrage just a notch, has not ranted on about the EU quite as strongly no matter what anyone else asks (he sometimes just sort of offhandly mentions it as 'of course this would be better if we'd left the EU' while actually talking about the issue itself more), and so tempered the sense of outrage from rant to merely seething.
It's the same sort of thing that undermines a lot of anti-BBC attacks, where the slightest thing gets jumped on as proof of something so major and structurally wrong, that a lot of people who are not strident defenders of haters of the organization get turned off because, usually the haters, make the point too often and too vociferously from not enough of a basis, such that when there is a very good basis for their outrage, it has less impact.
Note the 'allegedly'.
And what about the 'thug' part?
I have little time for Farage, but will back him over this incident. The protesters were wrong.
I'm likely as guilty of that as anyone, which is why as mad I get at the political class sometimes (except you of course), or rather how they present themselves to us, I'm madder at myself and the public because we're about as much to blame for why our leaders have developed in certain ways.
I would have been interested in seeing how Nuttal would have handled it. I suspect that the Protesters would have acted differently and so would he.
It does look as if UKIP would do particularly well if Scotland votes for independence, as most of the support seems to be Anglo Saxon. Perhaps all part of the cunning master plan.
Not that it really matters, as he got another chance to make all the points he would want to make and more soon after of course.
Re loons, I do remember queuing up behind one MP at Bournemouth who was talking about the "fascist old fears" in his constituency.
Bit hard to claim the founder of UKIP is a shouty lefty student protester, isn't it?
And the police could not handle the protesters, either.
How was Farage expected to handle them? Fight them?
We are not discussing in 20 year's time, we are discussing in 2 year's time. The question of homosexual marriage, the legalisation of which has offended many people who supported, or at least acquiesced, to Civil Partnership, will be very much a live issue in 2014 and 2015. It brings home to an increasingly sceptical electorate just how much the EU monster interferes in our daily lives. The fact that homosexual marriage has been forced on the Country by an EU diktat will do little for the Europhile cause in 2014 and nothing for LibLabCon in 2015.
A relatively centre left economically , socially conservative left is what the Methodist roots of the Labour Party once stood for. Unfortunately, Labour have become a party dominated by Marxist zombies tied umbilically to the Public Sector unions, with no discernible moral or ethical base. It is difficult to see how Labour can expand their appeal under Ed's, "One Nation" idea while this state of affairs remains. On the moral and ethical questions,, they are no worse than the Coalition parties. While Cameron clings on to the Party leadership in office, but not in power, and the LibDems continue to do whatever it is that LibDems do, any improvement is moot.
I think that some badly maladjusted children are going go be let loose on society in a few years. I personally would have hated not to have both a father and mother, both of who I can claim kin to. Society is going to greatly regret this.
I have nothing to say about the private sexuaI habits of gays. They can do what they like in private, but for the children of such partnerships it's going to be a nightmare.
3 minutes in, voice came over the speaker 'your message is too long, please hang up and dial again...' Thank f*** we hadn't said anything rude or inappropriate - but it sure as heck taught me a lesson.
1972-1982 27.2%
1982-1992 28.4%
1992-2002 28.3%
2002-2012 8.7%
Doesn't look like all those highly educated immigrants have done much good does it or for that matter our record exam marks students.
Though that really isn't their fault more an effect on the changing nature of the UK economy. The shift towards a consumer service economy means that the workforce becomes increasingly dominated by low skilled employment which have much lower rates of productivity improvement.
In the short term this means higher employment which governments like but it has disasterous long term consequences.
Between 1972 and 2002 productivity grew on average by 2.5% per year - which is the rate the government assumes when making its long term spending and investing plans.
If we're now stuck in a phase of productivity growth of less than half that then those spending plans become unaffordable and the debate becomes about which groups in society get the promises made to them broken.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=LZVB&dataset=lms&table-id=17
Not sure who is the one lying here but Alan Sked did not leave the party because of its adoption of far right policies. He left because he was no longer able to influence its direction and he vehemently opposed its decision to contest the Euro elections.
Given that he stood as a candidate for the Anti-Federalist League on the same platform and was supported by Enoch Powell at the 1993 Newbury by-election, I think his claims of being forced out by right wing ideology should be taken with a pinch of salt.
He is just a bitter old man who, much like Heath, has been on a 20 year sulk, made all the worse for him by the success of the party he helped set up and then left.
ps it is BAMPOT
I had thought better of you.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/05/18/poll-alert-31/
""Officers responded to the address to facilitate a peaceful demonstration which arose during a UKIP meeting that was taking place inside."
According to all the reports in the Guardian, Telegraph and on the BBC the new conference was planned, the police were aware in advance of the planned demonstration and had officers there to police it - seemingly not enough though. The owner of the pub asked for the news conference to end because he was concerned about the protesters outside.
Why do you find it necessary to twist things to make them seem worse for Farage? Are you that insecure in your position?
They were a bunch of numpties who managed to show up a donkey who is supposed to be a serious politician.
It had absolutely nothing to do with nationalists or Scottish people in general. I personally thought it was extremely funny to see the startled rabbit look on his coupon and the state of the bobbies who had thought they were on a jolly and could not handle a handful of sober noisy students.
I think Farage made far too much a meal of it afterwards - a sign of a rather immature politician. But I said the same about Salmond and the Economist cover. ;-)
As for Balmpot vs bampot; it depends on which part of the country you are from. In my part of the world it's actually Barmpot, but I prefer Balmpot as taught by my Scottish-heritage grandmother (whose own grandma & grandpa were both from different Shetlands islands)
They have done so at a time of high immigration from eastern Europe, Asia and Africa of people who are instinctively socially conservative and have more children than average. I have also noticed a trend for socially conservative white britons to often marry people from abroad and have more than average children (I myself married an African and had 5 children)
Cameron , May, Osborne, Maude & co have destroyed the Conservative party, I suspect it may never recover from this.
Whatever Cameron promises, I will vote UKIP, even if we have to endure Red Ed as a result. It is a neccesary price to pay for the destruction of the cancer of (small l) liberal progressivism in the Conservative Party and its reform or replacement with a centre right party that primarily represents the hard working working classes and lower middle classes, not upper middle class, socially liberal toffs, who have never had to earn a days living because one of their ancestors was a mate of Henry VIII and was given a large chunk of land when Henry VIII did to the Catholic Church what Robert Mugabe did to the Zimbabwe commercial farmers.
While examples of bigotry are always ugly I do think they stand as a warning to the rest of us to be more openminded.
I now expect some dirty old sporrans to be thrown my way.
Nick P is totally correct that politicians must respect others' opinions. It may be easier as you get older and less cocksure about everything but screaming insults is always counter-productive. That demo could be a plus for Farage if handled correctly, and Cameron's fruitcakes gibe was always poorly advised.
All UKIP need is for Joyce (the child-catcher) Thacker to pop up on the news again and they're looking at another 5% in the polls (and probably 20% in Rotherham).
IOS going door-to-door would lead to Labour losing their deposit.
Society is more robust than people think. It is natural for us all to fear social changes, with different focuses depending on the individual, but people endure and then thrive through most things. If a home is loving and caring, devloping its members, then children will almost certainly turn out just fine whatever its make up is. Even if some do not, some don't in loving and caring heterosexual families, some do and some don't from broken homes, it doesn't mean we should consider the rise in divorce for instance as the end of society and something that must not be allowed.
That said, I didn't agree with his remarks on "gay marriage"
As long as the church's are protected from having to perform ceremonies if they don't want, I really don't see what the problem is with two men or two woment getting married to one another.
I think a lot of the hosility against this is generational.
I said imagine the roles were reversed, I couldnt care less about Scottish independence or Alex Salmond, and I doubt if anyone I know has ever heard of him. Means as much to me as France as Hollande.
As for the Anti-Federalist League, well they're hardly the EDL are they?
"The Anti-Federalist League was a small cross-party organisation in Britain, formed in 1991 to campaign against the Maastricht Treaty.[1] It is mainly remembered now as the forerunner of the United Kingdom Independence Party.
The main founder of the Anti-Federalist League was Alan Sked, lecturer at the London School of Economics, leading figure in the Bruges Group and former official of the Liberal Party.[2] The Maastricht Treaty, which greatly increased the powers of the European Commission, was widely unpopular according to opinion polls, but all three of the main parties had pledged to support its ratification in the House of Commons. Sked and others felt that this denied voters a say on a crucial constitutional issue. Running AFL candidates was supposed to make good this shortfall in the democratic proces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalist_League Perhaps. I'm certain that's Nigel's view of him. Kilroy Silk presumably falls into that category too. Doesn't mean he's automatically lying though.
Why do you find it necessary to twist things to make them seem better for Farage? Are you that insecure in your position?
It was a false comparison by me, so I should be the one to apoloigise.
As I said, no one in London has heard of Alex Salmond or gives a stroke about Scottish Independence
I also don't agree with Hammond on this issue, but a lot of people do hold that view, within his party as well, and so it is probably good if they have someone to rally round and see where the party as a whole will fall on this issue as it develops. The waste of time thing still makes no sense though. It might be so, but since it is to be discussed anyway, repeating that is not helpful or expressing true reasons for not wanting the proposals.
It shows is how much student lefties can get away with though.
15 years ago I lost two colleagues in a tragic car crash whilst they were driving up to head office . One, a brilliant manager, had been trying to have a child with his wife for years. She was heavily pregnant when he died.
I have no doubt that she has brought up the child to the best of her abilities, despite being a single parent in tragic circumstances.
What matters is that the child gets the love, care and attention that they need. And whilst it is undoubtedly harder for one parent to achieve that whilst holding down a job and managing with the traumas that life throws at us, tens of thousands of single parents do a brilliant job.
Another ex-colleague is in a lesbian relationship, and had a couple of children with her partner. The kids are loved and, as far as I can tell, well adjusted.
Love and care matters, not sexual orientation.
From the Guardian:
"After gamely attempting to argue back, trying to hit back at the repeated accusations of racism and homophobia with protests of innocence, Farage finally had to admit his surprise. "We've never, ever, ever had this kind of response. Is this a kind of anti-English thing? It could be," he said to a reporter."
So your accusations are (yet again) proved wrong.
1972-1982 27.2%
1982-1992 28.4%
1992-2002 28.3%
2002-2012 8.7%
Has this been affected this time by employers opting to keep on staff at reduced rates while the recession lasts, rather than lay off and then re-employ later as had previously been the case. Employment levels have held up remarkably well over the last 5 years.
For me Farage is a joke politician and as his policies are for England and as such no concern to me , though he did provide me with a great laugh, nearly as good as Gray and the Subway scene and both had the same rabbit in headlights look.
"What a great advert that is for tolerance, understanding and debate in the fine country of Scotland."
A rabble rouser who tries to appeal to people's basest instincts deserves different and ruder treatment than normal politicians. As can be seen in this clip it's just speaking to him in his own language. That of a rude vulgarian bigot.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/25/nigel-farage-herman-van-rompuy-damp-rag
Are Scottish people pro the Scottish or anti the English?
It is normally suggested that when any sporting team plays England, Scottish people consistently support the team playing against England. If this is true it does suggest prejudice of some kind.
Are the English a race however and is being anti English being racist? Not sure.
Memo to self not to comment on things I know nothing about as well.
Surprise also was the ineptitude of the police.
What's that got to do with anything? Nothing, admittedly, but it just sounded a remarkable story if true.
The £100bn+ this country has been living beyond its means for the last decade has been ploughed into personal consumption rather than infrastructure and business investment.
The UK has become a hand carwash and coffee shop economy.
Not areas of high skill or high productivity growth potential.
"As I said, no one in London has heard of Alex Salmond or gives a stroke about Scottish Independence"
Come off it.
800,000 Scots born in Scotland live in other parts of the UK. It would be fair to say that at least a few of them live in London. On top of which, there are quite a few Londoners that follow political developments and given the amount of coverage Salmond personally gets in the English media - see yesterday's conflab with Farage, for example - I'd say it is impossible to make a believable case for him being unknown.
One of my business partners is a Northern Ireland protestant. He lives in London and dislikes Salmond intensely. He also dislikes Farage intensely because he has a Czech wife and, rightly or wrongly, believes UKIP to be distinctly hostile to central and eastern Europeans.
It was good publicity for UKIP so alls well
They should have known, given that he was supposed to have poured a pint over someone, that he could not possibly have been Scottish.
How many of the Scottish leaders are proven donkeys in your estimation? At least 2 I'd have thought.
We need immigrants and immigration benefits Britain hugely. I would go as far to say that Britain has no future economically without attracting lots of hard working, determined foreign born workers.
UKIP voters are people don't like international capital because they lose out from it. But international capital and free movement of labour are hear to stay so they should get with the program.