10 is excellent news, and shows why tomorrow does not belong to UKIP.
If UKIP put Miliband in power in 2015, they will have missed the tide of history. I will be happy.
Interacial marriages are hardly an accurate measure of racial tensions, look at europe or america.
Racially mixed marriages are much less common in the states.
And mixed marriages are a good proxy for other racial views. Young people are much more happy with racial and sexual equality than their elders. The party of Bloom is doomed. Tick, tock,tick tock...
What's the source for racially mixed marraiges being less common the states? Something like 25% of Hispanics marry outside their group. Just 5% of British Asians do.
As for the "party of Bloom", I don't know what you're referring to. He doesn't have a party since UKIP kicked him out.
50% of Afro-Carribeans are in mixed race relationships, and the figures for Hindus and Sikhs are higher than Muslim Asians.
So the party has kicked out Bloom (Farages old friend and flatmate), its a start I suppose. Hamilton is still Deputy Chair though in the party of the future...
I believe Indians as a group are something like 6%, but I'm happy to see sources that say otherwise.
The fact that Farage kicked out even an old friend over his views shows UKIP's commitment to removing prejudiced views from the party. What's Hamilton supposed to have done?
Speedy As I said the economist article was about judges, an unelected police authority chair can be difficult to dismiss, with rights to compensation, employment tribunals etc, an elected PCC can be got rid of by the morning after election night with no right of appeal!
The turnout problem was because the LDs made the idiotic decision to insist the elections be held in November rather than the same time as the local elections
But an unelected PCC would not be a politician catering to his political or personal interests and would not be as big as a danger to the functions of justice.
Look I understand that the Tories created the post under the notion that people would vote for conservative candidates on law and order issues, so that they would have some hold onto the function of the police under a Labour government, but that hasn't worked. People know its a bad idea that festers corruption and incompetence so they have refused to participate, allowing only the party members to determine who the PCC would be, giving Labour a natural advantage.
Its damaging politically and practically for the government to have elected PCC's, you can't have a politician doing a civil servant's job because he wouldn't be impartial and voters would like to have people who they can trust on such vital things, not politicians.
Imagive if we elected doctors, we would elect the most popular not the most competent.
Although Shaun Wright seems thick, insensitive and incompetent, why should he resign?
The only reason he has to resign is that Labour need to shut this down quickly.
Someone has to be thrown to the wolves. Shaun is the carcass.
But Shaun is not the only, or the most blameworthy, culprit. He just comes across as a stupid and arrogant man, out of his depth and without any relevant experience or training for the responsibilities he held.
The guilty people are the people of Rotherham. They are the ones who elected him & re-elected him & re-elected him.
The people of S. Yorkshire were not misled. Shaun's role in all this was apparent before the election, when they voted for him as police commissioner.
He was elected fairly. He was not elected under false pretences. He was elected by the people of S Yorkshire, who knew that he had resigned two years earlier as a councillor for serious failings.
So, why should Shaun resign?
It might be a good lesson for the people of Rotherham to learn that -- when you vote for someone -- it might be an idea to look at his or her record.
10 is excellent news, and shows why tomorrow does not belong to UKIP.
If UKIP put Miliband in power in 2015, they will have missed the tide of history. I will be happy.
I agree 10 is excellent news. This post on the other hand is a lazy and reprehensible smear that trivialises genuine racism.
I am not saying that kippers are racist (which is something that crosses all political parties) but that younger people are much more comfortable with diversity than older generations.
UKIPs xenophobia is not racist, it is mostly against white european immigration, but it is against diversity and how diversity changes society.
They don't want to lose British culture and identity, in the way it has been decimated in some parts of London. How awful of them.
What do you mean by "British culture and identity", Socrates?
Leather on willow? Tea? Real ale? Wars? Chips? White faces?
"White faces". I'm not even going to indulge scum like you that try to insert racism into every debate. Tactics like yours are exactly the ones that led to the atmosphere in Rotherham, where people felt scared to say Muslims were abusing kids for fear of being called a racist. Disgusting.
You didn't answer the question. What do you mean by "British culture and identity", Socrates?
Seafaring? Last orders? Non-Muslim? Tutting in queues?
Fox Why should a Miliband government finish UKIP off? Now Hollande is president in France Marine Le Pen is leading the first round polls for the next presidential election
10 is excellent news, and shows why tomorrow does not belong to UKIP.
If UKIP put Miliband in power in 2015, they will have missed the tide of history. I will be happy.
I agree 10 is excellent news. This post on the other hand is a lazy and reprehensible smear that trivialises genuine racism.
I am not saying that kippers are racist (which is something that crosses all political parties) but that younger people are much more comfortable with diversity than older generations.
UKIPs xenophobia is not racist, it is mostly against white european immigration, but it is against diversity and how diversity changes society.
They don't want to lose British culture and identity, in the way it has been decimated in some parts of London. How awful of them.
What do you mean by "British culture and identity", Socrates?
Leather on willow? Tea? Real ale? Wars? Chips? White faces?
You should add 'Those who consider it unacceptable to groom and molest underage girls' to your list.
10 is excellent news, and shows why tomorrow does not belong to UKIP.
If UKIP put Miliband in power in 2015, they will have missed the tide of history. I will be happy.
I agree 10 is excellent news. This post on the other hand is a lazy and reprehensible smear that trivialises genuine racism.
I am not saying that kippers are racist (which is something that crosses all political parties) but that younger people are much more comfortable with diversity than older generations.
UKIPs xenophobia is not racist, it is mostly against white european immigration, but it is against diversity and how diversity changes society.
They don't want to lose British culture and identity, in the way it has been decimated in some parts of London. How awful of them.
What do you mean by "British culture and identity", Socrates?
Leather on willow? Tea? Real ale? Wars? Chips? White faces?
You should add 'Those who consider it unacceptable to groom and molest underage girls' to your list.
I think you might find that's not a British thing.
10 is excellent news, and shows why tomorrow does not belong to UKIP.
If UKIP put Miliband in power in 2015, they will have missed the tide of history. I will be happy.
I agree 10 is excellent news. This post on the other hand is a lazy and reprehensible smear that trivialises genuine racism.
I am not saying that kippers are racist (which is something that crosses all political parties) but that younger people are much more comfortable with diversity than older generations.
UKIPs xenophobia is not racist, it is mostly against white european immigration, but it is against diversity and how diversity changes society.
They don't want to lose British culture and identity, in the way it has been decimated in some parts of London. How awful of them.
What do you mean by "British culture and identity", Socrates?
Leather on willow? Tea? Real ale? Wars? Chips? White faces?
You should add 'Those who consider it unacceptable to groom and molest underage girls' to your list.
A mix of Asian rape gangs, local councillors and local police put the ‘rot’ into Rotherham.
10 is excellent news, and shows why tomorrow does not belong to UKIP.
If UKIP put Miliband in power in 2015, they will have missed the tide of history. I will be happy.
I agree 10 is excellent news. This post on the other hand is a lazy and reprehensible smear that trivialises genuine racism.
I am not saying that kippers are racist (which is something that crosses all political parties) but that younger people are much more comfortable with diversity than older generations.
UKIPs xenophobia is not racist, it is mostly against white european immigration, but it is against diversity and how diversity changes society.
They don't want to lose British culture and identity, in the way it has been decimated in some parts of London. How awful of them.
What do you mean by "British culture and identity", Socrates?
Leather on willow? Tea? Real ale? Wars? Chips? White faces?
You should add 'Those who consider it unacceptable to groom and molest underage girls' to your list.
Well (I hope) that is hardly British-exclusive, unlike a few of the others.
10 is excellent news, and shows why tomorrow does not belong to UKIP.
If UKIP put Miliband in power in 2015, they will have missed the tide of history. I will be happy.
Interacial marriages are hardly an accurate measure of racial tensions, look at europe or america.
Racially mixed marriages are much less common in the states.
And mixed marriages are a good proxy for other racial views. Young people are much more happy with racial and sexual equality than their elders. The party of Bloom is doomed. Tick, tock,tick tock...
It's called Denial. You think people shouldn't support UKIP, therefore they don't support UKIP. In 1999, UKIP got 7% in the Euro elections. This year, they got 28%. Back, then they had a couple of local councillors. Now they have 368. If your theory were correct, their voters would have died out by now.
I do recognise that UKIP do well in recent elections, but their long term prognosis is grim.
They will struggle to get a single seat next year, then a Miliband government will finish them off.
A Milliband government would simply ensure UKIP went from second to first place, in plenty of Labour council seats.
UKIP supporters aren't 90 year olds dreaming of the reconquest of India. They're people of all ages who want good government.
Speedy As I said the economist article was about judges, an unelected police authority chair can be difficult to dismiss, with rights to compensation, employment tribunals etc, an elected PCC can be got rid of by the morning after election night with no right of appeal!
The turnout problem was because the LDs made the idiotic decision to insist the elections be held in November rather than the same time as the local elections
But an unelected PCC would not be a politician catering to his political or personal interests and would not be as big as a danger to the functions of justice.
Look I understand that the Tories created the post under the notion that people would vote for conservative candidates on law and order issues, so that they would have some hold onto the function of the police under a Labour government, but that hasn't worked. People know its a bad idea that festers corruption and incompetence so they have refused to participate, allowing only the party members to determine who the PCC would be, giving Labour a natural advantage.
Its damaging politically and practically for the government to have elected PCC's, you can't have a politicial doing a civil servant's job because he wouln't be impartial and voters would like to have people who they can trust on such vital things, not politicians.
Imagive if we elected doctors, we would elect the most popular not the most competent.
They replace the old Police Authorities which were opaque, made up of councillors appointed on the old basis of jobs for the boys, and had no direct accountability to the public. And were political. Following something like this, they would be just lying low and erecting a someone else's problem field.
10 is excellent news, and shows why tomorrow does not belong to UKIP.
If UKIP put Miliband in power in 2015, they will have missed the tide of history. I will be happy.
I agree 10 is excellent news. This post on the other hand is a lazy and reprehensible smear that trivialises genuine racism.
I am not saying that kippers are racist (which is something that crosses all political parties) but that younger people are much more comfortable with diversity than older generations.
UKIPs xenophobia is not racist, it is mostly against white european immigration, but it is against diversity and how diversity changes society.
They don't want to lose British culture and identity, in the way it has been decimated in some parts of London. How awful of them.
What do you mean by "British culture and identity", Socrates?
Leather on willow? Tea? Real ale? Wars? Chips? White faces?
You should add 'Those who consider it unacceptable to groom and molest underage girls' to your list.
I think you might find that's not a British thing.
It would appear that depends on whereabouts you live.
Although Shaun Wright seems thick, insensitive and incompetent, why should he resign?
The only reason he has to resign is that Labour need to shut this down quickly.
Someone has to be thrown to the wolves. Shaun is the carcass.
But Shaun is not the only, or the most blameworthy, culprit. He just comes across as a stupid and arrogant man, out of his depth and without any relevant experience or training for the responsibilities he held.
The guilty people are the people of Rotherham. They are the ones who elected him & re-elected him & re-elected him.
The people of S. Yorkshire were not misled. Shaun's role in all this was apparent before the election, when they voted for him as police commissioner.
He was elected fairly. He was not elected under false pretences. He was elected by the people of S Yorkshire, who knew that he had resigned two years earlier as a councillor for serious failings.
So, why should Shaun resign?
It might be a good lesson for the people of Rotherham to learn that -- when you vote for someone -- it might be an idea to look at his or her record.
If this report had come out before the PCC election would he have been elected?
You didn't answer the question. What do you mean by "British culture and identity", Socrates?
Seafaring? Last orders? Non-Muslim? Tutting in queues?
I've answered this many times on this board, so you're welcome to go back through previous times this has come up. But I'm not going to discuss these matters with a scum bag that alleges racism and sectarianism in these debates.
Speedy No it doesn't, I never have supported electing judges, whose success you cannot measure, but you can measure the success of prosecutors, by their successful prosecution rate, and Sheriffs, by the successful arrest of convicted criminals
When you have an elected post the guy who gets elected will tend to cater enough people he need to get elected and shove the rest down the trash can, but when that post is civil service function like Law and Order you need to take care of the whole of society not just a large enough share of voters.
Quite so. There will be exceptions and problems with either way of appointment, but the obvious nature of them and likelihood of it being established practice seems to me to be more apparent with electing them. It's easier, and people gravitate to that.
Anybody think we could have a new Speaker by Bonfire Night?
From what I understand he has been a pretty decent Speaker in some respects, but the more I read on this matter the more I question his motivations and the process to carry it out. Surely he would be safe, however? Granted, the last Speaker was forced out, the first in a long long time, and that creates a recent precedent, but Members don't like change and surely would e reluctant to take such a step again.
I don't think he will be "forced out" but if he presses on with this against the will of The House his authority might just drain away and his position become pretty much untenable.
I've always thought he's safe while Labour (who gave him his job) support him. Whilst there's not many Labour names on that list, those that are there are pretty significant, Straw, Beckett, Bluncket, etc...
I suspect he'll back down a compromise be reached, but if he doesn't back down it could end badly....
Speedy As JohnLilburne Points out the Police Authority chairs were even worse unelected politicians largely appointed through cronyism. Some doctors bodies are elected, for example the head and council of the BMA!
10 is excellent news, and shows why tomorrow does not belong to UKIP.
If UKIP put Miliband in power in 2015, they will have missed the tide of history. I will be happy.
Interacial marriages are hardly an accurate measure of racial tensions, look at europe or america.
Racially mixed marriages are much less common in the states.
And mixed marriages are a good proxy for other racial views. Young people are much more happy with racial and sexual equality than their elders. The party of Bloom is doomed. Tick, tock,tick tock...
It's called Denial. You think people shouldn't support UKIP, therefore they don't support UKIP. In 1999, UKIP got 7% in the Euro elections. This year, they got 28%. Back, then they had a couple of local councillors. Now they have 368. If your theory were correct, their voters would have died out by now.
I do recognise that UKIP do well in recent elections, but their long term prognosis is grim.
They will struggle to get a single seat next year, then a Miliband government will finish them off.
A Milliband government would simply ensure UKIP went from second to first place, in plenty of Labour council seats.
UKIP supporters aren't 90 year olds dreaming of the reconquest of India. They're people of all ages who want good government.
The only thing that will damage UKIP's rise is a eurosceptic, anti-mass immigration leader of the Tories. A Miliband government will be fantastic for UKIP. UKIP stand a good chance of getting a dozen or so seats if we have another general election a couple years after 2015 after Labour mismanage the finances, immigration and the EU, as they are bound to.
But Shaun is not the only, or the most blameworthy, culprit. He just comes across as a stupid and arrogant man, out of his depth and without any relevant experience or training for the responsibilities he held.
To my mind, he damned himself out of his own mouth on C4 News by saying it was due to "systemic" failures.
Now I can understand that the director of an organisation may not be aware that a person or persons unknown are doing things they shouldn't. After all, if they are covering up serious criminal offences, they keep quiet about it.
However a "systemic" failure? Well, if you're the boss, you are directly responsible for the system. if you didn't create it, you maintain it. If the system fails, you have failed.
If he was still Director of Childrens' Services then I would expect his employer to take action on a Gross Misconduct basis. But once he's left, you can't take disciplinary action.
So he should resign because of the weight of public opinion, that he has been grossly negligent (at least) in a previous role and is therefore not fit to do his current one.
Speedy As JohnLilburne Points out the Police Authority chairs were even worse unelected politicians largely appointed through cronyism. Some doctors bodies are elected, for example the head and council of the BMA!
I'm not advocating a return to the old system, I'm advocating to reform the current one.
And on the doctors issue, do we the common folk vote for the head of the BMA?
You didn't answer the question. What do you mean by "British culture and identity", Socrates?
Seafaring? Last orders? Non-Muslim? Tutting in queues?
I've answered this many times on this board, so you're welcome to go back through previous times this has come up. But I'm not going to discuss these matters with a scum bag that alleges racism and sectarianism in these debates.
I alleged nothing, I asked a question.
I haven't see your previous answers, apologies if someone else has.
So what do you mean by "British culture and identity"? Roast on Sunday? BBQ in the rain? The propensity to get your skin sunburned on holiday?
You didn't answer the question. What do you mean by "British culture and identity", Socrates?
Seafaring? Last orders? Non-Muslim? Tutting in queues?
I've answered this many times on this board, so you're welcome to go back through previous times this has come up. But I'm not going to discuss these matters with a scum bag that alleges racism and sectarianism in these debates.
I alleged nothing, I asked a question.
I haven't see your previous answers, apologies if someone else has.
So what do you mean by "British culture and identity"? Roast on Sunday? BBQ in the rain? The propensity to get your skin sunburned on holiday?
Yes, you asked questions about "white faces" and "non-Muslim" as a way of always adding an air of "this person may well be a racist". It's a nasty and unpleasant tactic.
You didn't answer the question. What do you mean by "British culture and identity", Socrates?
Seafaring? Last orders? Non-Muslim? Tutting in queues?
I've answered this many times on this board, so you're welcome to go back through previous times this has come up. But I'm not going to discuss these matters with a scum bag that alleges racism and sectarianism in these debates.
I alleged nothing, I asked a question.
I haven't see your previous answers, apologies if someone else has.
So what do you mean by "British culture and identity"? Roast on Sunday? BBQ in the rain? The propensity to get your skin sunburned on holiday?
Yes, you asked questions about "white faces" and "non-Muslim" as a way of always adding an air of "this person may well be a racist". It's a nasty and unpleasant tactic.
But even if you believe that f(for some reason) over-sensitive nonsense, it's a simple enough question to answer. Isn't it? What, in your opinion, is "British culture and identity"?
But Shaun is not the only, or the most blameworthy, culprit. He just comes across as a stupid and arrogant man, out of his depth and without any relevant experience or training for the responsibilities he held.
To my mind, he damned himself out of his own mouth on C4 News by saying it was due to "systemic" failures.
Now I can understand that the director of an organisation may not be aware that a person or persons unknown are doing things they shouldn't. After all, if they are covering up serious criminal offences, they keep quiet about it.
However a "systemic" failure? Well, if you're the boss, you are directly responsible for the system. if you didn't create it, you maintain it. If the system fails, you have failed.
If he was still Director of Childrens' Services then I would expect his employer to take action on a Gross Misconduct basis. But once he's left, you can't take disciplinary action.
So he should resign because of the weight of public opinion, that he has been grossly negligent (at least) in a previous role and is therefore not fit to do his current one.
Did anyone resign following the Oxford abuse scandal? Many in authority clung onto their jobs like limpets. He's merely following their example.
Fox Why should a Miliband government finish UKIP off? Now Hollande is president in France Marine Le Pen is leading the first round polls for the next presidential election
Milliband will have five years in power, taking us to 2020. The Tories will have a leadership election with Europe as the issue that tears them apart. UKIP will join in and fracture themselves.
In the meantime Labour will have caught the right part of the economic cycle. The 2020 election will see Miliband in a strong position to win again, with the centrist inclined Tory voters moving to a revitalised LibDems. The bitter enders of UKIP will then put Milliband in a second time...
Speedy As I said the economist article was about judges, an unelected police authority chair can be difficult to dismiss, with rights to compensation, employment tribunals etc, an elected PCC can be got rid of by the morning after election night with no right of appeal!
The turnout problem was because the LDs made the idiotic decision to insist the elections be held in November rather than the same time as the local elections
But an unelected PCC would not be a politician catering to his political or personal interests and would not be as big as a danger to the functions of justice.
Look I understand that the Tories created the post under the notion that people would vote for conservative candidates on law and order issues, so that they would have some hold onto the function of the police under a Labour government, but that hasn't worked. People know its a bad idea that festers corruption and incompetence so they have refused to participate, allowing only the party members to determine who the PCC would be, giving Labour a natural advantage.
Its damaging politically and practically for the government to have elected PCC's, you can't have a politicial doing a civil servant's job because he wouln't be impartial and voters would like to have people who they can trust on such vital things, not politicians.
Imagive if we elected doctors, we would elect the most popular not the most competent.
They replace the old Police Authorities which were opaque, made up of councillors appointed on the old basis of jobs for the boys, and had no direct accountability to the public. And were political. Following something like this, they would be just lying low and erecting a someone else's problem field.
They were political, it is true. Now the job is even more political because PCCs will have to be political to maintain their post (no matter how good a job they do, Labour will almost certainly put up a candidate against a Tory candidate, and vice-versa, so despite trying to work for all their communities, they will have to play to the bit of it they know will vote for them), whereas at least the unaccountable cllrs could act without worry about the political consequences, so long as their own district didn't care. It was hardly ideal, but I fail to see how PCCs have improved matters, particularly as the 'can at least vote them out' argument doesn't hold up as they will be voted in or out for reasons that have nothing to do with their performance anyway, by and large
Fox Why should a Miliband government finish UKIP off? Now Hollande is president in France Marine Le Pen is leading the first round polls for the next presidential election
Milliband will have five years in power, taking us to 2020. The Tories will have a leadership election with Europe as the issue that tears them apart. UKIP will join in and fracture themselves.
In the meantime Labour will have caught the right part of the economic cycle. The 2020 election will see Miliband in a strong position to win again, with the centrist inclined Tory voters moving to a revitalised LibDems. The bitter enders of UKIP will then put Milliband in a second time...
That sounds like nothing more than wishful thinking.
You want a left wing government , with the Lib Dems being their loyal backers.
If the Labour Party can engineer the resignation of an independent Police and Crime Commissioner by threatening to withdraw his party membership, it is a manifest threat to the 2011 Act, and one of the most overtly centralising measures in police accountability since the Police Act 1964. Mr Wright owes his position to the people of South Yorkshire, not to any central party, and it is for the people of South Yorkshire alone to decide his fate.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you don't engage in such digging questions again.
Culture is something that is in many ways amorphous and intangible, so it can not be defined, only described. In the same way you can not boil down Tibetan culture or Italian culture to a few simple characteristics, you can not do it with British culture either. But I think there are several notable hallmarks of British culture: a certain public reserve and modesty, good manners, a sense of public orderliness, a respect for following the rules, a desire to look after one's local environment, a sense of fair play, a live and let live mentality, a preference for gradual reform, an appreciation of constitutional governance and long-standing individual liberties, etc.
If the Labour Party can engineer the resignation of an independent Police and Crime Commissioner by threatening to withdraw his party membership, it is a manifest threat to the 2011 Act, and one of the most overtly centralising measures in police accountability since the Police Act 1964. Mr Wright owes his position to the people of South Yorkshire, not to any central party, and it is for the people of South Yorkshire alone to decide his fate.
I'm sure no-one could have seen such political influence on a PCC coming.
A bit of a quandary then - there seems much evidence that a resignation would be in order, or at least not objectionable, but if it only occurs for the wrong reasons, that could be troublesome.
When do we expect the first post-Rotherham poll? (I know Yougov is daily but it depends when they did the research).
I think that you'll have to wait till the weekend for the first full post-Rotherham poll.
Yes but a rise of UKIP with YouGov to14 today, is indicative of the underground currents.
Rotherham might have shifted the middle of the road to the right, its not just UKIP that benefits or Labour that gets the blame, the whole multicultural narrative of the last 20 years has fallen apart.
Speedy As I said the economist article was about judges, an unelected police authority chair can be difficult to dismiss, with rights to compensation, employment tribunals etc, an elected PCC can be got rid of by the morning after election night with no right of appeal!
The turnout problem was because the LDs made the idiotic decision to insist the elections be held in November rather than the same time as the local elections
But an unelected PCC would not be a politician catering to his political or personal interests and would not be as big as a danger to the functions of justice.
Look I understand that the Tories created the post under the notion that people would vote for conservative candidates on law and order issues, so that they would have some hold onto the function of the police under a Labour government, but that hasn't worked. People know its a bad idea that festers corruption and incompetence so they have refused to participate, allowing only the party members to determine who the PCC would be, giving Labour a natural advantage.
Its damaging politically and practically for the government to have elected PCC's, you can't have a politicial doing a civil servant's job because he wouln't be impartial and voters would like to have people who they can trust on such vital things, not politicians.
Imagive if we elected doctors, we would elect the most popular not the most competent.
They replace the old Police Authorities which were opaque, made up of councillors appointed on the old basis of jobs for the boys, and had no direct accountability to the public. And were political. Following something like this, they would be just lying low and erecting a someone else's problem field.
They were political, it is true. Now the job is even more political because PCCs will have to be political to maintain their post (no matter how good a job they do, Labour will almost certainly put up a candidate against a Tory candidate, and vice-versa, so despite trying to work for all their communities, they will have to play to the bit of it they know will vote for them), whereas at least the unaccountable cllrs could act without worry about the political consequences, so long as their own district didn't care. It was hardly ideal, but I fail to see how PCCs have improved matters, particularly as the 'can at least vote them out' argument doesn't hold up as they will be voted in or out for reasons that have nothing to do with their performance anyway, by and large
Theresa May's wheeze cost a fortune, reduce accountability, increase the politicisation of the police, and reduce the effectiveness of the force.
I am glad it's less than a year until Ed Miliband's Labour Govt scrap them.
In a democracy, the voters bear responsibility for who is elected.
If the voters were lied to, or misled, then there is a case for compelling Shaun to resign. The voters were not lied to. They were not misled.
Although this report was not available before the election for Police Commissioner, Shaun had resigned from Rotherham Council for serious failings in Child Protection in 2010. There was ample evidence (3 previous reports) of terrible failings.
Why one Earth the Labour party thought he was a good choice for Police Commissioner is beyond imagining. But, nonetheless, Shaun won the election fairly and squarely.
For the record, Shaun seems hugely inappropriate for the job, but the voters of South Yorkshire did choose him.
That is democracy. The people chose Shaun. They may not have thought very hard before choosing, they may now regret their choice, but so be it.
They have their opportunity to get rid off him 5 years from now.
I see that Hugh is talking about "anti-immigration fanatics" using the Rotherham case.
There will be such people of course who have an agenda, just as there is the teeniest suspicion that those who immediately say that one must not use Rotherham to justify being anti-immigration have an agenda of their own.
The issue with immigration is not one of being for or against. It is about the quality, type and quantity of immigration and how such immigrants are integrated so that they become in the fullest sense British not simply foreigners holding a British passport. I am the child of immigrants and have lived in other countries and like open rather than closed societies. I understand what you have to do (as my parents did) to leave your home country behind and become truly part of your adopted country. So I very much do not share the UKIP line of attributing all our ills to "foreigners".
But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan. And I think it is those who do who need to justify why they do rather than those who are against it.
In what sense is it an advantage for Britain to do so?
In a democracy, the voters bear responsibility for who is elected.
If the voters were lied to, or misled, then there is a case for compelling Shaun to resign. The voters were not lied to. They were not misled.
Although this report was not available before the election for Police Commissioner, Shaun had resigned from Rotherham Council for serious failings in Child Protection in 2010. There was ample evidence (3 previous reports) of terrible failings.
Why one Earth the Labour party thought he was a good choice for Police Commissioner is beyond imagining. But, nonetheless, Shaun won the election fairly and squarely.
For the record, Shaun seems hugely inappropriate for the job, but the voters of South Yorkshire did choose him.
That is democracy. The people chose Shaun. They may not have thought very hard before choosing, they may now regret their choice, but so be it.
They have their opportunity to get rid off him 5 years from now.
"In a democracy, the voters bear responsibility for who is elected."
In a modern democracy the voters are at the mercy of the telly news.
Fox Why should a Miliband government finish UKIP off? Now Hollande is president in France Marine Le Pen is leading the first round polls for the next presidential election
Milliband will have five years in power, taking us to 2020. The Tories will have a leadership election with Europe as the issue that tears them apart. UKIP will join in and fracture themselves.
In the meantime Labour will have caught the right part of the economic cycle. The 2020 election will see Miliband in a strong position to win again, with the centrist inclined Tory voters moving to a revitalised LibDems. The bitter enders of UKIP will then put Milliband in a second time...
That sounds like nothing more than wishful thinking.
You want a left wing government , with the Lib Dems being their loyal backers.
OMG! Why does @foxinsoxuk write such arrant nonsense? It must be a terrible affliction, something like St. Vitus Dance.
Fox Why should a Miliband government finish UKIP off? Now Hollande is president in France Marine Le Pen is leading the first round polls for the next presidential election
Milliband will have five years in power, taking us to 2020. The Tories will have a leadership election with Europe as the issue that tears them apart. UKIP will join in and fracture themselves.
In the meantime Labour will have caught the right part of the economic cycle. The 2020 election will see Miliband in a strong position to win again, with the centrist inclined Tory voters moving to a revitalised LibDems. The bitter enders of UKIP will then put Milliband in a second time...
That sounds like nothing more than wishful thinking.
You want a left wing government , with the Lib Dems being their loyal backers.
That is a fair summary, but kippers are wishful thinkers too. I do not think that they will get more than a couple of MPs, most likely none at all next year.
UKIP cannot hold together for long, the desires are too contradictory, and the history of the party is one of palace politics and expulsions, like Farages former friend Bloom.
But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan. And I think it is those who do who need to justify why they do rather than those who are against it.
In what sense is it an advantage for Britain to do so?
Fox Why should a Miliband government finish UKIP off? Now Hollande is president in France Marine Le Pen is leading the first round polls for the next presidential election
Milliband will have five years in power, taking us to 2020. The Tories will have a leadership election with Europe as the issue that tears them apart. UKIP will join in and fracture themselves.
In the meantime Labour will have caught the right part of the economic cycle. The 2020 election will see Miliband in a strong position to win again, with the centrist inclined Tory voters moving to a revitalised LibDems. The bitter enders of UKIP will then put Milliband in a second time...
Laughable. Firstly, I doubt that a Miliband government will last five years. If he manages to get a majority, he will be highly dependent on the left of the party that will expect a complete reversal of recent cuts and raise hell if they don't get it. The party will be forced to make compromises in government on both economic and matters like immigration, which will split many of the voters that have flocked to them in anti-Tory rage. More likely they will be in coalition with the Lib Dems, who will continue to get hit by the unpopularity of incumbency, only now they'll upset their centre-right voters having already lost the centre-left. Meanwhile mass immigration will continue to spill into the country as southern Europe wallows in long term depression, making the EU look worse and UKIP look better and better.
Imagive if we elected doctors, we would elect the most popular not the most competent.
They replace the old Police Authorities which were opaque, made up of councillors appointed on the old basis of jobs for the boys, and had no direct accountability to the public. And were political. Following something like this, they would be just lying low and erecting a someone else's problem field.
They were political, it is true. Now the job is even more political because PCCs will have to be political to maintain their post (no matter how good a job they do, Labour will almost certainly put up a candidate against a Tory candidate, and vice-versa, so despite trying to work for all their communities, they will have to play to the bit of it they know will vote for them), whereas at least the unaccountable cllrs could act without worry about the political consequences, so long as their own district didn't care. It was hardly ideal, but I fail to see how PCCs have improved matters, particularly as the 'can at least vote them out' argument doesn't hold up as they will be voted in or out for reasons that have nothing to do with their performance anyway, by and large
Theresa May's wheeze cost a fortune, reduce accountability, increase the politicisation of the police, and reduce the effectiveness of the force.
I am glad it's less than a year until Ed Miliband's Labour Govt scrap them.
Rest assured, he's more than capable of creating far worse posts and appointments - all manner of Energy Tsars, Rent Guardians and Public Transport Custodians to meddle and interfere.
These Police commissioners were designed to take the blame on behalf of Chief Constables and Home Office ministers. But they are elected on £85k a year and are very difficult to remove.
Theresa May was told it was a mistake to implement these PCC roles, but she ploughed on anyway. They were elected on such small voting turnouts and I expect more scandals to follow. The government may have to change the rules, so that the Home Secretary can remove a PCC in exceptional circumstances.
I see that Hugh is talking about "anti-immigration fanatics" using the Rotherham case.
There will be such people of course who have an agenda, just as there is the teeniest suspicion that those who immediately say that one must not use Rotherham to justify being anti-immigration have an agenda of their own.
The issue with immigration is not one of being for or against. It is about the quality, type and quantity of immigration and how such immigrants are integrated so that they become in the fullest sense British not simply foreigners holding a British passport. I am the child of immigrants and have lived in other countries and like open rather than closed societies. I understand what you have to do (as my parents did) to leave your home country behind and become truly part of your adopted country. So I very much do not share the UKIP line of attributing all our ills to "foreigners".
But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan. And I think it is those who do who need to justify why they do rather than those who are against it.
In what sense is it an advantage for Britain to do so?
What about the culture of Syria? Sweden has offered full refugee status to any Syrian that turns up on their doorstep. Within five years or so they'll all have Swedish nationality and will be able to waltz into London via the EU's free movement of labour. There's nothing HMG can do about it.
JohnLilburne: "To my mind, he damned himself out of his own mouth on C4 News by saying it was due to "systemic" failures."
In banks you often get this and I have investigated more "systemic failures" than most people have had hot dinners.
And let me say this: there is no such thing as a "system" which failed. The system consists of people and it is people who failed: those who did the wrong thing and those who failed to do the right thing. It is always and everywhere people who are the reason why bad things happen.
And that is why when this happens it is people, including those in charge, who must - if they have any honour, decency or understanding of what it is to do a professional job - take responsibility.
But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan. And I think it is those who do who need to justify why they do rather than those who are against it.
In what sense is it an advantage for Britain to do so?
Why not? Introducing the values of rural Pakistan, Kashmir, Somalia, Sudan, and other enlightened places surely makes the UK more vibrant and diverse?
Just catching up on today's articles and I think the last article re UKIP targets misses a trick where it says
Just one is currently held by Labour – an interesting decision given Farage’s rhetoric a couple of months ago about Labour being the main target.
About half of the seats on that list were represented by a Labour MP in 2005. I suspect Farage is therefore targeting swing and soft Labour votes in those constituencies.
There are also plenty of other seats along the eastern coastal region (e.g. Dover, The Medway Towns, Gravesend, Dartford, Hastings etc) where a similar story is true so I don't think Farage's tactics are surprising at all.
Fox Why should a Miliband government finish UKIP off? Now Hollande is president in France Marine Le Pen is leading the first round polls for the next presidential election
Milliband will have five years in power, taking us to 2020. The Tories will have a leadership election with Europe as the issue that tears them apart. UKIP will join in and fracture themselves.
In the meantime Labour will have caught the right part of the economic cycle. The 2020 election will see Miliband in a strong position to win again, with the centrist inclined Tory voters moving to a revitalised LibDems. The bitter enders of UKIP will then put Milliband in a second time...
Laughable. Firstly, I doubt that a Miliband government will last five years. If he manages to get a majority, he will be highly dependent on the left of the party that will expect a complete reversal of recent cuts and raise hell if they don't get it. The party will be forced to make compromises in government on both economic and matters like immigration, which will split many of the voters that have flocked to them in anti-Tory rage.
Much of this may be true, however I suspect you underestimate the ability of a Miliband government to cling on desperately, eking out enough support from those who would do anything rather than collapse and potentially let in the Tories again whatever their previously expressed policy positions.
But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan. And I think it is those who do who need to justify why they do rather than those who are against it.
In what sense is it an advantage for Britain to do so?
Why not? Introducing the values of rural Pakistan, Kashmir, Somalia, Sudan, and other enlightened places surely makes the UK more vibrant and diverse?
Fox Why should a Miliband government finish UKIP off? Now Hollande is president in France Marine Le Pen is leading the first round polls for the next presidential election
Milliband will have five years in power, taking us to 2020. The Tories will have a leadership election with Europe as the issue that tears them apart. UKIP will join in and fracture themselves.
In the meantime Labour will have caught the right part of the economic cycle. The 2020 election will see Miliband in a strong position to win again, with the centrist inclined Tory voters moving to a revitalised LibDems. The bitter enders of UKIP will then put Milliband in a second time...
Laughable. Firstly, I doubt that a Miliband government will last five years. If he manages to get a majority, he will be highly dependent on the left of the party that will expect a complete reversal of recent cuts and raise hell if they don't get it. The party will be forced to make compromises in government on both economic and matters like immigration, which will split many of the voters that have flocked to them in anti-Tory rage.
Much of this may be true, however I suspect you underestimate the ability of a Miliband government to cling on desperately, eking out enough support from those who would do anything rather than collapse and potentially let in the Tories again whatever their previously expressed policy positions.
If they have a majority large enough to insulate them from byelections.
But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan. And I think it is those who do who need to justify why they do rather than those who are against it.
In what sense is it an advantage for Britain to do so?
Why not? Introducing the values of rural Pakistan, Kashmir, Somalia, Sudan, and other enlightened places surely makes the UK more vibrant and diverse?
I read last night on wikiislam about the "truth" from Muslim scriptures on the 72 virgins promise. One thing that stands out is that they will all be white-skinned.
I see that Hugh is talking about "anti-immigration fanatics" using the Rotherham case.
There will be such people of course who have an agenda, just as there is the teeniest suspicion that those who immediately say that one must not use Rotherham to justify being anti-immigration have an agenda of their own.
The issue with immigration is not one of being for or against. It is about the quality, type and quantity of immigration and how such immigrants are integrated so that they become in the fullest sense British not simply foreigners holding a British passport. I am the child of immigrants and have lived in other countries and like open rather than closed societies. I understand what you have to do (as my parents did) to leave your home country behind and become truly part of your adopted country. So I very much do not share the UKIP line of attributing all our ills to "foreigners".
But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan. And I think it is those who do who need to justify why they do rather than those who are against it.
In what sense is it an advantage for Britain to do so?
As you say, it is undeniable that there are racists and anti-immigration fanatics and that they are trying to use recent events as ammunition.
But we welcome newcomers, we adopt or reject new cultures and people and practices, we absorb and adapt to them.
Always have done, always will do. It's part of the British Culture and Identity.
But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan. And I think it is those who do who need to justify why they do rather than those who are against it.
In what sense is it an advantage for Britain to do so?
This. Please can a supporter try to justify it?
I think migrants from European social democracies in the EU are much more likely to assimilate, just as previous waves of Polish, Italian and Cypriot migrants have done so.
I am with Cyclefree, all sources of immigration are not equal. I want people who will reinforce Western Liberal values, not oppose them.
But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan. And I think it is those who do who need to justify why they do rather than those who are against it.
In what sense is it an advantage for Britain to do so?
This. Please can a supporter try to justify it?
I think migrants from European social democracies in the EU are much more likely to assimilate, just as previous waves of Polish, Italian and Cypriot migrants have done so.
I am with Cyclefree, all sources of immigration are not equal. I want people who will reinforce Western Liberal values, not oppose them.
But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan. And I think it is those who do who need to justify why they do rather than those who are against it.
In what sense is it an advantage for Britain to do so?
This. Please can a supporter try to justify it?
I think migrants from European social democracies in the EU are much more likely to assimilate, just as previous waves of Polish, Italian and Cypriot migrants have done so.
I am with Cyclefree, all sources of immigration are not equal. I want people who will reinforce Western Liberal values, not oppose them.
Speedy Reform Maybe, particularly on the date of election, but the principle is sound. Of course the elections to the BMA ensure accountability after eg the Shipman affair. But voters do not elect the police, just as they do not elect doctors, they elect the authority which oversees the police, that is different
But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan. And I think it is those who do who need to justify why they do rather than those who are against it.
In what sense is it an advantage for Britain to do so?
Why not? Introducing the values of rural Pakistan, Kashmir, Somalia, Sudan, and other enlightened places surely makes the UK more vibrant and diverse?
I read last night on wikiislam about the "truth" from Muslim scriptures on the 72 virgins promise. One thing that stands out is that they will all be white-skinned.
Is Rotherham halfway to paradise?
I'm rather hoping hoping the 72 virgins are sex-starved male baboons.
I see that Hugh is talking about "anti-immigration fanatics" using the Rotherham case.
There will be such people of course who have an agenda, just as there is the teeniest suspicion that those who immediately say that one must not use Rotherham to justify being anti-immigration have an agenda of their own.
The issue with immigration is not one of being for or against. It is about the quality, type and quantity of immigration and how such immigrants are integrated so that they become in the fullest sense British not simply foreigners holding a British passport. I am the child of immigrants and have lived in other countries and like open rather than closed societies. I understand what you have to do (as my parents did) to leave your home country behind and become truly part of your adopted country. So I very much do not share the UKIP line of attributing all our ills to "foreigners".
But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan. And I think it is those who do who need to justify why they do rather than those who are against it.
In what sense is it an advantage for Britain to do so?
As you say, it is undeniable that there are racists and anti-immigration fanatics and that they are trying to use recent events as ammunition.
But we welcome newcomers, we adopt or reject new cultures and people and practices, we absorb and adapt to them.
Always have done, always will do. It's part of the British Culture and Identity.
NO - if you move to another country it is your responsibility to adapt to your adopted country's culture and practices and language. It is not for the host country to adapt to the culture of the immigrant. The onus is on the immigrant. It seems to me that in this country we have got it the wrong way round and this has contributed in part to the problems we are now seeing.
When in Rome....
Having said all that, in the end it is those men who chose to rape children who must take responsibility. They had a choice. They chose to do the wrong thing. It is wrong, even for them, to blame their upbringing or anything else for what they, as adults, chose to do. A man who rapes has made a choice.
"But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan."
Do you include the Hasidic communities of Stamford Hill Gateshead and Broughton Park who by design have twelve or more children and who never knowingly have anything to do with the non Jewish local community? What exactly would you suggest we do with them? Many of them picked up their religiosity in the UK
But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan. And I think it is those who do who need to justify why they do rather than those who are against it.
In what sense is it an advantage for Britain to do so?
Why not? Introducing the values of rural Pakistan, Kashmir, Somalia, Sudan, and other enlightened places surely makes the UK more vibrant and diverse?
I read last night on wikiislam about the "truth" from Muslim scriptures on the 72 virgins promise. One thing that stands out is that they will all be white-skinned.
Fox Why should a Miliband government finish UKIP off? Now Hollande is president in France Marine Le Pen is leading the first round polls for the next presidential election
Milliband will have five years in power, taking us to 2020. The Tories will have a leadership election with Europe as the issue that tears them apart. UKIP will join in and fracture themselves.
In the meantime Labour will have caught the right part of the economic cycle. The 2020 election will see Miliband in a strong position to win again, with the centrist inclined Tory voters moving to a revitalised LibDems. The bitter enders of UKIP will then put Milliband in a second time...
Laughable. Firstly, I doubt that a Miliband government will last five years. If he manages to get a majority, he will be highly dependent on the left of the party that will expect a complete reversal of recent cuts and raise hell if they don't get it. The party will be forced to make compromises in government on both economic and matters like immigration, which will split many of the voters that have flocked to them in anti-Tory rage.
Much of this may be true, however I suspect you underestimate the ability of a Miliband government to cling on desperately, eking out enough support from those who would do anything rather than collapse and potentially let in the Tories again whatever their previously expressed policy positions.
If they have a majority large enough to insulate them from byelections.
Fox More like Miliband's tax increases see the economy start to slow down again, unemployment rises, his backtracking over austerity infuriates his leftwing and soon Labour falls to third behind a resurgent Tory Party led by Boris and a UKIP running on a populist anti immigration anti EU message aimed at Labour's core vote. Two years into his premiership Miliband has a lower rating even than LD leader Tim Farron, and is even more unpopular than Brown. Humiliatingly he is forced to recall his brother David from the US to become Chancellor to chart a new economic course
I love the earnestness of this rebuttal from said page:
"Virgins or Raisins?[edit] This false myth of "white raisins" originated from Christoph Luxenberg, a modern author writing under a pseudonym.[39] His anti-Islamic claim,[40] which has been accused of having a "Christian apologetic agenda",[41] is that the Qur'an was drawn from Christian Syro-Aramaic texts in the early 8th century, in order to evangelize the Arabs,[42] and that the Aramaic word 'hur' (white raisin) had been mistranslated by later Arab commentators into the Arabic word 'houri' (virgin).[43]
The Qur'an describes the physical characteristics of the houri in many places, and a reading of relevant verses show that Luxenberg's theory regarding heavenly white raisins is in error.
Raisins, which are dried grapes, cannot have large eyes,[17] big breasts,[20] cannot restrain their glances,[25] cannot be described as chaste,[25] or have any of the characteristics listed above. The Qur'an further states that men will be wed to these houri.[1] Men cannot be married to raisins or white grapes.
Additionally, for someone to accept this "72 raisins" theory, they would also have to accept that the Qur'an was not written by Allah or revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in Arabic during the 7th century, but was in fact written by Christian evangelists in Syro-Aramaic during the 8th century."
Speedy Reform Maybe, particularly on the date of election, but the principle is sound. Of course the elections to the BMA ensure accountability after eg the Shipman affair. But voters do not elect the police, just as they do not elect doctors, they elect the authority which oversees the police, that is different
The BMA is a professional association, a trade union if you like, it has no role in accountability or regulation other than internal affairs. The General Medical Council is our regulatory body, and GMC has a majority of lay members, appointed by the government. It is not any longer a self regulatory body. It sings to a government tune.
Fox Why should a Miliband government finish UKIP off? Now Hollande is president in France Marine Le Pen is leading the first round polls for the next presidential election
Milliband will have five years in power, taking us to 2020. The Tories will have a leadership election with Europe as the issue that tears them apart. UKIP will join in and fracture themselves.
In the meantime Labour will have caught the right part of the economic cycle. The 2020 election will see Miliband in a strong position to win again, with the centrist inclined Tory voters moving to a revitalised LibDems. The bitter enders of UKIP will then put Milliband in a second time...
Laughable. Firstly, I doubt that a Miliband government will last five years. If he manages to get a majority, he will be highly dependent on the left of the party that will expect a complete reversal of recent cuts and raise hell if they don't get it. The party will be forced to make compromises in government on both economic and matters like immigration, which will split many of the voters that have flocked to them in anti-Tory rage.
Much of this may be true, however I suspect you underestimate the ability of a Miliband government to cling on desperately, eking out enough support from those who would do anything rather than collapse and potentially let in the Tories again whatever their previously expressed policy positions.
All the Tories have to do, then, is negotiate local electoral pacts with UKIP, as they did with Liberal Unionists, National Liberals, Ulster Unionists, and a variety of Scottish parties.
I see that Hugh is talking about "anti-immigration fanatics" using the Rotherham case.
There will be such people of course who have an agenda, just as there is the teeniest suspicion that those who immediately say that one must not use Rotherham to justify being anti-immigration have an agenda of their own.
The issue with immigration is not one of being for or against. It is about the quality, type and quantity of immigration and how such immigrants are integrated so that they become in the fullest sense British not simply foreigners holding a British passport. I am the child of immigrants and have lived in other countries and like open rather than closed societies. I understand what you have to do (as my parents did) to leave your home country behind and become truly part of your adopted country. So I very much do not share the UKIP line of attributing all our ills to "foreigners".
But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan. And I think it is those who do who need to justify why they do rather than those who are against it.
In what sense is it an advantage for Britain to do so?
As you say, it is undeniable that there are racists and anti-immigration fanatics and that they are trying to use recent events as ammunition.
But we welcome newcomers, we adopt or reject new cultures and people and practices, we absorb and adapt to them.
Always have done, always will do. It's part of the British Culture and Identity.
NO - if you move to another country it is your responsibility to adapt to your adopted country's culture and practices and language. It is not for the host country to adapt to the culture of the immigrant. The onus is on the immigrant. It seems to me that in this country we have got it the wrong way round and this has contributed in part to the problems we are now seeing.
When in Rome....
Having said all that, in the end it is those men who chose to rape children who must take responsibility. They had a choice. They chose to do the wrong thing. It is wrong, even for them, to blame their upbringing or anything else for what they, as adults, chose to do. A man who rapes has made a choice.
Surely the onus is to live and let live?
For a start we can't even define "host culture".
If you want to come here with your funny spicy food and invent and new national dish.. should "We" put that in a multiple choice test?
I love the earnestness of this rebuttal from said page:
"Virgins or Raisins?[edit] This false myth of "white raisins" originated from Christoph Luxenberg, a modern author writing under a pseudonym.[39] His anti-Islamic claim,[40] which has been accused of having a "Christian apologetic agenda",[41] is that the Qur'an was drawn from Christian Syro-Aramaic texts in the early 8th century, in order to evangelize the Arabs,[42] and that the Aramaic word 'hur' (white raisin) had been mistranslated by later Arab commentators into the Arabic word 'houri' (virgin).[43]
The Qur'an describes the physical characteristics of the houri in many places, and a reading of relevant verses show that Luxenberg's theory regarding heavenly white raisins is in error.
Raisins, which are dried grapes, cannot have large eyes,[17] big breasts,[20] cannot restrain their glances,[25] cannot be described as chaste,[25] or have any of the characteristics listed above. The Qur'an further states that men will be wed to these houri.[1] Men cannot be married to raisins or white grapes.
Additionally, for someone to accept this "72 raisins" theory, they would also have to accept that the Qur'an was not written by Allah or revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in Arabic during the 7th century, but was in fact written by Christian evangelists in Syro-Aramaic during the 8th century."
As a sideways point that idea would sell better in a culture where wealthy men could have multiple wives so a lot of men had no chance of a wife at all.
Do you include the Hasidic communities of Stamford Hill Gateshead and Broughton Park who by design have twelve or more children and who never knowingly have anything to do with the non Jewish local community? What exactly would you suggest we do with them? Many of them picked up their religiosity in the UK
"But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan."
Do you include the Hasidic communities of Stamford Hill Gateshead and Broughton Park who by design have twelve or more children and who never knowingly have anything to do with the local community? What exactly would you suggest we do with them? Many of them picked up their religiosity in the UK
I do not know much about them. Having lots of children is not a problem if you are able to support them. I come from a large family myself. Keeping yourself to yourself is not necessarily a problem (the Chinese can be like that) but not ideal, I agree.
But there is a difference between being good citizens but not mixing much and being so apart that that very apartness is a problem and creates very real social problems. Part of the reason for that may be the culture. Jewish culture is clearly part of Western culture; indeed has contributed much to it, though I'm not knowledgeable about the ins and outs of Hasidic Judaism. I don't think the same can necessarily be said about rural Pakistani culture which is why the issue of integration - or lack of it - appears to be such an issue.
Are there - beyond a reserved keeping themselves to themselves approach - any particular social issues associated with the Hasidic community? Are they a source of crime? Or other problems?
Speedy Reform Maybe, particularly on the date of election, but the principle is sound. Of course the elections to the BMA ensure accountability after eg the Shipman affair. But voters do not elect the police, just as they do not elect doctors, they elect the authority which oversees the police, that is different
I'm arguring that the principle is unsound, bordering on the barking mad. You can't put people with a conflict of interest in positions as these.
. A Miliband government will be fantastic for UKIP. UKIP stand a good chance of getting a dozen or so seats if we have another general election a couple years after 2015 after Labour mismanage the finances, immigration and the EU, as they are bound to.
Yes, UKIP would do well under that scenario. But not well enough to prevent the re-election of a disastrous Labour government in 2020; to the contrary, UKIP's likely rise under an exceptionally unpopular Miliband government would prevent Labour being thrown out again.
It really is the worst of all possible political scenarios facing Britain, and it may well happen.
What about the culture of Syria? Sweden has offered full refugee status to any Syrian that turns up on their doorstep. Within five years or so they'll all have Swedish nationality and will be able to waltz into London via the EU's free movement of labour. There's nothing HMG can do about it.
So? I've not got a strong view about the Syrian conflict (except that we shouldn't get involved). But I see no reason to think that civilians who have fled Syria because of the fighting are in any way dangerous or indeed uncultured. These are precisely the same people whom I recall you wanted to ship arms to because Assad was threatening them - and yet you want us to worry that SOME of them might POSSIBLY...in 5 YEARS...come and live here? Pooh.
Of course not. Extraordinarily I have close relatives who have ended up part of this community. I was just puzzled that Cyclefree wanted us to make them change and assimilate. In this he/she has zero chance.
I see that Hugh is talking about "anti-immigration fanatics" using the Rotherham case.
There will be such people of course who have an agenda, just as there is the teeniest suspicion that those who immediately say that one must not use Rotherham to justify being anti-immigration have an agenda of their own.
But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan. And I think it is those who do who need to justify why they do rather than those who are against it.
In what sense is it an advantage for Britain to do so?
As you say, it is undeniable that there are racists and anti-immigration fanatics and that they are trying to use recent events as ammunition.
But we welcome newcomers, we adopt or reject new cultures and people and practices, we absorb and adapt to them.
Always have done, always will do. It's part of the British Culture and Identity.
NO - if you move to another country it is your responsibility to adapt to your adopted country's culture and practices and language. It is not for the host country to adapt to the culture of the immigrant. The onus is on the immigrant. It seems to me that in this country we have got it the wrong way round and this has contributed in part to the problems we are now seeing.
When in Rome....
Having said all that, in the end it is those men who chose to rape children who must take responsibility. They had a choice. They chose to do the wrong thing. It is wrong, even for them, to blame their upbringing or anything else for what they, as adults, chose to do. A man who rapes has made a choice.
Surely the onus is to live and let live?
For a start we can't even define "host culture".
If you want to come here with your funny spicy food and invent and new national dish.. should "We" put that in a multiple choice test?
Oh don't be silly Hugh. This is not about whether we import some new food. It's about whether we should be tolerant of people who think, for instance, it is alright to kill a daughter because she falls in love with someone her parents disapprove of.
I say we shouldn't. And if people come to live here from a culture that thinks that acceptable they need - when they come here - to realise that they can no longer think that acceptable and can no longer behave in such a way.
Toleration of the intolerable is not liberalism. It is a form of moral decadence and feebleness that is prepared to sacrifice the weak (usually women and children) in order to preen itself for its so-called liberalism.
Fox I would assume the BMA can still put pressure on the GMC to tighten up regulation, though according to its website the GMC chair is also elected http://www.gmc-uk.org/about/council/members.asp
Will anyone arguing against elected policed commissioners care to point out how those in charge were more accountable under the previous system?
.
Perhaps you are right, on that point. But I maintain that PCCs are no more accountable in practice given their rise and fall will barely, if at all, relate to their own actions, even more susceptible to political influence, even more politicised, and therefore a total waste of money. The funny thing is, I'm still one of the few who bothered to vote in the elections for the darn things.
Shaun Wright resigns...from Labour but vows to continue as PCC for South Yorks - "protecting vulnerable people has been my No1 priority" @steve_hawkes (Sun)
What about the culture of Syria? Sweden has offered full refugee status to any Syrian that turns up on their doorstep. Within five years or so they'll all have Swedish nationality and will be able to waltz into London via the EU's free movement of labour. There's nothing HMG can do about it.
So? I've not got a strong view about the Syrian conflict (except that we shouldn't get involved). But I see no reason to think that civilians who have fled Syria because of the fighting are in any way dangerous or indeed uncultured. These are precisely the same people whom I recall you wanted to ship arms to because Assad was threatening them - and yet you want us to worry that SOME of them might POSSIBLY...in 5 YEARS...come and live here? Pooh.
Nigel Farage was quite keen on Syrian Refugees as I recall, though he did prefer Christian ones.
I work with a few Syrians and Iraqis. Decent people, and just the sort that ISIL would crucify for their political and social views.
Comments
The fact that Farage kicked out even an old friend over his views shows UKIP's commitment to removing prejudiced views from the party. What's Hamilton supposed to have done?
Look I understand that the Tories created the post under the notion that people would vote for conservative candidates on law and order issues, so that they would have some hold onto the function of the police under a Labour government, but that hasn't worked.
People know its a bad idea that festers corruption and incompetence so they have refused to participate, allowing only the party members to determine who the PCC would be, giving Labour a natural advantage.
Its damaging politically and practically for the government to have elected PCC's, you can't have a politician doing a civil servant's job because he wouldn't be impartial and voters would like to have people who they can trust on such vital things, not politicians.
Imagive if we elected doctors, we would elect the most popular not the most competent.
The only reason he has to resign is that Labour need to shut this down quickly.
Someone has to be thrown to the wolves. Shaun is the carcass.
But Shaun is not the only, or the most blameworthy, culprit. He just comes across as a stupid and arrogant man, out of his depth and without any relevant experience or training for the responsibilities he held.
The guilty people are the people of Rotherham. They are the ones who elected him & re-elected him & re-elected him.
The people of S. Yorkshire were not misled. Shaun's role in all this was apparent before the election, when they voted for him as police commissioner.
He was elected fairly. He was not elected under false pretences. He was elected by the people of S Yorkshire, who knew that he had resigned two years earlier as a councillor for serious failings.
So, why should Shaun resign?
It might be a good lesson for the people of Rotherham to learn that -- when you vote for someone -- it might be an idea to look at his or her record.
But perhaps Salmond should check if the Scots pandas haven't been prostituting themselves for buns.
Seafaring? Last orders? Non-Muslim? Tutting in queues?
I have a nasty feeling the BBC will ruin it going for popularity, you can just imagine it... phone polls... voting off. YUK
UKIP supporters aren't 90 year olds dreaming of the reconquest of India. They're people of all ages who want good government.
If this report had come out before the PCC election would he have been elected?
I've always thought he's safe while Labour (who gave him his job) support him. Whilst there's not many Labour names on that list, those that are there are pretty significant, Straw, Beckett, Bluncket, etc...
I suspect he'll back down a compromise be reached, but if he doesn't back down it could end badly....
Now I can understand that the director of an organisation may not be aware that a person or persons unknown are doing things they shouldn't. After all, if they are covering up serious criminal offences, they keep quiet about it.
However a "systemic" failure? Well, if you're the boss, you are directly responsible for the system. if you didn't create it, you maintain it. If the system fails, you have failed.
If he was still Director of Childrens' Services then I would expect his employer to take action on a Gross Misconduct basis. But once he's left, you can't take disciplinary action.
So he should resign because of the weight of public opinion, that he has been grossly negligent (at least) in a previous role and is therefore not fit to do his current one.
And on the doctors issue, do we the common folk vote for the head of the BMA?
I haven't see your previous answers, apologies if someone else has.
So what do you mean by "British culture and identity"? Roast on Sunday? BBQ in the rain? The propensity to get your skin sunburned on holiday?
http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/Olly-Martins/story-22833313-detail/story.html
Lucky it didn't happen in Scunthorpe
In the meantime Labour will have caught the right part of the economic cycle. The 2020 election will see Miliband in a strong position to win again, with the centrist inclined Tory voters moving to a revitalised LibDems. The bitter enders of UKIP will then put Milliband in a second time...
You want a left wing government , with the Lib Dems being their loyal backers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11060179/Rotherham-child-sex-scandal-chiefs-who-ignored-abuse-must-quit.html
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you don't engage in such digging questions again.
Culture is something that is in many ways amorphous and intangible, so it can not be defined, only described. In the same way you can not boil down Tibetan culture or Italian culture to a few simple characteristics, you can not do it with British culture either. But I think there are several notable hallmarks of British culture: a certain public reserve and modesty, good manners, a sense of public orderliness, a respect for following the rules, a desire to look after one's local environment, a sense of fair play, a live and let live mentality, a preference for gradual reform, an appreciation of constitutional governance and long-standing individual liberties, etc.
Just saw your post, understood.
A bit of a quandary then - there seems much evidence that a resignation would be in order, or at least not objectionable, but if it only occurs for the wrong reasons, that could be troublesome.
I am glad it's less than a year until Ed Miliband's Labour Govt scrap them.
If the voters were lied to, or misled, then there is a case for compelling Shaun to resign. The voters were not lied to. They were not misled.
Although this report was not available before the election for Police Commissioner, Shaun had resigned from Rotherham Council for serious failings in Child Protection in 2010. There was ample evidence (3 previous reports) of terrible failings.
Why one Earth the Labour party thought he was a good choice for Police Commissioner is beyond imagining. But, nonetheless, Shaun won the election fairly and squarely.
For the record, Shaun seems hugely inappropriate for the job, but the voters of South Yorkshire did choose him.
That is democracy. The people chose Shaun. They may not have thought very hard before choosing, they may now regret their choice, but so be it.
They have their opportunity to get rid off him 5 years from now.
There will be such people of course who have an agenda, just as there is the teeniest suspicion that those who immediately say that one must not use Rotherham to justify being anti-immigration have an agenda of their own.
The issue with immigration is not one of being for or against. It is about the quality, type and quantity of immigration and how such immigrants are integrated so that they become in the fullest sense British not simply foreigners holding a British passport. I am the child of immigrants and have lived in other countries and like open rather than closed societies. I understand what you have to do (as my parents did) to leave your home country behind and become truly part of your adopted country. So I very much do not share the UKIP line of attributing all our ills to "foreigners".
But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan. And I think it is those who do who need to justify why they do rather than those who are against it.
In what sense is it an advantage for Britain to do so?
In a modern democracy the voters are at the mercy of the telly news.
UKIP cannot hold together for long, the desires are too contradictory, and the history of the party is one of palace politics and expulsions, like Farages former friend Bloom.
Rather interesting how only one case of all their "other" example does it specifically mention ethnicity.
"The men and youths were of Czech and Slovak Roma and Kurdish backgrounds."
Was it specifically relevant in the case in Peterborough, and all the other examples it wasn't?
Theresa May was told it was a mistake to implement these PCC roles, but she ploughed on anyway. They were elected on such small voting turnouts and I expect more scandals to follow. The government may have to change the rules, so that the Home Secretary can remove a PCC in exceptional circumstances.
"Lessons need to be learned" twice in 30 seconds.
In banks you often get this and I have investigated more "systemic failures" than most people have had hot dinners.
And let me say this: there is no such thing as a "system" which failed. The system consists of people and it is people who failed: those who did the wrong thing and those who failed to do the right thing. It is always and everywhere people who are the reason why bad things happen.
And that is why when this happens it is people, including those in charge, who must - if they have any honour, decency or understanding of what it is to do a professional job - take responsibility.
Just one is currently held by Labour – an interesting decision given Farage’s rhetoric a couple of months ago about Labour being the main target.
About half of the seats on that list were represented by a Labour MP in 2005. I suspect Farage is therefore targeting swing and soft Labour votes in those constituencies.
There are also plenty of other seats along the eastern coastal region (e.g. Dover, The Medway Towns, Gravesend, Dartford, Hastings etc) where a similar story is true so I don't think Farage's tactics are surprising at all.
Is Rotherham halfway to paradise?
But we welcome newcomers, we adopt or reject new cultures and people and practices, we absorb and adapt to them.
Always have done, always will do. It's part of the British Culture and Identity.
I am with Cyclefree, all sources of immigration are not equal. I want people who will reinforce Western Liberal values, not oppose them.
When in Rome....
Having said all that, in the end it is those men who chose to rape children who must take responsibility. They had a choice. They chose to do the wrong thing. It is wrong, even for them, to blame their upbringing or anything else for what they, as adults, chose to do. A man who rapes has made a choice.
"But for the life of me I do not want to import into this country the values, culture and mores of tribal and rural Pakistan or Kashmir or of countries such as Somalia and Sudan."
Do you include the Hasidic communities of Stamford Hill Gateshead and Broughton Park who by design have twelve or more children and who never knowingly have anything to do with the non Jewish local community? What exactly would you suggest we do with them? Many of them picked up their religiosity in the UK
Mods...?
"Virgins or Raisins?[edit]
This false myth of "white raisins" originated from Christoph Luxenberg, a modern author writing under a pseudonym.[39] His anti-Islamic claim,[40] which has been accused of having a "Christian apologetic agenda",[41] is that the Qur'an was drawn from Christian Syro-Aramaic texts in the early 8th century, in order to evangelize the Arabs,[42] and that the Aramaic word 'hur' (white raisin) had been mistranslated by later Arab commentators into the Arabic word 'houri' (virgin).[43]
The Qur'an describes the physical characteristics of the houri in many places, and a reading of relevant verses show that Luxenberg's theory regarding heavenly white raisins is in error.
Raisins, which are dried grapes, cannot have large eyes,[17] big breasts,[20] cannot restrain their glances,[25] cannot be described as chaste,[25] or have any of the characteristics listed above. The Qur'an further states that men will be wed to these houri.[1] Men cannot be married to raisins or white grapes.
Additionally, for someone to accept this "72 raisins" theory, they would also have to accept that the Qur'an was not written by Allah or revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in Arabic during the 7th century, but was in fact written by Christian evangelists in Syro-Aramaic during the 8th century."
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins#Virgins_or_Raisins.3F
'I am with Cyclefree, all sources of immigration are not equal. I want people who will reinforce Western Liberal values, not oppose them.'
Spot on, people that are not prepared to ditch their medieval baggage have no place in a liberal democracy.
Win, win, all round.
For a start we can't even define "host culture".
If you want to come here with your funny spicy food and invent and new national dish.. should "We" put that in a multiple choice test?
As a sideways point that idea would sell better in a culture where wealthy men could have multiple wives so a lot of men had no chance of a wife at all.
Why on earth didn't Blair and Campbell think of that?
"Virgins or Raisins?"
Who cares if they're raisins as long as they've got big tits.....
But there is a difference between being good citizens but not mixing much and being so apart that that very apartness is a problem and creates very real social problems. Part of the reason for that may be the culture. Jewish culture is clearly part of Western culture; indeed has contributed much to it, though I'm not knowledgeable about the ins and outs of Hasidic Judaism. I don't think the same can necessarily be said about rural Pakistani culture which is why the issue of integration - or lack of it - appears to be such an issue.
Are there - beyond a reserved keeping themselves to themselves approach - any particular social issues associated with the Hasidic community? Are they a source of crime? Or other problems?
You can't put people with a conflict of interest in positions as these.
You know your Party messed this one up.
It really is the worst of all possible political scenarios facing Britain, and it may well happen.
"Do you have a problem with them, Roger?"
Of course not. Extraordinarily I have close relatives who have ended up part of this community. I was just puzzled that Cyclefree wanted us to make them change and assimilate. In this he/she has zero chance.
An example from, say, South Yorkshire - where there have been a few failures over the years - would be helpful. Thanks.
I say we shouldn't. And if people come to live here from a culture that thinks that acceptable they need - when they come here - to realise that they can no longer think that acceptable and can no longer behave in such a way.
Toleration of the intolerable is not liberalism. It is a form of moral decadence and feebleness that is prepared to sacrifice the weak (usually women and children) in order to preen itself for its so-called liberalism.
http://www.gmc-uk.org/about/council/members.asp
Don;'t trouble labour posters with the inconvenient truth that most of these events happened under the old system.
This police commissioner ban thing must be the most gigantic and desperate look squirrels we have seen this year.
Having elected PCC's replace the old system doesn't make the elected PCC's any less of a failure than they are.
I work with a few Syrians and Iraqis. Decent people, and just the sort that ISIL would crucify for their political and social views.