Outside of their communities they are generally completely harmless. Though from the outside looking in they are from another country in another century. Their marriages are arranged. Girls and boys don't mix. The girls when married shave their heads and wear wigs to keep their heads covered. Education other than religious education stops at 16...... I have known many people of devout faith in my life but none are as insular
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, 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.
At least they can be chucked out next time. That is progress.
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.
Doesn't that rather depend on who has left Syria. Some may be people who have fled for their lives and will harm no-one. Others may be damaged individuals. And yet others may be ones who are dangerous. Some discrimination - in the best sense - may be needed. Socrates' point is that under EU rules that choice is removed.
Personally I'd have thought it more sensible for the Swedes to make an assessment of whom they are willing to give asylum to.
Britain has, after all, given asylum to a lot of highly unsavoury characters when it would have been better not to. Not everyone fleeing a war torn country is well-intentioned and that particularly applies to war-torn countries in the Middle East.
Shaun Wright resigns...from Labour but vows to continue as PCC for South Yorks - "protecting vulnerable people has been my No1 priority" @stevehawkes (Sun)
"has been" his priority; since leaving his job in Rotherham?
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.
snip
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 - have 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.
Extreme examples to make an argument about immigration?
Anyway don't be hysterical, we have laws for a reason, if someone does what you say then they are a criminal.
And it is about importing people and ideas and cultures and, aye, food. Immigrants enrich Britain, always have, always will.
''Will anyone arguing against elected policed commissioners care to point out how those in charge were more accountable under the previous system?''
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 squirrel we have seen this year.
For my part, in addition to never having voted Labour and wanting a Cameron government in 2010, I can assure you my opposition to the PCC system has nothing to do with these events at all. I must have missed the beginning of this debate, as I did not even realise that was being suggested.
Shaun Wright resigns...from Labour but vows to continue as PCC for South Yorks - "protecting vulnerable people has been my No1 priority" @stevehawkes (Sun)
"has been" his priority; since leaving his job in Rotherham?
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, 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.
At least they can be chucked out next time. That is progress.
If only they would be chucked out for their own failings, or retained for their successes, rather than what I suspect will happen, I would be far less opposed to the system, but I think I've stated my position on that enough for one night, so I shall say no more on the subject.
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)
LOL! He's about to become public enemy number one.
I assume this is exactly what Labour wants? Change the argument from what the hell happened across a variety of departments, most of them run by the Labour Party, to a row about one incompetent fool who refuse's to quit.
Outside of their communities they are generally completely harmless. Though from the outside looking in they are from another country in another century. Their marriages are arranged. Girls and boys don't mix. The girls when married shave their heads and wear wigs to keep their heads covered education other than religious education stops at 16...... I have known many people of devout faith in my life but none are as insular
If completely harmless why worry. They sound a bit like the Amish in the US.
. 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.
All the Tory supporters would have to do would be to vote tactically for the more successful right wing party, in that situation.
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)
LOL! He's about to become public enemy number one.
I assume this is exactly what Labour wants? Change the argument from what the hell happened across a variety of departments, most of them run by the Labour Party, to a row about one incompetent fool who refuse's to quit.
Alistair Campbell 101.
Classic bit in "the thick of it", where they manage to get Minister looks a tit when confronted by a lady whose mother is in care home to top of the news cycle and the real scandal is way down the running order.
If only they would be chucked out for their own failings, or retained for their successes, rather than what I suspect will happen, I would be far less opposed to the system, but I think I've stated my position on that enough for one night, so I shall say no more on the subject.
I think we should wait and see how it beds down. I'm optimistic, at least in the sense that I can't think of any better system. The previous arrangement was dire in the extreme.
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)
LOL! He's about to become public enemy number one.
I assume this is exactly what Labour wants? Change the argument from what the hell happened across a variety of departments, most of them run by the Labour Party, to a row about one incompetent fool who refuse's to quit.
Alistair Campbell 101.
Just another rotten apple. That barrel's filling up.
I guess he's free to chuck mud at his former party now, and there's little they can do about it.
Actually just looking at it now the 2012 Rotherham by election was quite bizarre.
Labour 9,966 Ukip 4,648 BNP 1,804 Respect 1,778 Conservative 1,157 English Dems 703 Simon Copley 582 Lib Dems 451
Turnout was a very low 33%.
It was a safe Labour seat so people though "why vote?", plus it was a by-election so not many knew there was an election, now though I'm not so sure it's so safe.
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)
LOL! He's about to become public enemy number one.
I assume this is exactly what Labour wants? Change the argument from what the hell happened across a variety of departments, most of them run by the Labour Party, to a row about one incompetent fool who refuse's to quit.
Alistair Campbell 101.
Heh.
Can't see many political implications of this all to be honest, which is why the not racist ranting on here has bored me a bit.
Might enthuse Kippers and get the Rightwing press all anti-immigrant hysterical for a while, trying to push the Tories ever right, hey ho, ho hum.
''Anyway don't be hysterical, we have laws for a reason, if someone does what you say then they are a criminal''.
Except under the agenda of political correctness that persons such as yourself seek to press at the expense of all else. That is what this whole issue is about - Anti-racists rendered the Pakistani muslim community inviolate.
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.
snip
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 - have 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.
Extreme examples to make an argument about immigration?
Anyway don't be hysterical, we have laws for a reason, if someone does what you say then they are a criminal.
And it is about importing people and ideas and cultures and, aye, food. Immigrants enrich Britain, always have, always will.
Obviously, Britain is enriched by the values and customs of rural Pakistan, Kashmir, Somalia, and Sudan.
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 advantage for Britain to do so?
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.
snip
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 - have 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.
Extreme examples to make an argument about immigration?
Anyway don't be hysterical, we have laws for a reason, if someone does what you say then they are a criminal.
And it is about importing people and ideas and cultures and, aye, food. Immigrants enrich Britain, always have, always will.
Only a man would dismiss raising the well established problems girls in these communities have with honour killings, forced marriages, denial of education and the rest as hysteria.
But you're missing the point. Why let people with such views into this country?
Why on earth do we have to and then go - oh well, if they do something ghastly we can just prosecute them?
What you are unwilling to accept is that not all immigration enriches Britain. That is why we need to make a choice about who we have, on what terms and in what numbers.
@Richard_Nabavi Isn't it a bit premature to be trying to work out what's going to happen in 2020 when we don't really have a clue what's going to happen in 2015?
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.
snip
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 - have 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.
Anyway don't be hysterical, we have laws for a reason, if someone does what you say then they are a criminal.
The same laws that no one bothered to apply when 12 year olds were abused in Rotherham?
All the Tory supporters would have to do would be to vote tactically for the more successful right wing party, in that situation.
Or all the UKIP supporters.
In practice neither group will do so.
Labour gets a majority in 2020 despite Miliband being universally regarded as worse even than Brown.
That is the future we are likely to face. It's around a 50% probability on current polling.
I really don't see how any sensible person younger than me can regard that prospect with equanimity, but if that's what you want...
The alternative to Miiliband is Cameron. That's like choosing between sticking your head in a bucket of acid, or sticking your head in a bucket of shit. The shit is better, certainly, but still not very appealing.
''Why on earth do we have to and then go - oh well, if they do something ghastly we can just prosecute them?''
It would be something if we did prosecute them. The whole point of this case is these people were immune from prosecution.
One reason they were not prosecuted is that people like Hugh did not want their decision to allow mass immigration from rural Pakistan to look like a gross error.
@Richard_Nabavi Isn't it a bit premature to be trying to work out what's going to happen in 2020 when we don't really have a clue what's going to happen in 2015?
Tonight's YouGov/Sun poll - Labour a one point lead.. Con 34%, Lab 35%, Lib Dems 7%, UKIP 14%
Who could really predict the outcome next May from that?
That's why I said a 50% probability.
However, I'm very confident of the secondary prediction, which is that, if (God forbid) we do get Ed Miliband in No 10, the resulting split on the Right pretty much guarantees a Labour majority in 2020 (or whenever the next election comes).
The alternative to Miiliband is Cameron. That's like choosing between sticking your head in a bucket of acid, or sticking your head in a bucket of shit. The shit is better, certainly, but still not very appealing.
I don't think you will think that in, say, 2018, if we do get a Labour-led government.
The idea that there is some kind of equivalence between the current, by historic standards extremely good, government, and Labour - let alone Labour under Ed Miliband - would be hilarious if it wasn't such a serious matter.
The alternative to Miiliband is Cameron. That's like choosing between sticking your head in a bucket of acid, or sticking your head in a bucket of shit. The shit is better, certainly, but still not very appealing.
I don't think you will think that in, say, 2018, if we do get a Labour-led government.
The idea that there is some kind of equivalence between the current, by historic standards extremely good, government, and Labour - let alone Labour under Ed Miliband - would be hilarious if it wasn't such a serious matter.
Aw, bless. You know, Ed Miliband is a smart cookie, he's going to make a good PM, certainly better than the current failure, don't panic.
All the Tory supporters would have to do would be to vote tactically for the more successful right wing party, in that situation.
Or all the UKIP supporters.
In practice neither group will do so.
Labour gets a majority in 2020 despite Miliband being universally regarded as worse even than Brown.
That is the future we are likely to face. It's around a 50% probability on current polling.
I really don't see how any sensible person younger than me can regard that prospect with equanimity, but if that's what you want...
The alternative to Miiliband is Cameron. That's like choosing between sticking your head in a bucket of acid, or sticking your head in a bucket of shit. The shit is better, certainly, but still not very appealing.
Depends on the pH of the acid, surely? I'd prefer orange juice to shit personally...
@Richard_Nabavi Isn't it a bit premature to be trying to work out what's going to happen in 2020 when we don't really have a clue what's going to happen in 2015?
Tonight's YouGov/Sun poll - Labour a one point lead.. Con 34%, Lab 35%, Lib Dems 7%, UKIP 14%
Who could really predict the outcome next May from that?
That's why I said a 50% probability.
However, I'm very confident of the secondary prediction, which is that, if (God forbid) we do get Ed Miliband in No 10, the resulting split on the Right pretty much guarantees a Labour majority in 2020 (or whenever the next election comes).
I don't know. It would depend how much of a mess Milliband makes and whether UKIP and Con can reach an accommodation...
@Richard_Nabavi Isn't it a bit premature to be trying to work out what's going to happen in 2020 when we don't really have a clue what's going to happen in 2015?
Tonight's YouGov/Sun poll - Labour a one point lead.. Con 34%, Lab 35%, Lib Dems 7%, UKIP 14%
Who could really predict the outcome next May from that?
That's why I said a 50% probability.
However, I'm very confident of the secondary prediction, which is that, if (God forbid) we do get Ed Miliband in No 10, the resulting split on the Right pretty much guarantees a Labour majority in 2020 (or whenever the next election comes).
But how the hell do you keep these nutters in check and get a centrist one-nation Tory Party back together? I hope you manage it, but it's a toughie.
I think they said the same about Wilson in 1974. "If you don't vote for Ted Heath we will have 100 years of PM Wilson" or some other exaggeration.
I don't remember that, but you do have to understand how utterly exceptional the Thatcher government was, and, more importantly, how fragile initially. It was by no means given that she would be a success - for the first couple of years it was a truth universally acknowledged that her government would collapse in ignominious failure having achieved nothing. We shouldn't rely on being rescued by some future General Galtieri.
The alternative to Miiliband is Cameron. That's like choosing between sticking your head in a bucket of acid, or sticking your head in a bucket of shit. The shit is better, certainly, but still not very appealing.
I don't think you will think that in, say, 2018, if we do get a Labour-led government.
The idea that there is some kind of equivalence between the current, by historic standards extremely good, government, and Labour - let alone Labour under Ed Miliband - would be hilarious if it wasn't such a serious matter.
Aw, bless. You know, Ed Miliband is a smart cookie, he's going to make a good PM, certainly better than the current failure, don't panic.
Too bad everybody hates him before he's even had a chance to get into power and upset anybody...
If Cameron had had Millibands appalling personal ratings in 2009 "Tim" would have been harping on about it morning, noon and night.
Perhaps you think Ed The Younger is going to be the first PM in history to become more popular in power than he was in Opposition?
I think they said the same about Wilson in 1974. "If you don't vote for Ted Heath we will have 100 years of PM Wilson" or some other exaggeration.
I don't remember that, but you do have to understand how utterly exceptional the Thatcher government was, and, more importantly, how fragile initially. It was by no means given that she would be a success - for the first couple of years it was a truth universally acknowledged that her government would collapse in ignominious failure having achieved nothing. We shouldn't rely on being rescued by some future General Galtieri.
That is why I believed since 2010 that this government wont have any future after 2015. War is no longer popular.
The alternative to Miiliband is Cameron. That's like choosing between sticking your head in a bucket of acid, or sticking your head in a bucket of shit. The shit is better, certainly, but still not very appealing.
I don't think you will think that in, say, 2018, if we do get a Labour-led government.
The idea that there is some kind of equivalence between the current, by historic standards extremely good, government, and Labour - let alone Labour under Ed Miliband - would be hilarious if it wasn't such a serious matter.
Aw, bless. You know, Ed Miliband is a smart cookie, he's going to make a good PM, certainly better than the current failure, don't panic.
Too bad everybody hates him before he's even had a chance to get into power and upset anybody...
If Cameron had had Millibands appalling personal ratings in 2009 "Tim" would have been harping on about it morning, noon and night.
Perhaps you think Ed The Younger is going to be the first PM in history to become more popular in power than he was in Opposition?
I'm sure he will become less popular still, after an initial improvement, after awhile, even if I doubt he will be as disastrous as some think. I also think with a workable majority as I suspect is likely, he will be able to last out a whole term fairly comfortably even with historically bad ratings.
The alternative to Miiliband is Cameron. That's like choosing between sticking your head in a bucket of acid, or sticking your head in a bucket of shit. The shit is better, certainly, but still not very appealing.
I don't think you will think that in, say, 2018, if we do get a Labour-led government.
The idea that there is some kind of equivalence between the current, by historic standards extremely good, government, and Labour - let alone Labour under Ed Miliband - would be hilarious if it wasn't such a serious matter.
I think the problem is that convincing people that this has been an extremely good government is something that will have to wait for historical analysis, if indeed you are correct. The left certainly don't believe it in the slightest, and much of the right clearly don't think it is the case either, so no matter how true it might or might not be, anyone who thinks the current government and a Miliband led Labour are equivalents and is wrong will indeed have to wait until 2018, or whenever, as no-one thinking that will be shifted from that position between now and 2015.
I see a certain midlands marginal Derby North Labour MP of having trouble in the general election for having been the only one to support Shaun Wright.
I'm sure he will become less popular still, after an initial improvement, after awhile, even if I doubt he will be as disastrous as some think. I also think with a workable majority as I suspect is likely, he will be able to last out a whole term fairly comfortably even with historically bad ratings.
The trick will be getting a majority. I can't see it personally...
If he get's in next year its a hung parliament/coalition scenario or more likely a miority and another go in the autumn or spring 2016.
The alternative to Miiliband is Cameron. That's like choosing between sticking your head in a bucket of acid, or sticking your head in a bucket of shit. The shit is better, certainly, but still not very appealing.
I don't think you will think that in, say, 2018, if we do get a Labour-led government.
The idea that there is some kind of equivalence between the current, by historic standards extremely good, government, and Labour - let alone Labour under Ed Miliband - would be hilarious if it wasn't such a serious matter.
Aw, bless. You know, Ed Miliband is a smart cookie, he's going to make a good PM, certainly better than the current failure, don't panic.
Miliband was brilliant over electricity charges; spooked the suppliers and prices haven't been reduced as the wholesale cost has fallen for fear of what he might do in office. What a genius.
Looking at tonight's yougov and the news I have a feeling we might see crossover over the Rotherham scandal.
LMAO. Noone is going to associate that with one party, any more than they associated the mid-Staffs scandal with Labour, despite the Tories' best efforts.
Looking at tonight's yougov and the news I have a feeling we might see crossover over the Rotherham scandal.
LMAO. Noone is going to associate that with one party, any more than they associated the mid-Staffs scandal with Labour, despite the Tories' best efforts.
Labour 1/6 to win Rotherham next year... Tempted??
"But how the hell do you keep these nutters in check and get a centrist one-nation Tory Party back together? I hope you manage it, but it's a toughie."
Hugh, you bring in a different voting system - preferably the Single Transferable Vote, but at least the Alternative Vote. Then right-wing voters can say what sort of right wing candidate they prefer, with the other being their fall-back position. Whichever order they put them in, their vote still counts.
Unfortunately the Conservative Party is short-sighted and living in the past, and thought at the time of the referendum that by keeping FPTP, voters could be dragooned into deciding between Labour and Conservative. But voters now have many more options.
The alternative to Miiliband is Cameron. That's like choosing between sticking your head in a bucket of acid, or sticking your head in a bucket of shit. The shit is better, certainly, but still not very appealing.
I don't think you will think that in, say, 2018, if we do get a Labour-led government.
The idea that there is some kind of equivalence between the current, by historic standards extremely good, government, and Labour - let alone Labour under Ed Miliband - would be hilarious if it wasn't such a serious matter.
I love how one minute you guys are claiming a Labour government would be forced to fully accept austerity and Tory economic policies like Hollande did, then the next minute they'll be disastrously worse than the Tories (for which, to make any sense would mean Labour would have to adopt radically different policies). Which is it?
Looking at tonight's yougov and the news I have a feeling we might see crossover over the Rotherham scandal.
LMAO. Noone is going to associate that with one party, any more than they associated the mid-Staffs scandal with Labour, despite the Tories' best efforts.
Labour 1/6 to win Rotherham next year... Tempted??
Well, in Rotherham specifically it might be a problem (though more because the Labour council there already had a reputation for incompetence, which this feeds into). But I was talking more nationally. Most people don't really reduce these things to some petty party-political thing. I mean it's like blaming the Tories for Jimmy Savile just because they were in power at the time.
Looking at tonight's yougov and the news I have a feeling we might see crossover over the Rotherham scandal.
LMAO. Noone is going to associate that with one party, any more than they associated the mid-Staffs scandal with Labour, despite the Tories' best efforts.
Labour 1/6 to win Rotherham next year... Tempted??
Well, in Rotherham specifically it might be a problem (though more because the Labour council there already had a reputation for incompetence, which this feeds into). But I was talking more nationally. Most people don't really reduce these things to some petty party-political thing. I mean it's like blaming the Tories for Jimmy Savile just because they were in power at the time.
The cases are hardly comparable anyway. In the case of Rotherham, many knew but chose to do nothing; in the case of Saville, it all came out many years later, after his death.
Looking at tonight's yougov and the news I have a feeling we might see crossover over the Rotherham scandal.
LMAO. Noone is going to associate that with one party, any more than they associated the mid-Staffs scandal with Labour, despite the Tories' best efforts.
Labour 1/6 to win Rotherham next year... Tempted??
I think that pretty good odds, Though I plan my constituency betting closer to the time.
Looking at tonight's yougov and the news I have a feeling we might see crossover over the Rotherham scandal.
LMAO. Noone is going to associate that with one party, any more than they associated the mid-Staffs scandal with Labour, despite the Tories' best efforts.
Depends. If it become about how PC led to scores of council child protection services around the country covering up similar numbers of victims as Rotherham then it might effect parties in proportion to how associated they are with PC.
RobD Indeed, Cameron is starting to look ridiculous rushing to action over Assad against the wishes of 90% of the population, but reluctant to do anything over ISIS despite having a majority of the public behind him
The party has probably decided that Shaun Wright will eventually be forced to relinquish his post as PCC and that if he goes quickly the party would probably be able to hold the seat in a by-election, but if it drags on for a while, with attendant bad publicity, they may lose the seat to UKIP. (Of course they may be over-optimistic and could lose the seat even if he resigns immediately).
RobD Indeed, Cameron is starting to look ridiculous rushing to action over Assad against the wishes of 90% of the population, but reluctant to do anything over ISIS despite having a majority of the public behind him
Am entirely wrong in thinking that much of middle east policy is driven by not upsetting/maintaining our arms sales to the Saudis?
Let’s start with a riddle. If South Yorkshire Police can mount a raid on Sir Cliff Richard’s home in pursuit of evidence linked to a single allegation of child sex abuse 30 years ago, why were South Yorkshire Police incapable of pursuing multiple allegations against multiple men who raped 1,400 children over 16 years?
Utterly insane that it is the same police force which one the one hand didn't do enough about these 1,400 case, and on the other organised a police raid over 30 year-old allegations which was effectively publicised on the BBC. Bonkers.
'LMAO. Noone is going to associate that with one party, any more than they associated the mid-Staffs scandal with Labour, despite the Tories' best efforts.'
Now that Edinburgh panda Tian Tian is pregnant again.... And not wishing to add any extra pressure..... Can I just say that the Scottish Tories now have a clear target of one hold and three gains that must achieved at the next GE if they want to stop being the butt of this now infamous Scottish joke.
drspyn Perhaps the Panda is a closet Scottish Tory and ensure that it is not too difficult for them to win more MPs next year than Pandas in Edinburgh zoo
RobD Indeed, Cameron is starting to look ridiculous rushing to action over Assad against the wishes of 90% of the population, but reluctant to do anything over ISIS despite having a majority of the public behind him
TBF the decision isn't just about whether the voters want Something to be done, it's also whether there's a practical Something that actually can be done. This has to include the risk Something will end up making things worse.
Not to mention that it's a US decision not a UK one.
RobD Indeed, Cameron is starting to look ridiculous rushing to action over Assad against the wishes of 90% of the population, but reluctant to do anything over ISIS despite having a majority of the public behind him
Rubbish. The west hardly rushed towards intervention and the vote last year - some had been calling for action against Assad as far back as 2012, warning of just such escalation as we have seen. And your viewpoint essentially makes it policy to ignore the use of chemical weapons. Is that really what you want?
And what to do about ISIS/L is another question. What would you propose? What actions would meaningfully dent ISIS, help the local populations, not p*ss off surrounding countries, and not further radicalise and deepen the conflict?
It's not easy to know what we can do. The IS is now an idea that is well and truly out of the bag, and it would be easy for the IS forces to convert back to the insurgent role many of them undertook during the conflict with US forces in Iraq.
We missed our best opportunity. Thanks, Mr Milliband ...
RobD Indeed, Cameron is starting to look ridiculous rushing to action over Assad against the wishes of 90% of the population, but reluctant to do anything over ISIS despite having a majority of the public behind him
We missed our best opportunity. Thanks, Mr Milliband ...
Quite. I think the "Something must be done!" Brigade should think back to a year ago - Miliband's "clever" stunt has had consequences far beyond the short term tactical needs of keeping the PLP united.....
David Cameron will deliver a clear message to the leader of the Scottish independence campaign Alex Salmond today, warning there will not be a currency union under any circumstances if Scots vote Yes in the 18 September referendum.
Er! Who brought in Police Commissioners, the rules that they are elected, appointed and retained by, in the face of near total arguments against and apathy from the electorate?
Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?
Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?
The one that will take on the baby boomers (like me - free Uni education, first member of my family to go (from a Comprehensive to Oxford) plus final salary pension - I have been hugely lucky) - good luck with that!
Let’s start with a riddle. If South Yorkshire Police can mount a raid on Sir Cliff Richard’s home in pursuit of evidence linked to a single allegation of child sex abuse 30 years ago, why were South Yorkshire Police incapable of pursuing multiple allegations against multiple men who raped 1,400 children over 16 years?
Utterly insane that it is the same police force which one the one hand didn't do enough about these 1,400 case, and on the other organised a police raid over 30 year-old allegations which was effectively publicised on the BBC. Bonkers.
Er! Who brought in Police Commissioners, the rules that they are elected, appointed and retained by, in the face of near total arguments against and apathy from the electorate?
Presume they are the same or or similar rules that governs MPs?
Listening to the news this morning, a common theme was 1400 cases of abuse and only 5 arrests - why?
Shaun Wright has resigned from Labour but refuses to give up his PCC post - so who will commission an investigation into the S. Yorkshire police - Mrs May?
Let’s start with a riddle. If South Yorkshire Police can mount a raid on Sir Cliff Richard’s home in pursuit of evidence linked to a single allegation of child sex abuse 30 years ago, why were South Yorkshire Police incapable of pursuing multiple allegations against multiple men who raped 1,400 children over 16 years?
Utterly insane that it is the same police force which one the one hand didn't do enough about these 1,400 case, and on the other organised a police raid over 30 year-old allegations which was effectively publicised on the BBC. Bonkers.
I made exactly the same point here yesterday.
So your 'solution' to the problem is for allegations against another individual to be ignored?
Let’s start with a riddle. If South Yorkshire Police can mount a raid on Sir Cliff Richard’s home in pursuit of evidence linked to a single allegation of child sex abuse 30 years ago, why were South Yorkshire Police incapable of pursuing multiple allegations against multiple men who raped 1,400 children over 16 years?
Utterly insane that it is the same police force which one the one hand didn't do enough about these 1,400 case, and on the other organised a police raid over 30 year-old allegations which was effectively publicised on the BBC. Bonkers.
I made exactly the same point here yesterday.
Sorry! I try to catch up but often miss posts due to the time zone.
Let’s start with a riddle. If South Yorkshire Police can mount a raid on Sir Cliff Richard’s home in pursuit of evidence linked to a single allegation of child sex abuse 30 years ago, why were South Yorkshire Police incapable of pursuing multiple allegations against multiple men who raped 1,400 children over 16 years?
Utterly insane that it is the same police force which one the one hand didn't do enough about these 1,400 case, and on the other organised a police raid over 30 year-old allegations which was effectively publicised on the BBC. Bonkers.
I made exactly the same point here yesterday.
If South Yorkshire police are consistent, it will be another 30 years before they 'rush' to investigate the multiple underage rapes and sexual abuses in Rotherham.
Let’s start with a riddle. If South Yorkshire Police can mount a raid on Sir Cliff Richard’s home in pursuit of evidence linked to a single allegation of child sex abuse 30 years ago, why were South Yorkshire Police incapable of pursuing multiple allegations against multiple men who raped 1,400 children over 16 years?
Utterly insane that it is the same police force which one the one hand didn't do enough about these 1,400 case, and on the other organised a police raid over 30 year-old allegations which was effectively publicised on the BBC. Bonkers.
I made exactly the same point here yesterday.
So your 'solution' to the problem is for allegations against another individual to be ignored?
Bonkers.
No, I suspect the solution is to sack those responsible for spectacular mis-allocation of resources....
Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?
It is partially linked to declining state education standards and also the decline (removal of) grammar schools which provided a lot of social mobility.
Today, employers require not only a high standard of education and knowledge, but deep thinkers as well as aspirational people who are confident of presenting themselves and their employer before clients of all types. Often state education does not nurture all these qualities.
Let’s start with a riddle. If South Yorkshire Police can mount a raid on Sir Cliff Richard’s home in pursuit of evidence linked to a single allegation of child sex abuse 30 years ago, why were South Yorkshire Police incapable of pursuing multiple allegations against multiple men who raped 1,400 children over 16 years?
Utterly insane that it is the same police force which one the one hand didn't do enough about these 1,400 case, and on the other organised a police raid over 30 year-old allegations which was effectively publicised on the BBC. Bonkers.
I made exactly the same point here yesterday.
So your 'solution' to the problem is for allegations against another individual to be ignored?
Bonkers.
I imagine the preferred solution would be to have the BBC flying helicopters over the Rotherham gang's properties as they are being arrested.
"Who brought in Police Commissioners, the rules that they are elected, appointed and retained by, in the face of near total arguments against and apathy from the electorate?"
Who chose Shaun Write as a prospective candidate (despite most of the facts about his incompetence being in the public domain), and who voted him in?
Democracy depends on honourable & honest people putting their names forward for public positions.
Democracy depends on the electorate making a real attempt to fill the positions with the best candidate, having examined their qualifications.
At local elections, we should always vote for the candidate, not the political party. At this level, party political labels are meaningless, and it is far better to have a good councillor or police commissioner than a red or blue councillor or police commissioner.
What was reassuring about the elections for Police Commissioners in Wales is that two of the four regions did vote for an Independent with good qualifications.
Let’s start with a riddle. If South Yorkshire Police can mount a raid on Sir Cliff Richard’s home in pursuit of evidence linked to a single allegation of child sex abuse 30 years ago, why were South Yorkshire Police incapable of pursuing multiple allegations against multiple men who raped 1,400 children over 16 years?
Utterly insane that it is the same police force which one the one hand didn't do enough about these 1,400 case, and on the other organised a police raid over 30 year-old allegations which was effectively publicised on the BBC. Bonkers.
I made exactly the same point here yesterday.
So your 'solution' to the problem is for allegations against another individual to be ignored?
Bonkers.
I imagine the preferred solution would be to have the BBC flying helicopters over the Rotherham gang's properties as they are being arrested.
That's a different issue. Many people on here seem to think that the length of time since the alleged crime and fame of the alleged perpetrator are reasons not to investigate the allegations. In addition, some have made assumptions about the nature of the actual crime in order to minimise it.
Worse is the assumption is that he is being investigated over a 'single allegation', as you do above. That may or may not be true, or, like the Harris, Clifford et al, an initial investigation may lead to further allegations.
Whoever leaked information on the arrest to the BBC was wrong, as was the deal between SYP and the BBC to televise the search. That does not mean that the SYP are wrong to investigate the allegations against Cliff Richard.
Personally I hope Cliff Richard is innocent. But the allegations need investigating.
Interesting article in the Times today underlining the fact that social mobility is going backwards in the UK. As someone who believes that talented people in this country are denied the chance to fulfill their potential due to "the system", which political party should I support?
It is partially linked to declining state education standards and also the decline (removal of) grammar schools which provided a lot of social mobility.
Today, employers require not only a high standard of education and knowledge, but deep thinkers as well as aspirational people who are confident of presenting themselves and their employer before clients of all types. Often state education does not nurture all these qualities.
dugarbandier Hope not, but even the Saudis are increasingly concerned about ISIS,
Josias Cameron was pushing action for Assad hard and was swiftly voted down by Parliament, Assad may not be perfect but he is the lesser evil against ISIS and no reason the UK could not join air strikes
Comments
Outside of their communities they are generally completely harmless. Though from the outside looking in they are from another country in another century. Their marriages are arranged. Girls and boys don't mix. The girls when married shave their heads and wear wigs to keep their heads covered. Education other than religious education stops at 16...... I have known many people of devout faith in my life but none are as insular
Personally I'd have thought it more sensible for the Swedes to make an assessment of whom they are willing to give asylum to.
Britain has, after all, given asylum to a lot of highly unsavoury characters when it would have been better not to. Not everyone fleeing a war torn country is well-intentioned and that particularly applies to war-torn countries in the Middle East.
Anyway don't be hysterical, we have laws for a reason, if someone does what you say then they are a criminal.
And it is about importing people and ideas and cultures and, aye, food. Immigrants enrich Britain, always have, always will.
So a bit of a failure all things considered
I assume this is exactly what Labour wants? Change the argument from what the hell happened across a variety of departments, most of them run by the Labour Party, to a row about one incompetent fool who refuse's to quit.
Alistair Campbell 101.
Glad to see you back, Roger!
Staying on as PCC.
Labour 9,966
Ukip 4,648
BNP 1,804
Respect 1,778
Conservative 1,157
English Dems 703
Simon Copley 582
Lib Dems 451
Turnout was a very low 33%.
I guess he's free to chuck mud at his former party now, and there's little they can do about it.
Can't see many political implications of this all to be honest, which is why the not racist ranting on here has bored me a bit.
Might enthuse Kippers and get the Rightwing press all anti-immigrant hysterical for a while, trying to push the Tories ever right, hey ho, ho hum.
Except under the agenda of political correctness that persons such as yourself seek to press at the expense of all else. That is what this whole issue is about - Anti-racists rendered the Pakistani muslim community inviolate.
They have interesting food.
In practice neither group will do so.
Labour gets a majority in 2020 despite Miliband being universally regarded as worse even than Brown.
That is the future we are quite likely to face. It's around a 50% probability on current polling.
I really don't see how any sensible person younger than me can regard that prospect with equanimity, but if that's what you want...
But you're missing the point. Why let people with such views into this country?
Why on earth do we have to and then go - oh well, if they do something ghastly we can just prosecute them?
What you are unwilling to accept is that not all immigration enriches Britain. That is why we need to make a choice about who we have, on what terms and in what numbers.
Today's YouGov: Who could really predict the outcome next May from that?
It would be something if we did prosecute them. The whole point of this case is these people were immune from prosecution.
One reason they were not prosecuted is that people like Hugh did not want their decision to allow mass immigration from rural Pakistan to look like a gross error.
"If you don't vote for Ted Heath we will have 100 years of PM Wilson" or some other exaggeration.
However, I'm very confident of the secondary prediction, which is that, if (God forbid) we do get Ed Miliband in No 10, the resulting split on the Right pretty much guarantees a Labour majority in 2020 (or whenever the next election comes).
The idea that there is some kind of equivalence between the current, by historic standards extremely good, government, and Labour - let alone Labour under Ed Miliband - would be hilarious if it wasn't such a serious matter.
If Cameron had had Millibands appalling personal ratings in 2009 "Tim" would have been harping on about it morning, noon and night.
Perhaps you think Ed The Younger is going to be the first PM in history to become more popular in power than he was in Opposition?
War is no longer popular.
How can there be value in the former?
If he get's in next year its a hung parliament/coalition scenario or more likely a miority and another go in the autumn or spring 2016.
I repeat, how does this represent value?
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-08-27/labour-mp-to-refer-shaun-wright-for-police-probe/
Hugh, you bring in a different voting system - preferably the Single Transferable Vote, but at least the Alternative Vote. Then right-wing voters can say what sort of right wing candidate they prefer, with the other being their fall-back position. Whichever order they put them in, their vote still counts.
Unfortunately the Conservative Party is short-sighted and living in the past, and thought at the time of the referendum that by keeping FPTP, voters could be dragooned into deciding between Labour and Conservative. But voters now have many more options.
Has the penny started to drop yet? Probably not.
Depends. If it become about how PC led to scores of council child protection services around the country covering up similar numbers of victims as Rotherham then it might effect parties in proportion to how associated they are with PC.
The party has probably decided that Shaun Wright will eventually be forced to relinquish his post as PCC and that if he goes quickly the party would probably be able to hold the seat in a by-election, but if it drags on for a while, with attendant bad publicity, they may lose the seat to UKIP. (Of course they may be over-optimistic and could lose the seat even if he resigns immediately).
A good choice.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11059138/Rotherham-In-the-face-of-such-evil-who-is-the-racist-now.html
Let’s start with a riddle. If South Yorkshire Police can mount a raid on Sir Cliff Richard’s home in pursuit of evidence linked to a single allegation of child sex abuse 30 years ago, why were South Yorkshire Police incapable of pursuing multiple allegations against multiple men who raped 1,400 children over 16 years?
Utterly insane that it is the same police force which one the one hand didn't do enough about these 1,400 case, and on the other organised a police raid over 30 year-old allegations which was effectively publicised on the BBC. Bonkers.
'LMAO. Noone is going to associate that with one party, any more than they associated the mid-Staffs scandal with Labour, despite the Tories' best efforts.'
Good luck with that wishful thinking.
Not to mention that it's a US decision not a UK one.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/28/cameron-referendum-speech-cbi-scotland
so better vote yes for a greater chance of staying in the EU....?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11059308/Gordon-Brown-warns-Labour-voters-independence-will-only-help-rich.html
(surely should be "Domesday"?
And what to do about ISIS/L is another question. What would you propose? What actions would meaningfully dent ISIS, help the local populations, not p*ss off surrounding countries, and not further radicalise and deepen the conflict?
It's not easy to know what we can do. The IS is now an idea that is well and truly out of the bag, and it would be easy for the IS forces to convert back to the insurgent role many of them undertook during the conflict with US forces in Iraq.
We missed our best opportunity. Thanks, Mr Milliband ...
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/08/is-education-policy-driving-scotland-and-england-apart/
David Cameron will deliver a clear message to the leader of the Scottish independence campaign Alex Salmond today, warning there will not be a currency union under any circumstances if Scots vote Yes in the 18 September referendum.
http://www.cityam.com/1409188409/cameron-scots-cannot-pilfer-pound
Who would make best Prime Minister (vs Aug 12/13)
Cameron: 36 (+2)
Miliband: 19 (-1)
Listening to the news this morning, a common theme was 1400 cases of abuse and only 5 arrests - why?
Shaun Wright has resigned from Labour but refuses to give up his PCC post - so who will commission an investigation into the S. Yorkshire police - Mrs May?
Bonkers.
New thread BTW.
Today, employers require not only a high standard of education and knowledge, but deep thinkers as well as aspirational people who are confident of presenting themselves and their employer before clients of all types. Often state education does not nurture all these qualities.
Who chose Shaun Write as a prospective candidate (despite most of the facts about his incompetence being in the public domain), and who voted him in?
Democracy depends on honourable & honest people putting their names forward for public positions.
Democracy depends on the electorate making a real attempt to fill the positions with the best candidate, having examined their qualifications.
At local elections, we should always vote for the candidate, not the political party. At this level, party political labels are meaningless, and it is far better to have a good councillor or police commissioner than a red or blue councillor or police commissioner.
What was reassuring about the elections for Police Commissioners in Wales is that two of the four regions did vote for an Independent with good qualifications.
Worse is the assumption is that he is being investigated over a 'single allegation', as you do above. That may or may not be true, or, like the Harris, Clifford et al, an initial investigation may lead to further allegations.
Whoever leaked information on the arrest to the BBC was wrong, as was the deal between SYP and the BBC to televise the search. That does not mean that the SYP are wrong to investigate the allegations against Cliff Richard.
Personally I hope Cliff Richard is innocent. But the allegations need investigating.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-28952647
As ever, the devil will be in the details. But technical universities seem an obvious route forwards.
Josias Cameron was pushing action for Assad hard and was swiftly voted down by Parliament, Assad may not be perfect but he is the lesser evil against ISIS and no reason the UK could not join air strikes