I think we have more than enough polling data now to be honest, any movement now is only going to be ~1-2% and quite frankly that can't really be detected.
Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?
He probably had an eye on the type of person or organisation who would try to use acts like that to stir up hatred and animosity towards innocent groups of people in the UK.
I agree. However this ostrich liberal attitude is only making things worse as it is a silly thing to say and the facts on the face of it don't seem to bear it out, so it justs alientates even more the EDL types and makes them more sure that the mainsteam politicians dont care about them and lie to them, plus it makes it easier for them to prosleytse.
Bugger all to do with ‘liberal attitudes’ - There are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet; ISIS and it’s various off shoots represent a tiny fraction of that number while the vast majority are living quite peacefully. – Some will obviously be disappointed that an entire religious group have not been labelled as they would wish, but that doesn't change the facts.
Why cant we just acknowledge that the people are doing these awful things are muslims, but that doesn't mean that all muslims, or many at all, support them in the slightest?
People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt, people who have it in for muslims aren't going to take any notice of him anyway, so there is no need to lie. Cameron's statement is like a parent telling his kids to keep believing in Father Christmas
One man’s so called ‘lie’ is another man’s ‘political expediency’ - what you say on a blog site affects very little in the great scheme of things, what a PM says, does effect other people's lives.
“People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt”
Really? - How quickly you forget the attacks on pediatricians..
I have forgotten them, so much so that I don't know what you are talking about!
About as likely as a mass outbreak of Nessiteras rhombopteryx*. We'll be too busy waiting on the Coalition and their promises. Given the known violence (death threats, assaults, etc., some already convicted in the courts), shouldn't you rationally worry more about an outbreak of No-affiliated violence after a Yes?
But frankly the levels have been so trivial (see Iain Macwhirter last Sunday) that I would be surprised if there was any violence not accountable by any footie match going on at the time. I was impressed at how quietly the Orange Order march went , to their credit and their opponents as well.
*Scott and Rines's name for the thing in Loch Ness, just in case you don't know.
I think unionists would be more interested in getting out than getting into fights. And the ones that stay will be your problem not ours.
There are Yes supporters, who post on Internet forums, who appear to believe that Scotland has been under English rule for over 700 years. They believe themselves to be akin to slaves. I'm pretty sure that this ignorance of history isn't confined to the web. Many of these people do hate the English and will be extremely angry if their dream of FREEDOM!! is dashed this week. If they do revert to tartan-monsterism it'll be happening in our country and the possibility concerns me.
At least you're not as blinkered as Malc, he believes I was delusional even thinking I saw the William Wallace chanting yesterday, but I'm surprised you're so blasé about the potential for civil unrest. Guess we'll just have to hope for YES!!! and FREEDOM!!!
To be fair to Malky, the Wallace chant was so unusual that I was sceptical too and I'd have said just the same as him if I hadn't known about it.
I must admit it's very hard to judge the issue, but Mr Darling and the No Campaign have played it so far above reasonable that they're the ones who are largely driving it at the moment - as I said in my other posting, the polis - and their union - have had to have words with them.
Again I ask: where are the documented reports in the media?
Carnyx , it si mostly bollocks , I see neither JJ or SEAN have noted the beating up of an 80 year old man , bottling of a 13 year old girl or various other physical assualts by NO supporters , yet seem outraged that someone should shout "William Wallace". A pair of thick fannies.
I think we have more than enough polling data now to be honest, any movement now is only going to be ~1-2% and quite frankly that can't really be detected.
In among all of this gnashing of teeth about the Sweden Democrats, in Germany the march of the populist right has continued, AfD won over 10% of the vote in two key local elections. They did it on a platform of local issues, anti EU, reduction in unskilled immigration, and most controversial, introduction of a referendum to build new mosques. The latter policy is one I think UKIP could use to great effect in the north.
Merkel's increasingly looking in trouble from the AfD. They're holding the rightwing balance of power in several states and she refuses to do a deal with them the numbers meaning her only realistic option is the SPD who not surpiringly demand their pound of flesh. How long her core voters put up with this will be interesting to watch.
The CDU are going to run into the same problem as the Tories over here, they haven't had a serious challenge on their right flank before and they are completely unable to deal with it. Unsurprisingly CDU leadership has gone down the same route as Tory leadership and scorned people who want to vote for AfD or have legitimate concerns about the way the EU is heading, the Euro or immigration from the developing side of Europe/Asia. This is not working and AfD are making key gains across the country. The CDU need to come to terms with this, and open up a dialogue for 2017, AfD could do very, very well and a centre-right/right coalition could be on the cards, CDU supporters may not be able to stomach a grand coalition with the SPD when a right wing coalition is available. They escaped that outcome by 0.3% this time but next time it is on the cards, there is no way that AfD won't win 10-12% in the next federal election.
Worse still, AfD isn't going to be contained like the FDP were, if the CDU keep denying them they will continue to grow just as UKIP has done here. I could see AfD outpolling The Left, the Greens and the FDP in 2017.
It should also be noted that there is a "shy AfD voter" syndrome in German polling right now. They outscored the polls by 3 points in Saxony and Thuringia and 4 points in Brandenburg.
Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'? He seems firmly in the grip of the PC mindset that enabled Rotherham to me.
He is just a waffler who utters whatever he hears is flavour of the day. I think he is just simply useless.
I'm reminded of the calls for "peace" by the Soviet Union. They always neglected to say "on our terms, we won't attack you if you surrender".
Carnyx, I think it is very telling that all the comments re Scottish/English on the referendum have all been emanating from England. Very few people ever mention it up here in respect to the referendum.
Do you think there's any link between anti-Englishness and the repeated chanting of "William Wallace" by a large group of Yessers?
There is not and has not been any anti-english sentiment during the referendum campaign, you are putting too much faith in the Daily Mail I think. Plus I have no idea what you are talking about re above , certainly did not register in Scotland, perhaps you were watching Braveheart and got confused between fact and fiction.
Yesterday outside the BBC Alba building, at least 3 times. Unless the BBC Bias protestors were Unionists in disguise?
Probably dastardly unionist infiltrators,
One of them declared he would be opening a Palestinian embassy in Edinburgh on the 19th. I'm guessing that's not SNP policy?
I have no idea whatsoever but I would have no issue with anyone opening one if they wanted to, they have as much right to as any other country.
Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?
He probably had an eye on the type of person or organisation who would try to use acts like that to stir up hatred and animosity towards innocent groups of people in the UK.
I agree. However this ostrich liberal attitude is only making things worse as it is a silly thing to say and the facts on the face of it don't seem to bear it out, so it justs alientates even more the EDL types and makes them more sure that the mainsteam politicians dont care about them and lie to them, plus it makes it easier for them to prosleytse.
Bugger all to do with ‘liberal attitudes’ - There are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet; ISIS and it’s various off shoots represent a tiny fraction of that number while the vast majority are living quite peacefully. – Some will obviously be disappointed that an entire religious group have not been labelled as they would wish, but that doesn't change the facts.
Why cant we just acknowledge that the people are doing these awful things are muslims, but that doesn't mean that all muslims, or many at all, support them in the slightest?
People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt, people who have it in for muslims aren't going to take any notice of him anyway, so there is no need to lie. Cameron's statement is like a parent telling his kids to keep believing in Father Christmas
One man’s so called ‘lie’ is another man’s ‘political expediency’ - what you say on a blog site affects very little in the great scheme of things, what a PM says, does effect other people's lives.
“People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt”
Really? - How quickly you forget the attacks on pediatricians..
I have forgotten them, so much so that I don't know what you are talking about!
The media whipped up a frenzy about paedos a few years ago.
Unfortunately they didn't hand out dictionaries, so paediatricians' offices were trashed and some were forced out, as thick people couldn't people tell the difference between paedophiles and paediatricians.
I think unionists would be more interested in getting out than getting into fights. And the ones that stay will be your problem not ours.
There are Yes supporters, who post on Internet forums, who appear to believe that Scotland has been under English rule for over 700 years. They believe themselves to be akin to slaves. I'm pretty sure that this ignorance of history isn't confined to the web. Many of these people do hate the English and will be extremely angry if their dream of FREEDOM!! is dashed this week. If they do revert to tartan-monsterism it'll be happening in our country and the possibility concerns me.
At least you're not as blinkered as Malc, he believes I was delusional even thinking I saw the William Wallace chanting yesterday, but I'm surprised you're so blasé about the potential for civil unrest. Guess we'll just have to hope for YES!!! and FREEDOM!!!
Far from blinkered , merely said I had heard nothing of it. There are nutters everywhere, luckily they are usually a small minority. I don't see shouting "William Wallace " as very menacing , he did not end well did he. You boys down there are big softies.
There is not and has not been any anti-english sentiment during the referendum campaign, you are putting too much faith in the Daily Mail I think. Plus I have no idea what you are talking about re above , certainly did not register in Scotland, perhaps you were watching Braveheart and got confused between fact and fiction.
"Merely said I had heard nothing of it" hmmmm...
Do people know when they're blinkered?
Do people posting selectively for one side know they are mendacious
Mr. Eagles, You can believe what you choose to but the murders and maimings in Northern Ireland were never about Christianity. Politcs, yes; power, yes; money, yes, but how to, or whether to, worship God, no.
It was about religion. And there is religious bigotry still - not least in Scotland. You ncould try to say it is tribalism I suppose but I don't see much difference.
It was actually about successful divide and rule by the British. In the previous revolt in 1798, both Catholics and non Conformist protestants were subject to the same institutionalised discrimination and rose up against the Church of Ireland establishment. The leader of the United Irishman rebellion, regarded as the father of Republicanism was a nonconformist Protestant Theodore Wolf Tone.
The British deliberately formented sectarianism to put down the rebellion as Wikipedia explains: "The British establishment recognised sectarianism as a divisive tool to employ against the Protestant United Irishmen in Ulster and the divide and conquer method of colonial dominion was officially encouraged by the Government. Brigadier-General C.E. Knox wrote to General Lake (who was responsible for Ulster): "I have arranged... to increase the animosity between the Orangemen and the United Irishmen, or liberty men as they call themselves. Upon that animosity depends the safety of the centre counties of the North
This only broke down with the rise of nonconformist Prostestant Irish Nationalism under Paisley and the eventual realisation that the prostestant nationalists had more in common with the catholic nationalists and vice versa than either had with the British establishment (represented by the UUP).
If you look back far enough in history, the stunning conversion of Paisley & McGuinness to the "Chuckle brothers" is not so surprising.
So when you say "immigration-reducing", you mean[1] "net inward migration of around 80k per year" with an additional rider of "at least 90% degree-educated". That would give a UK population in 2035 of around 67-68 million.
I don't know if it will be achieved (or even attempted!) but it is quantitative and that's what I was asking. So thank you, that's very helpful
[1] Since exact targets are impossible to hit each year, I assume you'd be happy with a target of "net inward migration of between 50 and 100K per year, with an average of around 80K", (with the graduate rider you mentioned).
Right. In terms of quantity, I'd like to get to 1990s levels, which were sensible.
In terms of skill level, I'm happy to have a conversation about how it's defined. If someone is a very high earner (£60k+) then that is enough to make up for not having a degree because they likely have other valuable skills. If they earn below that, then I think people should have a degree from something like the top 400 universities in the world.
I'd also probably put a requirement on that if you come from a country with a history of widespread extremism, you need to have an interview on your political views to make sure you don't have signs of fundamentalism or intolerance. I know this is controversial, but given where we are with hundreds of Britons in Syria, I think tough action is needed.
So "net inward migration of between 50 and 100K per year, with an average of around 80K", with a "fitness to entry" test revolving around qualifications/earnings/extremism.
Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'? He seems firmly in the grip of the PC mindset that enabled Rotherham to me.
He is just a waffler who utters whatever he hears is flavour of the day. I think he is just simply useless.
Carnyx , it si mostly bollocks , I see neither JJ or SEAN have noted the beating up of an 80 year old man , bottling of a 13 year old girl or various other physical assualts by NO supporters , yet seem outraged that someone should shout "William Wallace". A pair of thick fannies.
Where's my outrage? I laughed at your denial of any anti-English sentiment, which is so obvious if you'd even try looking for it.
I'd also like, for the record, to laugh at those Scots for whom William Wallace is a national hero whose name is worth chanting. I'm not sure which of mine I'd like to chant.. "BOUDICCA!! BOUDICCA!!" Maybe? Or how about "ROBIN HOOD!! ROBIN HOOD!!"? Perhaps the more relevant "LONGSHANKS!! LONGSHANKS!!"
Well, the Guardian may have completely missed the story about the industrial scale gang rape of young girls by Pakistani grooming gangs, and may have alleged the Times of being racist for investigating it, but they're right there in reporting the EDL arrests during a protest about it:
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.
Errr, no they weren't. Well not unless you count several hundred years ago as quite recently.
I think unionists would be more interested in getting out than getting into fights. And the ones that stay will be your problem not ours.
There are Yes supporters, who post on Internet forums, who appear to believe that Scotland has been under English rule for over 700 years. They believe themselves to be akin to slaves. I'm pretty sure that this ignorance of history isn't confined to the web. Many of these people do hate the English and will be extremely angry if their dream of FREEDOM!! is dashed this week. If they do revert to tartan-monsterism it'll be happening in our country and the possibility concerns me.
At least you're not as blinkered as Malc, he believes I was delusional even thinking I saw the William Wallace chanting yesterday, but I'm surprised you're so blasé about the potential for civil unrest. Guess we'll just have to hope for YES!!! and FREEDOM!!!
Far from blinkered , merely said I had heard nothing of it. There are nutters everywhere, luckily they are usually a small minority. I don't see shouting "William Wallace " as very menacing , he did not end well did he. You boys down there are big softies.
There is not and has not been any anti-english sentiment during the referendum campaign, you are putting too much faith in the Daily Mail I think. Plus I have no idea what you are talking about re above , certainly did not register in Scotland, perhaps you were watching Braveheart and got confused between fact and fiction.
"Merely said I had heard nothing of it" hmmmm...
Do people know when they're blinkered?
Do people posting selectively for one side know they are mendacious
I don't know Malc, do you know whether you're mendacious?
Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?
He probably had an eye on the type of person or organisation who would try to use acts like that to stir up hatred and animosity towards innocent groups of people in the UK.
I agree. However this ostrich liberal attitude is only making things worse as it is a silly thing to say and the facts on the face of it don't seem to bear it out, so it justs alientates even more the EDL types and makes them more sure that the mainsteam politicians dont care about them and lie to them, plus it makes it easier for them to prosleytse.
Bugger all to do with ‘liberal attitudes’ - There are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet; ISIS and it’s various off shoots represent a tiny fraction of that number while the vast majority are living quite peacefully. – Some will obviously be disappointed that an entire religious group have not been labelled as they would wish, but that doesn't change the facts.
Why cant we just acknowledge that the people are doing these awful things are muslims, but that doesn't mean that all muslims, or many at all, support them in the slightest?
People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt, people who have it in for muslims aren't going to take any notice of him anyway, so there is no need to lie. Cameron's statement is like a parent telling his kids to keep believing in Father Christmas
One man’s so called ‘lie’ is another man’s ‘political expediency’ - what you say on a blog site affects very little in the great scheme of things, what a PM says, does effect other people's lives.
“People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt”
Really? - How quickly you forget the attacks on pediatricians..
I have forgotten them, so much so that I don't know what you are talking about!
The media whipped up a frenzy about paedos a few years ago.
Unfortunately they didn't hand out dictionaries, so paediatricians' offices were trashed and some were forced out, as thick people couldn't people tell the difference between paedophiles and paediatricians.
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.
Errr, no they weren't. Well not unless you count several hundred years ago as quite recently.
Well that's what the IRA said, said they were standing up for the persecuted Catholics.
Mr. Eagles, You can believe what you choose to but the murders and maimings in Northern Ireland were never about Christianity. Politcs, yes; power, yes; money, yes, but how to, or whether to, worship God, no.
Although he did say "in the name of Christianity" rather than saying that Christianity was the motivating force
Mr. Eagles, You can believe what you choose to but the murders and maimings in Northern Ireland were never about Christianity. Politcs, yes; power, yes; money, yes, but how to, or whether to, worship God, no.
It was about religion. And there is religious bigotry still - not least in Scotland. You ncould try to say it is tribalism I suppose but I don't see much difference.
Most of the ones involved would not know the inside of a church if they saw it, far from religious , just bigotry.
About as likely as a mass outbreak of Nessiteras rhombopteryx*. We'll be too busy waiting on the Coalition and their promises. Given the known violence (death threats, assaults, etc., some already convicted in the courts), shouldn't you rationally worry more about an outbreak of No-affiliated violence after a Yes?
But frankly the levels have been so trivial (see Iain Macwhirter last Sunday) that I would be surprised if there was any violence not accountable by any footie match going on at the time. I was impressed at how quietly the Orange Order march went , to their credit and their opponents as well.
*Scott and Rines's name for the thing in Loch Ness, just in case you don't know.
I think unionists would be more interested in getting out than getting into fights. And the ones that stay will be your problem not ours.
There are Yes supporters, who post on Internet forums, who appear to believe that Scotland has been under English rule for over 700 years. They believe themselves to be akin to slaves. I'm pretty sure that this ignorance of history isn't confined to the web. Many of these people do hate the English and will be extremely angry if their dream of FREEDOM!! is dashed this week. If they do revert to tartan-monsterism it'll be happening in our country and the possibility concerns me.
At least you're not as blinkered as Malc, he believes I was delusional even thinking I saw the William Wallace chanting yesterday, but I'm surprised you're so blasé about the potential for civil unrest. Guess we'll just have to hope for YES!!! and FREEDOM!!!
Far from blinkered , merely said I had heard nothing of it. There are nutters everywhere, luckily they are usually a small minority. I don't see shouting "William Wallace " as very menacing , he did not end well did he. You boys down there are big softies.
Why then does Yes have a problem with women and the new young voters,according to many polls?
It is surely not that controversial to say that Islam seems to attract a far greater number of people willing to use their religion as a justification for their urge to kill indiscriminately than any other religion. That was not always the case, but it is now.
With regard to Rotherham, though, I don't think it is religion per se that is the problem - it is the culture that has grown up around the religion - both in Pakistan and here. In the 80s I lived in Balsall Heath/Sparkbrook in Birmingham, which was then as it is now, almost entirely populated by people of Pakistani origin and a few students. They kept themselves to themselves, but there was no tension and certainly no attempts to impose views on us, or restrict our activities in any way. There were no burkas on view, no sense of any kind of radical agenda. Something happened at some stage that changed things. I don't know what it was. But it is different now, there is no doubt about it.
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.
Errr, no they weren't. Well not unless you count several hundred years ago as quite recently.
Err... Northern Ireland much?
You obviously missed my post in which I answered that point.
I think we have more than enough polling data now to be honest, any movement now is only going to be ~1-2% and quite frankly that can't really be detected.
It's truly pathetic that we have to wait until Wednesday for any IndyPolls.
This is the most important electoral decision for about 300 years.
Say you are driving from A to B. As you approach B it occurs to you that there may be speed cameras in Bshire. Do you
a. Check your speedometer b. Say to yourself: I have checked the speedometer several times since leaving A. I think I have more than enough speeding data, since the change since the last check is likely to be of the order of 1-2%?
It is surely not that controversial to say that Islam seems to attract a far greater number of people willing to use their religion as a justification for their urge to kill indiscriminately than any other religion. That was not always the case, but it is now.
@Isam - Maybe I am giving the public to much credit
As TSE has pointed out - Several years ago when the media whipped up a storm about paedophiles hiding behind every bush, there were stories of paediatricians being abused by confused idiots who didn’t know the difference.
That was the point I was attempting to make - Yes, the vast majority of people are decent, and would understand, however some, are vengeful nutters who would take matters into their own hands..
Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?
He probably had an eye on the type of person or organisation who would try to use acts like that to stir up hatred and animosity towards innocent groups of people in the UK.
I agree. However this ostrich liberal attitude is only making things worse as it is a silly thing to say and the facts on the face of it don't seem to bear it out, so it justs alientates even more the EDL types and makes them more sure that the mainsteam politicians dont care about them and lie to them, plus it makes it easier for them to prosleytse.
Bugger all to do with ‘liberal attitudes’ - There are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet; ISIS and it’s various off shoots represent a tiny fraction of that number while the vast majority are living quite peacefully. – Some will obviously be disappointed that an entire religious group have not been labelled as they would wish, but that doesn't change the facts.
Why cant we just acknowledge that the people are doing these awful things are muslims, but that doesn't mean that all muslims, or many at all, support them in the slightest?
People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt, people who have it in for muslims aren't going to take any notice of him anyway, so there is no need to lie. Cameron's statement is like a parent telling his kids to keep believing in Father Christmas
One man’s so called ‘lie’ is another man’s ‘political expediency’ - what you say on a blog site affects very little in the great scheme of things, what a PM says, does effect other people's lives.
“People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt”
Really? - How quickly you forget the attacks on pediatricians..
I have forgotten them, so much so that I don't know what you are talking about!
Some of the better educated members of our society (in part whipped up by a Rebekkah Brooks campaign at the NotW) muddled up paediatricans and paedophiles*.
There were attacks on paediatricans in Portsmouth and (@taffys mentioned a while back) either Swansea or Cardiff.
@Isam - Maybe I am giving the public to much credit
As TSE has pointed out - Several years ago when the media whipped up a storm about paedophiles hiding behind every bush, there were stories of paediatricians being abused by confused idiots who didn’t know the difference.
That was the point I was attempting to make - Yes, the vast majority of people are decent, and would understand, however some, are vengeful nutters who would take matters into their own hands..
Well there's a lot of Pakistani Muslim paediatricians in this country, including my Father, it is a recipe for disaster.
Carnyx , it si mostly bollocks , I see neither JJ or SEAN have noted the beating up of an 80 year old man , bottling of a 13 year old girl or various other physical assualts by NO supporters , yet seem outraged that someone should shout "William Wallace". A pair of thick fannies.
Where's my outrage? I laughed at your denial of any anti-English sentiment, which is so obvious if you'd even try looking for it.
I'd also like, for the record, to laugh at those Scots for whom William Wallace is a national hero whose name is worth chanting. I'm not sure which of mine I'd like to chant.. "BOUDICCA!! BOUDICCA!!" Maybe? Or how about "ROBIN HOOD!! ROBIN HOOD!!"? Perhaps the more relevant "LONGSHANKS!! LONGSHANKS!!"
So you are such a sad git that you have no English heroes
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.
Errr, no they weren't. Well not unless you count several hundred years ago as quite recently.
Well that's what the IRA said, said they were standing up for the persecuted Catholics.
Mr. Eagles, You can believe what you choose to but the murders and maimings in Northern Ireland were never about Christianity. Politcs, yes; power, yes; money, yes, but how to, or whether to, worship God, no.
Although he did say "in the name of Christianity" rather than saying that Christianity was the motivating force
Important point
TSE said "in the name of Christianity" in response to my "in the name of Allah"
My original point, in answering Bond, James Bond, was that it was the weight of numbers of immigrants, and the segregation from other parts of society, that has created the mess we are in. I never inferred any charcteristic to any race or religion
The point that gets missed is that IT DOESNT MATTER, whether they are genuine, pretend, insincere etc versions of whatever group they say they belong to, the fact that the group is so big is what enables the isolation and feeling of being disenfranchised to grow, which leads to a community that are sympathetic, which leads to a cover up when the bad deeds to take place, inevitably "in the name of... xxx"
I personally couldn't care less whether these people were strict adherents of, or basing their crimes on a bastardisation of, whatever religion they claim to represent. It doesn't matter
It is surely not that controversial to say that Islam seems to attract a far greater number of people willing to use their religion as a justification for their urge to kill indiscriminately than any other religion. That was not always the case, but it is now.
With regard to Rotherham, though, I don't think it is religion per se that is the problem - it is the culture that has grown up around the religion - both in Pakistan and here. In the 80s I lived in Balsall Heath/Sparkbrook in Birmingham, which was then as it is now, almost entirely populated by people of Pakistani origin and a few students. They kept themselves to themselves, but there was no tension and certainly no attempts to impose views on us, or restrict our activities in any way. There were no burkas on view, no sense of any kind of radical agenda. Something happened at some stage that changed things. I don't know what it was. But it is different now, there is no doubt about it.
It might be something else again. That the problem is actually a few criminal gangs (sorry, "local businessmen") who, as well as procurement of under-age girls also run protection rackets, smuggling and so on.
It was actually about successful divide and rule by the British. In the previous revolt in 1798, both Catholics and non Conformist protestants were subject to the same institutionalised discrimination and rose up against the Church of Ireland establishment. The leader of the United Irishman rebellion, regarded as the father of Republicanism was a nonconformist Protestant Theodore Wolf Tone.
The British deliberately formented sectarianism to put down the rebellion as Wikipedia explains: ...
This only broke down with the rise of nonconformist Prostestant Irish Nationalism under Paisley and the eventual realisation that the prostestant nationalists had more in common with the catholic nationalists and vice versa than either had with the British establishment (represented by the UUP).
If you look back far enough in history, the stunning conversion of Paisley & McGuinness to the "Chuckle brothers" is not so surprising.
It was actually about successful divide and rule by the British. In the previous revolt in 1798, both Catholics and non Conformist protestants were subject to the same institutionalised discrimination and rose up against the Church of Ireland establishment. The leader of the United Irishman rebellion, regarded as the father of Republicanism was a nonconformist Protestant Theodore Wolf Tone.
The British deliberately formented sectarianism to put down the rebellion as Wikipedia explains: ...
This only broke down with the rise of nonconformist Prostestant Irish Nationalism under Paisley and the eventual realisation that the prostestant nationalists had more in common with the catholic nationalists and vice versa than either had with the British establishment (represented by the UUP).
If you look back far enough in history, the stunning conversion of Paisley & McGuinness to the "Chuckle brothers" is not so surprising.
Oh go and get a history lesson.
I was hoping you werent around to read (and be upset by!) that.
"Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?"
Because any generalization suggesting anything else would have made him sound like a bigot which isn't good for anyone let alone a Prime Minister.
Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?
He probably had an eye on the type of person or organisation who would try to use acts like that to stir up hatred and animosity towards innocent groups of people in the UK.
I agree. However this ostrich liberal attitude is only making things worse as it is a silly thing to say and the facts on the face of it don't seem to bear it out, so it justs alientates even more the EDL types and makes them more sure that the mainsteam politicians dont care about them and lie to them, plus it makes it easier for them to prosleytse.
Bugger all to do with ‘liberal attitudes’ - There are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet; ISIS and it’s various off shoots represent a tiny fraction of that number while the vast majority are living quite peacefully. – Some will obviously be disappointed that an entire religious group have not been labelled as they would wish, but that doesn't change the facts.
Why cant we just acknowledge that the people are doing these awful things are muslims, but that doesn't mean that all muslims, or many at all, support them in the slightest?
People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt, people who have it in for muslims aren't going to take any notice of him anyway, so there is no need to lie. Cameron's statement is like a parent telling his kids to keep believing in Father Christmas
One man’s so called ‘lie’ is another man’s ‘political expediency’ - what you say on a blog site affects very little in the great scheme of things, what a PM says, does effect other people's lives.
“People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt”
Really? - How quickly you forget the attacks on pediatricians..
I have forgotten them, so much so that I don't know what you are talking about!
Some of the better educated members of our society (in part whipped up by a Rebekkah Brooks campaign at the NotW) muddled up paediatricans and paedophiles*.
There were attacks on paediatricans in Portsmouth and (@taffys mentioned a while back) either Swansea or Cardiff.
* Of course NotW did not.
You should get Viz this month.. a funny send up of the hypocrisy of NotW
Carnyx , it si mostly bollocks , I see neither JJ or SEAN have noted the beating up of an 80 year old man , bottling of a 13 year old girl or various other physical assualts by NO supporters , yet seem outraged that someone should shout "William Wallace". A pair of thick fannies.
Where's my outrage? I laughed at your denial of any anti-English sentiment, which is so obvious if you'd even try looking for it.
I'd also like, for the record, to laugh at those Scots for whom William Wallace is a national hero whose name is worth chanting. I'm not sure which of mine I'd like to chant.. "BOUDICCA!! BOUDICCA!!" Maybe? Or how about "ROBIN HOOD!! ROBIN HOOD!!"? Perhaps the more relevant "LONGSHANKS!! LONGSHANKS!!"
So you are such a sad git that you have no English heroes
I have English heroes. I just don't try invoke their spirit by chanting their name!
And the ones I chose were ones that seem to me the closest to William Wallace for the English.
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.
Errr, no they weren't. Well not unless you count several hundred years ago as quite recently.
Err... Northern Ireland much?
You obviously missed my post in which I answered that point.
Carnyx , it si mostly bollocks , I see neither JJ or SEAN have noted the beating up of an 80 year old man , bottling of a 13 year old girl or various other physical assualts by NO supporters , yet seem outraged that someone should shout "William Wallace". A pair of thick fannies.
Where's my outrage? I laughed at your denial of any anti-English sentiment, which is so obvious if you'd even try looking for it.
I'd also like, for the record, to laugh at those Scots for whom William Wallace is a national hero whose name is worth chanting. I'm not sure which of mine I'd like to chant.. "BOUDICCA!! BOUDICCA!!" Maybe? Or how about "ROBIN HOOD!! ROBIN HOOD!!"? Perhaps the more relevant "LONGSHANKS!! LONGSHANKS!!"
So you are such a sad git that you have no English heroes
I'm sure you know that William Wallace means William the Welshman. St Patrick was also Welsh. So the heroes of your original country and adopted nation were both Welsh.
Carnyx , it si mostly bollocks , I see neither JJ or SEAN have noted the beating up of an 80 year old man , bottling of a 13 year old girl or various other physical assualts by NO supporters , yet seem outraged that someone should shout "William Wallace". A pair of thick fannies.
Where's my outrage? I laughed at your denial of any anti-English sentiment, which is so obvious if you'd even try looking for it.
I'd also like, for the record, to laugh at those Scots for whom William Wallace is a national hero whose name is worth chanting. I'm not sure which of mine I'd like to chant.. "BOUDICCA!! BOUDICCA!!" Maybe? Or how about "ROBIN HOOD!! ROBIN HOOD!!"? Perhaps the more relevant "LONGSHANKS!! LONGSHANKS!!"
So you are such a sad git that you have no English heroes
I have English heroes. I just don't try invoke their spirit by chanting their name!
And the ones I chose were ones that seem to me the closest to William Wallace for the English.
It is surely not that controversial to say that Islam seems to attract a far greater number of people willing to use their religion as a justification for their urge to kill indiscriminately than any other religion. That was not always the case, but it is now.
With regard to Rotherham, though, I don't think it is religion per se that is the problem - it is the culture that has grown up around the religion - both in Pakistan and here. In the 80s I lived in Balsall Heath/Sparkbrook in Birmingham, which was then as it is now, almost entirely populated by people of Pakistani origin and a few students. They kept themselves to themselves, but there was no tension and certainly no attempts to impose views on us, or restrict our activities in any way. There were no burkas on view, no sense of any kind of radical agenda. Something happened at some stage that changed things. I don't know what it was. But it is different now, there is no doubt about it.
It might be something else again. That the problem is actually a few criminal gangs (sorry, "local businessmen") who, as well as procurement of under-age girls also run protection rackets, smuggling and so on.
For 1400 victims to be raped, it was more than just a few. And this was in a town of a community of just 4000 Pakistani males. While not all Pakistani males are guilty, the criminality must have been endemic. And it has been repeated again and again in other towns without a direct connection, suggesting culture certainly plays a role.
And then there was the culture whereby Pakistani girls that got raped couldn't tell anyone because the culture would dishonour the family more than being a rapist would. One brave victim that publicly came forward was ostracised by the community.
Even if we look at Southam's positive group comparison, they are still people who keep to themselves and don't integrate outside their group. I found this myself at university. A bunch of people from all over the country were thrown in two corridors together. We all got on and socialised together: guys, girls, northerners, southerners, rural people, city people, whites, blacks, Chinese. The one guy that didn't? A Pakistani Muslim. He was a nice, polite bloke, but he still saw us as "not his kind".
Can someone tell me the best estimate for the proportion voting by post? The on the poll day could be very close but postal votes could swing it for the No,s. If we assume 20% of votes are cast by post,and that because older voters are more likely to vote this way and that being cast earlier would have a higher no lead then a 55;45 no result lead is probable.Assume a 50;50 split on polling day then the final result will be 51;49 no /yes. Put another way for yes to win would require a 52;48 yes /no split on polling day..
Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.
.
But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?
At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.
My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever
Unspoofable...
If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too
Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?
Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.
Errr, no they weren't. Well not unless you count several hundred years ago as quite recently.
Err... Northern Ireland much?
You obviously missed my post in which I answered that point.
I read from the bottom upwards.
How was the ice cream?
Herself is going to get the ice cream this evening. I bought the Toblerone this morning. I expect stunning results but will not be posting after-match commentary.
Carnyx , it si mostly bollocks , I see neither JJ or SEAN have noted the beating up of an 80 year old man , bottling of a 13 year old girl or various other physical assualts by NO supporters , yet seem outraged that someone should shout "William Wallace". A pair of thick fannies.
Where's my outrage? I laughed at your denial of any anti-English sentiment, which is so obvious if you'd even try looking for it.
I'd also like, for the record, to laugh at those Scots for whom William Wallace is a national hero whose name is worth chanting. I'm not sure which of mine I'd like to chant.. "BOUDICCA!! BOUDICCA!!" Maybe? Or how about "ROBIN HOOD!! ROBIN HOOD!!"? Perhaps the more relevant "LONGSHANKS!! LONGSHANKS!!"
So you are such a sad git that you have no English heroes
I have English heroes. I just don't try invoke their spirit by chanting their name!
And the ones I chose were ones that seem to me the closest to William Wallace for the English.
It is surely not that controversial to say that Islam seems to attract a far greater number of people willing to use their religion as a justification for their urge to kill indiscriminately than any other religion. That was not always the case, but it is now.
With regard to Rotherham, though, I don't think it is religion per se that is the problem - it is the culture that has grown up around the religion - both in Pakistan and here. In the 80s I lived in Balsall Heath/Sparkbrook in Birmingham, which was then as it is now, almost entirely populated by people of Pakistani origin and a few students. They kept themselves to themselves, but there was no tension and certainly no attempts to impose views on us, or restrict our activities in any way. There were no burkas on view, no sense of any kind of radical agenda. Something happened at some stage that changed things. I don't know what it was. But it is different now, there is no doubt about it.
It might be something else again. That the problem is actually a few criminal gangs (sorry, "local businessmen") who, as well as procurement of under-age girls also run protection rackets, smuggling and so on.
For 1400 victims to be raped, it was more than just a few. And this was in a town of a community of just 4000 Pakistani males. While not all Pakistani males are guilty, the criminality must have been endemic. And it has been repeated again and again in other towns without a direct connection, suggesting culture certainly plays a role.
And then there was the culture whereby Pakistani girls that got raped couldn't tell anyone because the culture would dishonour the family more than being a rapist would. One brave victim that publicly came forward was ostracised by the community.
Even if we look at Southam's positive group comparison, they are still people who keep to themselves and don't integrate outside their group. I found this myself at university. A bunch of people from all over the country were thrown in two corridors together. We all got on and socialised together: guys, girls, northerners, southerners, rural people, city people, whites, blacks, Chinese. The one guy that didn't? A Pakistani Muslim. He was a nice, polite bloke, but he still saw us as "not his kind".
Iffy statistics. The 1400 is over 10+ years, the 4000 is - I imagine - at any given time. Let's not make things look worse than they are.
Carnyx , it si mostly bollocks , I see neither JJ or SEAN have noted the beating up of an 80 year old man , bottling of a 13 year old girl or various other physical assualts by NO supporters , yet seem outraged that someone should shout "William Wallace". A pair of thick fannies.
Where's my outrage? I laughed at your denial of any anti-English sentiment, which is so obvious if you'd even try looking for it.
I'd also like, for the record, to laugh at those Scots for whom William Wallace is a national hero whose name is worth chanting. I'm not sure which of mine I'd like to chant.. "BOUDICCA!! BOUDICCA!!" Maybe? Or how about "ROBIN HOOD!! ROBIN HOOD!!"? Perhaps the more relevant "LONGSHANKS!! LONGSHANKS!!"
So you are such a sad git that you have no English heroes
I have English heroes. I just don't try invoke their spirit by chanting their name!
And the ones I chose were ones that seem to me the closest to William Wallace for the English.
Have you ever chanted his name?
Martin Peters.
An English hero, or a name you've chanted? And if you have chanted it, presumably it was at a football match? I doubt anyone will chant it 700 years after his death!
It is surely not that controversial to say that Islam seems to attract a far greater number of people willing to use their religion as a justification for their urge to kill indiscriminately than any other religion. That was not always the case, but it is now.
With regard to Rotherham, though, I don't think it is religion per se that is the problem - it is the culture that has grown up around the religion - both in Pakistan and here. In the 80s I lived in Balsall Heath/Sparkbrook in Birmingham, which was then as it is now, almost entirely populated by people of Pakistani origin and a few students. They kept themselves to themselves, but there was no tension and certainly no attempts to impose views on us, or restrict our activities in any way. There were no burkas on view, no sense of any kind of radical agenda. Something happened at some stage that changed things. I don't know what it was. But it is different now, there is no doubt about it.
Have a look at the anti-muslim prejudice and its effects.I was a roused by islamaphobia in my locality when I heard some muslem woman had some dogs attack them on the instruction of their local fascist owners so I went down to one of my local mosques to learn more.I know Mrs Volcano would never accept only 50% of my money.I was asked to join a knitting club and gratefully declined,then I found these people,Tell Mama,who are discovering the extent through their work.I recommend you take a look.
Carnyx, I think it is very telling that all the comments re Scottish/English on the referendum have all been emanating from England. Very few people ever mention it up here in respect to the referendum.
Do you think there's any link between anti-Englishness and the repeated chanting of "William Wallace" by a large group of Yessers?
There is not and has not been any anti-english sentiment during the referendum campaign, you are putting too much faith in the Daily Mail I think. Plus I have no idea what you are talking about re above , certainly did not register in Scotland, perhaps you were watching Braveheart and got confused between fact and fiction.
Yesterday outside the BBC Alba building, at least 3 times. Unless the BBC Bias protestors were Unionists in disguise?
Can someone tell me the best estimate for the proportion voting by post? The on the poll day could be very close but postal votes could swing it for the No,s. If we assume 20% of votes are cast by post,and that because older voters are more likely to vote this way and that being cast earlier would have a higher no lead then a 55;45 no result lead is probable.Assume a 50;50 split on polling day then the final result will be 51;49 no /yes. Put another way for yes to win would require a 52;48 yes /no split on polling day..
Depends how tightly the campaigns have connected registration with applying for a postal vote. Will be obvious if areas of high late registration correlate with large bumps in % of postal voting.
TSE said "in the name of Christianity" in response to my "in the name of Allah"
My original point, in answering Bond, James Bond, was that it was the weight of numbers of immigrants, and the segregation from other parts of society, that has created the mess we are in. I never inferred any charcteristic to any race or religion
The point that gets missed is that IT DOESNT MATTER, whether they are genuine, pretend, insincere etc versions of whatever group they say they belong to, the fact that the group is so big is what enables the isolation and feeling of being disenfranchised to grow, which leads to a community that are sympathetic, which leads to a cover up when the bad deeds to take place, inevitably "in the name of... xxx"
I personally couldn't care less whether these people were strict adherents of, or basing their crimes on a bastardisation of, whatever religion they claim to represent. It doesn't matter
I don't think that size matters.
For instance, the Hassidic Jews or the Ashkenazi tend to stick to themselves and marry within their groups. But they don't go around trying to destroy the rest of society.
Cameron's point in that they are "monsters not Muslims" is trying to get to the heart of the problem. It's not their faith that is encouraging them to do this: it is something that has gone very wrong in a specific sub-culture, together with the authorities in the UK turning a blind eye for fear of causing "community issues"/discounting the testimony of the victims.
You get monsters everywhere but, for whatever reason, there appears to have been a disproportionate number in this place and at this time.
re: distinguishing them from "Muslims": simply put there are a lot of people who are not as bright as you and would potentially go and attack innocent Muslims and/or people with brown skins if they thought they had the nod from the PM.
It is surely not that controversial to say that Islam seems to attract a far greater number of people willing to use their religion as a justification for their urge to kill indiscriminately than any other religion. That was not always the case, but it is now.
With regard to Rotherham, though, I don't think it is religion per se that is the problem - it is the culture that has grown up around the religion - both in Pakistan and here. In the 80s I lived in Balsall Heath/Sparkbrook in Birmingham, which was then as it is now, almost entirely populated by people of Pakistani origin and a few students. They kept themselves to themselves, but there was no tension and certainly no attempts to impose views on us, or restrict our activities in any way. There were no burkas on view, no sense of any kind of radical agenda. Something happened at some stage that changed things. I don't know what it was. But it is different now, there is no doubt about it.
Have a look at the anti-muslim prejudice and its effects.I was a roused by islamaphobia in my locality when I heard some muslem woman had some dogs attack them on the instruction of their local fascist owners so I went down to one of my local mosques to learn more.I know Mrs Volcano would never accept only 50% of my money.I was asked to join a knitting club and gratefully declined,then I found these people,Tell Mama,who are discovering the extent through their work.I recommend you take a look.
Violent attacks on people because of their race or religion are awful, awful things that we must clamp down on. But I don't see how it's particularly relevant to the culture of child grooming and cover-up that we have seen in certain demographics across dozens of towns.
"Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?"
Because any generalization suggesting anything else would have made him sound like a bigot which isn't good for anyone let alone a Prime Minister.
Then eventually we, the people, will replace well-meaning bumblers like him with politicians who are prepared to speak the truth. In quite unpleasant tones.
This is the danger the Left is ignoring, indeed - the Left is making it worse. The longer you suppress the truth and evade the obvious, the more likely the voters will go Far Right as against Hard Right.
FFS look at Sweden and France, Holland and Denmark. Almost everywhere in Europe.
Please tell me you have read the speech "The Road to National Suicide". It expands on exactly what you are saying
"The experience of the last decade and more, all round the world, shows that acts of violence, however apparently irrational or inappropriate their targets, precipitate a frenzied search on the part of the society attacked to discover and remedy more and more grievances, real or imaginary, among those from the violence is supposed to emanate or on whose behalf it is supposed to be exercised. Those commanding a position of political leverage would then be superhuman if they could refrain from pointing to the acts of terrorism and, while condemning them, declaring that further and faster concessions and grants of privilege are the only means to avoid such acts being repeated on a rising scale. We know that those who thus argue will always find a ready hearing. This is what produces the gearing effect of terrorism in the contemporary world, yielding huge results from acts of violence perpetrated by minimal numbers. It is not, I repeat again and again, that the mass of a particular population are violently or criminally disposed. Far from it; that population soon becomes itself the prisoner of the violence and machinations of an infinitely small minority among it. Just a few thugs, a few shots, a few bombs at the right place and time—and that is enough for disproportionate consequences to follow."
Given that I don't expect any Nats to admit any anti-English sentiment among their movement, I'll leave it with this. There is still a strong Braveheart/antiEnglish tendency among Yes supporters (it doesn't take long to find if you'll only look Malc), which basically means that Blind Harry is leading those Scots to FREEDOM!!!, and that amuses me greatly.
"For Mr Miliband, the findings are mixed. Labour is ahead on three of the top five issues, including an 18-point lead on health. But its lead on education has narrowed to three points since last autumn. And despite a long-running campaign against the so-called bedroom tax, Labour’s lead on benefits has fallen to a single point."
Can someone tell me the best estimate for the proportion voting by post? The on the poll day could be very close but postal votes could swing it for the No,s. If we assume 20% of votes are cast by post,and that because older voters are more likely to vote this way and that being cast earlier would have a higher no lead then a 55;45 no result lead is probable.Assume a 50;50 split on polling day then the final result will be 51;49 no /yes. Put another way for yes to win would require a 52;48 yes /no split on polling day..
But so what? Are we ever going to know the figures for postal versus in person voting, and does it matter? Every postal vote for No is a vote that won't be cast on polling day, unless things have gone badly wrong - a fact which exactly cancels out the perceived bias against Yes to which you refer.
TSE said "in the name of Christianity" in response to my "in the name of Allah"
My original point, in answering Bond, James Bond, was that it was the weight of numbers of immigrants, and the segregation from other parts of society, that has created the mess we are in. I never inferred any charcteristic to any race or religion
The point that gets missed is that IT DOESNT MATTER, whether they are genuine, pretend, insincere etc versions of whatever group they say they belong to, the fact that the group is so big is what enables the isolation and feeling of being disenfranchised to grow, which leads to a community that are sympathetic, which leads to a cover up when the bad deeds to take place, inevitably "in the name of... xxx"
I personally couldn't care less whether these people were strict adherents of, or basing their crimes on a bastardisation of, whatever religion they claim to represent. It doesn't matter
I don't think that size matters.
For instance, the Hassidic Jews or the Ashkenazi tend to stick to themselves and marry within their groups. But they don't go around trying to destroy the rest of society.
Cameron's point in that they are "monsters not Muslims" is trying to get to the heart of the problem. It's not their faith that is encouraging them to do this: it is something that has gone very wrong in a specific sub-culture, together with the authorities in the UK turning a blind eye for fear of causing "community issues"/discounting the testimony of the victims.
You get monsters everywhere but, for whatever reason, there appears to have been a disproportionate number in this place and at this time.
re: distinguishing them from "Muslims": simply put there are a lot of people who are not as bright as you and would potentially go and attack innocent Muslims and/or people with brown skins if they thought they had the nod from the PM.
"For instance, the Hassidic Jews or the Ashkenazi tend to stick to themselves and marry within their groups. But they don't go around trying to destroy the rest of society"
The point is though, that there aren't enough of the people you mention to be able to do anything if they wanted to... a small minority of them, the size of the small minority it is of muslims that have done damage recently, is so tiny as to be insignificant
Am surprised that the William Wallace chanters haven't sung the praises of Douglas Haig, who was responsible for more English deaths than any other Scottish General.
Mr. Eagles, You can believe what you choose to but the murders and maimings in Northern Ireland were never about Christianity. Politcs, yes; power, yes; money, yes, but how to, or whether to, worship God, no.
It was about religion. And there is religious bigotry still - not least in Scotland. You ncould try to say it is tribalism I suppose but I don't see much difference.
Most of the ones involved would not know the inside of a church if they saw it, far from religious , just bigotry.
About as likely as a mass outbreak of Nessiteras rhombopteryx*. We'll be too busy waiting on the Coalition and their promises. Given the known violence (death threats, assaults, etc., some already convicted in the courts), shouldn't you rationally worry more about an outbreak of No-affiliated violence after a Yes?
But frankly the levels have been so trivial (see Iain Macwhirter last Sunday) that I would be surprised if there was any violence not accountable by any footie match going on at the time. I was impressed at how quietly the Orange Order march went , to their credit and their opponents as well.
*Scott and Rines's name for the thing in Loch Ness, just in case you don't know.
I think unionists would be more interested in getting out than getting into fights. And the ones that stay will be your problem not ours.
At least you're not as blinkered as Malc, he believes I was delusional even thinking I saw the William Wallace chanting yesterday, but I'm surprised you're so blasé about the potential for civil unrest. Guess we'll just have to hope for YES!!! and FREEDOM!!!
Far from blinkered , merely said I had heard nothing of it. There are nutters everywhere, luckily they are usually a small minority. I don't see shouting "William Wallace " as very menacing , he did not end well did he. You boys down there are big softies.
Why then does Yes have a problem with women and the new young voters,according to many polls?
those numbers have changed recently , I do not believe they have issues with either. Like everything else according to these polls it is all very subjective, flaky , etc.
Mr. Eagles, You can believe what you choose to but the murders and maimings in Northern Ireland were never about Christianity. Politcs, yes; power, yes; money, yes, but how to, or whether to, worship God, no.
It was about religion. And there is religious bigotry still - not least in Scotland. You ncould try to say it is tribalism I suppose but I don't see much difference.
Oh there is a big element of that.. YES want to keep segregated schools..
"Scotland’s state-run Catholic schools would be given constitutional protection in the event of independence, an SNP Government minister has suggested.
Roseanna Cunningham (above), minister for legal affairs and community safety, made the announcement in a recent statement.
“A yes vote means that Scotland will have a written constitution and that means everyone can be assured that the constitution in place on Independence Day will uphold the rights and liberties of all, including freedom of religion and the protection of Catholic education,” Ms Cunningham said."
It might be something else again. That the problem is actually a few criminal gangs (sorry, "local businessmen") who, as well as procurement of under-age girls also run protection rackets, smuggling and so on.
For 1400 victims to be raped, it was more than just a few. And this was in a town of a community of just 4000 Pakistani males. While not all Pakistani males are guilty, the criminality must have been endemic. And it has been repeated again and again in other towns without a direct connection, suggesting culture certainly plays a role.
And then there was the culture whereby Pakistani girls that got raped couldn't tell anyone because the culture would dishonour the family more than being a rapist would. One brave victim that publicly came forward was ostracised by the community.
Even if we look at Southam's positive group comparison, they are still people who keep to themselves and don't integrate outside their group. I found this myself at university. A bunch of people from all over the country were thrown in two corridors together. We all got on and socialised together: guys, girls, northerners, southerners, rural people, city people, whites, blacks, Chinese. The one guy that didn't? A Pakistani Muslim. He was a nice, polite bloke, but he still saw us as "not his kind".
Iffy statistics. The 1400 is over 10+ years, the 4000 is - I imagine - at any given time. Let's not make things look worse than they are.
The vast majority of that 4000 people will have been living there throughout that time. One victim gave a list to the police of 250 names who had allegedly raped her. If we assume, of the 4000 Pakistani men, a quarter were between 18 and 30, that's a quarter of the population. Yes, of course these are back of the envelope calculations, but even if it's 30% out or so because of these quibbles the point stands: it wasn't a tiny fraction. This stuff was widespread. And then there's the wider group that knew it was going on but didn't say anything, etc.
We've got to stop this defensive mindset of saying "well we don't have absolute precise facts so let's not draw conclusions." The situation is horrible, and the inevitable conclusions do not fit with the pluralist, melting pot ideal we all would like to believe we live in. But we can't run from those conclusions just because they could be inflammatory. That was the mindset that led this abuse to go on so long. We need to confront the situation full on, in all its inconvenient context.
Morning all and before I go off to the Clan Sutherland Gathering final day of activities, a couple of thoughts.
1) There will be considerable irony if the Scottish Referendum turnout is 80+% making it the highest turnout in Scotland at any election since the Tories won an overall majority of both seats and votes in Scotland in 1955.
2) The Labour Party, especially in Scotland, has spent 35 years demonising the Tory Party and all things Tory. It will therefore be ironic if the Scottish people take Labour at its word, vote YES and in so doing, assign Labour to decades out of government in England.
2) So again we have a PBer saying it is not the Tories' actual policies that are causing the problem but the way Labour presents them.
I am reminded of the words of a long lost poster: "Only from the PB Tories. Only on PB."
Totally agree - Thatcher basically jettisoned those who are not "one of us". I am not so blinkered as to deny that some of the things she did were beneficial but her divisive style of politics is the root cause of where we are to day. PB Tories trying to claim that the fault lies with the way Labour has portrayed her legacy is frankly laughable.
If you can, even with the benefit of hindsight, think of a soft, non devisive way of undoing 30 years of socialist misrule and economic stagnation, along with de facto Government by the NUM, I'm all ears. Thatcher can only be viewed in the context of her time. Had our industries not been poisoned by socialism to the degree that they were all on government life support, there would not have been any job losses.
It's truly pathetic that we have to wait until Wednesday for any IndyPolls.
This is the most important electoral decision for about 300 years.
In polling terms, it's like living in the dark ages.
Compare and contrast with the polling blizzard we had in the lead-up to the 2010 GE, and will have again in April and May last year.
London media simply doesn't care about Scotland - it's a side issue. Logical thing would be for the Scots to take note and vote accordingly - for Independence.
It's truly pathetic that we have to wait until Wednesday for any IndyPolls.
This is the most important electoral decision for about 300 years.
In polling terms, it's like living in the dark ages.
London media simply doesn't care about Scotland - it's a side issue. Logical thing would be for the Scots to take note and vote accordingly - for Independence.
Scottish papers and media can commission polls too can't they ?
It's truly pathetic that we have to wait until Wednesday for any IndyPolls.
This is the most important electoral decision for about 300 years.
In polling terms, it's like living in the dark ages.
Compare and contrast with the polling blizzard we had in the lead-up to the 2010 GE, and will have again in April and May last year.
London media simply doesn't care about Scotland - it's a side issue. Logical thing would be for the Scots to take note and vote accordingly - for Independence.
We're repeatedly told to "butt out, it's Scotland's business". What do you expect?
No one south of the border has a vote - why should the London media spend money on an issue over which their readership has pretty much zero influence?
Address your concerns to the Scottish organisations.
It's truly pathetic that we have to wait until Wednesday for any IndyPolls.
This is the most important electoral decision for about 300 years.
In polling terms, it's like living in the dark ages.
Compare and contrast with the polling blizzard we had in the lead-up to the 2010 GE, and will have again in April and May last year.
London media simply doesn't care about Scotland - it's a side issue. Logical thing would be for the Scots to take note and vote accordingly - for Independence.
It's not that, I asked a couple of pollsters about polling in Scotland, and they said to me, it takes 3-4 days to get the right number of respondents for a poll. So that's why we've got 4 on Saturday, and at least 4 more on Wednesday
Morning all and before I go off to the Clan Sutherland Gathering final day of activities, a couple of thoughts.
1) There will be considerable irony if the Scottish Referendum turnout is 80+% making it the highest turnout in Scotland at any election since the Tories won an overall majority of both seats and votes in Scotland in 1955.
2) The Labour Party, especially in Scotland, has spent 35 years demonising the Tory Party and all things Tory. It will therefore be ironic if the Scottish people take Labour at its word, vote YES and in so doing, assign Labour to decades out of government in England.
2) So again we have a PBer saying it is not the Tories' actual policies that are causing the problem but the way Labour presents them.
I am reminded of the words of a long lost poster: "Only from the PB Tories. Only on PB."
Totally agree - Thatcher basically jettisoned those who are not "one of us". I am not so blinkered as to deny that some of the things she did were beneficial but her divisive style of politics is the root cause of where we are to day. PB Tories trying to claim that the fault lies with the way Labour has portrayed her legacy is frankly laughable.
If you can, even with the benefit of hindsight, think of a soft, non devisive way of undoing 30 years of socialist misrule and economic stagnation, along with de facto Government by the NUM, I'm all ears.
How about doing what all the other Western countries did by "modernising" their economies without causing sky-high unemployment, causing more poverty than any other country in Western Europe, showering the rich with goodies to rub the poor's noses in it, etc.
"For instance, the Hassidic Jews or the Ashkenazi tend to stick to themselves and marry within their groups. But they don't go around trying to destroy the rest of society"
The point is though, that there aren't enough of the people you mention to be able to do anything if they wanted to... a small minority of them, the size of the small minority it is of muslims that have done damage recently, is so tiny as to be insignificant
There are c. 290,000 Jews living in the UK, 2/3 in Greater London/contiguous areas of Essex and Hertfordshire (say 200,000).
75% of births are to Haredi (the classification which includes Hasidi and Lithuanian Jews) - they have a higher birth rate than Reform Jews, so let's say that 50% of the current population is Haredi.
A community of 100,000 in a smallish geographic area would be quite large enough to do this sort of thing if they wanted to. But they don't.
(And, by the way, my understanding is that most of the communities where there is an issue don't even come from just Pakistan, but from a specific area within the country that my Pakistanti friends (who are better off than most Pakistanis) regard as pretty backward even by their standards
Just putting this out there -could we bring back transportation? I know this sounds crazy, but it famously costs less to put someone through Eton than it does to put them through prison. Could we not just phone Sierra Leone, and just ask them if they can board someone for (much) less than that? Basic standards would need to be conformed to of course. I think it would be great for the host country too -a huge boost to their economy.
It might be something else again. That the problem is actually a few criminal gangs (sorry, "local businessmen") who, as well as procurement of under-age girls also run protection rackets, smuggling and so on.
For 1400 victims to be raped, it was more than just a few. And this was in a town of a community of just 4000 Pakistani males. While not all Pakistani males are guilty, the criminality must have been endemic. And it has been repeated again and again in other towns without a direct connection, suggesting culture certainly plays a role.
And then there was the culture whereby Pakistani girls that got raped couldn't tell anyone because the culture would dishonour the family more than being a rapist would. One brave victim that publicly came forward was ostracised by the community.
Even if we look at Southam's positive group comparison, they are still people who keep to themselves and don't integrate outside their group. I found this myself at university. A bunch of people from all over the country were thrown in two corridors together. We all got on and socialised together: guys, girls, northerners, southerners, rural people, city people, whites, blacks, Chinese. The one guy that didn't? A Pakistani Muslim. He was a nice, polite bloke, but he still saw us as "not his kind".
Iffy statistics. The 1400 is over 10+ years, the 4000 is - I imagine - at any given time. Let's not make things look worse than they are.
It was 1400 AT LEAST, according to the Jay report. And we all know it is happening right across the country, which means, very probably, tens of thousands of children raped and tortured by racist Muslim gangs - as it has been going on for 20 years, and is still happening today.
If it was happening in an African country we'd be up in arms. But it is happening in Britain to white working class girls and boys.
This attempt to trivialise the issue is offensive.
I am not attempting to trivialise the issue. On the contrary, I think the situation is such that specific Serious Islamic Crime police units should be set up to investigate Rotherham, Manchester and probably every town in the North of England.
I just hate dodgy statistics, irrespective of how and why they are deployed.
Morning all and before I go off to the Clan Sutherland Gathering final day of activities, a couple of thoughts.
1) There will be considerable irony if the Scottish Referendum turnout is 80+% making it the highest turnout in Scotland at any election since the Tories won an overall majority of both seats and votes in Scotland in 1955.
2) The Labour Party, especially in Scotland, has spent 35 years demonising the Tory Party and all things Tory. It will therefore be ironic if the Scottish people take Labour at its word, vote YES and in so doing, assign Labour to decades out of government in England.
2) So again we have a PBer saying it is not the Tories' actual policies that are causing the problem but the way Labour presents them.
I am reminded of the words of a long lost poster: "Only from the PB Tories. Only on PB."
Totally agree - Thatcher basically jettisoned those who are not "one of us". I am not so blinkered as to deny that some of the things she did were beneficial but her divisive style of politics is the root cause of where we are to day. PB Tories trying to claim that the fault lies with the way Labour has portrayed her legacy is frankly laughable.
If you can, even with the benefit of hindsight, think of a soft, non devisive way of undoing 30 years of socialist misrule and economic stagnation, along with de facto Government by the NUM, I'm all ears.
How about doing what all the other Western countries did by "modernising" their economies w
By losing 2 world wars or spending 40+ years under communist rule ? Or simply refusing to face the modern world a la France ?
"For Mr Miliband, the findings are mixed. Labour is ahead on three of the top five issues, including an 18-point lead on health. But its lead on education has narrowed to three points since last autumn. And despite a long-running campaign against the so-called bedroom tax, Labour’s lead on benefits has fallen to a single point."
So Labour have a lead on welfare. It's always been a myth that everyone loves the Tories' nasty "kick a scrounger" policies.
Morning all and before I go off to the Clan Sutherland Gathering final day of activities, a couple of thoughts.
1) There will be considerable irony if the Scottish Referendum turnout is 80+% making it the highest turnout in Scotland at any election since the Tories won an overall majority of both seats and votes in Scotland in 1955.
2) The Labour Party, especially in Scotland, has spent 35 years demonising the Tory Party and all things Tory. It will therefore be ironic if the Scottish people take Labour at its word, vote YES and in so doing, assign Labour to decades out of government in England.
2) So again we have a PBer saying it is not the Tories' actual policies that are causing the problem but the way Labour presents them.
I am reminded of the words of a long lost poster: "Only from the PB Tories. Only on PB."
Totally agree - Thatcher basically jettisoned those who are not "one of us". I am not so blinkered as to deny that some of the things she did were beneficial but her divisive style of politics is the root cause of where we are to day. PB Tories trying to claim that the fault lies with the way Labour has portrayed her legacy is frankly laughable.
If you can, even with the benefit of hindsight, think of a soft, non devisive way of undoing 30 years of socialist misrule and economic stagnation, along with de facto Government by the NUM, I'm all ears.
How about doing what all the other Western countries did by "modernising" their economies without causing sky-high unemployment, causing more poverty than any other country in Western Europe, showering the rich with goodies to rub the poor's noses in it, etc.
No other country in Western Europe had socialism like we had it. Look at West Germany for example. Massively built up with US money, no union problem to speak of, no closed shop, no lame ducks like British Leyland.
And still by 1997 we had outstripped them all, productivity rising, manufacturing rising, agriculture rising -then the merry-go-round turned and we had Labour back in.
How about doing what all the other Western countries did by "modernising" their economies without causing sky-high unemployment, causing more poverty than any other country in Western Europe, showering the rich with goodies to rub the poor's noses in it, etc.
Quite apart from the fact that your characterisation of what Mrs Thatcher did is ludicrous, you're clearly too young to have experienced the reality of life in the UK before she rescued the country. The whole reason why other Western economies didn't have to suffer quite such an abrupt shock was because they hadn't made the same mistakes to the same extent in the sixties and seventies.
Look up 'sick man of Europe', and weep at the fact that the Wilson, Heath and Callaghan governments missed so many opportunities to correct things when it could have been done with less immediate disruption.
It might be something else again. That the problem is actually a few criminal gangs (sorry, "local businessmen") who, as well as procurement of under-age girls also run protection rackets, smuggling and so on.
For 1400 victims to be raped, it was more than just a few. And this was in a town of a community of just 4000 Pakistani males. While not all Pakistani males are guilty, the criminality must have been endemic. And it has been repeated again and again in other towns without a direct connection, suggesting culture certainly plays a role.
And then there was the culture whereby Pakistani girls that got raped couldn't tell anyone because the culture would dishonour the family more than being a rapist would. One brave victim that publicly came forward was ostracised by the community.
Even if we look at Southam's positive group comparison, they are still people who keep to themselves and don't integrate outside their group. I found this myself at university. A bunch of people from all over the country were thrown in two corridors together. We all got on and socialised together: guys, girls, northerners, southerners, rural people, city people, whites, blacks, Chinese. The one guy that didn't? A Pakistani Muslim. He was a nice, polite bloke, but he still saw us as "not his kind".
Iffy statistics. The 1400 is over 10+ years, the 4000 is - I imagine - at any given time. Let's not make things look worse than they are.
It was 1400 AT LEAST, according to the Jay report. And we all know it is happening right across the country, which means, very probably, tens of thousands of children raped and tortured by racist Muslim gangs - as it has been going on for 20 years, and is still happening today.
If it was happening in an African country we'd be up in arms. But it is happening in Britain to white working class girls and boys.
This attempt to trivialise the issue is offensive.
I am not attempting to trivialise the issue. On the contrary, I think the situation is such that specific Serious Islamic Crime police units should be set up to investigate Rotherham, Manchester and probably every town in the North of England.
I just hate dodgy statistics, irrespective of how and why they are deployed.
We have laws against rape. I fail to see why 'Islamic crime' warrants a special unit?
DavidL: Based on your canvassing, what's your feeling about how the previously undecideds are making up their minds? I found more going to no than yes in the Borders.
It was also cheering to hear people toot their horns or put their thumbs up when they saw we were from Better Together. Are you the only Scottish Tory in your campaign group? We had Tories Labour, a Green and peope of no party. Quite a mix.
Sorry I have been out at a funeral all morning.
My sample is very small, basically around 50 I went to yesterday who had previously said they were undecided. The clear majority were now voting No (it was gently explained to me on here yesterday that this may well have been to get me to go away). I only found 1 family that had switched from No to Yes all day.
There were a number who either really didn't care or (more) simply wouldn't say but I saw absolutely no sign that Yes were making inroads into our vote. Of course in Dundee they may not need to because they clearly had a bigger vote to start with.
It might be something else again. That the problem is actually a few criminal gangs (sorry, "local businessmen") who, as well as procurement of under-age girls also run protection rackets, smuggling and so on.
Iffy statistics. The 1400 is over 10+ years, the 4000 is - I imagine - at any given time. Let's not make things look worse than they are.
It was 1400 AT LEAST, according to the Jay report. And we all know it is happening right across the country, which means, very probably, tens of thousands of children raped and tortured by racist Muslim gangs - as it has been going on for 20 years, and is still happening today.
If it was happening in an African country we'd be up in arms. But it is happening in Britain to white working class girls and boys.
This attempt to trivialise the issue is offensive.
I am not attempting to trivialise the issue. On the contrary, I think the situation is such that specific Serious Islamic Crime police units should be set up to investigate Rotherham, Manchester and probably every town in the North of England.
I just hate dodgy statistics, irrespective of how and why they are deployed.
We have laws against rape. I fail to see why 'Islamic crime' warrants a special unit?
Expertise gets better results. You'll find that the USA and Italy have quite big specialist anti-Mafia police departments, despite the fact that the stuff the Mafia does is also done by other people.
Morning all and before I go off to the Clan Sutherland Gathering final day of activities, a couple of thoughts.
1) There will be considerable irony if the Scottish Referendum turnout is 80+% making it the highest turnout in Scotland at any election since the Tories won an overall majority of both seats and votes in Scotland in 1955.
2) The Labour Party, especially in Scotland, has spent 35 years demonising the Tory Party and all things Tory. It will therefore be ironic if the Scottish people take Labour at its word, vote YES and in so doing, assign Labour to decades out of government in England.
2) So again we have a PBer saying it is not the Tories' actual policies that are causing the problem but the way Labour presents them.
I am reminded of the words of a long lost poster: "Only from the PB Tories. Only on PB."
Totally agree - Thatcher basically jettisoned those who are not "one of us". I am not so blinkered as to deny that some of the things she did were beneficial but her divisive style of politics is the root cause of where we are to day. PB Tories trying to claim that the fault lies with the way Labour has portrayed her legacy is frankly laughable.
If you can, even with the benefit of hindsight, think of a soft, non devisive way of undoing 30 years of socialist misrule and economic stagnation, along with de facto Government by the NUM, I'm all ears.
How about doing what all the other Western countries did by "modernising" their economies without causing sky-high unemployment, causing more poverty than any other country in Western Europe, showering the rich with goodies to rub the poor's noses in it, etc.
No other country in Western Europe had socialism like we had it. Look at West Germany for example. Massively built up with US money, no union problem to speak of, no closed shop, no lame ducks like British Leyland.
"No union problem"? Even now in Germany, unions have much more power than in the UK and are able to force employers to pay good wages. (And yet their economy is thriving.)
"For instance, the Hassidic Jews or the Ashkenazi tend to stick to themselves and marry within their groups. But they don't go around trying to destroy the rest of society"
The point is though, that there aren't enough of the people you mention to be able to do anything if they wanted to... a small minority of them, the size of the small minority it is of muslims that have done damage recently, is so tiny as to be insignificant
There are c. 290,000 Jews living in the UK, 2/3 in Greater London/contiguous areas of Essex and Hertfordshire (say 200,000).
75% of births are to Haredi (the classification which includes Hasidi and Lithuanian Jews) - they have a higher birth rate than Reform Jews, so let's say that 50% of the current population is Haredi.
A community of 100,000 in a smallish geographic area would be quite large enough to do this sort of thing if they wanted to. But they don't.
(And, by the way, my understanding is that most of the communities where there is an issue don't even come from just Pakistan, but from a specific area within the country that my Pakistanti friends (who are better off than most Pakistanis) regard as pretty backward even by their standards
He describes how people are going door to door asking Britons to blindly sign proxy forms for the upcoming elections, allowing someone else in the UK to vote on their behalf.
"They said I didn't have to fill in any details, just to sign my name at the bottom of the form," he says, smiling. "So I signed two."
He laughed as he told me he had no idea who was going to vote on his behalf, and whom they were going to vote for.
"I personally know 25 other people who did the same thing, lots of people just on this street, but everybody does it."
In a sane political entity, news of this sort of abuse would cause us to cancel Commonwealth citizens being allowed to vote in the UK, in addition to proxy voting.
But with Lab/Lib/Con in charge? No chance. Mustn't upset the Muslims by stopping their corrupt voting systems.
How about doing what all the other Western countries did by "modernising" their economies without causing sky-high unemployment, causing more poverty than any other country in Western Europe, showering the rich with goodies to rub the poor's noses in it, etc.
Look up 'sick man of Europe', and weep at the fact that the Wilson, Heath and Callaghan governments missed so many opportunities to correct things when it could have been done with less immediate disruption.
Not just the government - the 'establishment' viewed its role as to 'manage the decline' - Thatcher - who understood what the impact of compound growth a couple of points behind our competitors would do to the 'average voter' said in effect 'enough!' and set about doing a lot of other people's dirty work......
"We all got on and socialised together: guys, girls, northerners, southerners, rural people, city people, whites, blacks, Chinese. The one guy that didn't? A Pakistani Muslim. He was a nice, polite bloke, but he still saw us as "not his kind"."
I suspect Alistair Darling is making a fuss about anti-No intimidation for two reasons: 1) that it resonates amongst undecided voters who hate Yah-boo-ery; 2) it implies a silent No vote and therefore a support for No that is greater than implied by the polls.
Whether he is right on either point is another matter.
Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?
He probably had an eye on the type of person or organisation who would try to use acts like that to stir up hatred and animosity towards innocent groups of people in the UK.
I agree. However this ostrich liberal attitude is only making things worse as it is a silly thing to say and the facts on the face of it don't seem to bear it out, so it justs alientates even more the EDL types and makes them more sure that the mainsteam politicians dont care about them and lie to them, plus it makes it easier for them to prosleytse.
Bugger all to do with ‘liberal attitudes’ - There are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet; ISIS and it’s various off shoots represent a tiny fraction of that number while the vast majority are living quite peacefully. – Some will obviously be disappointed that an entire religious group have not been labelled as they would wish, but that doesn't change the facts.
I wasnt calling for "an entire religious group [to be] labelled". What Cameron said was counterproductive and silly and he should not have said it. He was obviously correct to say nothing alog the lines of labelling an entire religious group and therefore fanning the flames.
Yes, there is peace within majority Islamic countries - for adherents. Being in a Christian minority in most such countries means second class status, instituionalised discrimination or even in some such as our Saudi allies banning of worship. That is not peace as I understand it.
I'm not even sure the "vast majority" of Muslims are living in blissful peace, as Simon St Clare describes.
At the last count Muslims were engaged in religious war, or religiously-inspired civil strife in:
Libya Egypt Syria Iraq Indonesia The Philippines Thailand The Caucasus China Russia The Lebanon Malaysia Palestine Yemen Afghanistan India Pakistan Nigeria Mali Sudan Somalia
I'm sure I've missed some.
Meanwhile Islamist terrorists have committed atrocities in the USA, the UK, France, Spain and elsewhere, and Islamists have travelled to join ISIS from approximately 40 countries, at the last count.
Remember - Islam has a significant "Eastern Front" too. It's not just Islam v. "The West".
Carnyx , it si mostly bollocks , I see neither JJ or SEAN have noted the beating up of an 80 year old man , bottling of a 13 year old girl or various other physical assualts by NO supporters , yet seem outraged that someone should shout "William Wallace". A pair of thick fannies.
Where's my outrage? I laughed at your denial of any anti-English sentiment, which is so obvious if you'd even try looking for it.
I'd also like, for the record, to laugh at those Scots for whom William Wallace is a national hero whose name is worth chanting. I'm not sure which of mine I'd like to chant.. "BOUDICCA!! BOUDICCA!!" Maybe? Or how about "ROBIN HOOD!! ROBIN HOOD!!"? Perhaps the more relevant "LONGSHANKS!! LONGSHANKS!!"
So you are such a sad git that you have no English heroes
I have English heroes. I just don't try invoke their spirit by chanting their name!
And the ones I chose were ones that seem to me the closest to William Wallace for the English.
Have you ever chanted his name?
Certainly not and I think imaginary people like Robin Hood are a bit over the top , at least get a real person, and Boudicca being English is stretching it a lot.
Carnyx , it si mostly bollocks , I see neither JJ or SEAN have noted the beating up of an 80 year old man , bottling of a 13 year old girl or various other physical assualts by NO supporters , yet seem outraged that someone should shout "William Wallace". A pair of thick fannies.
Where's my outrage? I laughed at your denial of any anti-English sentiment, which is so obvious if you'd even try looking for it.
I'd also like, for the record, to laugh at those Scots for whom William Wallace is a national hero whose name is worth chanting. I'm not sure which of mine I'd like to chant.. "BOUDICCA!! BOUDICCA!!" Maybe? Or how about "ROBIN HOOD!! ROBIN HOOD!!"? Perhaps the more relevant "LONGSHANKS!! LONGSHANKS!!"
So you are such a sad git that you have no English heroes
I have English heroes. I just don't try invoke their spirit by chanting their name!
And the ones I chose were ones that seem to me the closest to William Wallace for the English.
Have you ever chanted his name?
Certainly not and I think imaginary people like Robin Hood are a bit over the top , at least get a real person, and Boudicca being English is stretching it a lot.
Boudicca was Iceni, so from Norfolk. She'd have had a vote in an English referendum!
And how is William Wallace so much less imaginary than Robin Hood? Blind Harry made most of it up, and he claimed that Wallace had led an army to London... There are plenty of historians who believe that Robin Hood was a real person. They're both largely myth.
We've spent a long time wondering why Mr Salmond he chose the position of currency union rather than the more realistic free floating currency. While it seems it's because it does not frighten the voters and seems to preserve those Scottish Bank jobs, I think we are forgetting the power of this to become a wedge issue and grist to the grievance machine. And please this whole independence movement is built on a grievance against Westminster anything that can make it bigger is an important part of the campaign.
We've had statements trying to imply that the currency 'is a shared asset' that 'it is the democratic wish of the Scottish people'. This is all preparation for when we turn around and say no to a currency union. The attack lines will be ready, it will be all England's fault:
They want to undermine Scotland. Look they are stealing our Scottish Banks and Pension companies, how dare they. Look at all those regeneration agencies offering new office blocks and in Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle, they are bribing them away!
It will be all Westminster's fault. As to the SNP future they have no plans to shut up shop if there is a Yes vote, they plan to rule. All parties do.
They can position themselves as the only truly Scottish Party, all the others are just offshoots of Westminster, they won't have Scotland's true interests at heart they still be beholden to them, not true Scots, Qusilings and fifth columnists. SNP needs to be the underdog surrounded by enemies, the ensuing shitstorm will provide plenty of conflicts with the English, sorry I mean Westminster.
Those businesses and people that flee South will be traitors and cowards, but as there were Unionists and not 'True Scots' (TM) it'll be good riddance.
It will be a real political street fight. It just depends how far they are prepared to push grievance politics and demonisation of their enemies. If the economic waters get really rough how much blame will need to be shifted onto others, how many enemies will the need to find?
I also wonder about the future of freedom of the press under an independence. For several years now any critical article, interview in press or the TV has attracted a thuggish counter attack on individuals and organisations. Will the Economist 'rue the day' for it's Skintland front cover, will it be banned or just be censored? Will Scotland go the way of Singapore and require a right to reply clause with the press to correct lies and bias.
I imagine the Scottish government has a big advertising budget and it will control the TV licencing arrangements and it will want to ensure that any channels in Scotland will be properly 'Scottish' as defined by them. The new SBC will provide a great opportunity for a properly Scottish organisation, that reflects the views and opinions of all true Scots.
It will be probably be nothing overt but most media companies are pretty craven and will do the job for them. The SNP have tried to present this as entirely positive campaign and nothing against the English. But the under currents tell a different story of a prickly self regard with all opposition to be crushed and ostracised. I don't see how that is going to change post independence.
This is freshers week in Scotland and the number of students arriving is big. In Edinburgh there are around 35,000 and in Glasgow maybe as many as 50,000 in total. Many don't have votes and few are Scottish. On my son's course it is about 10%. Their arrival has changed the atmosphere on the streets. The mock elections Glasgow Uni held last year showed a big No vote. The intention may not have changed much bit not sure how many will actually vote. It will however provide foot soldiers for the No campaign in the last few days.
It's truly pathetic that we have to wait until Wednesday for any IndyPolls.
This is the most important electoral decision for about 300 years.
In polling terms, it's like living in the dark ages.
Jeez, calm down.
The logistics of conducting Indyref polls takes time, we had four on Saturday, and four days later, we're going to have at least another four.</blockquote
Carnyx , it si mostly bollocks , I see neither JJ or SEAN have noted the beating up of an 80 year old man , bottling of a 13 year old girl or various other physical assualts by NO supporters , yet seem outraged that someone should shout "William Wallace". A pair of thick fannies.
Where's my outrage? I laughed at your denial of any anti-English sentiment, which is so obvious if you'd even try looking for it.
I'd also like, for the record, to laugh at those Scots for whom William Wallace is a national hero whose name is worth chanting. I'm not sure which of mine I'd like to chant.. "BOUDICCA!! BOUDICCA!!" Maybe? Or how about "ROBIN HOOD!! ROBIN HOOD!!"? Perhaps the more relevant "LONGSHANKS!! LONGSHANKS!!"
So you are such a sad git that you have no English heroes
I have English heroes. I just don't try invoke their spirit by chanting their name!
And the ones I chose were ones that seem to me the closest to William Wallace for the English.
Have you ever chanted his name?
Certainly not and I think imaginary people like Robin Hood are a bit over the top , at least get a real person, and Boudicca being English is stretching it a lot.
Comments
The logistics of conducting Indyref polls takes time, we had four on Saturday, and four days later, we're going to have at least another four.
Unfortunately they didn't hand out dictionaries, so paediatricians' offices were trashed and some were forced out, as thick people couldn't people tell the difference between paedophiles and paediatricians.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society
The British deliberately formented sectarianism to put down the rebellion as Wikipedia explains: "The British establishment recognised sectarianism as a divisive tool to employ against the Protestant United Irishmen in Ulster and the divide and conquer method of colonial dominion was officially encouraged by the Government. Brigadier-General C.E. Knox wrote to General Lake (who was responsible for Ulster): "I have arranged... to increase the animosity between the Orangemen and the United Irishmen, or liberty men as they call themselves. Upon that animosity depends the safety of the centre counties of the North
This only broke down with the rise of nonconformist Prostestant Irish Nationalism under Paisley and the eventual realisation that the prostestant nationalists had more in common with the catholic nationalists and vice versa than either had with the British establishment (represented by the UUP).
If you look back far enough in history, the stunning conversion of Paisley & McGuinness to the "Chuckle brothers" is not so surprising.
I'd also like, for the record, to laugh at those Scots for whom William Wallace is a national hero whose name is worth chanting. I'm not sure which of mine I'd like to chant.. "BOUDICCA!! BOUDICCA!!" Maybe?
Or how about "ROBIN HOOD!! ROBIN HOOD!!"?
Perhaps the more relevant "LONGSHANKS!! LONGSHANKS!!"
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/13/edl-english-defence-league-protesters-attack-police-rotherham-demonstration
"Jeez, calm down.......The logistics of conducting Indyref polls takes time"
It's all those hills and lochs...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/daniele-watts-arrested-django-unchained-actress-detained-in-los-angeles-after-being-mistaken-for-a-prostitute-9731871.html
Maybe I am giving the public to much credit
Why then does Yes have a problem with women and the new young voters,according to many polls?
With regard to Rotherham, though, I don't think it is religion per se that is the problem - it is the culture that has grown up around the religion - both in Pakistan and here. In the 80s I lived in Balsall Heath/Sparkbrook in Birmingham, which was then as it is now, almost entirely populated by people of Pakistani origin and a few students. They kept themselves to themselves, but there was no tension and certainly no attempts to impose views on us, or restrict our activities in any way. There were no burkas on view, no sense of any kind of radical agenda. Something happened at some stage that changed things. I don't know what it was. But it is different now, there is no doubt about it.
a. Check your speedometer
b. Say to yourself: I have checked the speedometer several times since leaving A. I think I have more than enough speeding data, since the change since the last check is likely to be of the order of 1-2%?
As TSE has pointed out - Several years ago when the media whipped up a storm about paedophiles hiding behind every bush, there were stories of paediatricians being abused by confused idiots who didn’t know the difference.
That was the point I was attempting to make - Yes, the vast majority of people are decent, and would understand, however some, are vengeful nutters who would take matters into their own hands..
There were attacks on paediatricans in Portsmouth and (@taffys mentioned a while back) either Swansea or Cardiff.
* Of course NotW did not.
CON 32 LAB 36 LD 8 UKIP 15 GRN 5
TSE said "in the name of Christianity" in response to my "in the name of Allah"
My original point, in answering Bond, James Bond, was that it was the weight of numbers of immigrants, and the segregation from other parts of society, that has created the mess we are in. I never inferred any charcteristic to any race or religion
The point that gets missed is that IT DOESNT MATTER, whether they are genuine, pretend, insincere etc versions of whatever group they say they belong to, the fact that the group is so big is what enables the isolation and feeling of being disenfranchised to grow, which leads to a community that are sympathetic, which leads to a cover up when the bad deeds to take place, inevitably "in the name of... xxx"
I personally couldn't care less whether these people were strict adherents of, or basing their crimes on a bastardisation of, whatever religion they claim to represent. It doesn't matter
"Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?"
Because any generalization suggesting anything else would have made him sound like a bigot which isn't good for anyone let alone a Prime Minister.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgacus
And the ones I chose were ones that seem to me the closest to William Wallace for the English.
Have you ever chanted his name?
How was the ice cream?
And then there was the culture whereby Pakistani girls that got raped couldn't tell anyone because the culture would dishonour the family more than being a rapist would. One brave victim that publicly came forward was ostracised by the community.
Even if we look at Southam's positive group comparison, they are still people who keep to themselves and don't integrate outside their group. I found this myself at university. A bunch of people from all over the country were thrown in two corridors together. We all got on and socialised together: guys, girls, northerners, southerners, rural people, city people, whites, blacks, Chinese. The one guy that didn't? A Pakistani Muslim. He was a nice, polite bloke, but he still saw us as "not his kind".
The on the poll day could be very close but postal votes could swing it for the No,s.
If we assume 20% of votes are cast by post,and that because older voters are more likely to vote this way and that being cast earlier would have a higher no lead then a 55;45 no result lead is probable.Assume a 50;50 split on polling day then the final result will be 51;49 no /yes.
Put another way for yes to win would require a 52;48 yes /no split on polling day..
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/conservatives-take-a-25point-lead-on-managing-the-uk-economy-9733417.html
http://tellmamauk.blogspot.co.uk/
For instance, the Hassidic Jews or the Ashkenazi tend to stick to themselves and marry within their groups. But they don't go around trying to destroy the rest of society.
Cameron's point in that they are "monsters not Muslims" is trying to get to the heart of the problem. It's not their faith that is encouraging them to do this: it is something that has gone very wrong in a specific sub-culture, together with the authorities in the UK turning a blind eye for fear of causing "community issues"/discounting the testimony of the victims.
You get monsters everywhere but, for whatever reason, there appears to have been a disproportionate number in this place and at this time.
re: distinguishing them from "Muslims": simply put there are a lot of people who are not as bright as you and would potentially go and attack innocent Muslims and/or people with brown skins if they thought they had the nod from the PM.
"The experience of the last decade and more, all round the world, shows that acts of violence, however apparently irrational or inappropriate their targets, precipitate a frenzied search on the part of the society attacked to discover and remedy more and more grievances, real or imaginary, among those from the violence is supposed to emanate or on whose behalf it is supposed to be exercised. Those commanding a position of political leverage would then be superhuman if they could refrain from pointing to the acts of terrorism and, while condemning them, declaring that further and faster concessions and grants of privilege are the only means to avoid such acts being repeated on a rising scale. We know that those who thus argue will always find a ready hearing. This is what produces the gearing effect of terrorism in the contemporary world, yielding huge results from acts of violence perpetrated by minimal numbers. It is not, I repeat again and again, that the mass of a particular population are violently or criminally disposed. Far from it; that population soon becomes itself the prisoner of the violence and machinations of an infinitely small minority among it. Just a few thugs, a few shots, a few bombs at the right place and time—and that is enough for disproportionate consequences to follow."
http://traditionalbritain.org/content/road-national-suicide
The point is though, that there aren't enough of the people you mention to be able to do anything if they wanted to... a small minority of them, the size of the small minority it is of muslims that have done damage recently, is so tiny as to be insignificant
http://www.sconews.co.uk/news/40105/protection-for-catholic-schools-in-independent-scotland/
"Scotland’s state-run Catholic schools would be given constitutional protection in the event of independence, an SNP Government minister has suggested.
Roseanna Cunningham (above), minister for legal affairs and community safety, made the announcement in a recent statement.
“A yes vote means that Scotland will have a written constitution and that means everyone can be assured that the constitution in place on Independence Day will uphold the rights and liberties of all, including freedom of religion and the protection of Catholic education,” Ms Cunningham said."
We've got to stop this defensive mindset of saying "well we don't have absolute precise facts so let's not draw conclusions." The situation is horrible, and the inevitable conclusions do not fit with the pluralist, melting pot ideal we all would like to believe we live in. But we can't run from those conclusions just because they could be inflammatory. That was the mindset that led this abuse to go on so long. We need to confront the situation full on, in all its inconvenient context.
London media simply doesn't care about Scotland - it's a side issue. Logical thing would be for the Scots to take note and vote accordingly - for Independence.
Not London's fault.
No one south of the border has a vote - why should the London media spend money on an issue over which their readership has pretty much zero influence?
Address your concerns to the Scottish organisations.
75% of births are to Haredi (the classification which includes Hasidi and Lithuanian Jews) - they have a higher birth rate than Reform Jews, so let's say that 50% of the current population is Haredi.
A community of 100,000 in a smallish geographic area would be quite large enough to do this sort of thing if they wanted to. But they don't.
(And, by the way, my understanding is that most of the communities where there is an issue don't even come from just Pakistan, but from a specific area within the country that my Pakistanti friends (who are better off than most Pakistanis) regard as pretty backward even by their standards
I just hate dodgy statistics, irrespective of how and why they are deployed.
And still by 1997 we had outstripped them all, productivity rising, manufacturing rising, agriculture rising -then the merry-go-round turned and we had Labour back in.
Look up 'sick man of Europe', and weep at the fact that the Wilson, Heath and Callaghan governments missed so many opportunities to correct things when it could have been done with less immediate disruption.
My sample is very small, basically around 50 I went to yesterday who had previously said they were undecided. The clear majority were now voting No (it was gently explained to me on here yesterday that this may well have been to get me to go away). I only found 1 family that had switched from No to Yes all day.
There were a number who either really didn't care or (more) simply wouldn't say but I saw absolutely no sign that Yes were making inroads into our vote. Of course in Dundee they may not need to because they clearly had a bigger vote to start with.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8655697.stm
He describes how people are going door to door asking Britons to blindly sign proxy forms for the upcoming elections, allowing someone else in the UK to vote on their behalf.
"They said I didn't have to fill in any details, just to sign my name at the bottom of the form," he says, smiling. "So I signed two."
He laughed as he told me he had no idea who was going to vote on his behalf, and whom they were going to vote for.
"I personally know 25 other people who did the same thing, lots of people just on this street, but everybody does it."
In a sane political entity, news of this sort of abuse would cause us to cancel Commonwealth citizens being allowed to vote in the UK, in addition to proxy voting.
But with Lab/Lib/Con in charge? No chance. Mustn't upset the Muslims by stopping their corrupt voting systems.
"We all got on and socialised together: guys, girls, northerners, southerners, rural people, city people, whites, blacks, Chinese. The one guy that didn't? A Pakistani Muslim. He was a nice, polite bloke, but he still saw us as "not his kind"."
I'm glad you shared that with us Socrates.
Whether he is right on either point is another matter.
Lab 35
Con 34
UKIP 13
LD 9
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/OmOnline_Vote_15-09-2014_BPC.pdf
And how is William Wallace so much less imaginary than Robin Hood? Blind Harry made most of it up, and he claimed that Wallace had led an army to London... There are plenty of historians who believe that Robin Hood was a real person. They're both largely myth.
We've had statements trying to imply that the currency 'is a shared asset' that 'it is the democratic wish of the Scottish people'. This is all preparation for when we turn around and say no to a currency union. The attack lines will be ready, it will be all England's fault:
They want to undermine Scotland. Look they are stealing our Scottish Banks and Pension companies, how dare they. Look at all those regeneration agencies offering new office blocks and in Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle, they are bribing them away!
It will be all Westminster's fault. As to the SNP future they have no plans to shut up shop if there is a Yes vote, they plan to rule. All parties do.
They can position themselves as the only truly Scottish Party, all the others are just offshoots of Westminster, they won't have Scotland's true interests at heart they still be beholden to them, not true Scots, Qusilings and fifth columnists. SNP needs to be the underdog surrounded by enemies, the ensuing shitstorm will provide plenty of conflicts with the English, sorry I mean Westminster.
Those businesses and people that flee South will be traitors and cowards, but as there were Unionists and not 'True Scots' (TM) it'll be good riddance.
It will be a real political street fight. It just depends how far they are prepared to push grievance politics and demonisation of their enemies. If the economic waters get really rough how much blame will need to be shifted onto others, how many enemies will the need to find?
I also wonder about the future of freedom of the press under an independence. For several years now any critical article, interview in press or the TV has attracted a thuggish counter attack on individuals and organisations. Will the Economist 'rue the day' for it's Skintland front cover, will it be banned or just be censored? Will Scotland go the way of Singapore and require a right to reply clause with the press to correct lies and bias.
I imagine the Scottish government has a big advertising budget and it will control the TV licencing arrangements and it will want to ensure that any channels in Scotland will be properly 'Scottish' as defined by them. The new SBC will provide a great opportunity for a properly Scottish organisation, that reflects the views and opinions of all true Scots.
It will be probably be nothing overt but most media companies are pretty craven and will do the job for them. The SNP have tried to present this as entirely positive campaign and nothing against the English. But the under currents tell a different story of a prickly self regard with all opposition to be crushed and ostracised. I don't see how that is going to change post independence.