They are going to look a bit stupid if there are no defections.
If UKIP is going to move leftwards to attract WWC, Old Labour voters how comfortable are right wing Tory MPs going to feel about signing up?
Just my opinion, but I think WWC old labour voters have more in common with ukip, and right wing Tories come to that, than the current Labour Party.
From a social/cultural perspective perhaps. But Old Labour was very much the party of strong trade unions, high taxes for the rich, nationalised industries, and so on. I am not sure such things come easily to right wing Tories and the UKIP leadership.
The thing is, UKIP don't actually have to explicitly promise those things to get working-class Labour voters. They just have to imply that by sending the immigrants away, there'll be more jobs/higher wages/more to spend on the NHS. Very disingenuous, but with Labour in the current state it is (essentially saying that the wellbeing of the working-class is less important than the sodding deficit and big businesses, not to mention speaking like they're in a Cambridge seminar), that's enough.
UKIP could definitely get WWC Labour protest votes in good numbers for the reasons you state. Blimey, even my Mum is talking about voting for them. But as it becomes more visible across more policy areas it is going to have to have a broad direction of travel - either rightwards or leftwards. And the way the party is set up at the moment the former is more likely than the latter.
It can quite happily travel leftwards on economic matters and rightwards on social ones, which is probably one of the largest subsections of the electorate and one of the least represented.
"Defamation is not available to dead people and insulting someone is not, thank God, yet a crime."
May I refer the right honourable lady to the discussions on this site over the past few weeks on the workings of the Public Order Act and in particular the expositions of it by our learned friend, Life in a market Town.
Insulting someone (alive or dead) can indeed be a criminal offence and this has been the case since at least 1936.
Free speech needs to be defended.
I think I'd rather say this: Free speech needs to be respected.
NO. On this we will have to agree to disagree.
It needs to be fought for and defended because it is precious and the heart of our free, liberal democracy. Without it, none of our other freedoms matter and will hold. Freedom of speech is freedom of thought. There are too many people and groups who do want to limit what we think, for fear that we might think for ourselves and in ways which they do not like.
"Defamation is not available to dead people and insulting someone is not, thank God, yet a crime."
May I refer the right honourable lady to the discussions on this site over the past few weeks on the workings of the Public Order Act and in particular the expositions of it by our learned friend, Life in a market Town.
Insulting someone (alive or dead) can indeed be a criminal offence and this has been the case since at least 1936.
Free speech needs to be defended.
I think I'd rather say this: Free speech needs to be respected.
Respect is earned. Religious leaders have never earned my respect - quite the opposite in fact as they are peddling stories not backed by any evidence. Therefore why shouldn't I slag them off?
By the way, I see from this morning's thread, the penny is starting to drop even with some of the PBTories that the public don't care about the deficit!
The public will soon care when labour get in and start spending and interest rates start rising
I think I'd rather say this: Free speech needs to be respected.
Then respect it. The whole point of free speech is that it remains free even if you don't like what someone is saying.
I would also like to make the point that the most flagrant blasphemy against God and Jesus is permitted in this country -Glasgow council's 'art' exhibition where people were invited to deface The Bible being one particularly memorable example: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/glasgow-city-council-subsidises-bible.html However, the most that any Christians did was to gather outside the location for a quiet protest. You cannot excuse violent behaviour by Muslims on provocation. Life is full of provocation -it's how you choose to react.
I think I'd rather say this: Free speech needs to be respected.
Then respect it. The whole point of free speech is that it remains free even if you don't like what someone is saying.
I would also like to make the point that the most flagrant blasphemy against God and Jesus is permitted in this country -Glasgow council's 'art' exhibition where people were invited to deface The Bible being one particularly memorable example: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/glasgow-city-council-subsidises-bible.html However, the most that any Christians did was to gather outside the location for a quiet protest. You cannot excuse violent behaviour by Muslims on provocation. Life is full of provocation -it's how you choose to react.
Even the word blasphemy pisses me off. It suggests that to take the piss out of religion is some sort of transgression. I see it as akin to taking the piss out of Manchester United Football Club.
It can quite happily travel leftwards on economic matters and rightwards on social ones, which is probably one of the largest subsections of the electorate and one of the least represented.
The UKIP agenda looks strongly anti-Labour - 4 of the 30 speakers have identical speech titles: "LEAVING LABOUR" (their capitals). No equivalent ones listed from other parties. Farage is speaking twice, once on each day. The foreign speaker is a guest from the Free Citizens' Party in the Czech Republic, a small libertarian small-government party:
As a matter of interest, Labour's foreign speaker (not reported anywhere that I've noticed) was Bill de Blasio, NY Mayor, who gave a pleasant, fairly low-key fraternal speech from one moderate progressive to others. I'd heard he was an incendiary speaker a la Galloway, but that's presumably just because anyone left of Clinton looks extreme to American eyes.
"Defamation is not available to dead people and insulting someone is not, thank God, yet a crime."
May I refer the right honourable lady to the discussions on this site over the past few weeks on the workings of the Public Order Act and in particular the expositions of it by our learned friend, Life in a market Town.
Insulting someone (alive or dead) can indeed be a criminal offence and this has been the case since at least 1936.
The relevant section is Section 29B: (1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
That does not make it an offence to insult someone nor does it prevent someone from calling Mohammed or Jesus or Buddha an asshole.
Free speech needs to be defended.
Given the original wording which Labour wanted to put in, I have little confidence that that they won't try the same trick again.
Sorry been talking with journos (not about this) so haven't followed the thread. As you know the cartoons of the prophet (pbuh) were never published in this country and I think that shows how most of the media treads.
I think we should move on from this.
Doing something out of fear does not determine what the law is. There is a word for it: appeasement. And there is a description for such behaviour: cowardly. And the behaviour of government ministers at the time was deplorable.
Those liberals who think that one should not say things, out of some sort of respect for a religion or person which one does not follow or respect, are not acting from principle but exhibiting moral cowardice. Any religion or belief system worthy of respect is well able to deal with criticisms, however insultingly or otherwise they are put, without resort to violence or the threat of it. The fact that some want to prevent the criticisms even being made suggests that they are scared that it actually won't survive any criticism or inquiry, which rather proves the point. We should play no part in propping up a religion's amour propre. If it survives criticism, fine. If it doesn't, too bad.
Just some more detail on Kettering - in 2010, the Tories won 49.1%, Labour 29.9%. The LibDems 15.8%. (Worryingly for the LibDems in any by-election, the Bus Pass Elvis Candidate Dave Bishop stood in 2010, so will have a finely honed operation ready to go to beat them again....)
If there was a by-election, you would have to think that Labour would flood the seat, hoping (expecting) to come through the middle of a hopelessly split Tory/UKIP vote
I am rather busy at the moment and will be for the foreseeable future, so (much to the relief of fellow posters) I will not be commenting as much as I would like. That said, I feel obliged to contribute to the discussion about whether insulting the late so-called Prophet Mohammed is an offence contrary to the law of England. Certainly, it is not an offence of inciting religious hatred, contrary to new Part IIIA of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 29J of that Act, enacted over the objections of the last Labour government provides that:
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
That does not, of course, prevent a prosecution of the use of abusive words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress contrary to sections 4A or 5 of the 1986 Act, or the religiously aggravated version of those offences, contained in section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Moreover, it is an offence to send a grossly offensive communication (Malicious Communications Act 1988, s. 1(1); Communications Act 2003, s. 127(1)).
Prima facie, therefore, a person is liable to prosecution for insulting the Prophet Mohammed. The two protections a defendant has are (1) the primacy the common law has always placed on freedom of speech, recently reaffirmed in Karsten v Crown Court at Wood Green, and (2) the European Convention on Human Rights.
They are going to look a bit stupid if there are no defections.
If UKIP is going to move leftwards to attract WWC, Old Labour voters how comfortable are right wing Tory MPs going to feel about signing up?
Just my opinion, but I think WWC old labour voters have more in common with ukip, and right wing Tories come to that, than the current Labour Party.
From a social/cultural perspective perhaps. But Old Labour was very much the party of strong trade unions, high taxes for the rich, nationalised industries, and so on. I am not sure such things come easily to right wing Tories and the UKIP leadership.
The thing is, UKIP don't actually have to explicitly promise those things to get working-class Labour voters. They just have to imply that by sending the immigrants away, there'll be more jobs/higher wages/more to spend on the NHS. Very disingenuous, but with Labour in the current state it is (essentially saying that the wellbeing of the working-class is less important than the sodding deficit and big businesses, not to mention speaking like they're in a Cambridge seminar), that's enough.
Are you saying there wouldn't be more jobs? That there wouldn't be more to spend on the NHS? Surely these things are self-evidently true. Excuse UKIP for not being locked into an uncontrolled immigration policy -Labour didn't used to be in favour of the EEC either.
As for the well-being of the working class, how is being shackled to a massive debt where interest payments mean a higher tax burden and less spent on services conducive to their welfare? Surely getting it paid off, and fast, is the way forward.
By the way, I see from this morning's thread, the penny is starting to drop even with some of the PBTories that the public don't care about the deficit!
They care about economic competence, especially for parties that have a poor record in that regard.
All very well banging on about NHS and private firms, but if it wasn't for Gordon Brown's use of PFI contracts some of the 'problem's outlined only last July in The New Statesmen.
'By the way, I see from this morning's thread, the penny is starting to drop even with some of the PBTories that the public don't care about the deficit!'
Even the PBKinnocks will care when their mortgage interest rate shoots up.
And that for me is Classic Old Labour. My father-in-law being a prime example.
Socially conservative, hangemandflogem, a trade union man [not a militant activist but genuinely wanted to make the workplace better for everyone] and salt of the Earth respectable family man.
They are going to look a bit stupid if there are no defections.
If UKIP is going to move leftwards to attract WWC, Old Labour voters how comfortable are right wing Tory MPs going to feel about signing up?
Just my opinion, but I think WWC old labour voters have more in common with ukip, and right wing Tories come to that, than the current Labour Party.
From a social/cultural perspective perhaps. But Old Labour was very much the party of strong trade unions, high taxes for the rich, nationalised industries, and so on. I am not sure such things come easily to right wing Tories and the UKIP leadership.
The thing is, UKIP don't actually have to explicitly promise those things to get working-class Labour voters. They just have to imply that by sending the immigrants away, there'll be more jobs/higher wages/more to spend on the NHS. Very disingenuous, but with Labour in the current state it is (essentially saying that the wellbeing of the working-class is less important than the sodding deficit and big businesses, not to mention speaking like they're in a Cambridge seminar), that's enough.
UKIP could definitely get WWC Labour protest votes in good numbers for the reasons you state. Blimey, even my Mum is talking about voting for them. But as it becomes more visible across more policy areas it is going to have to have a broad direction of travel - either rightwards or leftwards. And the way the party is set up at the moment the former is more likely than the latter.
It can quite happily travel leftwards on economic matters and rightwards on social ones, which is probably one of the largest subsections of the electorate and one of the least represented.
They are going to look a bit stupid if there are no defections.
If UKIP is going to move leftwards to attract WWC, Old Labour voters how comfortable are right wing Tory MPs going to feel about signing up?
Just my opinion, but I think WWC old labour voters have more in common with ukip, and right wing Tories come to that, than the current Labour Party.
From a social/cultural perspective perhaps. But Old Labour was very much the party of strong trade unions, high taxes for the rich, nationalised industries, and so on. I am not sure such things come easily to right wing Tories and the UKIP leadership.
The thing is, UKIP don't actually have to explicitly promise those things to get working-class Labour voters. They just have to imply that by sending the immigrants away, there'll be more jobs/higher wages/more to spend on the NHS. Very disingenuous, but with Labour in the current state it is (essentially saying that the wellbeing of the working-class is less important than the sodding deficit and big businesses, not to mention speaking like they're in a Cambridge seminar), that's enough.
UKIP could definitely get WWC Labour protest votes in good numbers for the reasons you state. Blimey, even my Mum is talking about voting for them. But as it becomes more visible across more policy areas it is going to have to have a broad direction of travel - either rightwards or leftwards. And the way the party is set up at the moment the former is more likely than the latter.
It can quite happily travel leftwards on economic matters and rightwards on social ones, which is probably one of the largest subsections of the electorate and one of the least represented.
Very true. No problem with them doing that either, but it's partly that worry that stops me jumping.
I vote UKIP in locals/euros because they don't treat voters and those with non-metropolitan views with contempt, and want to genuinely do something about issues like Europe and immigration rather than just pretend to. In other words, they're the real deal.
Despite detesting Cameron (who I think is destroying the party) I am now sufficiently horrified at the prospect of a Miliband government that I've almost made my mind up to vote Conservative in 2015, come what may.
I live in a Tory safe seat (and don't think much of the candidate) but will prob vote Tory anyway to give maximum legitimacy to any Conservative government that may result.
We'll then see what happens. It might be my last time.
No doubt some working class voters are attracted to UKIP by their immigration stance. But those would be former rightwing Tories or BNP voters.
The great bulk of working class voters aren't attracted to UKIP. And former Labour voters certainly won't be won over by their pro-rich, pro-big Business, anti-poor, anti-public service loony Thatcherite policies.
And unlike some I don't make the odd distinction between "white" working class people and those with other skin colours.
Typically 20% or so of working class voters support UKIP
I think I'd rather say this: Free speech needs to be respected.
Then respect it. The whole point of free speech is that it remains free even if you don't like what someone is saying.
I would also like to make the point that the most flagrant blasphemy against God and Jesus is permitted in this country -Glasgow council's 'art' exhibition where people were invited to deface The Bible being one particularly memorable example: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/glasgow-city-council-subsidises-bible.html However, the most that any Christians did was to gather outside the location for a quiet protest. You cannot excuse violent behaviour by Muslims on provocation. Life is full of provocation -it's how you choose to react.
Even the word blasphemy pisses me off. It suggests that to take the piss out of religion is some sort of transgression. I see it as akin to taking the piss out of Manchester United Football Club.
There isn't a blasphemy law in this country any more.
But there is incitement to race hatred.
Respect is a really important idea. One or two should learn it. The future of this world resides in people who are prepared to show respect, and by building together across common ground we will defeat the extremists of all quarters: even the extreme democrats.
p.s. reminds me of that quip that fundamentalists are no fun and half mental.
I watched the Bill de Blasio speech but thought it was a bit amateurish (surprisingly). He seemed very full of himself though - but he is a Yank. And he seemed a bit nervous.
By the way, I see from this morning's thread, the penny is starting to drop even with some of the PBTories that the public don't care about the deficit!
They care about economic competence, especially for parties that have a poor record in that regard.
Yarp. We may look back on Tuesday in 8 months time as a 'turning point'.
I am rather busy at the moment and will be for the foreseeable future, so (much to the relief of fellow posters) I will not be commenting as much as I would like. That said, I feel obliged to contribute to the discussion about whether insulting the late so-called Prophet Mohammed is an offence contrary to the law of England. Certainly, it is not an offence of inciting religious hatred, contrary to new Part IIIA of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 29J of that Act, enacted over the objections of the last Labour government provides that:
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
That does not, of course, prevent a prosecution of the use of abusive words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress contrary to sections 4A or 5 of the 1986 Act, or the religiously aggravated version of those offences, contained in section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Moreover, it is an offence to send a grossly offensive communication (Malicious Communications Act 1988, s. 1(1); Communications Act 2003, s. 127(1)).
Prima facie, therefore, a person is liable to prosecution for insulting the Prophet Mohammed. The two protections a defendant has are (1) the primacy the common law has always placed on freedom of speech, recently reaffirmed in Karsten v Crown Court at Wood Green, and (2) the European Convention on Human Rights.
I do not consider Mohammed a great man, though he is clearly an important historical figure, nor do I consider him a prophet. He's the founder of a religion, which I do not follow and which, based on what I know, I don't much care for. To the extent that anyone cares, I will say what I think about him (which is little more than what I've set out above) and if that leads to a prosecution, well, too bad.
This idea of not giving offence strikes me as ridiculous and corrosive of debate because the scope of any debate will thereby be limited to those who are both most preciously sensitive and willing to shout the loudest about it.
A pity that even with Liberals in government we didn't get these pernicious laws removed.
If you don't like what someone says, don't listen to them or read what they say. That's all.
......Stafford really wasn't that bad and it wasn't covered up, Andy Burnham just didn;t want too many people to feel sad and as for Wales, well they do drink and smoke a lot and there were lots of mines and they play a lot of rugby so its no surprise the system there is on its knees and they live next to England which is ruled by tories so there we are.
From a social/cultural perspective perhaps. But Old Labour was very much the party of strong trade unions, high taxes for the rich, nationalised industries, and so on. I am not sure such things come easily to right wing Tories and the UKIP leadership.
The thing is, UKIP don't actually have to explicitly promise those things to get working-class Labour voters. They just have to imply that by sending the immigrants away, there'll be more jobs/higher wages/more to spend on the NHS. Very disingenuous, but with Labour in the current state it is (essentially saying that the wellbeing of the working-class is less important than the sodding deficit and big businesses, not to mention speaking like they're in a Cambridge seminar), that's enough.
Are you saying there wouldn't be more jobs? That there wouldn't be more to spend on the NHS? Surely these things are self-evidently true. Excuse UKIP for not being locked into an uncontrolled immigration policy -Labour didn't used to be in favour of the EEC either.
As for the well-being of the working class, how is being shackled to a massive debt where interest payments mean a higher tax burden and less spent on services conducive to their welfare? Surely getting it paid off, and fast, is the way forward.
Labour's problem is that they represent people who they can convince are oppressed. The problem is that the long-run product of the Thatcher revolution was that huge numbers of poor people entered the middle class, and thus no longer fell for such politics. Labour was left with students and benefits claimants, which wasn't enough to get into power. So they pretended to be conservative for a bit to get in power and while there massively expanded the rolls of the public sector and opened the door to millions of third world immigrants. The first group can then be called victims whenever the state needed to be restricted to a sensible size, and the second group come in very poor, so their economic situation can also be blamed on the evil right-wingers. In addition, by expanding the ranks of lower income people, they hurt the economic prospects of the native workers on the cusp of the middle class. The end result is a bigger chunk of the population describing themselves as working class than for decades. That means Labour can safely move back to being openly socialist, and still get into power. It's all very clever.
I think I'd rather say this: Free speech needs to be respected.
Then respect it. The whole point of free speech is that it remains free even if you don't like what someone is saying.
I would also like to make the point that the most flagrant blasphemy against God and Jesus is permitted in this country -Glasgow council's 'art' exhibition where people were invited to deface The Bible being one particularly memorable example: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/glasgow-city-council-subsidises-bible.html However, the most that any Christians did was to gather outside the location for a quiet protest. You cannot excuse violent behaviour by Muslims on provocation. Life is full of provocation -it's how you choose to react.
Even the word blasphemy pisses me off. It suggests that to take the piss out of religion is some sort of transgression. I see it as akin to taking the piss out of Manchester United Football Club.
There isn't a blasphemy law in this country any more.
But there is incitement to race hatred.
Respect is a really important idea. One or two should learn it. The future of this world resides in people who are prepared to show respect, and by building together across common ground we will defeat the extremists of all quarters: even the extreme democrats.
p.s. reminds me of that quip that fundamentalists are no fun and half mental.
If someone wants my respect they need to earn it. Not demand it. Nor threaten me with violence or prosecution if I don't show it.
The way to defeat extremist views is with better views. Some liberals, alas, won't even take their own side in such an argument.
"Defamation is not available to dead people and insulting someone is not, thank God, yet a crime."
May I refer the right honourable lady to the discussions on this site over the past few weeks on the workings of the Public Order Act and in particular the expositions of it by our learned friend, Life in a market Town.
Insulting someone (alive or dead) can indeed be a criminal offence and this has been the case since at least 1936.
The relevant section is Section 29B: (1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
That does not make it an offence to insult someone nor does it prevent someone from calling Mohammed or Jesus or Buddha an asshole.
Free speech needs to be defended.
Given the original wording which Labour wanted to put in, I have little confidence that that they won't try the same trick again.
Sorry been talking with journos (not about this) so haven't followed the thread. As you know the cartoons of the prophet (pbuh) were never published in this country and I think that shows how most of the media treads.
I think we should move on from this.
Doing something out of fear does not determine what the law is. There is a word for it: appeasement. And there is a description for such behaviour: cowardly. And the behaviour of government ministers at the time was deplorable.
Those liberals who think that one should not say things, out of some sort of respect for a religion or person which one does not follow or respect, are not acting from principle but exhibiting moral cowardice. Any religion or belief system worthy of respect is well able to deal with criticisms, however insultingly or otherwise they are put, without resort to violence or the threat of it. The fact that some want to prevent the criticisms even being made suggests that they are scared that it actually won't survive any criticism or inquiry, which rather proves the point. We should play no part in propping up a religion's amour propre. If it survives criticism, fine. If it doesn't, too bad.
In general, I think it's best to be polite towards other people, and to be polite about the beliefs they hold dear (unless they're truly evil) because to do otherwise is the behaviour of a jerk (sometimes I fail).
But, one should never hold back from saying something is wrong, for fear of giving offence. And, it should be no business of the criminal law to enforce politeness, or to place some beliefs beyond criticism.
I think I'd rather say this: Free speech needs to be respected.
Then respect it. The whole point of free speech is that it remains free even if you don't like what someone is saying.
I would also like to make the point that the most flagrant blasphemy against God and Jesus is permitted in this country -Glasgow council's 'art' exhibition where people were invited to deface The Bible being one particularly memorable example: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/glasgow-city-council-subsidises-bible.html However, the most that any Christians did was to gather outside the location for a quiet protest. You cannot excuse violent behaviour by Muslims on provocation. Life is full of provocation -it's how you choose to react.
Even the word blasphemy pisses me off. It suggests that to take the piss out of religion is some sort of transgression. I see it as akin to taking the piss out of Manchester United Football Club.
There isn't a blasphemy law in this country any more.
But there is incitement to race hatred.
Respect is a really important idea. One or two should learn it. The future of this world resides in people who are prepared to show respect, and by building together across common ground we will defeat the extremists of all quarters: even the extreme democrats.
p.s. reminds me of that quip that fundamentalists are no fun and half mental.
God those extreme democrats that want a free exchange of arguments! Don't you hate them!
I completely agree that respect is a good thing. It's just your version of respect seems to entail not bringing up inconvenient historical facts.
From a social/cultural perspective perhaps. But Old Labour was very much the party of strong trade unions, high taxes for the rich, nationalised industries, and so on. I am not sure such things come easily to right wing Tories and the UKIP leadership.
The thing is, UKIP don't actually have to explicitly promise those things to get working-class Labour voters. They just have to imply that by sending the immigrants away, there'll be more jobs/higher wages/more to spend on the NHS. Very disingenuous, but with Labour in the current state it is (essentially saying that the wellbeing of the working-class is less important than the sodding deficit and big businesses, not to mention speaking like they're in a Cambridge seminar), that's enough.
Are you saying there wouldn't be more jobs? That there wouldn't be more to spend on the NHS? Surely these things are self-evidently true. Excuse UKIP for not being locked into an uncontrolled immigration policy -Labour didn't used to be in favour of the EEC either.
As for the well-being of the working class, how is being shackled to a massive debt where interest payments mean a higher tax burden and less spent on services conducive to their welfare? Surely getting it paid off, and fast, is the way forward.
Labour's problem is that they represent people who they can convince are oppressed. The problem is that the long-run product of the Thatcher revolution was that huge numbers of poor people entered the middle class, and thus no longer fell for such politics. Labour was left with students and benefits claimants, which wasn't enough to get into power. So they pretended to be conservative for a bit to get in power and while there massively expanded the rolls of the public sector and opened the door to millions of third world immigrants. The first group can then be called victims whenever the state needed to be restricted to a sensible size, and the second group come in very poor, so their economic situation can also be blamed on the evil right-wingers. In addition, by expanding the ranks of lower income people, they hurt the economic prospects of the native workers on the cusp of the middle class. The end result is a bigger chunk of the population describing themselves as working class than for decades. That means Labour can safely move back to being openly socialist, and still get into power. It's all very clever.
Genuine question: if you lived in a Conservative/Labour marginal (maybe you do) would you still vote UKIP in May next year?
PS. Only interested to compare your way of thinking to mine, so no need to have a go if we disagree!
Very surprised if any more Tory MP`s defect to UKIP.They have to realise every MP who goes makes a labour govt more likely unless that is what they want
I think I'd rather say this: Free speech needs to be respected.
Then respect it. The whole point of free speech is that it remains free even if you don't like what someone is saying.
I would also like to make the point that the most flagrant blasphemy against God and Jesus is permitted in this country -Glasgow council's 'art' exhibition where people were invited to deface The Bible being one particularly memorable example: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/glasgow-city-council-subsidises-bible.html However, the most that any Christians did was to gather outside the location for a quiet protest. You cannot excuse violent behaviour by Muslims on provocation. Life is full of provocation -it's how you choose to react.
Even the word blasphemy pisses me off. It suggests that to take the piss out of religion is some sort of transgression. I see it as akin to taking the piss out of Manchester United Football Club.
There isn't a blasphemy law in this country any more.
But there is incitement to race hatred.
Respect is a really important idea. One or two should learn it. The future of this world resides in people who are prepared to show respect, and by building together across common ground we will defeat the extremists of all quarters: even the extreme democrats.
p.s. reminds me of that quip that fundamentalists are no fun and half mental.
What's an extreme democrat by the way?
(BTW blasphemy laws protect religion. Race hatred is about race. Race and religion are not the same, even though some would like to elide the difference.)
I think I'd rather say this: Free speech needs to be respected.
Then respect it. The whole point of free speech is that it remains free even if you don't like what someone is saying.
I would also like to make the point that the most flagrant blasphemy against God and Jesus is permitted in this country -Glasgow council's 'art' exhibition where people were invited to deface The Bible being one particularly memorable example: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/glasgow-city-council-subsidises-bible.html However, the most that any Christians did was to gather outside the location for a quiet protest. You cannot excuse violent behaviour by Muslims on provocation. Life is full of provocation -it's how you choose to react.
Even the word blasphemy pisses me off. It suggests that to take the piss out of religion is some sort of transgression. I see it as akin to taking the piss out of Manchester United Football Club.
There isn't a blasphemy law in this country any more.
But there is incitement to race hatred.
Respect is a really important idea. One or two should learn it. The future of this world resides in people who are prepared to show respect, and by building together across common ground we will defeat the extremists of all quarters: even the extreme democrats.
p.s. reminds me of that quip that fundamentalists are no fun and half mental.
If someone wants my respect they need to earn it. Not demand it. Nor threaten me with violence or prosecution if I don't show it.
The way to defeat extremist views is with better views. Some liberals, alas, won't even take their own side in such an argument.
I don't actually think, to return to the original point, that most western Muslims would insist on it. The Danish cartoon incident was notable for the way the communities here distanced themselves from the fatwas, and in some ways it marked something of a watershed. For the most part I think Muslims here would just be very sad if you insulted the founder of their faith. As ever we tend to hear the extreme voices.
I thought Rageh Omah's documentary did a pretty good job by the way. It's very watchable and like most Muslims he condemns the extremists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRdIp9ne7fQ There are plenty of 'talking heads' with top scholars in the field and it doesn't shy away from the controversial issues.
I think I'd rather say this: Free speech needs to be respected.
Then respect it. The whole point of free speech is that it remains free even if you don't like what someone is saying.
I would also like to make the point that the most flagrant blasphemy against God and Jesus is permitted in this country -Glasgow council's 'art' exhibition where people were invited to deface The Bible being one particularly memorable example: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/glasgow-city-council-subsidises-bible.html However, the most that any Christians did was to gather outside the location for a quiet protest. You cannot excuse violent behaviour by Muslims on provocation. Life is full of provocation -it's how you choose to react.
Even the word blasphemy pisses me off. It suggests that to take the piss out of religion is some sort of transgression. I see it as akin to taking the piss out of Manchester United Football Club.
There isn't a blasphemy law in this country any more.
But there is incitement to race hatred.
Respect is a really important idea. One or two should learn it. The future of this world resides in people who are prepared to show respect, and by building together across common ground we will defeat the extremists of all quarters: even the extreme democrats.
p.s. reminds me of that quip that fundamentalists are no fun and half mental.
If someone wants my respect they need to earn it. Not demand it. Nor threaten me with violence or prosecution if I don't show it.
The way to defeat extremist views is with better views. Some liberals, alas, won't even take their own side in such an argument.
But that was the Labour view aided and abetted by their thought police storm troopers in the police and CPS.
I think I'd rather say this: Free speech needs to be respected.
Then respect it. The whole point of free speech is that it remains free even if you don't like what someone is saying.
I would also like to make the point that the most flagrant blasphemy against God and Jesus is permitted in this country -Glasgow council's 'art' exhibition where people were invited to deface The Bible being one particularly memorable example: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/glasgow-city-council-subsidises-bible.html However, the most that any Christians did was to gather outside the location for a quiet protest. You cannot excuse violent behaviour by Muslims on provocation. Life is full of provocation -it's how you choose to react.
Even the word blasphemy pisses me off. It suggests that to take the piss out of religion is some sort of transgression. I see it as akin to taking the piss out of Manchester United Football Club.
There isn't a blasphemy law in this country any more.
But there is incitement to race hatred.
Respect is a really important idea. One or two should learn it. The future of this world resides in people who are prepared to show respect, and by building together across common ground we will defeat the extremists of all quarters: even the extreme democrats.
p.s. reminds me of that quip that fundamentalists are no fun and half mental.
Have you been on a common purpose training course by any chance? You read like some ghastly, chilling, PC manifesto. And I hate to break unpleasant news, but this isn't where the future of the world resides -in fact it's already sounding horribly dated and irrelevant.
It can quite happily travel leftwards on economic matters and rightwards on social ones, which is probably one of the largest subsections of the electorate and one of the least represented.
The UKIP agenda looks strongly anti-Labour - 4 of the 30 speakers have identical speech titles: "LEAVING LABOUR" (their capitals). No equivalent ones listed from other parties. Farage is speaking twice, once on each day. The foreign speaker is a guest from the Free Citizens' Party in the Czech Republic, a small libertarian small-government party:
As a matter of interest, Labour's foreign speaker (not reported anywhere that I've noticed) was Bill de Blasio, NY Mayor, who gave a pleasant, fairly low-key fraternal speech from one moderate progressive to others. I'd heard he was an incendiary speaker a la Galloway, but that's presumably just because anyone left of Clinton looks extreme to American eyes.
De Blasio is genuinely left-wing though. He's stopped the expansion of charter schools in New York, even though they perform better than state schools. Madness.
I think I'd rather say this: Free speech needs to be respected.
Then respect it. The whole point of free speech is that it remains free even if you don't like what someone is saying.
I would also like to make the point that the most flagrant blasphemy against God and Jesus is permitted in this country -Glasgow council's 'art' exhibition where people were invited to deface The Bible being one particularly memorable example: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/glasgow-city-council-subsidises-bible.html However, the most that any Christians did was to gather outside the location for a quiet protest. You cannot excuse violent behaviour by Muslims on provocation. Life is full of provocation -it's how you choose to react.
Even the word blasphemy pisses me off. It suggests that to take the piss out of religion is some sort of transgression. I see it as akin to taking the piss out of Manchester United Football Club.
There isn't a blasphemy law in this country any more.
But there is incitement to race hatred.
Respect is a really important idea. One or two should learn it. The future of this world resides in people who are prepared to show respect, and by building together across common ground we will defeat the extremists of all quarters: even the extreme democrats.
p.s. reminds me of that quip that fundamentalists are no fun and half mental.
God those extreme democrats that want a free exchange of arguments! Don't you hate them!
I completely agree that respect is a good thing. It's just your version of respect seems to entail not bringing up inconvenient historical facts.
I think we'd be better off without any laws against something as nebulous as "incitement to hatred".
Chances are this is 'retaliation' for the recall of Parliament to ensure the media keep more than an eye on the UKIP Conference tomorrow. The whiff of a possible defection should be enough to ensure that the conference is not totally forgotten in all the excitement of us bombing the Middle East yet again
Of al those listed the most interesting if I was having a bet ( I don't) would be Gordon Henderson who according to Wiki has admitted his admiration for Nigel Farage and whose constituency Sittingbourne & Sheppey was amongst those where UKIP was most successful during the County Council elections in 2013 (UKIP polled over 39% in the KCC elections in Swale area and had a larger lead there than anywhere else in Kent) and the Euro elections in 2014 (at 43% vote share for UKIP it was second only to Thanet in Kent).
The main problem continuing Muslim extremism is that we indulge the wider swathe of Muslim conservatism on which it depends. Religious beliefs from Lutheranism to Catholicism to Judaism to Mormonism have had to moderate and accept the principles of liberal democracy because of constant intellectual challenge. Because of the extreme sensitivity of many Muslims, and because the left like to side with any group that's not traditional to Western nations, we have allowed an intellectual culture to develop where we only challenge the most extreme version of Islam: that of terrorism. We leave incubating the bit that's just slightly more moderate, with its homophobia, its sexism, its cruelty to animals and its separation of itself from the rest of society. In those communities, the intellectual challenge is never made by moderate people, so they assume the only criticism of Islam is from racists.
"Defamation is not available to dead people and insulting someone is not, thank God, yet a crime."
May I refer the right honourable lady to the discussions on this site over the past few weeks on the workings of the Public Order Act and in particular the expositions of it by our learned friend, Life in a market Town.
Insulting someone (alive or dead) can indeed be a criminal offence and this has been the case since at least 1936.
The relevant section is Section 29B: (1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
That does not make it an offence to insult someone nor does it prevent someone from calling Mohammed or Jesus or Buddha an asshole.
Free speech needs to be defended.
Given the original wording which Labour wanted to put in, I have little confidence that that they won't try the same trick again.
Sorry been talking with journos (not about this) so haven't followed the thread. As you know the cartoons of
I think we should move on from this.
Doing something out of fear does not determine what the law is. There is a word for it: appeasement. And there is a description for such behaviour: cowardly. And the behaviour of government ministers at the time was deplorable.
Those liberals who think that one should not say things, out of some sort of respect for a religion or person which one does not follow or respect, are not acting from principle but exhibiting moral cowardice. Any religion or belief system worthy of respect is well able to deal with criticisms, however insultingly or otherwise they are put, without resort to violence or the threat of it. The fact that some want to prevent the criticisms even being made suggests that they are scared that it actually won't survive any criticism or inquiry, which rather proves the point. We should play no part in propping up a religion's amour propre. If it survives criticism, fine. If it doesn't, too bad.
In general, I think it's best to be polite towards other people, and to be polite about the beliefs they hold dear (unless they're truly evil) because to do otherwise is the behaviour of a jerk (sometimes I fail).
But, one should never hold back from saying something is wrong, for fear of giving offence. And, it should be no business of the criminal law to enforce politeness, or to place some beliefs beyond criticism.
Hear, hear, Sean. Well said that man.
May I ask you the same question? Will you be voting UKIP come hell or high water, next year, or might there be some caveats?
I think I'd rather say this: Free speech needs to be respected.
Then respect it. The whole point of free speech is that it remains free even if you don't like what someone is saying.
I would also like to make the point that the most flagrant blasphemy against God and Jesus is permitted in this country -Glasgow council's 'art' exhibition where people were invited to deface The Bible being one particularly memorable example: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/glasgow-city-council-subsidises-bible.html However, the most that any Christians did was to gather outside the location for a quiet protest. You cannot excuse violent behaviour by Muslims on provocation. Life is full of provocation -it's how you choose to react.
Even the word blasphemy pisses me off. It suggests that to take the piss out of religion is some sort of transgression. I see it as akin to taking the piss out of Manchester United Football Club.
There isn't a blasphemy law in this country any more.
But there is incitement to race hatred.
Respect is a really important idea. One or two should learn it. The future of this world resides in people who are prepared to show respect, and by building together across common ground we will defeat the extremists of all quarters: even the extreme democrats.
p.s. reminds me of that quip that fundamentalists are no fun and half mental.
What's an extreme democrat by the way?
(BTW blasphemy laws protect religion. Race hatred is about race. Race and religion are not the same, even though some would like to elide the difference.)
By extreme democrats I meant certain groups and individuals who tend to see the trees not the wood by putting individual 'rights' above everything. Some of the gun lobby in the US fall into this trap. Generally be suspicious of anyone using the word 'Freedom' in an organisation, or any country with the name 'Democratic' in it
Re. the latter, yup I know that. There isn't a blasphemy law now as it was repealed, but the incitement to race hatred covers things you can and can't do or say.
I think we probably all know if we stop and think about it (which wouldn't be a bad idea in a couple of cases) that you cannot just say whatever you like willy nilly. If a teacher stands up in a school and tells the pupils he (or she) thinks it's a jolly good idea if children have sex with their teachers their right to free speech would be halted fairly promptly. If a preacher tells his ummah to rise up and overthrow the government with all violence possible he'll find his freedom fairly swiftly curtailed.
As I said before, to protect freedom you actually have to limit it.
"Defamation is not available to dead people and insulting someone is not, thank God, yet a crime."
May I refer the right honourable lady to the discussions on this site over the past few weeks on the workings of the Public Order Act and in particular the expositions of it by our learned friend, Life in a market Town.
Insulting someone (alive or dead) can indeed be a criminal offence and this has been the case since at least 1936.
Sorry been talking with journos (not about this) so haven't followed the thread. As you know the cartoons of the prophet (pbuh) were never published in this country and I think that shows how most of the media treads.
I think we should move on from this.
In general, I think it's best to be polite towards other people, and to be polite about the beliefs they hold dear (unless they're truly evil) because to do otherwise is the behaviour of a jerk (sometimes I fail).
But, one should never hold back from saying something is wrong, for fear of giving offence. And, it should be no business of the criminal law to enforce politeness, or to place some beliefs beyond criticism.
On those rare occasions I have been in a mosque I have taken off my shoes and covered my head. This is simply good manners. I agree that one should try and be polite. But debate about issues should not be stifled because some people don't want to have their beliefs offended or challenged or even questioned.
Put it this way: lots of people on forums such as this and elsewhere say rude things about Catholics, the Pope, priestly child abuse and indeed the very practice of the Catholic faith. I'm Catholic. I may argue with them or not. I don't question their right to say it, even in the most insulting way possible. I don't expect them to be polite about Catholic belief just because they're debating with me. I don't think Muslims should expect some different standard just because some of them seem to be particularly touchy or sensitive.
The only reason Christianity survived the Enlightenment is because it was made subject to some furious, scurrilous and insulting ridicule and criticism and critique and had to adapt and learn from that. Ideas (and religion is a set of ideas about the world and man's place in it) which insulate or seek to insulate themselves from criticism are a menace.
The US Attorney General, Eric Holder has resigned, claiming personal reasons. Will this have any effect on the US mid-term elections?
If he really did resign for purely personal reasons, of no public interest, then probably not. The resignation will give Republican commentators a chance to rake up all the scandals Holder was allegedly involved in - such as the fast and furious gun-walking scheme - but that's not likely to convince anyone who wasn't already going to vote Republican.
If he's really resigning because of some impending scandal in his personal life, that won't directly hurt the Democrats, but it could be a significant distraction from the campaign.
If he's resigning ahead of some major political scandal, then that will obviously have major consequences, but while that's probably what Republican activists will be hoping for, it doesn't feel too likely.
There's also the question of who Obama will pick to replace him, but I've no idea who the runners are in that race.
"Defamation is not available to dead people and insulting someone is not, thank God, yet a crime."
May I refer the right honourable lady to the discussions on this site over the past few weeks on the workings of the Public Order Act and in particular the expositions of it by our learned friend, Life in a market Town.
Insulting someone (alive or dead) can indeed be a criminal offence and this has been the case since at least 1936.
Sorry been talking with journos (not about this) so haven't followed the thread. As you know the cartoons of
I think we should move on from this.
Doing something out of fear does not determine what the law is. There is a word for it: appeasement. And there is a description for such behaviour: cowardly. And the behaviour of government ministers at the time was deplorable.
Those liberals who think that one should not say things, out of some sort of respect for a religion or person which one does not follow or respect, are not acting from principle but exhibiting moral cowardice. Any religion or belief system worthy of respect is well able to deal with criticisms, however insultingly or otherwise they are put, without resort to violence or the threat of it. The fact that some want to prevent the criticisms even being made suggests that they are scared that it actually won't survive any criticism or inquiry, which rather proves the point. We should play no part in propping up a religion's amour propre. If it survives criticism, fine. If it doesn't, too bad.
In general, I think it's best to be polite towards other people, and to be polite about the beliefs they hold dear (unless they're truly evil) because to do otherwise is the behaviour of a jerk (sometimes I fail).
But, one should never hold back from saying something is wrong, for fear of giving offence. And, it should be no business of the criminal law to enforce politeness, or to place some beliefs beyond criticism.
Hear, hear, Sean. Well said that man.
May I ask you the same question? Will you be voting UKIP come hell or high water, next year, or might there be some caveats?
Assuming I still live in Luton South, I'll vote Conservative, because UKIP won't feature here. If I lived in Thanet South, Thurrock, Clacton, Rotherham etc. I'd vote UKIP. I'll still campaign for UKIP, probably in Essex or Huntingdon.
"Defamation is not available to dead people and insulting someone is not, thank God, yet a crime."
May I refer the right honourable lady to the discussions on this site over the past few weeks on the workings of the Public Order Act and in particular the expositions of it by our learned friend, Life in a market Town.
Insulting someone (alive or dead) can indeed be a criminal offence and this has been the case since at least 1936.
Free speech needs to be defended.
I think I'd rather say this: Free speech needs to be respected.
Free speech is being neither defended nor respected if it only applies to things that do not bother anyone.
"Defamation is not available to dead people and insulting someone is not, thank God, yet a crime."
May I refer the right honourable lady to the discussions on this site over the past few weeks on the workings of the Public Order Act and in particular the expositions of it by our learned friend, Life in a market Town.
Insulting someone (alive or dead) can indeed be a criminal offence and this has been the case since at least 1936.
Sorry been talking with journos (not about this) so haven't followed the thread. As you know the cartoons of
I think we should move on from this.
Doing something out of fear does not determine what the law is. There is a word for it: appeasement. And there is a description for such behaviour: cowardly. And the behaviour of government ministers at the time was deplorable.
Those liberals who think that one should not say things, out of some sort of respect for a religion or person which one does not follow or respect, are not acting from principle but exhibiting moral cowardice. Any religion or belief system worthy of respect is well able to deal with criticisms, however insultingly or otherwise they are put, without resort to violence or the threat of it. The fact that some want to prevent the criticisms even being made suggests that they are scared that it actually won't survive any criticism or inquiry, which rather proves the point. We should play no part in propping up a religion's amour propre. If it survives criticism, fine. If it doesn't, too bad.
In general, I think it's best to be polite towards other people, and to be polite about the beliefs they hold dear (unless they're truly evil) because to do otherwise is the behaviour of a jerk (sometimes I fail).
But, one should never hold back from saying something is wrong, for fear of giving offence. And, it should be no business of the criminal law to enforce politeness, or to place some beliefs beyond criticism.
Hear, hear, Sean. Well said that man.
May I ask you the same question? Will you be voting UKIP come hell or high water, next year, or might there be some caveats?
Assuming I still live in Luton South, I'll vote Conservative, because UKIP won't feature here. If I lived in Thanet South, Thurrock, Clacton, Rotherham etc. I'd vote UKIP. I'll still campaign for UKIP, probably in Essex or Huntingdon.
Why do you love the NHS so much? As an anecdote I had a friend admitted to Southampton General Hospital recently, his care was not good. (I was charged £11.00 car parking for a few hours to be with him when he was rushed in with horrendous stomach pains, what a joke.) Appendix we all thought, after a week of doing nothing but guess as whal else it could be ( my friend remaining in terrible pain) they took out his appendix and guess what all better. Visiting him daily the Hospital gave the impression of pure chaos, it was not a place I would want to be if i was ill.
My wife is a nurse at Royal Hampshire County Hospital which is a place I would chose to go for an A & E issue, much calmer than Southampton. The sickness level amongst the nurses is laughable. Most wards have over 20% of staff on long term sick. Doing overtime she could work 24 hours each and every day they are so short staffed due to sickness. They end up paying up to £100 per hour to an Agency for a trained nurse. I have never understood why NHS workers are seen as the most worthy of all employees in the Country and beyond criticism when there are a significant number who take massive advantage of the excellent employment conditions/rights they have.
The NHS receives a huge amount of our money, it really should be a lot better.
The main problem continuing Muslim extremism is that we indulge the wider swathe of Muslim conservatism on which it depends. Religious beliefs from Lutheranism to Catholicism to Judaism to Mormonism have had to moderate and accept the principles of liberal democracy because of constant intellectual challenge. Because of the extreme sensitivity of many Muslims, and because the left like to side with any group that's not traditional to Western nations, we have allowed an intellectual culture to develop where we only challenge the most extreme version of Islam: that of terrorism. We leave incubating the bit that's just slightly more moderate, with its homophobia, its sexism, its cruelty to animals and its separation of itself from the rest of society. In those communities, the intellectual challenge is never made by moderate people, so they assume the only criticism of Islam is from racists.
We need to ban the burqa and the niqab, abolish any idea of sharia law, attack cousin marriage honour killings, and FGM, and severely restrict the building of mosques and minarets: basically, we need to make the UK a deeply uncomfortable place to live if you are a fundamentalist or very conservative Muslim.
Then they will go home, and they will also stop coming here.
We all know this is true, only the feeble minded (especially the Left) deny it. Multiculturalism has failed.
I predict laws like the above will be in operation in most western countries within 20 years - esp France, Belgium, Spain and the UK - outrageous as some of them seem now. It's cultural Darwinism. A law of nature.
O/T
BBC2 documentary on now about excavation of Khmer cities in Cambodian jungle in areas occupied by Khmer Rouge until 1990s... Very interesting and helping to flesh out settings for Lost Goddess...
"Defamation is not available to dead people and insulting someone is not, thank God, yet a crime."
In general, I think it's best to be polite towards other people, and to be polite about the beliefs they hold dear (unless they're truly evil) because to do otherwise is the behaviour of a jerk (sometimes I fail).
But, one should never hold back from saying something is wrong, for fear of giving offence. And, it should be no business of the criminal law to enforce politeness, or to place some beliefs beyond criticism.
On those rare occasions I have been in a mosque I have taken off my shoes and covered my head. This is simply good manners. I agree that one should try and be polite. But debate about issues should not be stifled because some people don't want to have their beliefs offended or challenged or even questioned.
Put it this way: lots of people on forums such as this and elsewhere say rude things about Catholics, the Pope, priestly child abuse and indeed the very practice of the Catholic faith. I'm Catholic. I may argue with them or not. I don't question their right to say it, even in the most insulting way possible. I don't expect them to be polite about Catholic belief just because they're debating with me. I don't think Muslims should expect some different standard just because some of them seem to be particularly touchy or sensitive.
The only reason Christianity survived the Enlightenment is because it was made subject to some furious, scurrilous and insulting ridicule and criticism and critique and had to adapt and learn from that. Ideas (and religion is a set of ideas about the world and man's place in it) which insulate or seek to insulate themselves from criticism are a menace.
I agree with a fair bit of what you're saying: a sane voice in this discussion. However, problems arise with an issue like painting the face of Allah or the prophet (pbuh) in the west. This is considered the ultimate sin and goes to the core of the meaning of Islam: the oneness of God and it's opposite in what we would call idolatry. This is incidentally more of the issue in the Danish cartoon furore than the fact that one of them portrayed him with a bomb under his turban. No-one in this country republished those cartoons and I think this was wise. A lot wiser than Richard Tyndall on here who thinks they should have done.
A lot of this is about common courtesy and being polite. There is no need to incite people when you can say something differently, and usually better, by taking a little time to consider your words.
Why do you love the NHS so much? As an anecdote I had a friend admitted to Southampton General Hospital recently, his care was not good. (I was charged £11.00 car parking for a few hours to be with him when he was rushed in with horrendous stomach pains, what a joke.) Appendix we all thought, after a week of doing nothing but guess as whal else it could be ( my friend remaining in terrible pain) they took out his appendix and guess what all better. Visiting him daily the Hospital gave the impression of pure chaos, it was not a place I would want to be if i was ill.
My wife is a nurse at Royal Hampshire County Hospital which is a place I would chose to go for an A & E issue, much calmer than Southampton. The sickness level amongst the nurses is laughable. Most wards have over 20% of staff on long term sick. Doing overtime she could work 24 hours each and every day they are so short staffed due to sickness. They end up paying up to £100 per hour to an Agency for a trained nurse. I have never understood why NHS workers are seen as the most worthy of all employees in the Country and beyond criticism when there are a significant number who take massive advantage of the excellent employment conditions/rights they have.
The NHS receives a huge amount of our money, it really should be a lot better.
Yes, but it's impossible to have a rational argument about the NHS and publicly funded healthcare in this country.
It is a religion. Even with friends of mine who are postgraduates (one holds a PhD) within three minutes the following old canards come up: "free at the point of use" and "look at America, would you want us to be like America?"
Occasionally, "world class" and "the nurses and doctors do a fantastic job" come up - as if I was saying they didn't.
When I try and explain some alternative European or Asian healthcare funding models and success records, they either look confused, repeat the above, or change the subject.
Wonder what the spin will be from the Tory Party over the two defectors? Will they be then sent to Heywood and Middleton/Clacton to rally the purple peril?
A lot of this is about common courtesy and being polite. There is no need to incite people when you can say something differently, and usually better, by taking a little time to consider your words.
And self censorship. What happened to the student editor in Wales who dared to publish? So much for the free press.
I think we probably all know if we stop and think about it (which wouldn't be a bad idea in a couple of cases) that you cannot just say whatever you like willy nilly. If a teacher stands up in a school and tells the pupils he (or she) thinks it's a jolly good idea if children have sex with their teachers their right to free speech would be halted fairly promptly. If a preacher tells his ummah to rise up and overthrow the government with all violence possible he'll find his freedom fairly swiftly curtailed.
As I said before, to protect freedom you actually have to limit it.
No one believes in an absolute right to freedom of speech. The issue is where to draw the line. In your first example, the teacher would be encouraging the commission of a serious sexual offence, contrary to Part 7 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. In the second, the preacher would be guilty of high treason contrary to the statute of 1351, an offence contrary to section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848, and divers offences under the terrorist legislation. Both are quite different to the mocking or ridiculing of an idea. Only authoritarians like to ban the latter. The former are prohibited because they would, objectively, harm individuals or destroy the political community.
The main problem continuing Muslim extremism is that we indulge the wider swathe of Muslim conservatism on which it depends. Religious beliefs from Lutheranism to Catholicism to Judaism to Mormonism have had to moderate and accept the principles of liberal democracy because of constant intellectual challenge. Because of the extreme sensitivity of many Muslims, and because the left like to side with any group that's not traditional to Western nations, we have allowed an intellectual culture to develop where we only challenge the most extreme version of Islam: that of terrorism. We leave incubating the bit that's just slightly more moderate, with its homophobia, its sexism, its cruelty to animals and its separation of itself from the rest of society. In those communities, the intellectual challenge is never made by moderate people, so they assume the only criticism of Islam is from racists.
I predict ... ... .
It served you well on the night of the Indyref.
Presumably by the way you would still like to fly over those Muslim countries in order to get at your Thai 'denizens'?
Deferential rubbish. I am an atheist and people can slag me off as much as they like, and do, regularly. I get worse on here some weeks Who cares? I still won't threaten anyone with death. This pandering to religion is one of the real evils of the modern age. People who argue that we should walk around on eggshells around the pious are plain wrong. If they fancy debating their faith, let them, I mean them no harm, nor do I dislike them, but don't tell me I can't poke fun at them.
Why do you love the NHS so much? As an anecdote I had a friend admitted to Southampton General Hospital recently, his care was not good. (I was charged £11.00 car parking for a few hours to be with him when he was rushed in with horrendous stomach pains, what a joke.) Appendix we all thought, after a week of doing nothing but guess as whal else it could be ( my friend remaining in terrible pain) they took out his appendix and guess what all better. Visiting him daily the Hospital gave the impression of pure chaos, it was not a place I would want to be if i was ill.
My wife is a nurse at Royal Hampshire County Hospital which is a place I would chose to go for an A & E issue, much calmer than Southampton. The sickness level amongst the nurses is laughable. Most wards have over 20% of staff on long term sick. Doing overtime she could work 24 hours each and every day they are so short staffed due to sickness. They end up paying up to £100 per hour to an Agency for a trained nurse. I have never understood why NHS workers are seen as the most worthy of all employees in the Country and beyond criticism when there are a significant number who take massive advantage of the excellent employment conditions/rights they have.
The NHS receives a huge amount of our money, it really should be a lot better.
I agree. The NHS could and should be a lot better. The question though is how to get there. I have family in the area and am not surprised by your experiences of the Hants hospitals, though I think not very different elsewhere.
Junior surgeons have the experience of neither ward managment, or of surgery of thirty years ago. Training is worse in practical skills (though better at communication) and the reduction in juniors hours has destroyed continuity. At times I despair, but the solutions expounded seem worse than the present.
"Defamation is not available to dead people and insulting someone is not, thank God, yet a crime."
.
I agree with a fair bit of what you're saying: a sane voice in this discussion. However, problems arise with an issue like painting the face of Allah or the prophet (pbuh) in the west. This is considered the ultimate sin and goes to the core of the meaning of Islam: the oneness of God and it's opposite in what we would call idolatry. This is incidentally more of the issue in the Danish cartoon furore than the fact that one of them portrayed him with a bomb under his turban. No-one in this country republished those cartoons and I think this was wise. A lot wiser than Richard Tyndall on here who thinks they should have done.
A lot of this is about common courtesy and being polite. There is no need to incite people when you can say something differently, and usually better, by taking a little time to consider your words.
So what if painting Mohammed is considered a sin by Muslims? No-one's forcing Muslims to paint him.
But the rest of us who are not Muslims have no need to pay any regard to Muslim beliefs when we decide what we want to paint or publish.
I think the cartoons should have been published so that we could decide for ourselves what we thought of them. If Muslims would have been offended they did not have to view them. But what they wanted to do was use their sensitivity to offence as a way of curtailing what others could read.
Could I say that I am offended by reading about the existence of Mohammed (because, for instance, I don't believe he has written the word of God and to say it is insulting to the one true faith) and therefore demand that the Koran not be published? To phrase the question is to show how ridiculous it is - and how ridiculous the furore whipped up by certain imams was.
The only reason those cartoons were not published was fear of the violence that would ensue and that was the worst reason of all for not publishing.
Islam needs to be subject to wide-ranging challenge, critique, criticism, insolence, humour, mockery etc - just like Christianity was and is.
Comments
Wouldn't want to be in his shoes. Public Enemy Number One.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222769/Dishonest-Blair-Straw-accused-secret-plan-multicultural-UK.html
It needs to be fought for and defended because it is precious and the heart of our free, liberal democracy. Without it, none of our other freedoms matter and will hold. Freedom of speech is freedom of thought. There are too many people and groups who do want to limit what we think, for fear that we might think for ourselves and in ways which they do not like.
Well, tough!
Made me smile.
I would also like to make the point that the most flagrant blasphemy against God and Jesus is permitted in this country -Glasgow council's 'art' exhibition where people were invited to deface The Bible being one particularly memorable example: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/glasgow-city-council-subsidises-bible.html However, the most that any Christians did was to gather outside the location for a quiet protest. You cannot excuse violent behaviour by Muslims on provocation. Life is full of provocation -it's how you choose to react.
I'm also friends with Chris Kelly on facebook. He basically said it was utter bollox and he'd be voting Conservative in 2015.
I really do wonder if this (these?) UKIP defector/s will materalise.
(For the record, the one time I met Nadine Dorries, she was utterly charming.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Free_Citizens
As a matter of interest, Labour's foreign speaker (not reported anywhere that I've noticed) was Bill de Blasio, NY Mayor, who gave a pleasant, fairly low-key fraternal speech from one moderate progressive to others. I'd heard he was an incendiary speaker a la Galloway, but that's presumably just because anyone left of Clinton looks extreme to American eyes.
Inefficient private health companies scrounging off the taxpayer and channeling the money into profits rather than patient care.
To think the Tories are trying to hand our entire NHS over to these scum.
Those liberals who think that one should not say things, out of some sort of respect for a religion or person which one does not follow or respect, are not acting from principle but exhibiting moral cowardice. Any religion or belief system worthy of respect is well able to deal with criticisms, however insultingly or otherwise they are put, without resort to violence or the threat of it. The fact that some want to prevent the criticisms even being made suggests that they are scared that it actually won't survive any criticism or inquiry, which rather proves the point. We should play no part in propping up a religion's amour propre. If it survives criticism, fine. If it doesn't, too bad.
The author reckons that for UKIP anything less than 20% is disappointing, and anything more than 30% is remarkable.
Prima facie, therefore, a person is liable to prosecution for insulting the Prophet Mohammed. The two protections a defendant has are (1) the primacy the common law has always placed on freedom of speech, recently reaffirmed in Karsten v Crown Court at Wood Green, and (2) the European Convention on Human Rights.
There's no PFI in Wales is there???
And things are so much better....
As for the well-being of the working class, how is being shackled to a massive debt where interest payments mean a higher tax burden and less spent on services conducive to their welfare? Surely getting it paid off, and fast, is the way forward.
my wtf ometer is off the scale
*pfft*
http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2014/07/save-nhs-labour-must-face-ugly-truth-pfi
All I can conclude is that @hugh was on holiday and missed their coverage.
It's enough to make Labour delegates shed a tear....
'By the way, I see from this morning's thread, the penny is starting to drop even with some of the PBTories that the public don't care about the deficit!'
Even the PBKinnocks will care when their mortgage interest rate shoots up.
David "no more top down reorganisation" Cameron's Tories, supported by Tory donors from the private health sector, are now trying to flog the lot.
Golden rule of politics - you can't trust the Tories with our NHS.
Socially conservative, hangemandflogem, a trade union man [not a militant activist but genuinely wanted to make the workplace better for everyone] and salt of the Earth respectable family man.
He'd vote Kipper nowadays.
Never mind fragmentation of the NHS through regional devolution...
I vote UKIP in locals/euros because they don't treat voters and those with non-metropolitan views with contempt, and want to genuinely do something about issues like Europe and immigration rather than just pretend to. In other words, they're the real deal.
Despite detesting Cameron (who I think is destroying the party) I am now sufficiently horrified at the prospect of a Miliband government that I've almost made my mind up to vote Conservative in 2015, come what may.
I live in a Tory safe seat (and don't think much of the candidate) but will prob vote Tory anyway to give maximum legitimacy to any Conservative government that may result.
We'll then see what happens. It might be my last time.
Mark Pritchard is another strong possibility IMO.
I see you still can't manage it either despite increasingly desperate attempts.
Tsk. Do up your game, then I may play. Otherwise you're just being a plonker.
Look to Wales for how labour would do it....oh, wait.....
But there is incitement to race hatred.
Respect is a really important idea. One or two should learn it. The future of this world resides in people who are prepared to show respect, and by building together across common ground we will defeat the extremists of all quarters: even the extreme democrats.
p.s. reminds me of that quip that fundamentalists are no fun and half mental.
I watched the Bill de Blasio speech but thought it was a bit amateurish (surprisingly). He seemed very full of himself though - but he is a Yank. And he seemed a bit nervous.
*ducks for cover*
Prima facie, therefore, a person is liable to prosecution for insulting the Prophet Mohammed. The two protections a defendant has are (1) the primacy the common law has always placed on freedom of speech, recently reaffirmed in Karsten v Crown Court at Wood Green, and (2) the European Convention on Human Rights.
I do not consider Mohammed a great man, though he is clearly an important historical figure, nor do I consider him a prophet. He's the founder of a religion, which I do not follow and which, based on what I know, I don't much care for. To the extent that anyone cares, I will say what I think about him (which is little more than what I've set out above) and if that leads to a prosecution, well, too bad.
This idea of not giving offence strikes me as ridiculous and corrosive of debate because the scope of any debate will thereby be limited to those who are both most preciously sensitive and willing to shout the loudest about it.
A pity that even with Liberals in government we didn't get these pernicious laws removed.
If you don't like what someone says, don't listen to them or read what they say. That's all.
Andrew Lansley bankrolled by private healthcare provider
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6989408/Andrew-Lansley-bankrolled-by-private-healthcare-provider.html
Private health care firms with Tory links have been awarded NHS contracts worth nearly £1.5billion.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fury-tory-party-donors-handed-3123469
......Stafford really wasn't that bad and it wasn't covered up, Andy Burnham just didn;t want too many people to feel sad and as for Wales, well they do drink and smoke a lot and there were lots of mines and they play a lot of rugby so its no surprise the system there is on its knees and they live next to England which is ruled by tories so there we are.
I wouldn't recognise him if he was stood next to me. A total no-name if he went.
The way to defeat extremist views is with better views. Some liberals, alas, won't even take their own side in such an argument.
But, one should never hold back from saying something is wrong, for fear of giving offence. And, it should be no business of the criminal law to enforce politeness, or to place some beliefs beyond criticism.
I completely agree that respect is a good thing. It's just your version of respect seems to entail not bringing up inconvenient historical facts.
PS. Only interested to compare your way of thinking to mine, so no need to have a go if we disagree!
(BTW blasphemy laws protect religion. Race hatred is about race. Race and religion are not the same, even though some would like to elide the difference.)
I thought Rageh Omah's documentary did a pretty good job by the way. It's very watchable and like most Muslims he condemns the extremists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRdIp9ne7fQ
There are plenty of 'talking heads' with top scholars in the field and it doesn't shy away from the controversial issues.
All to keep their newly imported vote bank sweet.
Sadly you just look like a delusional lonely saddo, as your posts amount to little more than "I agree", "great for us blues" "Ed M pffft".
Your TV box set insights might be interesting mind, if someone was into that sort of thing and had masses of time to spare.
De Blasio is genuinely left-wing though. He's stopped the expansion of charter schools in New York, even though they perform better than state schools. Madness.
Of al those listed the most interesting if I was having a bet ( I don't) would be Gordon Henderson who according to Wiki has admitted his admiration for Nigel Farage and whose constituency Sittingbourne & Sheppey was amongst those where UKIP was most successful during the County Council elections in 2013 (UKIP polled over 39% in the KCC elections in Swale area and had a larger lead there than anywhere else in Kent) and the Euro elections in 2014 (at 43% vote share for UKIP it was second only to Thanet in Kent).
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=H8--ReA778Q
May I ask you the same question? Will you be voting UKIP come hell or high water, next year, or might there be some caveats?
Re. the latter, yup I know that. There isn't a blasphemy law now as it was repealed, but the incitement to race hatred covers things you can and can't do or say.
I think we probably all know if we stop and think about it (which wouldn't be a bad idea in a couple of cases) that you cannot just say whatever you like willy nilly. If a teacher stands up in a school and tells the pupils he (or she) thinks it's a jolly good idea if children have sex with their teachers their right to free speech would be halted fairly promptly. If a preacher tells his ummah to rise up and overthrow the government with all violence possible he'll find his freedom fairly swiftly curtailed.
As I said before, to protect freedom you actually have to limit it.
Put it this way: lots of people on forums such as this and elsewhere say rude things about Catholics, the Pope, priestly child abuse and indeed the very practice of the Catholic faith. I'm Catholic. I may argue with them or not. I don't question their right to say it, even in the most insulting way possible. I don't expect them to be polite about Catholic belief just because they're debating with me. I don't think Muslims should expect some different standard just because some of them seem to be particularly touchy or sensitive.
The only reason Christianity survived the Enlightenment is because it was made subject to some furious, scurrilous and insulting ridicule and criticism and critique and had to adapt and learn from that. Ideas (and religion is a set of ideas about the world and man's place in it) which insulate or seek to insulate themselves from criticism are a menace.
Unless he's on a march in London. He can even call for beheading those who insult Islam and nothing will happen.
If he really did resign for purely personal reasons, of no public interest, then probably not. The resignation will give Republican commentators a chance to rake up all the scandals Holder was allegedly involved in - such as the fast and furious gun-walking scheme - but that's not likely to convince anyone who wasn't already going to vote Republican.
If he's really resigning because of some impending scandal in his personal life, that won't directly hurt the Democrats, but it could be a significant distraction from the campaign.
If he's resigning ahead of some major political scandal, then that will obviously have major consequences, but while that's probably what Republican activists will be hoping for, it doesn't feel too likely.
There's also the question of who Obama will pick to replace him, but I've no idea who the runners are in that race.
My wife is a nurse at Royal Hampshire County Hospital which is a place I would chose to go for an A & E issue, much calmer than Southampton. The sickness level amongst the nurses is laughable. Most wards have over 20% of staff on long term sick. Doing overtime she could work 24 hours each and every day they are so short staffed due to sickness. They end up paying up to £100 per hour to an Agency for a trained nurse. I have never understood why NHS workers are seen as the most worthy of all employees in the Country and beyond criticism when there are a significant number who take massive advantage of the excellent employment conditions/rights they have.
The NHS receives a huge amount of our money, it really should be a lot better.
This naturally leads to PC-commissars.
Seen him on most news stations today,doesn't want us to start bombing and really seems to me,as a dislike of Cameron.
BBC2 documentary on now about excavation of Khmer cities in Cambodian jungle in areas occupied by Khmer Rouge until 1990s... Very interesting and helping to flesh out settings for Lost Goddess...
God, I wish George Orwell were alive now!
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
A lot of this is about common courtesy and being polite. There is no need to incite people when you can say something differently, and usually better, by taking a little time to consider your words.
A lot of this is about common courtesy and being polite. There is no need to incite people when you can say something differently, and usually better, by taking a little time to consider your words.
And self censorship.
What happened to the student editor in Wales who dared to publish? So much for the free press.
Presumably by the way you would still like to fly over those Muslim countries in order to get at your Thai 'denizens'?
Deferential rubbish. I am an atheist and people can slag me off as much as they like, and do, regularly. I get worse on here some weeks
Junior surgeons have the experience of neither ward managment, or of surgery of thirty years ago. Training is worse in practical skills (though better at communication) and the reduction in juniors hours has destroyed continuity. At times I despair, but the solutions expounded seem worse than the present.
But the rest of us who are not Muslims have no need to pay any regard to Muslim beliefs when we decide what we want to paint or publish.
I think the cartoons should have been published so that we could decide for ourselves what we thought of them. If Muslims would have been offended they did not have to view them. But what they wanted to do was use their sensitivity to offence as a way of curtailing what others could read.
Could I say that I am offended by reading about the existence of Mohammed (because, for instance, I don't believe he has written the word of God and to say it is insulting to the one true faith) and therefore demand that the Koran not be published? To phrase the question is to show how ridiculous it is - and how ridiculous the furore whipped up by certain imams was.
The only reason those cartoons were not published was fear of the violence that would ensue and that was the worst reason of all for not publishing.
Islam needs to be subject to wide-ranging challenge, critique, criticism, insolence, humour, mockery etc - just like Christianity was and is.
Absolutely agree. Imagine a 'life of Brian' film satirizing islam and those who follow it??
It just ain't gonna happen.
http://tinyurl.com/kdzo3qz
That Ed can't, demonstrates what a complete loser he is