Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview: September 25th 2014

SystemSystem Posts: 11,692
edited September 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview: September 25th 2014

Result of last election to council (2014): Conservatives 37, Residents 12, Liberal Democrats 3, United Kingdom Independence Party 2, Independents 2, Greens 1, Labour 1 (Conservative majority of 16)

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    All Coalition defences! Only two Labour candidates?
  • Options
    I think I just blasphemed Plato on the last thread!
  • Options
    For those betting on Heywood and Middleton

    The father of the main prosecution witness in Britain’s biggest child sex grooming scandal has accused Nigel Farage of exploiting the issue for political gain as the UK Independence party attempts to unseat Labour in a Manchester byelection.

    The man, known as Tom, whose daughter’s testimony led to the prosecution of nine Asian men and an overhaul of Crown Prosecution Service rules, said that the anti-federalist party had resorted to British National party-style tactics while campaigning to win Heywood and Middleton in Greater Manchester.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/25/nigel-farage-ukip-heywood-middleton-child-sex-politics
  • Options
    FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    FPT Religious tolerance

    I used to be a Mormon until mainstream people starting getting picky about me marrying my daughter. They persuaded me to leave the religion, which I eventually did becoming a Mormon fundamentalist. Now I've married both my daughters.
  • Options
    FPT, US politics: 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.
  • Options

    For those betting on Heywood and Middleton

    The father of the main prosecution witness in Britain’s biggest child sex grooming scandal has accused Nigel Farage of exploiting the issue for political gain as the UK Independence party attempts to unseat Labour in a Manchester byelection.

    The man, known as Tom, whose daughter’s testimony led to the prosecution of nine Asian men and an overhaul of Crown Prosecution Service rules, said that the anti-federalist party had resorted to British National party-style tactics while campaigning to win Heywood and Middleton in Greater Manchester.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/25/nigel-farage-ukip-heywood-middleton-child-sex-politics

    Ah - a comeuppance for Nige. However, you are playing with fire bringing that topic up on here TSE. I fear the quality of debate on the key Epping Forest council byelection may suffer!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,857
    edited September 2014
    When did UKIP start being referred to as an 'anti-federalist' party? Is that a recent thing or have I just missed it before?

    I don't think UKIP have to address quickly the issue of finding candidates for places like Frome North. All over the nation you will find funny little wards where LDs, or Labour or the Tories won't be standing for some reason. It would be better for them if they stand in as many areas as they can, sure, but it isn't an issue that needs resolving 'very quickly' I think.

    Not a Labour set of areas today then I see. It is interesting to see how closed off to some parties certain areas of the country can be.

  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,288
    If UKIP take that seat in Epping, then it would be quite a shock for The Tories, likewise Greens not losing the deposit.
  • Options
    Fenster said:

    FPT Religious tolerance

    I used to be a Mormon until mainstream people starting getting picky about me marrying my daughter. They persuaded me to leave the religion, which I eventually did becoming a Mormon fundamentalist. Now I've married both my daughters.

    Arf.
  • Options

    For those betting on Heywood and Middleton

    The father of the main prosecution witness in Britain’s biggest child sex grooming scandal has accused Nigel Farage of exploiting the issue for political gain as the UK Independence party attempts to unseat Labour in a Manchester byelection.

    The man, known as Tom, whose daughter’s testimony led to the prosecution of nine Asian men and an overhaul of Crown Prosecution Service rules, said that the anti-federalist party had resorted to British National party-style tactics while campaigning to win Heywood and Middleton in Greater Manchester.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/25/nigel-farage-ukip-heywood-middleton-child-sex-politics

    Ah - a comeuppance for Nige. However, you are playing with fire bringing that topic up on here TSE. I fear the quality of debate on the key Epping Forest council byelection may suffer!
    Well I was thinking about making a gag about (Linda) Lovelace on Guildford.
  • Options
    MrsBMrsB Posts: 574
    Surely Labour should have stood candidates in all these by-elections in order to profit from post-conference bounce?
    Oh.
  • Options

    For those betting on Heywood and Middleton

    The father of the main prosecution witness in Britain’s biggest child sex grooming scandal has accused Nigel Farage of exploiting the issue for political gain as the UK Independence party attempts to unseat Labour in a Manchester byelection.

    The man, known as Tom, whose daughter’s testimony led to the prosecution of nine Asian men and an overhaul of Crown Prosecution Service rules, said that the anti-federalist party had resorted to British National party-style tactics while campaigning to win Heywood and Middleton in Greater Manchester.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/25/nigel-farage-ukip-heywood-middleton-child-sex-politics

    Ah - a comeuppance for Nige. However, you are playing with fire bringing that topic up on here TSE. I fear the quality of debate on the key Epping Forest council byelection may suffer!
    Well I was thinking about making a gag about (Linda) Lovelace on Guildford.
    You just did!!
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,522
    edited September 2014
    kle4 said:

    When did UKIP start being referred to as an 'anti-federalist' party? Is that a recent thing or have I just missed it before?

    I don't think UKIP have to address quickly the issue of finding candidates for places like Frome North. All over the nation you will find funny little wards where LDs, or Labour or the Tories won't be standing for some reason. It would be better for them if they stand in as many areas as they can, sure, but it isn't an issue that needs resolving 'very quickly' I think.

    Not a Labour set of areas today then I see. It is interesting to see how closed off to some parties certain areas of the country can be.

    Alan Sked, who founded UKIP, prior to that, founded the Anti Federalist League, back in the 1990s, when the Maastricht treaty was being set up/debated
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,857
    edited September 2014

    kle4 said:

    When did UKIP start being referred to as an 'anti-federalist' party? Is that a recent thing or have I just missed it before?

    I don't think UKIP have to address quickly the issue of finding candidates for places like Frome North. All over the nation you will find funny little wards where LDs, or Labour or the Tories won't be standing for some reason. It would be better for them if they stand in as many areas as they can, sure, but it isn't an issue that needs resolving 'very quickly' I think.

    Not a Labour set of areas today then I see. It is interesting to see how closed off to some parties certain areas of the country can be.

    kle4 said:

    When did UKIP start being referred to as an 'anti-federalist' party? Is that a recent thing or have I just missed it before?

    I don't think UKIP have to address quickly the issue of finding candidates for places like Frome North. All over the nation you will find funny little wards where LDs, or Labour or the Tories won't be standing for some reason. It would be better for them if they stand in as many areas as they can, sure, but it isn't an issue that needs resolving 'very quickly' I think.

    Not a Labour set of areas today then I see. It is interesting to see how closed off to some parties certain areas of the country can be.

    Alan Sked, who founded UKIP, prior to that, founded the Anti Federalist League, back in the 1990s, when the Maastricht treaty was being set up/debated
    Man, I am off my game this evening!! I'm just more used to them being referred to an anti-EU or far right.
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,288
    Re the Guardian stuff on Heywood and UKIP, given Labour's mixed record in Rochdale and Rotherham on child protection, it is hardly a surprise that someone didn't make political capital out of it.

    There is an element of dog whistle politics from Labour as well.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,216
    edited September 2014
    In response to Audreyanne FPT: you are confusing good manners with whether something should be made a crime.

    Being rude to someone is impolite, to put it mildly. I don't think rudeness - even extreme rudeness (in the absence of a clear incitement to violence) should be a crime. If it were, the Koran - with its insulting references to Jews as pigs and dogs - would have been proscribed by now.

    Criticising Islam is quite different. You appear to think that the limits on how we should discuss Islam should be limited by what Muslims themselves will permit. That is wrong.

    That's like saying that the Pope should be able to determine what can be said (and how) about Catholicism. We didn't get rid of one Inquisition to have a Muslim one reimposed.

  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376


    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.

    Mohammed (who deserves no praise) should not be immune.

    I suppose you would also have banned Life of Brian?
    You don't know a lot about Islam really, do you? Pbuh stands for 'peace be upon him' and no Muslim praises him in the sense of worship. For Muslims he was just a man and must never be worshipped.

    Life of Brian did cause a big furore at the time and as you probably know Mary Whitehouse tried to bring the blasphemy law against it. That law was successfully used against an amazing poem called 'The Love that Dares not Speak its Name.' http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2008/01/10/the-gay-poem-that-broke-blasphemy-laws/


    I can remember once wanting to refer to that poem in a lecture and being unable to do so or I might have been arrested.

    I actually thought LIfe of Brian was hilarious. I think it's highly significant that most Muslims in Britain decided not to support the fatwa against the Danish newspaper. Similarly they have condemned Isis. The point there is that it is reform from within. It's really not the place of non Muslims to be pointlessly insulting for no reason when they could achieve more by showing a little respect.

    Another question: is it okay for a fundamentalist preacher to brand a child as a witch? Those of you defending freedom of speech for all presumably support his right?

    Cyclefree: as above
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,851

    For those betting on Heywood and Middleton

    The father of the main prosecution witness in Britain’s biggest child sex grooming scandal has accused Nigel Farage of exploiting the issue for political gain as the UK Independence party attempts to unseat Labour in a Manchester byelection.

    The man, known as Tom, whose daughter’s testimony led to the prosecution of nine Asian men and an overhaul of Crown Prosecution Service rules, said that the anti-federalist party had resorted to British National party-style tactics while campaigning to win Heywood and Middleton in Greater Manchester.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/25/nigel-farage-ukip-heywood-middleton-child-sex-politics

    Ah - a comeuppance for Nige. However, you are playing with fire bringing that topic up on here TSE. I fear the quality of debate on the key Epping Forest council byelection may suffer!
    That ties in quite neatly with the arguments on the last two threads.

    Essentially, your view is that it's just bad manners to raise this topic.
  • Options


    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.

    Mohammed (who deserves no praise) should not be immune.

    I suppose you would also have banned Life of Brian?
    You don't know a lot about Islam really, do you? Pbuh stands for 'peace be upon him' and no Muslim praises him in the sense of worship. For Muslims he was just a man and must never be worshipped.

    Life of Brian did cause a big furore at the time and as you probably know Mary Whitehouse tried to bring the blasphemy law against it. That law was successfully used against an amazing poem called 'The Love that Dares not Speak its Name.' http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2008/01/10/the-gay-poem-that-broke-blasphemy-laws/


    I can remember once wanting to refer to that poem in a lecture and being unable to do so or I might have been arrested.

    I actually thought LIfe of Brian was hilarious. I think it's highly significant that most Muslims in Britain decided not to support the fatwa against the Danish newspaper. Similarly they have condemned Isis. The point there is that it is reform from within. It's really not the place of non Muslims to be pointlessly insulting for no reason when they could achieve more by showing a little respect.

    Another question: is it okay for a fundamentalist preacher to brand a child as a witch? Those of you defending freedom of speech for all presumably support his right?

    Cyclefree: as above
    So you think that it is okay for someone to ridicule and insult Christianity but not Islam.

    Interesting. A tad hypocritical perhaps?

    At least I believe it is right and proper to insult both.

    In answer to your question; no it should not be illegal for a fundamentalist preacher to brand a child as a witch. It should be illegal for them to incite someone to act upon that belief or for them to act upon it themselves but certainly calling someone a witch should not be illegal. If it were then almost everyone in England would probably be guilty of the crime at some point in their lives.
  • Options
    HughHugh Posts: 955

    I think I just blasphemed Plato on the last thread!

    Gawd don't do that, the PB Tories go ballistic if you suggest Plato is a bit of a sad simpleton Tory troll who really, really shouldn't be posting here any more.
  • Options
    No shit Sherlock:

    "@TimMontgomerie: Interesting first evening at #ukipconf14. They all read @ConHome. @TheTimes? Not so much."
  • Options



    You don't know a lot about Islam really, do you? Pbuh stands for 'peace be upon him' and no Muslim praises him in the sense of worship. For Muslims he was just a man and must never be worshipped.

    I actually thought LIfe of Brian was hilarious. I think it's highly significant that most Muslims in Britain decided not to support the fatwa against the Danish newspaper. Similarly they have condemned Isis. The point there is that it is reform from within. It's really not the place of non Muslims to be pointlessly insulting for no reason when they could achieve more by showing a little respect.

    I am curious: Why do you find it necessary to respect Islam by quoting "PBUH" each time you mention the prophet? Yet you are happy to laugh at the Life of Brian and it's parody of Jesus?

  • Options
    JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    If the list of countries in order of area matched the list of countries in order of population:
    http://p.im9.eu/mapporn-if-countries-populations-matched-their-size-3375-x-1900.jpg
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,857


    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.

    Mohammed (who deserves no praise) should not be immune.

    I suppose you would also have banned Life of Brian?
    Another question: is it okay for a fundamentalist preacher to brand a child as a witch? Those of you defending freedom of speech for all presumably support his right?

    That's like saying that we shouldn't prevent someone about to commit a murder as it would be an infringement of their rights, as though one must allow total freedom from any consequences or must official self censure all the time. There are many practical situations where it might not be wise to exercise totally free speech, but people are free to say it and face the practical consequences of their actions. If someone is inciting someone to violence, do the rights of others not to suffer that violence mean it is ok to punish the speaker for what they said? An argument could easily be made to that effect. Should someone not be allowed to say anything stupid or offensive because they are an idiot and it might offend someone? Probably not. In your example, if by branding that child as a witch that child would be in danger, then the preacher could face some sort of censure, I guess it would depend. But even coming into this debate halfway through, erring on the side of not proscribing peoples' speech, even if total freedom cannot practically exist, seems the most sensible approach.

    But I'm the guy who forgot about UKIP being anti-federalist (although in my defence it is because they keep coming across as anti-union at the moment by being a little too much of an English Indy Party, which I doubt is their intention, and that confused me), so my words may not carry much weight.
  • Options
    Lovelace will almost certainly go Lib Dem (source: I've spent all day working in the Lib Dem committee room there).

    The main reasons for this are local.

    We've got a brilliant, well known candidate who's been a local parish councillor for yonks and we've run an effective, organised ground operation which is superior to every other party in this election.

    At the same time, the Tory run borough council are placing to build 3500 homes nearby, mainly on the greenbelt, and, while the local Tory candidate opposes this, he and the Tory council leader dissolute each other so much that the Guildford constituency Conservatives have been forbidden to campaign for him in the by election.
  • Options
    HughHugh Posts: 955
    On and on and on and on about Muslimz and Immigrunts, at least 3 threads now.

    Is it UKIP conference or something?
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    FPT: far from being considered offensive, there is quite a long tradition of depictions of Muhammed in Islamic art:

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=muhammad+muslim+art&client=ms-android-hms-tef-gb&source=lnms&biw=640&bih=239&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=pXckVJHnLoOV7Ab2qYHQAw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

    But there is also a very strong tradition of intolerance of Mohammed being mocked, such as Asma Bint Marwans murder (while nursing) for mocking Muhammed in verse and calling for rebellion against him.

  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376


    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.

    Mohammed (who deserves no praise) should not be immune.

    I suppose you would also have banned Life of Brian?


    Cyclefree: as above
    So you think that it is okay for someone to ridicule and insult Christianity but not Islam.

    Interesting. A tad hypocritical perhaps?

    At least I believe it is right and proper to insult both.

    In answer to your question; no it should not be illegal for a fundamentalist preacher to brand a child as a witch. It should be illegal for them to incite someone to act upon that belief or for them to act upon it themselves but certainly calling someone a witch should not be illegal. If it were then almost everyone in England would probably be guilty of the crime at some point in their lives.
    I was actually very uncomfortable about Life of Brian at first. I won't attempt the defence they used at the time that it isn't about Jesus, although as you know in theory it isn't (he appears separately at the very beginning).

    Interesting. Your point of view is at variance with AFRUCA (Africans Unite Against Child Abuse) who are trying to get the law altered to make it an offence to accuse a child of being a witch because the correlation from the accusation to incitement is so direct as to be a continuum. The Government's response to date has been that it falls under the category of emotional abuse which is prosecutable (there are four categories: Physical, Emotional, Sexual and Neglect.) However, a loophole means that only those in a position of care can be prosecuted for Emotional Abuse and, as such, a Church Pastor falls outside the scope, or at least so people think but no-one really knows. It's a massive grey area.

    I guess my work has led me to reflect on this for many years. I've seen children scarred for life by being accused of being witches and it led me to question everything I thought I knew about freedoms of speech.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Hugh said:

    I think I just blasphemed Plato on the last thread!

    Gawd don't do that, the PB Tories go ballistic if you suggest Plato is a bit of a sad simpleton Tory troll who really, really shouldn't be posting here any more.
    Ah I see the 'timalike' just can't resist the personal insults as his alternative to rational argument. A graduate of the Damien McBride skool of Labour political training - grammar not included.
  • Options
    HughHugh Posts: 955
    SeanT said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Re the Guardian stuff on Heywood and UKIP, given Labour's mixed record in Rochdale and Rotherham on child protection, it is hardly a surprise that someone didn't make political capital out of it.

    There is an element of dog whistle politics from Labour as well.

    The entire article, contrary to its intent, is actually an explanation as to why people might understandably vote UKIP. It says UKIP have a good chance in all the major Asian gang-rape grooming towns - Rochdale, Rotherham, etc.

    Quelle surprise.

    If 45% of Scots can vote to shatter the Union because they hate Westminster, then I can see 15% of Brits voting UKIP for roughly the same reasons.

    The next GE is going to be very odd. We are likely to see leftwing parties shrivelling away, as the Tories sustain support and UKIP surge, and yet Labour are probably going to win a plurality, and go into government, thanks to FPTP.

    A recipe for civil unrest.
    There'll be Rivers of Froth.

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,857
    Hugh said:

    I think I just blasphemed Plato on the last thread!

    Gawd don't do that, the PB Tories go ballistic if you suggest Plato is a bit of a sad simpleton Tory troll who really, really shouldn't be posting here any more.
    As a non-PB Tory (I presume - my lack of voting Tory probably excludes me), I think while people are free to suggest other people should not be posting somewhere, it's a bit rude, even if, for the sake of argument, one felt there were good reasons.

    Being a saddo is also relative - as the kind of person who posts about politics at all sorts of hours, I would get defensive about being labelled as one myself, but hardly in a position to deny the charge. Also, where would I post my uninventive tedious screeds?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,857
    JohnLoony said:

    If the list of countries in order of area matched the list of countries in order of population:
    http://p.im9.eu/mapporn-if-countries-populations-matched-their-size-3375-x-1900.jpg

    It took me an embarrassingly long period of time to locate the UK on there, considering it's about as in the middle as you can get.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited September 2014

    For those betting on Heywood and Middleton

    The father of the main prosecution witness in Britain’s biggest child sex grooming scandal has accused Nigel Farage of exploiting the issue for political gain as the UK Independence party attempts to unseat Labour in a Manchester byelection.

    The man, known as Tom, whose daughter’s testimony led to the prosecution of nine Asian men and an overhaul of Crown Prosecution Service rules, said that the anti-federalist party had resorted to British National party-style tactics while campaigning to win Heywood and Middleton in Greater Manchester.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/25/nigel-farage-ukip-heywood-middleton-child-sex-politics

    If there is a crime wave should we talk about crime as a political issue?
    If enough people think it is a problem then it will be discussed and become a political issue.

    You also left out the link between Heywood and Rotherham:
    "She told the detectives that the perpetrators worked in the takeaway trade or as taxi drivers. The gang offered gifts to girls, won their trust and then forced them to have sex.

    Some victims were driven between Rochdale, Oldham, Bradford and elsewhere to have sex with men for money."

    An identical crime with Rotherham.

    There is a lot in the Guardian article that can be used by local and national politics, even if the headline suggests otherwise (but Labour is on the defence and that is the Guardian).
  • Options
    Hugh - Move on from Plato, and refrain from talking about her, directly or indirectly.
  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 only covers people who 'have responsibility' for the child in question, i.e. parents or people acting in loco parentis like baby-sitters or teachers. So pastors, relatives, members of the congregation and friends/sexual partners (like the killer of Kristy Bamu) are not covered by the criminal law on child protection under section 1; nor are they covered by civil law under the Children Act, which also only applies to parents and carers.

    Furthermore, there is no official statement in guidance or elsewhere to make clear that making such accusations constitutes abuse and many devout Christians do not accept this - not only Christians from African countries, but also members of the Catholic Church and the Church of England. For example, if you look at what the CoE's child protection manual (as revised in 2010) says about 'services of delivery' i.e. exorcisms, it does not say "don't do this because telling a child that they are possessed by the devil is likely to be deeply traumatic", it talks about informing the bishop, keeping publicity to a minimum etc.

    By the way, there are also horrendous examples of abuse in mosques so don't think for a moment I'm just pointing the finger at Christian fundamentalists.

    It's an example of how allowing people to say whatever they like is not simply disrespectful, it's abusive (in the case of a child) and should be prosecutable.
  • Options
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    test
  • Options
    GaiusGaius Posts: 227
    Hugh said:

    I think I just blasphemed Plato on the last thread!

    Gawd don't do that, the PB Tories go ballistic if you suggest Plato is a bit of a sad simpleton Tory troll who really, really shouldn't be posting here any more.
    Oh I don't think so. It seems to me that most PB tories not only support free speach but also understand what it really means, unlike that sad simpleton snide Tim, the loony lefty troll who used to post here and has made the place better with his absence.

  • Options
    HughHugh Posts: 955

    Hugh - Move on from Plato, and refrain from talking about her, directly or indirectly.

    OK.

    May I ask why?

    Everyone here ribs other posters.

  • Options
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    ban me properly. don't just delete the posts.
  • Options
    HughHugh Posts: 955
    SeanT said:


    I

    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.

    Mohammed (who deserves no praise) should not be immune.

    I suppose you would also have banned Life of Brian?


    Cyclefree: as above
    So you think that it is okay for someone to ridicule and insult Christianity but not Islam.

    Interesting. A tad hypocritical perhaps?

    At least I believe it is right and proper to insult both.

    In answer to your question; no it should not be illegal for a fundamentalist preacher to brand a child as a witch. It should be illegal for them to incite someone to act upon that belief or for them to act upon it themselves but certainly calling someone a witch should not be illegal. If it were then almost everyone in England would probably be guilty of the crime at some point in their lives.
    I was actually very uncomfortable about Life of Brian at first. I won't attempt the defence they used at the time that it isn't about Jesus, although as you know in theory it isn't (he appears separately at the very beginning).

    Interesting. Your point of view is at variance with AFRUCA (Africans Unite Against Child Abuse) who are trying to get the law altered to make it an offence to accuse a child of being a witch because the correlation from the accusation to incitement is so direct as to be a continuum. The Government's response to date has been that it falls under the category of emotional abuse which is prosecutable (there are four categories: Physical, Emotional, Sexual and Neglect.) However, a loophole means that only those in a position of care can be prosecuted for Emotional Abuse and, as such, a Church Pastor falls outside the scope, or at least so people think but no-one really knows. It's a massive grey area.

    I guess my work has led me to reflect on this for many years. I've seen children scarred for life by being accused of being witches and it led me to question everything I thought I knew about freedoms of speech.
    That is food for thought, indeed. Have you considered the alternative that, despite your years of very interesting experience, you're just a f*cking moron?
    PB Moderator?
  • Options
    Mr Jones, you were previously warned that talking about grooming, was off limits to you.

    That still applies.
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Andrew Gale racism case on the verge of embarrassing collapse after Ashwell Prince admission

    England & Wales Cricket Board’s case against the Yorkshire captain has been badly undermined by Ashwell Prince saying he did not take Gale’s comments to be racist

    #http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/11121967/Andrew-Gale-racism-case-on-the-verge-of-embarrassing-collapse-after-Ashwell-Prince-admission.html
  • Options
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    Mr Jones, you were previously warned that talking about grooming, was off limits to you.

    That still applies.

    well i'm not going to so ban me.
  • Options
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    test
  • Options

    For those betting on Heywood and Middleton

    The father of the main prosecution witness in Britain’s biggest child sex grooming scandal has accused Nigel Farage of exploiting the issue for political gain as the UK Independence party attempts to unseat Labour in a Manchester byelection.

    The man, known as Tom, whose daughter’s testimony led to the prosecution of nine Asian men and an overhaul of Crown Prosecution Service rules, said that the anti-federalist party had resorted to British National party-style tactics while campaigning to win Heywood and Middleton in Greater Manchester.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/25/nigel-farage-ukip-heywood-middleton-child-sex-politics

    Well someone had to mention how the politicians let the victims down.
  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Fawlty Towers is on Gold, I'm off. It's hot in here ;)
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,857

    Andrew Gale racism case on the verge of embarrassing collapse after Ashwell Prince admission

    England & Wales Cricket Board’s case against the Yorkshire captain has been badly undermined by Ashwell Prince saying he did not take Gale’s comments to be racist

    #http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/11121967/Andrew-Gale-racism-case-on-the-verge-of-embarrassing-collapse-after-Ashwell-Prince-admission.html

    Far be it for us lowly mortals to advise the ECB, but perhaps they should have checked on Mr Prince's views prior to taking such extreme action, even if they felt the use of words without intent or perceived racial slight from the victim, still warranted a punishment.
  • Options

    Fawlty Towers is on Gold, I'm off. It's hot in here ;)

    Beware, Basil may upset you with his free speech
  • Options
    Hugh said:

    SeanT said:


    I

    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.

    Mohammed (who deserves no praise) should not be immune.

    I suppose you would also have banned Life of Brian?


    Cyclefree: as above
    So you think that it is okay for someone to ridicule and insult Christianity but not Islam.

    Interesting. A tad hypocritical perhaps?

    At least I believe it is right and proper to insult both.

    In answer to your question; no it should not be illegal for a fundamentalist preacher to brand a child as a witch. It should be illegal for them to incite someone to act upon that belief or for them to act upon it themselves but certainly calling someone a witch should not be illegal. If it were then almost everyone in England would probably be guilty of the crime at some point in their lives.
    I was actually very uncomfortable about Life of Brian at first. I won't attempt the defence they used at the time that it isn't about Jesus, although as you know in theory it isn't (he appears separately at the very beginning).

    Interesting. Your point of view is at variance with AFRUCA (Africans Unite Against Child Abuse) who are trying to get the law altered to make it an offence to accuse a child of being a witch because the correlation from the accusation to incitement is so direct as to be a continuum. The Government's response to date has been that it falls under the category of emotional abuse which is prosecutable (there are four categories: Physical, Emotional, Sexual and Neglect.) However, a loophole means that only those in a position of care can be prosecuted for Emotional Abuse and, as such, a Church Pastor falls outside the scope, or at least so people think but no-one really knows. It's a massive grey area.

    I guess my work has led me to reflect on this for many years. I've seen children scarred for life by being accused of being witches and it led me to question everything I thought I knew about freedoms of speech.
    That is food for thought, indeed. Have you considered the alternative that, despite your years of very interesting experience, you're just a f*cking moron?
    PB Moderator?
    Cry baby?
  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,040
    Any opinion polls for the forthcoming by-elections imminent?
  • Options
    HughHugh Posts: 955
    Off topic

    We're bombing people in Syria that, only a year ago, Cameron wanted to strengthen. Afghanistan is a bloodbath. Libya is a bloodbath. Iraq is a mess. Our "friends and allies" in the region are brutal oppressive dictators.

    A big well done to George W Bush, Tony Blair, David Cameron and the Tory Party, the Rightwing and Tory Press, and all the other idiots who bought into the idea of war to re-shape the Middle East in their interests.

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29357934

    Israel's doing well though. Strangely enough.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,851

    Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 only covers people who 'have responsibility' for the child in question, i.e. parents or people acting in loco parentis like baby-sitters or teachers. So pastors, relatives, members of the congregation and friends/sexual partners (like the killer of Kristy Bamu) are not covered by the criminal law on child protection under section 1; nor are they covered by civil law under the Children Act, which also only applies to parents and carers.

    Furthermore, there is no official statement in guidance or elsewhere to make clear that making such accusations constitutes abuse and many devout Christians do not accept this - not only Christians from African countries, but also members of the Catholic Church and the Church of England. For example, if you look at what the CoE's child protection manual (as revised in 2010) says about 'services of delivery' i.e. exorcisms, it does not say "don't do this because telling a child that they are possessed by the devil is likely to be deeply traumatic", it talks about informing the bishop, keeping publicity to a minimum etc.

    By the way, there are also horrendous examples of abuse in mosques so don't think for a moment I'm just pointing the finger at Christian fundamentalists.

    It's an example of how allowing people to say whatever they like is not simply disrespectful, it's abusive (in the case of a child) and should be prosecutable.

    Is it common for Christians to accuse children of witchcraft?

  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,040
    Hugh said:

    Off topic

    We're bombing people in Syria that, only a year ago, Cameron wanted to strengthen. Afghanistan is a bloodbath. Libya is a bloodbath. Iraq is a mess. Our "friends and allies" in the region are brutal oppressive dictators.

    A big well done to George W Bush, Tony Blair, David Cameron and the Tory Party, the Rightwing and Tory Press, and all the other idiots who bought into the idea of war to re-shape the Middle East in their interests.

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29357934

    Israel's doing well though. Strangely enough.

    And still we wait to see justice done. Hopefully all of the above will be in the dock soon for the crimes they have committed.
  • Options
    HughHugh Posts: 955
    SeanT said:

    Banning Mr Jones would be a gross error, to my mind.

    He was the first person to talk about racist gang rape of white kids on here, years before it became common knowledge. We all derided him (me included) as being a BNP nutter.

    Yet it turns out he was largely correct. No one denies it happened any more. Indeed it is still happening,

    So we shoot the messenger, again? Even as the crime continues?

    This is a species of madness. Let him rant and rave. He's earned the right.

    Obsessing about a single topic like race or religion always raises alarm bells.
  • Options

    Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 only covers people who 'have responsibility' for the child in question, i.e. parents or people acting in loco parentis like baby-sitters or teachers. So pastors, relatives, members of the congregation and friends/sexual partners (like the killer of Kristy Bamu) are not covered by the criminal law on child protection under section 1; nor are they covered by civil law under the Children Act, which also only applies to parents and carers.

    Furthermore, there is no official statement in guidance or elsewhere to make clear that making such accusations constitutes abuse and many devout Christians do not accept this - not only Christians from African countries, but also members of the Catholic Church and the Church of England. For example, if you look at what the CoE's child protection manual (as revised in 2010) says about 'services of delivery' i.e. exorcisms, it does not say "don't do this because telling a child that they are possessed by the devil is likely to be deeply traumatic", it talks about informing the bishop, keeping publicity to a minimum etc.

    By the way, there are also horrendous examples of abuse in mosques so don't think for a moment I'm just pointing the finger at Christian fundamentalists.

    It's an example of how allowing people to say whatever they like is not simply disrespectful, it's abusive (in the case of a child) and should be prosecutable.

    Except that you appear to think it's ok for people to say exactly what they like in the form of taxpayer funded public desecration of The Bible. You express not so much as a murmur of disquiet over this, but you excuse Muslim violence at the possibility of someone likening Mohammed to an orifice in private conversation. If this flagrant double standard is based on fear of reprisal, it represents a lamentable lack of moral courage. If it's based on some other partiality for reasons unknown, it represents something a good deal more troubling.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,857
    Hugh said:

    Off topic

    We're bombing people in Syria that, only a year ago, Cameron wanted to strengthen.

    I opposed action a year ago as I didn't see how it would help, but that is an unfair statement. As fluid and dangerous as the innumerable groups are and arguments over exactly what would have been done and who exactly it would have strengthened, Cameron did not want to strengthen ISIS. One might argue his actions would have been reckless and would have strengthened ISIS whatever his intention, but it was still not his intention at least.

    Also, you blame Bush, Blair, Cameron 'and the Tory party'. Why has Labour escaped specific censure, and only had its leader namedropped in this list of shame? Were Labour itself not involved, somehow?
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Two Russian fishermen accidentally crossed over into Estonian waters:

    http://news.err.ee/v/politics/19608659-4e91-4c78-8989-5684e815343c

    Turns out their former KGB agents.

    Salami slices.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Hugh said:

    SeanT said:

    Banning Mr Jones would be a gross error, to my mind.

    He was the first person to talk about racist gang rape of white kids on here, years before it became common knowledge. We all derided him (me included) as being a BNP nutter.

    Yet it turns out he was largely correct. No one denies it happened any more. Indeed it is still happening,

    So we shoot the messenger, again? Even as the crime continues?

    This is a species of madness. Let him rant and rave. He's earned the right.

    Obsessing about a single topic like race or religion always raises alarm bells.
    Says the guy always banging on about the NHS.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Hugh said:

    Off topic

    We're bombing people in Syria that, only a year ago, Cameron wanted to strengthen. Afghanistan is a bloodbath. Libya is a bloodbath. Iraq is a mess. Our "friends and allies" in the region are brutal oppressive dictators.

    A big well done to George W Bush, Tony Blair, David Cameron and the Tory Party, the Rightwing and Tory Press, and all the other idiots who bought into the idea of war to re-shape the Middle East in their interests.

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29357934

    Israel's doing well though. Strangely enough.

    Well Al-Qaeda is now in the Golan Heights having taken UN peacekeepers prisoners right on the israeli border.
    So you can't call Israel's defence policy a success, they along with their silly goons in Washington have brought them thousands of miles from Afghanistan all the way to the mediterranean in just a dozen years.
  • Options
    Hugh said:

    Off topic

    We're bombing people in Syria that, only a year ago, Cameron wanted to strengthen

    Have you got any quotes from Cameron explicitly saying he wanted to strengthen ISIS?

    Saying he wanted to back Syrian rebels doesn't qualify. That's not a blanket endorsement of all the Syrian rebel factions, just a statement there are some among them he wanted to back.
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    YG - everyone the same, but Tories down 2.

    Infers that either the Greens or Scot Nats are up.
  • Options
    HughHugh Posts: 955
    kle4 said:

    Hugh said:

    Off topic

    We're bombing people in Syria that, only a year ago, Cameron wanted to strengthen.

    I opposed action a year ago as I didn't see how it would help, but that is an unfair statement. As fluid and dangerous as the innumerable groups are and arguments over exactly what would have been done and who exactly it would have strengthened, Cameron did not want to strengthen ISIS. One might argue his actions would have been reckless and would have strengthened ISIS whatever his intention, but it was still not his intention at least.

    Also, you blame Bush, Blair, Cameron 'and the Tory party'. Why has Labour escaped specific censure, and only had its leader namedropped in this list of shame? Were Labour itself not involved, somehow?
    Yeah the Labour Party tried and failed to stop its leader. More Labour MPs voted against the war than Tories, for example (proportionally)

    The brilliant, principled (and popular) Liberal Democrat Party of Charles Kennedy is long gone too.
  • Options
    perdixperdix Posts: 1,806
    SeanT said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Re the Guardian stuff on Heywood and UKIP, given Labour's mixed record in Rochdale and Rotherham on child protection, it is hardly a surprise that someone didn't make political capital out of it.

    There is an element of dog whistle politics from Labour as well.

    The entire article, contrary to its intent, is actually an explanation as to why people might understandably vote UKIP. It says UKIP have a good chance in all the major Muslim gang-rape grooming towns - Rochdale, Rotherham, etc.

    Quelle surprise.

    If 45% of Scots can vote to shatter the Union because they hate Westminster, then I can see 15% of Brits voting UKIP for roughly the same reasons.

    The next GE is going to be very odd. We are likely to see leftwing parties shrivelling away, as the Tories sustain support and UKIP surge, and yet Labour are probably going to win a plurality, and go into government, thanks to FPTP.

    A recipe for civil unrest.
    "and yet Labour are probably going to win a plurality, and go into government....." thanks to ukip.

  • Options
    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    SeanT said:

    Banning Mr Jones would be a gross error, to my mind.

    He was the first person to talk about racist gang rape of white kids on here, years before it became common knowledge. We all derided him (me included) as being a BNP nutter.

    Yet it turns out he was largely correct. No one denies it happened any more. Indeed it is still happening,

    So we shoot the messenger, again? Even as the crime continues?

    This is a species of madness. Let him rant and rave. He's earned the right.

    Obsessing about a single topic like race or religion always raises alarm bells.
    Says the guy always banging on about the NHS.
    Apart from in Wales
  • Options
    SeanT said:

    Banning Mr Jones would be a gross error, to my mind.

    He was the first person to talk about racist gang rape of white kids on here, years before it became common knowledge. We all derided him (me included) as being a BNP nutter.

    Yet it turns out he was largely correct. No one denies it happened any more. Indeed it is still happening,

    So we shoot the messenger, again? Even as the crime continues?

    This is a species of madness. Let him rant and rave. He's earned the right.

    Ranting is fine.

    But in recent weeks on this topic, he has made several defamatory comments, we asked him nicely, not to go down that route, but allowed him to talk about the topic in general.

    He was unable to adhere to that and we have to protect Mike Smithson.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,851
    Hugh said:

    Off topic

    We're bombing people in Syria that, only a year ago, Cameron wanted to strengthen. Afghanistan is a bloodbath. Libya is a bloodbath. Iraq is a mess. Our "friends and allies" in the region are brutal oppressive dictators.

    A big well done to George W Bush, Tony Blair, David Cameron and the Tory Party, the Rightwing and Tory Press, and all the other idiots who bought into the idea of war to re-shape the Middle East in their interests.

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29357934

    Israel's doing well though. Strangely enough.

    Which proves what? The Middle East is full of horrible people.

    Broadly speaking, I think that people like the Shah, Saddam Hussein, Mubarrak, were less bad than their successors. I think the vile Saudi regime is better than any likely alternative. What do you propose?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,857
    Hugh said:

    kle4 said:

    Hugh said:

    Off topic

    We're bombing people in Syria that, only a year ago, Cameron wanted to strengthen.

    I opposed action a year ago as I didn't see how it would help, but that is an unfair statement. As fluid and dangerous as the innumerable groups are and arguments over exactly what would have been done and who exactly it would have strengthened, Cameron did not want to strengthen ISIS. One might argue his actions would have been reckless and would have strengthened ISIS whatever his intention, but it was still not his intention at least.

    Also, you blame Bush, Blair, Cameron 'and the Tory party'. Why has Labour escaped specific censure, and only had its leader namedropped in this list of shame? Were Labour itself not involved, somehow?
    Yeah the Labour Party tried and failed to stop its leader. More Labour MPs voted against the war than Tories, for example (proportionally)

    I'll take your word for it, though it's not as though his party punished him for it, at least not until he'd secured another majority for them.
  • Options
    HughHugh Posts: 955
    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    SeanT said:

    Banning Mr Jones would be a gross error, to my mind.

    He was the first person to talk about racist gang rape of white kids on here, years before it became common knowledge. We all derided him (me included) as being a BNP nutter.

    Yet it turns out he was largely correct. No one denies it happened any more. Indeed it is still happening,

    So we shoot the messenger, again? Even as the crime continues?

    This is a species of madness. Let him rant and rave. He's earned the right.

    Obsessing about a single topic like race or religion always raises alarm bells.
    Says the guy always banging on about the NHS.
    Fair cop, I am an anti-NHS "ist".

    What are you, always banging on about race and muslims?
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Sean_F said:

    Hugh said:

    Off topic

    We're bombing people in Syria that, only a year ago, Cameron wanted to strengthen. Afghanistan is a bloodbath. Libya is a bloodbath. Iraq is a mess. Our "friends and allies" in the region are brutal oppressive dictators.

    A big well done to George W Bush, Tony Blair, David Cameron and the Tory Party, the Rightwing and Tory Press, and all the other idiots who bought into the idea of war to re-shape the Middle East in their interests.

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29357934

    Israel's doing well though. Strangely enough.

    Which proves what? The Middle East is full of horrible people.

    Broadly speaking, I think that people like the Shah, Saddam Hussein, Mubarrak, were less bad than their successors. I think the vile Saudi regime is better than any likely alternative. What do you propose?
    Stop bombing secular leaders, even if they are dictators they are much more civilized than islamists.
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Hugh said:

    Off topic

    We're bombing people in Syria that, only a year ago, Cameron wanted to strengthen. Afghanistan is a bloodbath. Libya is a bloodbath. Iraq is a mess. Our "friends and allies" in the region are brutal oppressive dictators.

    A big well done to George W Bush, Tony Blair, David Cameron and the Tory Party, the Rightwing and Tory Press, and all the other idiots who bought into the idea of war to re-shape the Middle East in their interests.

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29357934

    Israel's doing well though. Strangely enough.

    We are not bombing people in Syria - we are talking about bombing in Iraq.
    And we were not proposing to support ISIS in Syria earlier in the year. The vote spearheaded by Labour, and supported by thick tory backbenchers against bombing, actually helped ISIS and hurt the rebels we wanted to support.
    Far from intervening inn the middle east we saw Labour act to stand idly by and let ISIS gain strength. Non-intervention has created the problem.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322



    I actually thought LIfe of Brian was hilarious. I think it's highly significant that most Muslims in Britain decided not to support the fatwa against the Danish newspaper. Similarly they have condemned Isis. The point there is that it is reform from within. It's really not the place of non Muslims to be pointlessly insulting for no reason when they could achieve more by showing a little respect.

    I never insulted anyone pointlessly. You made the (incorrect) claim that Muhammad was a great man. I responded by pointing out he sexually interfered with a child. That's just a matter of correcting the historical record.

  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    SeanT said:

    Banning Mr Jones would be a gross error, to my mind.

    He was the first person to talk about racist gang rape of white kids on here, years before it became common knowledge. We all derided him (me included) as being a BNP nutter.

    Yet it turns out he was largely correct. No one denies it happened any more. Indeed it is still happening,

    So we shoot the messenger, again? Even as the crime continues?

    This is a species of madness. Let him rant and rave. He's earned the right.

    Obsessing about a single topic like race or religion always raises alarm bells.
    Says the guy always banging on about the NHS.
    Fair cop, I am an anti-NHS "ist".

    What are you, always banging on about race and muslims?
    An anti-extremist, an anti-multiculturalist and an anti-child rapist.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    SeanT said:

    Banning Mr Jones would be a gross error, to my mind.

    He was the first person to talk about racist gang rape of white kids on here, years before it became common knowledge. We all derided him (me included) as being a BNP nutter.

    Yet it turns out he was largely correct. No one denies it happened any more. Indeed it is still happening,

    So we shoot the messenger, again? Even as the crime continues?

    This is a species of madness. Let him rant and rave. He's earned the right.

    Obsessing about a single topic like race or religion always raises alarm bells.
    Says the guy always banging on about the NHS.
    Fair cop, I am an anti-NHS "ist".

    What are you, always banging on about race and muslims?
    What are you, apart from trying to pretend to be someone else .. and doing it very badly.

    Imitation(or even the pretence of imitation) is usually the sincerest form of flattery, but in your case, it is pathetic.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    For those betting on Heywood and Middleton

    The father of the main prosecution witness in Britain’s biggest child sex grooming scandal has accused Nigel Farage of exploiting the issue for political gain as the UK Independence party attempts to unseat Labour in a Manchester byelection.

    The man, known as Tom, whose daughter’s testimony led to the prosecution of nine Asian men and an overhaul of Crown Prosecution Service rules, said that the anti-federalist party had resorted to British National party-style tactics while campaigning to win Heywood and Middleton in Greater Manchester.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/25/nigel-farage-ukip-heywood-middleton-child-sex-politics

    Ah - a comeuppance for Nige. However, you are playing with fire bringing that topic up on here TSE. I fear the quality of debate on the key Epping Forest council byelection may suffer!
    That ties in quite neatly with the arguments on the last two threads.

    Essentially, your view is that it's just bad manners to raise this topic.
    Not at all. It's just tedious because once raised we hear about little else for hours.
    Just a load of inexpert obsessives wittering on endlessly.
    Not my bag.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,851
    Hugh said:

    kle4 said:

    Hugh said:

    Off topic

    We're bombing people in Syria that, only a year ago, Cameron wanted to strengthen.

    I opposed action a year ago as I didn't see how it would help, but that is an unfair statement. As fluid and dangerous as the innumerable groups are and arguments over exactly what would have been done and who exactly it would have strengthened, Cameron did not want to strengthen ISIS. One might argue his actions would have been reckless and would have strengthened ISIS whatever his intention, but it was still not his intention at least.

    Also, you blame Bush, Blair, Cameron 'and the Tory party'. Why has Labour escaped specific censure, and only had its leader namedropped in this list of shame? Were Labour itself not involved, somehow?
    Yeah the Labour Party tried and failed to stop its leader. More Labour MPs voted against the war than Tories, for example (proportionally)

    The brilliant, principled (and popular) Liberal Democrat Party of Charles Kennedy is long gone too.
    Labour owns the Iraq War. It's silly to pretend otherwise.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Speedy said:

    Sean_F said:

    Hugh said:

    Off topic

    We're bombing people in Syria that, only a year ago, Cameron wanted to strengthen. Afghanistan is a bloodbath. Libya is a bloodbath. Iraq is a mess. Our "friends and allies" in the region are brutal oppressive dictators.

    A big well done to George W Bush, Tony Blair, David Cameron and the Tory Party, the Rightwing and Tory Press, and all the other idiots who bought into the idea of war to re-shape the Middle East in their interests.

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29357934

    Israel's doing well though. Strangely enough.

    Which proves what? The Middle East is full of horrible people.

    Broadly speaking, I think that people like the Shah, Saddam Hussein, Mubarrak, were less bad than their successors. I think the vile Saudi regime is better than any likely alternative. What do you propose?
    Stop bombing secular leaders, even if they are dictators they are much more civilized than islamists.
    The Islamists in Tunisia are far better than Assad, Hussein, Sisi and a bunch of others.
  • Options
    HughHugh Posts: 955
    kle4 said:

    Hugh said:

    kle4 said:

    Hugh said:

    Off topic

    We're bombing people in Syria that, only a year ago, Cameron wanted to strengthen.

    I opposed action a year ago as I didn't see how it would help, but that is an unfair statement. As fluid and dangerous as the innumerable groups are and arguments over exactly what would have been done and who exactly it would have strengthened, Cameron did not want to strengthen ISIS. One might argue his actions would have been reckless and would have strengthened ISIS whatever his intention, but it was still not his intention at least.

    Also, you blame Bush, Blair, Cameron 'and the Tory party'. Why has Labour escaped specific censure, and only had its leader namedropped in this list of shame? Were Labour itself not involved, somehow?
    Yeah the Labour Party tried and failed to stop its leader. More Labour MPs voted against the war than Tories, for example (proportionally)

    I'll take your word for it, though it's not as though his party punished him for it, at least not until he'd secured another majority for them.
    Well millions stop voting for it and thousands ripped up their membership cards.

    And I said proportionally more of the parliamentary party tried to stop the war than Tories (though not Lib Dems)

    And thankfully most of those who were at the top of the Party at the time are long gone.
  • Options
    HughHugh Posts: 955
    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    SeanT said:

    Banning Mr Jones would be a gross error, to my mind.

    He was the first person to talk about racist gang rape of white kids on here, years before it became common knowledge. We all derided him (me included) as being a BNP nutter.

    Yet it turns out he was largely correct. No one denies it happened any more. Indeed it is still happening,

    So we shoot the messenger, again? Even as the crime continues?

    This is a species of madness. Let him rant and rave. He's earned the right.

    Obsessing about a single topic like race or religion always raises alarm bells.
    Says the guy always banging on about the NHS.
    Fair cop, I am an anti-NHS "ist".

    What are you, always banging on about race and muslims?
    An anti-extremist, an anti-multiculturalist and an anti-child rapist.
    Multiculturalism is a fact of life in a modern global country.

    Your dream of monoculturalism has been tried, and did not end well.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Sean_F said:

    For those betting on Heywood and Middleton

    The father of the main prosecution witness in Britain’s biggest child sex grooming scandal has accused Nigel Farage of exploiting the issue for political gain as the UK Independence party attempts to unseat Labour in a Manchester byelection.

    The man, known as Tom, whose daughter’s testimony led to the prosecution of nine Asian men and an overhaul of Crown Prosecution Service rules, said that the anti-federalist party had resorted to British National party-style tactics while campaigning to win Heywood and Middleton in Greater Manchester.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/25/nigel-farage-ukip-heywood-middleton-child-sex-politics

    Ah - a comeuppance for Nige. However, you are playing with fire bringing that topic up on here TSE. I fear the quality of debate on the key Epping Forest council byelection may suffer!
    That ties in quite neatly with the arguments on the last two threads.

    Essentially, your view is that it's just bad manners to raise this topic.
    Not at all. It's just tedious because once raised we hear about little else for hours.
    Just a load of inexpert obsessives wittering on endlessly.
    Not my bag.
    You're right. 1400 child rapes in one town is a minor matter, and doesn't deserve to be discussed much.
  • Options
    manofkent2014manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    edited September 2014
    perdix said:

    SeanT said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Re the Guardian stuff on Heywood and UKIP, given Labour's mixed record in Rochdale and Rotherham on child protection, it is hardly a surprise that someone didn't make political capital out of it.

    There is an element of dog whistle politics from Labour as well.

    The entire article, contrary to its intent, is actually an explanation as to why people might understandably vote UKIP. It says UKIP have a good chance in all the major Muslim gang-rape grooming towns - Rochdale, Rotherham, etc.

    Quelle surprise.

    If 45% of Scots can vote to shatter the Union because they hate Westminster, then I can see 15% of Brits voting UKIP for roughly the same reasons.

    The next GE is going to be very odd. We are likely to see leftwing parties shrivelling away, as the Tories sustain support and UKIP surge, and yet Labour are probably going to win a plurality, and go into government, thanks to FPTP.

    A recipe for civil unrest.
    "and yet Labour are probably going to win a plurality, and go into government....." thanks to ukip.

    Actually it will be because far too many spineless Tory supporters spent all their time whining about why they are going to lose instead of getting out there and fighting to win.

    Why would anyone want to vote for a party that has already resigned itself to defeat and spends all its time blaming everyone else for its failings.

    If the Tories were offering a convincing enough offering they would win. Blaming others just makes them look pathetic......
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    SeanT said:

    Banning Mr Jones would be a gross error, to my mind.

    He was the first person to talk about racist gang rape of white kids on here, years before it became common knowledge. We all derided him (me included) as being a BNP nutter.

    Yet it turns out he was largely correct. No one denies it happened any more. Indeed it is still happening,

    So we shoot the messenger, again? Even as the crime continues?

    This is a species of madness. Let him rant and rave. He's earned the right.

    Obsessing about a single topic like race or religion always raises alarm bells.
    Says the guy always banging on about the NHS.
    Fair cop, I am an anti-NHS "ist".

    What are you, always banging on about race and muslims?
    An anti-extremist, an anti-multiculturalist and an anti-child rapist.
    Multiculturalism is a fact of life in a modern global country.

    Your dream of monoculturalism has been tried, and did not end well.
    Nonsense. Monoculturalism has been far more successful than this multiculturalist nonsense. When was the last time we got more than a thousand child rapes in one town due to monoculturalism?
  • Options
    NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    SeanT said:

    Hugh - Move on from Plato, and refrain from talking about her, directly or indirectly.

    I an reminded of the Monty Python "milkman" sketch. Where a succession of tims fall over the same Plato-housewife pitfall and end up in the same suburban prison of moderation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9YL0yHohts
    I've never understood this sketch.

    Surely, the moment the housewife inserts the key, the prisoners would jump the door?

    Where are all the milk floats?

    Doesn't anyone at the milk depot notice employees disappearing on the same round?

    Don't the customers on the round after no. 48 notice not getting delivered milk?
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    David Coburn, our favourite scotsman (in entertainment value), has struck again:

    The Daily Record ‏@Daily_Record 1h
    Bungling MEP David Coburn accused of describing Ruth Davidson as 'fat lesbian' in train rant http://dlyr.ec/H4kfMa pic.twitter.com/kQWdwvShnO
  • Options

    Sean_F said:

    For those betting on Heywood and Middleton

    The father of the main prosecution witness in Britain’s biggest child sex grooming scandal has accused Nigel Farage of exploiting the issue for political gain as the UK Independence party attempts to unseat Labour in a Manchester byelection.

    The man, known as Tom, whose daughter’s testimony led to the prosecution of nine Asian men and an overhaul of Crown Prosecution Service rules, said that the anti-federalist party had resorted to British National party-style tactics while campaigning to win Heywood and Middleton in Greater Manchester.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/25/nigel-farage-ukip-heywood-middleton-child-sex-politics

    Ah - a comeuppance for Nige. However, you are playing with fire bringing that topic up on here TSE. I fear the quality of debate on the key Epping Forest council byelection may suffer!
    That ties in quite neatly with the arguments on the last two threads.

    Essentially, your view is that it's just bad manners to raise this topic.
    Not at all. It's just tedious because once raised we hear about little else for hours.
    Just a load of inexpert obsessives wittering on endlessly.
    Not my bag.
    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    SeanT said:

    Banning Mr Jones would be a gross error, to my mind.

    He was the first person to talk about racist gang rape of white kids on here, years before it became common knowledge. We all derided him (me included) as being a BNP nutter.

    Yet it turns out he was largely correct. No one denies it happened any more. Indeed it is still happening,

    So we shoot the messenger, again? Even as the crime continues?

    This is a species of madness. Let him rant and rave. He's earned the right.

    Obsessing about a single topic like race or religion always raises alarm bells.
    Says the guy always banging on about the NHS.
    Fair cop, I am an anti-NHS "ist".

    What are you, always banging on about race and muslims?
    An anti-extremist, an anti-multiculturalist and an anti-child rapist.
    Multiculturalism is a fact of life in a modern global country.

    Your dream of monoculturalism has been tried, and did not end well.
    And multiculturalism has?
  • Options
    HughHugh Posts: 955
    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    SeanT said:

    Banning Mr Jones would be a gross error, to my mind.

    He was the first person to talk about racist gang rape of white kids on here, years before it became common knowledge. We all derided him (me included) as being a BNP nutter.

    Yet it turns out he was largely correct. No one denies it happened any more. Indeed it is still happening,

    So we shoot the messenger, again? Even as the crime continues?

    This is a species of madness. Let him rant and rave. He's earned the right.

    Obsessing about a single topic like race or religion always raises alarm bells.
    Says the guy always banging on about the NHS.
    Fair cop, I am an anti-NHS "ist".

    What are you, always banging on about race and muslims?
    An anti-extremist, an anti-multiculturalist and an anti-child rapist.
    Multiculturalism is a fact of life in a modern global country.

    Your dream of monoculturalism has been tried, and did not end well.
    Nonsense. Monoculturalism has been far more successful than this multiculturalist nonsense. When was the last time we got more than a thousand child rapes in one town due to monoculturalism?
    People will look different and talk different and have different colour skin and eat different. It is a fact of life. Get over it.

    Seriously, try talking to one of them sometime. It's not THAT scary.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,351
    So far, my prediction that we'd be seeing less convention bouncing this year has proved right - Labour lead up from 3ish to 6ish. I suggest it'll go down to 0ish next week, then return to 3ish. There just aren't a lot of waverers around.

    Must admit I'm skipping most of the lengthy posts on religions. My general feeling is that it should be legal, but bad form, to be nasty about someone else's religion. At a glance, that doesn't seem to agree with anyone else, as the choice of views seems to be "Being nasty about other religions is fine" and "Being nasty about other religions should be illegal". I'm an atheist, but isn't it simply slightly boorish behaviour to be horrible about something that other people think precious? Legal, just as it's legal to tell someone their child is hideously ugly, but not really defensible.
  • Options
    HughHugh Posts: 955

    Sean_F said:

    For those betting on Heywood and Middleton

    The father of the main prosecution witness in Britain’s biggest child sex grooming scandal has accused Nigel Farage of exploiting the issue for political gain as the UK Independence party attempts to unseat Labour in a Manchester byelection.

    The man, known as Tom, whose daughter’s testimony led to the prosecution of nine Asian men and an overhaul of Crown Prosecution Service rules, said that the anti-federalist party had resorted to British National party-style tactics while campaigning to win Heywood and Middleton in Greater Manchester.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/25/nigel-farage-ukip-heywood-middleton-child-sex-politics

    Ah - a comeuppance for Nige. However, you are playing with fire bringing that topic up on here TSE. I fear the quality of debate on the key Epping Forest council byelection may suffer!
    That ties in quite neatly with the arguments on the last two threads.

    Essentially, your view is that it's just bad manners to raise this topic.
    Not at all. It's just tedious because once raised we hear about little else for hours.
    Just a load of inexpert obsessives wittering on endlessly.
    Not my bag.
    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    SeanT said:

    Banning Mr Jones would be a gross error, to my mind.

    He was the first person to talk about racist gang rape of white kids on here, years before it became common knowledge. We all derided him (me included) as being a BNP nutter.

    Yet it turns out he was largely correct. No one denies it happened any more. Indeed it is still happening,

    So we shoot the messenger, again? Even as the crime continues?

    This is a species of madness. Let him rant and rave. He's earned the right.

    Obsessing about a single topic like race or religion always raises alarm bells.
    Says the guy always banging on about the NHS.
    Fair cop, I am an anti-NHS "ist".

    What are you, always banging on about race and muslims?
    An anti-extremist, an anti-multiculturalist and an anti-child rapist.
    Multiculturalism is a fact of life in a modern global country.

    Your dream of monoculturalism has been tried, and did not end well.
    And multiculturalism has?
    It's just a fact of life.

    It's neither good nor bad, something to like or dislike. You might as well moan about the days getting shorter because it's autumn. Though no doubt there's plenty of that going on at the UKIP conference too.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited September 2014
    Ninoinoz said:

    SeanT said:

    Hugh - Move on from Plato, and refrain from talking about her, directly or indirectly.

    I an reminded of the Monty Python "milkman" sketch. Where a succession of tims fall over the same Plato-housewife pitfall and end up in the same suburban prison of moderation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9YL0yHohts
    I've never understood this sketch.

    Surely, the moment the housewife inserts the key, the prisoners would jump the door?

    Where are all the milk floats?

    Doesn't anyone at the milk depot notice employees disappearing on the same round?

    Don't the customers on the round after no. 48 notice not getting delivered milk?
    It's surrealism, you are supposed to not understand it, just enjoy it.
    Example, what about the spanish inquisition?
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    My wife visited a friend in the Clacton constituency today.

    50+ woman, grew up in London, moved to Kent and then to Essex.

    will be voting UKIP for the bye election (for the first time)

    But she says will not vote for them at the General

  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    SeanT said:

    Banning Mr Jones would be a gross error, to my mind.

    He was the first person to talk about racist gang rape of white kids on here, years before it became common knowledge. We all derided him (me included) as being a BNP nutter.

    Yet it turns out he was largely correct. No one denies it happened any more. Indeed it is still happening,

    So we shoot the messenger, again? Even as the crime continues?

    This is a species of madness. Let him rant and rave. He's earned the right.

    Obsessing about a single topic like race or religion always raises alarm bells.
    Says the guy always banging on about the NHS.
    Fair cop, I am an anti-NHS "ist".

    What are you, always banging on about race and muslims?
    An anti-extremist, an anti-multiculturalist and an anti-child rapist.
    Multiculturalism is a fact of life in a modern global country.

    Your dream of monoculturalism has been tried, and did not end well.
    Nonsense. Monoculturalism has been far more successful than this multiculturalist nonsense. When was the last time we got more than a thousand child rapes in one town due to monoculturalism?
    People will look different and talk different and have different colour skin and eat different. It is a fact of life. Get over it.

    Seriously, try talking to one of them sometime. It's not THAT scary.
    Says you and your indigenous living,stop been a member of the billy bragg society.

  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Oh, meant to add.

    She had a phone survey and a doorstep visit (both) today
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited September 2014
    Hugh said:


    People will look different and talk different and have different colour skin and eat different. It is a fact of life. Get over it.

    Seriously, try talking to one of them sometime. It's not THAT scary.

    Firstly, skin colour has nothing to do with culture. There are people of all biological descents that are of British culture - several of them on this board. Secondly, you're an idiot if you think I've never spoken to someone from another ethnic group. I married someone from a different ethnic group for a start...

    There is nothing wrong with cultural additions to our culture, as long as they are not backwards ones. It's just those cultures should be assimilated into the mainstream, rather than be split apart in cultural ghettoes.

  • Options
    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    Socrates said:

    Hugh said:

    SeanT said:

    Banning Mr Jones would be a gross error, to my mind.

    He was the first person to talk about racist gang rape of white kids on here, years before it became common knowledge. We all derided him (me included) as being a BNP nutter.

    Yet it turns out he was largely correct. No one denies it happened any more. Indeed it is still happening,

    So we shoot the messenger, again? Even as the crime continues?

    This is a species of madness. Let him rant and rave. He's earned the right.

    Obsessing about a single topic like race or religion always raises alarm bells.
    Says the guy always banging on about the NHS.
    Fair cop, I am an anti-NHS "ist".

    What are you, always banging on about race and muslims?
    An anti-extremist, an anti-multiculturalist and an anti-child rapist.
    Multiculturalism is a fact of life in a modern global country.

    Your dream of monoculturalism has been tried, and did not end well.
    Nonsense. Monoculturalism has been far more successful than this multiculturalist nonsense. When was the last time we got more than a thousand child rapes in one town due to monoculturalism?
    People will look different and talk different and have different colour skin and eat different. It is a fact of life. Get over it.

    Seriously, try talking to one of them sometime. It's not THAT scary.
    It could be if you are a young white girl.
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    For those betting on Heywood and Middleton

    The father of the main prosecution witness in Britain’s biggest child sex grooming scandal has accused Nigel Farage of exploiting the issue for political gain as the UK Independence party attempts to unseat Labour in a Manchester byelection.

    The man, known as Tom, whose daughter’s testimony led to the prosecution of nine Asian men and an overhaul of Crown Prosecution Service rules, said that the anti-federalist party had resorted to British National party-style tactics while campaigning to win Heywood and Middleton in Greater Manchester.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/25/nigel-farage-ukip-heywood-middleton-child-sex-politics

    Ah - a comeuppance for Nige. However, you are playing with fire bringing that topic up on here TSE. I fear the quality of debate on the key Epping Forest council byelection may suffer!
    Well I was thinking about making a gag about (Linda) Lovelace on Guildford.
    not sure Linda gagged?

    I will get my coat......
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,857
    Is my memory wonky, or on the Syria votes last year weren't Labour theoretically in favour so long as additional commitments they wanted were met, but their amendment was defeated and then the government's motion was defeated which was taken to mean MPs were on the whole against any action, even though the Tory and Labour leaderships were both in favour of action, just quibbling over the details?
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,288
    Don't suppose that Coburn will be receiving writs, though he may have used the wrong consonant about The Greens. The outrage must have been near boiling point for four days, so much so that The Daily Record had to publish to coincide with a conference. Conversation, overheard, is that a euphemism for hacking, or is it all posted on youtube?

    Must be some incredibly well informed passengers who had the presence of mind to contract Scotland's leading tabloid.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,857
    Floater said:



    will be voting UKIP for the bye election (for the first time)

    But she says will not vote for them at the General

    I do wonder how much of this there will be. If locals feel Labour deserve a kicking, even if they want them to form the next government and represent them in Parliament for five years, they lose nothing by voting UKIP right now. Will UKIP be pushing the 'it may only be for a few months' angle to try and get a few more protest votes with those more reluctant to vote UKIP, and hope a few even of those can be convinced to stick around for the GE?
  • Options



    Must admit I'm skipping most of the lengthy posts on religions. My general feeling is that it should be legal, but bad form, to be nasty about someone else's religion. At a glance, that doesn't seem to agree with anyone else, as the choice of views seems to be "Being nasty about other religions is fine" and "Being nasty about other religions should be illegal".

    As a Christian and a Conservative I agree with you Nick!
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Hugh said:

    I think I just blasphemed Plato on the last thread!

    Gawd don't do that, the PB Tories go ballistic if you suggest Plato is a bit of a sad simpleton Tory troll who really, really shouldn't be posting here any more.
    you remind me of someone....

    I cant think who it is but they were a sad obsessivemuppet too.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited September 2014
    dr_spyn said:

    Don't suppose that Coburn will be receiving writs, though he may have used the wrong consonant about The Greens. The outrage must have been near boiling point for four days, so much so that The Daily Record had to publish to coincide with a conference. Conversation, overheard, is that a euphemism for hacking, or is it all posted on youtube?

    Must be some incredibly well informed passengers who had the presence of mind to contract Scotland's leading tabloid.

    True.
    Though I enjoyed seeing Coburn kicking the SNP in the balls.
    The moment I became a fan of him:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJIjgCCcD5c
This discussion has been closed.