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.
Really? That's giving an awful lot of credit to Farage, prising away all those "natural" Tory voters due his brilliant oratory and political strategy. Amazing how UKIP got less than 4% in their shambles of a GE 2010 campaign but are looking to 2X or 3X that at GE 2015.
Alternatively, Cameron is a complete PPE twerp who has gone out of his way to offend, ignore or belittle his own support expecting them to continue voting Tory, almost as if he owns them.
I notice fellow Oxford PPE Miliband has performed a similar trick in Scotland and perhaps the North, though not as extreme.
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 would define 'Being nasty about other religions is fine' to mean 'but is bad form' as a matter of course. 'Is fine' does not necessarily mean one thinks it is a good or even appropriate thing to go around doing as a matter of course, just that you should be able to do so without it being crime.
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.
Banning Mr Jones would be a gross error, to my mind.
SNIP.
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.
SNIP
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.
It's certainly a bad thing: it has caused disunity and division. Race riots, female genital mutilation, dishonour killings, forced marriages, and of course, mass gang rape have all been caused by this stupid philosophy.
And it's not a fact of life either. Within the next decade a government will be forced by public pressure to reduce immigration to sensible levels. At that point the culturally alien population will gradually assimilate to the mainstream. We have seen this in the USA: during parts of the 19th century they had huge ethnic tensions from mass immigration. But they tightened up the controls, and assimilation happened so that the Irish and the Italians and the Germans adapted into the mainstream English culture. And the nation was far better for it.
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.
What about pointing out that Muhammed had sex with a child? Is that bad form? Is referring to historical facts "nasty"? How's it any worse than an Irishman pointing out unpleasant acts by that English hero Oliver Cromwell?
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
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.
What about pointing out that Muhammed had sex with a child? Is that bad form? Is referring to historical facts "nasty"? How's it any worse than an Irishman pointing out unpleasant acts by that English hero Oliver Cromwell?
Well the Irish do exaggerate the unpleasant acts (which is not to say they were not terrible acts, given the brutal nature of warfare at the time - if not generally that brutal during the British Civil Wars as a rule - and the unfortunately very common racist attitudes toward the Irish at the time), or rather magnify them to something demonic and legendary among all peoples for all time rather than merely being brutal and terrible.
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.
What about pointing out that Muhammed had sex with a child? Is that bad form? Is referring to historical facts "nasty"? How's it any worse than an Irishman pointing out unpleasant acts by that English hero Oliver Cromwell?
Well the Irish do exaggerate the unpleasant acts (which is not to say they were not terrible acts, given the brutal nature of warfare at the time - if not generally that brutal during the British Civil Wars as a rule - and the unfortunately very common racist attitudes toward the Irish at the time), or rather magnify them to something demonic and legendary among all peoples for all time rather than merely being brutal and terrible.
Perhaps. But if someone said that, I would have a discussion about it, and people could make arguments each way. It would be absurd if people said "now don't you dare say that, it's insulting to the English, you should be more respectful" etc
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
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
Isn't that simply a statement of fact?
I would imagine it's a matter of tone and implied criticism.
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.
Really? That's giving an awful lot of credit to Farage, prising away all those "natural" Tory voters due his brilliant oratory and political strategy. Amazing how UKIP got less than 4% in their shambles of a GE 2010 campaign but are looking to 2X or 3X that at GE 2015.
Alternatively, Cameron is a complete PPE twerp who has gone out of his way to offend, ignore or belittle his own support expecting them to continue voting Tory, almost as if he owns them.
I notice fellow Oxford PPE Miliband has performed a similar trick in Scotland and perhaps the North, though not as extreme.
The case of UKIP's rise is simple. The Tories moved to the center under Cameron but they forgot to brake, they continued to move until they lost more votes to their right than votes gained from the center.
Same thing happened to New Labour vs LD but on a longer time scale.
Can't believe it's already a week since the Referendum!
Anyway, just got back to the UK after 5 nights in Geneva! Had really nice weather most days, except a couple of showers on Sunday, and yesterday (Wednesday) was a bit of a wash-out. Saw the UN buildings, botanical gardens, Place de Neuve, CERN (the site of the large hadron collider), the Jet d'Eau (the big fountain on the lake) and took the train to visit Lausanne (briefly) and Montreux (beautiful waterfront walk and the Freddie Mercury statue).
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.
What about pointing out that Muhammed had sex with a child? Is that bad form? Is referring to historical facts "nasty"? How's it any worse than an Irishman pointing out unpleasant acts by that English hero Oliver Cromwell?
Well the Irish do exaggerate the unpleasant acts (which is not to say they were not terrible acts, given the brutal nature of warfare at the time - if not generally that brutal during the British Civil Wars as a rule - and the unfortunately very common racist attitudes toward the Irish at the time), or rather magnify them to something demonic and legendary among all peoples for all time rather than merely being brutal and terrible.
Perhaps. But if someone said that, I would have a discussion about it, and people could make arguments each way. It would be absurd if people said "now don't you dare say that, it's insulting to the English, you should be more respectful" etc
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.
I do not think the two are equivalent. It is a central aspect of the Passion of Christ that he was mocked by his persecutors, so every taunt is itself a re-enactment of that persecution, a recognition of our freedom to accept or to reject his grace.
The life of Muhammed is quite different. The early Meccan Surahs are much like teachings of Jesus in terms of tolerance etc (for example "there should be no compulsion in religion" 2.256). After his retreat to Medina further revelations were more violent, and his teachings increasingly intolerant of any criticism. These later revelations are considered to abrogate the earlier Surahs
So, while Christians do not like being mocked, it does fit into their world view, but does not fit into the world view of Islam, where any mocking is considered a very severe insult.
SeanT Iraq was also the reason the Democrats picked Obama over Hillary. Disowning and apologising for Iraq at his first conference got Ed Miliband up to 35% and he would still get that even if he turned into a congealed amoeba!
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
Well knock me down with a feather... People taking offence on others behalf made to look foolish
Yep,and gale banned for the last 2 important championship games and more importantly banned from lifting the county championhip trophy,which was a disgrace.
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!
The huge irony of course being that while telling us we should respect the religion of others miss AudreyAnne decided to insult a whole religion by declaring that calling people witches should be illegal as it is abusive. While not an adherent of the wiccan faith myself I do have many friends who are and they would be deeply upset at being told that they are abusing their children by calling them witches.
O/T Just watched a brilliant drama on BBC2 'Marvellous' about Neil Baldwin, an ex clown and Stoke City kit man with learning difficulties played by Toby Jones. The best thing I have seen on TV for a long time, well worth a watch if you can catch it on iplayer
So, while Christians do not like being mocked, it does fit into their world view, but does not fit into the world view of Islam, where any mocking is considered a very severe insult.
Well Islam and its world view has not been immutable since its foundation, or even consistent across the world today, so I am sure it can get over that with time.
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.
Really? That's giving an awful lot of credit to Farage, prising away all those "natural" Tory voters due his brilliant oratory and political strategy. Amazing how UKIP got less than 4% in their shambles of a GE 2010 campaign but are looking to 2X or 3X that at GE 2015.
Alternatively, Cameron is a complete PPE twerp who has gone out of his way to offend, ignore or belittle his own support expecting them to continue voting Tory, almost as if he owns them.
I notice fellow Oxford PPE Miliband has performed a similar trick in Scotland and perhaps the North, though not as extreme.
The case of UKIP's rise is simple. The Tories moved to the center under Cameron but they forgot to brake, they continued to move until they lost more votes to their right than votes gained from the center.
Same thing happened to New Labour vs LD but on a longer time scale.
I don't think it's that simple. There's a similarly positioned movement on the rise in pretty much every developed country in the world - they can't all be Cameron's fault.
A US soldier and a British soldier are in a bar with an Iraqi.
The US soldier says "Glass is so cheap in America that we don't need to use the same one twice" and throws his into the air and shoots it.
The British soldier says "We've got so much sand in the UK that we don't need to use one twice either" and shoots his.
The Iraqi gets out his gun and shoots the Brit and the Yank dead, saying we've so many Americans and British here that we don't need to drink with them twice.
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.
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
Isn't that simply a statement of fact?
Since Coburn has the look of an even fatter lesbian, he should probably keep his stones in his pocket.
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 would define 'Being nasty about other religions is fine' to mean 'but is bad form' as a matter of course. 'Is fine' does not necessarily mean one thinks it is a good or even appropriate thing to go around doing as a matter of course, just that you should be able to do so without it being crime.
Yes, I agree. I was thinking of the Mohammed cartoons, really - the British press seem to me to have shown good judgment not to publish them, not because they might cause unrest but just because they were pointlessly unpleasant. A while back, atheists used to try to provoke Christians in the same sort of way - exhibiting a crucifix in urine, for instance - and the same was true of that.
Changing the subject, it may amuse some to know who's exhibiting at the UKIP conference, apart from my animal welfare group. We're a motley bunch. Leaving aside stands of UKIP individuals and local UKIP groups, it's the Electoral Reform Society, FOREST, the LGA, the EFDD (?), a pro-Heathrow expansion group, an anti-Heathrow expansion group, the Freedom Association, Midshire Business Systems and the Shannah Eagles (?). Stands cost around 10% of Labour's and 5% of the Tory stands.
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
@speedy Who was that harridan speaking against him?
Well I heard from the presenter that it was Tez Mina (first time I heard that name), could be Denise Mina but I don't think so, she publicly said she would vote NO.
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 would define 'Being nasty about other religions is fine' to mean 'but is bad form' as a matter of course. 'Is fine' does not necessarily mean one thinks it is a good or even appropriate thing to go around doing as a matter of course, just that you should be able to do so without it being crime.
Yes, I agree. I was thinking of the Mohammed cartoons, really - the British press seem to me to have shown good judgment not to publish them, not because they might cause unrest but just because they were pointlessly unpleasant. A while back, atheists used to try to provoke Christians in the same sort of way - exhibiting a crucifix in urine, for instance - and the same was true of that.
Changing the subject, it may amuse some to know who's exhibiting at the UKIP conference, apart from my animal welfare group. We're a motley bunch. Leaving aside stands of UKIP individuals and local UKIP groups, it's the Electoral Reform Society, FOREST, the LGA, the EFDD (?), a pro-Heathrow expansion group, an anti-Heathrow expansion group, the Freedom Association, Midshire Business Systems and the Shannah Eagles (?). Stands cost around 10% of Labour's and 5% of the Tory stands.
You didn't respond to my question. This whole conversation exploded because audrey said Mohammed was a great man and I pointed out he had sex with a child. Was that me being nasty?
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.
And I agree with you as well, Nick.
Just seems basic common sense. Something I would hope most people would agree on - whatever political party they support.
What about pointing out that Muhammed had sex with a child? Is that bad form? Is referring to historical facts "nasty"? How's it any worse than an Irishman pointing out unpleasant acts by that English hero Oliver Cromwell?
Yes, I'd say that both were needlessly unpleasant comments, unless made by a historian purely interested in exploring the past for academic purposes. Why wind people up over alleged events centuries or even a millennium ago?
Can't believe it's already a week since the Referendum!
Anyway, just got back to the UK after 5 nights in Geneva! Had really nice weather most days, except a couple of showers on Sunday, and yesterday (Wednesday) was a bit of a wash-out. Saw the UN buildings, botanical gardens, Place de Neuve, CERN (the site of the large hadron collider), the Jet d'Eau (the big fountain on the lake) and took the train to visit Lausanne (briefly) and Montreux (beautiful waterfront walk and the Freddie Mercury statue).
Other passengers in the East Coast train journey last Sunday were shocked delighted to overhear the UKIP politician launching loud personal attacks without a care for who was overhearing.
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!
The huge irony of course being that while telling us we should respect the religion of others miss AudreyAnne decided to insult a whole religion by declaring that calling people witches should be illegal as it is abusive. While not an adherent of the wiccan faith myself I do have many friends who are and they would be deeply upset at being told that they are abusing their children by calling them witches.
Ha! That's a candidate for post of the year.
@NickPalmer if you met me you would find that I am rarely rude to anybody. I can separate bring rude to an individual from being rude to a religion in the general.
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.
Really? That's giving an awful lot of credit to Farage, prising away all those "natural" Tory voters due his brilliant oratory and political strategy. Amazing how UKIP got less than 4% in their shambles of a GE 2010 campaign but are looking to 2X or 3X that at GE 2015.
Alternatively, Cameron is a complete PPE twerp who has gone out of his way to offend, ignore or belittle his own support expecting them to continue voting Tory, almost as if he owns them.
I notice fellow Oxford PPE Miliband has performed a similar trick in Scotland and perhaps the North, though not as extreme.
The case of UKIP's rise is simple. The Tories moved to the center under Cameron but they forgot to brake, they continued to move until they lost more votes to their right than votes gained from the center.
Same thing happened to New Labour vs LD but on a longer time scale.
I don't think it's that simple. There's a similarly positioned movement on the rise in pretty much every developed country in the world - they can't all be Cameron's fault.
But it's the same problem there too, political parties that move too much in one direction end up losing more votes from their own side than gaining from the other. Right wing and left wing parties in the West, moved towards the center throughout the 90's and the 2000's, they moved so much that they lost their own base.
If anyone's still wondering about the possible defectors, although Ladbrokes market seems to be gone, surely a good thing to look for is anti interventionists? A handy "final straw" given tomorrow's recall
I think this is where the whole Check Your Privilege comes into play - and taking offense on behalf of others can be very silly/OTT as these well meaning people don't understand the POV of those who they're seeking to protect.
I dislike the notion of CYP, but there are times when it's best to zip ones fact free opinions. Religion seems to be the most obvious one as it's all about faith/perceptions/beliefs - not facts.
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!
The huge irony of course being that while telling us we should respect the religion of others miss AudreyAnne decided to insult a whole religion by declaring that calling people witches should be illegal as it is abusive. While not an adherent of the wiccan faith myself I do have many friends who are and they would be deeply upset at being told that they are abusing their children by calling them witches.
What about pointing out that Muhammed had sex with a child? Is that bad form? Is referring to historical facts "nasty"? How's it any worse than an Irishman pointing out unpleasant acts by that English hero Oliver Cromwell?
Yes, I'd say that both were needlessly unpleasant comments, unless made by a historian purely interested in exploring the past for academic purposes. Why wind people up over alleged events centuries or even a millennium ago?
I wasn't winding anyone up. Someone made the claim that Muhammad was a great man, and I challenged that incorrect statement. I would have done the same if someone said how wonderful a person Genghis Khan or King Leopold or Thomas Jefferson was.
The gap between the Labour leader and the Tory leader has widened by 10%. And yet Labour still expect to perform better next year than 2010..... Delusional.
What about pointing out that Muhammed had sex with a child? Is that bad form? Is referring to historical facts "nasty"? How's it any worse than an Irishman pointing out unpleasant acts by that English hero Oliver Cromwell?
Yes, I'd say that both were needlessly unpleasant comments, unless made by a historian purely interested in exploring the past for academic purposes. Why wind people up over alleged events centuries or even a millennium ago?
I wasn't winding anyone up. Someone made the claim that Muhammad was a great man, and I challenged that incorrect statement. I would have done the same if someone said how wonderful a person Genghis Khan or King Leopold or Thomas Jefferson was.
I don't know anything about Muhammed, but I do know that child brides were far from rare in the early middle ages across Europe. It's just the way things were back then, as unpleasant to us as that may seem.
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.
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.
I didn't say that. I said it's best not discussed endlessly by a bunch of inexpert obsessives. As I have said before.
Islamic State: Nigel Farage is heading for a fall on this, on two counts:
UKIP leader Nigel Farage has said a recall of Parliament to discuss airstrikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq has been scheduled to upstage UKIP's party conference.
Mr Farage said Prime Minister David Cameron "will do anything he can to try to deflect attention away from UKIP".
That just makes him sound tin-foil hat bonkers, but perhaps more significant is his comment on the substance:
Mr Farage told the BBC he would not not support UK airstrikes against Islamic State militants.
"All that will happen, within a few weeks, we will see stories about civilian casualties, which are bound to happen. It will frankly get us nowhere," he said.
I don't think that opposing action against the gruesome murderers of David Haines and other innocent Westerners, not to mention the large-scale atrocities against their own countrymen, women and children, is good politics, whatever the practical and military difficulties.
What about pointing out that Muhammed had sex with a child? Is that bad form? Is referring to historical facts "nasty"? How's it any worse than an Irishman pointing out unpleasant acts by that English hero Oliver Cromwell?
Yes, I'd say that both were needlessly unpleasant comments, unless made by a historian purely interested in exploring the past for academic purposes. Why wind people up over alleged events centuries or even a millennium ago?
The relevance of the life of Muhammed is that the Jihadis of IS take direct inspiration from it.
The massacre of the Yazidi, the beheadings and the selling of the girls as "wives" to IS Jihadis is not some weird abberation, it is a near direct copy of the actions of Muhammed following the Battle of the Banu Qurayza.
But it's the same problem there too, political parties that move too much in one direction end up losing more votes from their own side than gaining from the other. Right wing and left wing parties in the West, moved towards the center throughout the 90's and the 2000's, they moved so much that they lost their own base.
I don't think that's right - thinking about the US, or Japan, or France, none of the mainstream right-wing parties were particularly moving to the centre. What happened was that after the Lehman Shock the anti-establishment populist right became much more popular, which made the distance the leadership had to straddle to keep them in the tent wider.
Nigel Farage is heading for a fall on this, on two counts:
UKIP leader Nigel Farage has said a recall of Parliament to discuss airstrikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq has been scheduled to upstage UKIP's party conference.
Mr Farage said Prime Minister David Cameron "will do anything he can to try to deflect attention away from UKIP".
That just makes him sound tin-foil hat bonkers, but perhaps more significant is his comment on the substance:
Mr Farage told the BBC he would not not support UK airstrikes against Islamic State militants.
"All that will happen, within a few weeks, we will see stories about civilian casualties, which are bound to happen. It will frankly get us nowhere," he said.
I don't think that opposing action against the gruesome murderers of David Haines and other innocent Westerners, not to mention the atrocities against their own countrymen, is good politics, whatever the practical and military difficulties.
Who says? If this goes horribly wrong (which imo is pretty likely to), people would probably reward any politician who'd been arguing against it all along.
@Socrates It means many complex things, but one of them is that there probably is a God (or Gods) and omnipotence is likely to figure highly on his/her/its CV. Therefore, it follows that God is unlikely to be overly worried about what the semi evolved apes do, as long as they try to follow a few sensible rules. Not killing each other, destroying the planet, or being unnecessarily cruel or greedy would seem to be a decent starting point, the rest is probably frippery.
What about pointing out that Muhammed had sex with a child? Is that bad form? Is referring to historical facts "nasty"? How's it any worse than an Irishman pointing out unpleasant acts by that English hero Oliver Cromwell?
Yes, I'd say that both were needlessly unpleasant comments, unless made by a historian purely interested in exploring the past for academic purposes. Why wind people up over alleged events centuries or even a millennium ago?
Perhaps because people like me keep going on about spectacular events that occurred 2000 years ago that are still relevant today.
Antifrank, I believe we had a gentleman's bet of £50 on Yes gaining at least 40% of the referendum vote? My nominated charity was Erskine - https://www.erskine.org.uk/donate-online
MarkSenior, we had a £25 bet on the same outcome. Let me know how you want to pay.
Who says? If this goes horribly wrong (which imo is pretty likely to), people would probably reward any politician who'd been arguing against it all along.
I say. I was expressing my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
Farage has already been curiously positioned on the Ukraine situation, appearing to side with Putin. Now he risks appearing to side with the beheaders of David Haines. Bad move. In my opinion.
@Socrates It means many complex things, but one of them is that there probably is a God (or Gods) and omnipotence is likely to figure highly on his/her/its CV. Therefore, it follows that God is unlikely to be overly worried about what the semi evolved apes do, as long as they try to follow a few sensible rules. Not killing each other, destroying the planet, or being unnecessarily cruel or greedy would seem to be a decent starting point, the rest is probably frippery.
I wonder, just a little, if in recent weeks Harry has not become just a teeny bit in awe of the UKIP challenge, and equally gloomy about Lib Dem prospects. The Lib Dem gain from the Conservatives in Epping was very impressive.
Can't believe it's already a week since the Referendum!
Anyway, just got back to the UK after 5 nights in Geneva! Had really nice weather most days, except a couple of showers on Sunday, and yesterday (Wednesday) was a bit of a wash-out. Saw the UN buildings, botanical gardens, Place de Neuve, CERN (the site of the large hadron collider), the Jet d'Eau (the big fountain on the lake) and took the train to visit Lausanne (briefly) and Montreux (beautiful waterfront walk and the Freddie Mercury statue).
No, I didn't see Interlaken, though I guess I could have taken the mountain railway (GoldenPass Line) had I known about it before I got to Montreux. Little bit misty when I was at Montreux despite there being brilliant sunshine. I did however see Mont Blanc on Monday evening from Geneva. The air was clear on Monday, but it was very windy, so much so that turned off the Jet d'Eau temporarily!
What about pointing out that Muhammed had sex with a child? Is that bad form? Is referring to historical facts "nasty"? How's it any worse than an Irishman pointing out unpleasant acts by that English hero Oliver Cromwell?
Yes, I'd say that both were needlessly unpleasant comments, unless made by a historian purely interested in exploring the past for academic purposes. Why wind people up over alleged events centuries or even a millennium ago?
I wasn't winding anyone up. Someone made the claim that Muhammad was a great man, and I challenged that incorrect statement. I would have done the same if someone said how wonderful a person Genghis Khan or King Leopold or Thomas Jefferson was.
I don't know anything about Muhammed, but I do know that child brides were far from rare in the early middle ages across Europe. It's just the way things were back then, as unpleasant to us as that may seem.
While that maybe true, it is still an awful and evil thing. The fact that that immorality was widespread doesn't change that. I feel the same way about Thomas Jefferson plundering the body of Sally Hemmings.
Besides, consummation of marriage with a NINE year old seems extreme, even by historical standards. The poor kid was playing with dolls when she found out she was going to be married.
I wonder, just a little, if in recent weeks Harry has not become just a teeny bit in awe of the UKIP challenge, and equally gloomy about Lib Dem prospects. The Lib Dem gain from the Conservatives in Epping was very impressive.
No Labour candidate as far as I can see. That may have helped a bit.
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.
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.
I didn't say that. I said it's best not discussed endlessly by a bunch of inexpert obsessives. As I have said before.
How would you feel if it was your child?
The Left regard the victims as collateral damage, I'm sure they would feel different if it was their child.
Two bob a blow job, this is one episode that Labout cannot draw a line under and say move on, nothing to see here, it will crucify your party. The whole disgusting episode is a result of the PC bollocks imposed on sensible people by the Left, and you should be totally ashamed of yourself telling us we should not discuss it.
Labour are the most disgusting, hypocritical bunch of ideologues I have ever known, everything they support is a paradox of another side of their beliefs.
Women's rights? We're 100% behind them, unless you are a Muslim woman. Homophobia? FGM? Equality?
The most hypocritical disgusting people imaginable and anyone who supports is either brainwashed, totally confused or just plain stupid.
Emily Thornberry is on QT now, she is a prime example, a Socialist telling us how to live, she has a £6m property portfolio.
@Socrates It means many complex things, but one of them is that there probably is a God (or Gods) and omnipotence is likely to figure highly on his/her/its CV. Therefore, it follows that God is unlikely to be overly worried about what the semi evolved apes do, as long as they try to follow a few sensible rules. Not killing each other, destroying the planet, or being unnecessarily cruel or greedy would seem to be a decent starting point, the rest is probably frippery.
Interesting. How is that "Christian"?
Jesus laid out his teachings in the Semon on the Mount, which contains the above as themes.
@Socrates It means many complex things, but one of them is that there probably is a God (or Gods) and omnipotence is likely to figure highly on his/her/its CV. Therefore, it follows that God is unlikely to be overly worried about what the semi evolved apes do, as long as they try to follow a few sensible rules. Not killing each other, destroying the planet, or being unnecessarily cruel or greedy would seem to be a decent starting point, the rest is probably frippery.
Interesting. How is that "Christian"?
Well he believes in the Christian God I suppose - just not the biologically unnatural bullshit that someone made up about not having sex before marriage
I wonder, just a little, if in recent weeks Harry has not become just a teeny bit in awe of the UKIP challenge, and equally gloomy about Lib Dem prospects. The Lib Dem gain from the Conservatives in Epping was very impressive.
No Labour candidate as far as I can see. That may have helped a bit.
There were Labour candidates in both 2012 and May this year and the Lib Dems won both times .
Antifrank, I believe we had a gentleman's bet of £50 on Yes gaining at least 40% of the referendum vote? My nominated charity was Erskine - https://www.erskine.org.uk/donate-online
MarkSenior, we had a £25 bet on the same outcome. Let me know how you want to pay.
Yes , fine I will sort a donation in the next day or so .
Who says? If this goes horribly wrong (which imo is pretty likely to), people would probably reward any politician who'd been arguing against it all along.
I say. I was expressing my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
Farage has already been curiously positioned on the Ukraine situation, appearing to side with Putin. Now he risks appearing to side with the beheaders of David Haines. Bad move. In my opinion.
Well the american position on Ukraine hasn't made it any better. On bombing Syria (the islamist bit) I agree he probably did a mistake, but I caution to early conclusions as the USA doesn't have the greatest reputation in planning, so the whole thing could go wrong.
@Nigel4England - we know the father if the main prosecution witness in the Rotherham case - who was repeatedly raped by gang members - is sickened by Farage's use of the scandal in the by election. What is your response to him, given his child was a victim?
@Socrates It's Christian because I was brought up in a Christian society, had I been born elsewhere I might have been a Zen Buddhist, or Zen Mohammedan. etc, Religion is only mans response to God, not the godhead itself, but J.C. seems a fairly good starting point for a journey to try to understand it. Atheism is also a viable starting point, because the end of the journey is most likely going to be the same anyway.
This is a common theme on here: the "how would you feel if it was your child" thing
Stupid question. I would feel sick, I would probably want to kill the perpetrator. Wouldn't any father feel the same? I am a father of a young child.
I just don't see the benefit of discussing it endlessly on here. Some people seem to relish doing so. I don't. I would rather read considered pieces on the subject than listen to the drivel of a bunch of inexpert obsessives.
@Socrates It's Christian because I was brought up in a Christian society, had I been born elsewhere I might have been a Zen Buddhist, or Zen Mohammedan. etc, Religion is only mans response to God, not the godhead itself, but J.C. seems a fairly good starting point for a journey to try to understand it. Atheism is also a viable starting point, because the end of the journey is most likely going to be the same anyway.
Antifrank, I believe we had a gentleman's bet of £50 on Yes gaining at least 40% of the referendum vote? My nominated charity was Erskine - https://www.erskine.org.uk/donate-online
MarkSenior, we had a £25 bet on the same outcome. Let me know how you want to pay.
Yes , fine I will sort a donation in the next day or so .
What about pointing out that Muhammed had sex with a child? Is that bad form? Is referring to historical facts "nasty"? How's it any worse than an Irishman pointing out unpleasant acts by that English hero Oliver Cromwell?
Yes, I'd say that both were needlessly unpleasant comments, unless made by a historian purely interested in exploring the past for academic purposes. Why wind people up over alleged events centuries or even a millennium ago?
I wasn't winding anyone up. Someone made the claim that Muhammad was a great man, and I challenged that incorrect statement. I would have done the same if someone said how wonderful a person Genghis Khan or King Leopold or Thomas Jefferson was.
I don't know anything about Muhammed, but I do know that child brides were far from rare in the early middle ages across Europe. It's just the way things were back then, as unpleasant to us as that may seem.
While that maybe true, it is still an awful and evil thing. The fact that that immorality was widespread doesn't change that. I feel the same way about Thomas Jefferson plundering the body of Sally Hemmings.
Besides, consummation of marriage with a NINE year old seems extreme, even by historical standards. The poor kid was playing with dolls when she found out she was going to be married.
The poor kid was chattel, like so many girls were. To us it's disgusting, back then it was pretty standard. Slavery was common too. As was summary execution. I'd say Alfred was still great even though he had no problem with slaves, ditto Charlemagne. It was how the world was.
@Nigel4England - we know the father if the main prosecution witness in the Rotherham case - who was repeatedly raped by gang members - is sickened by Farage's use of the scandal in the by election. What is your response to him, given his child was a victim?
Firstly he has my deepest sympathies, believe me as a father I know exactly what he is feeling.
As for Farage allegedly using the scandal in the by election, was Dennis McShane wrong to say it was partly his fault for being too PC? Or Shaun Wright wrong to resign?
The fact that politicians have kept quiet for at least 15 years is disgusting, they still don't want to admit it now. Farage is 100% correct to say that politicians have let the victims down, because it is true.
The real scandal is apologists like you and Bob trying to sweep it under the carpet.
This is a common theme on here: the "how would you feel if it was your child" thing
Stupid question. I would feel sick, I would probably want to kill the perpetrator. Wouldn't any father feel the same? I am a father of a young child.
I just don't see the benefit of discussing it endlessly on here. Some people seem to relish doing so. I don't. I would rather read considered pieces on the subject than listen to the drivel of a bunch of inexpert obsessives.
That's just my view.
Well, we do know how the father of the main prosecution witness in Rotherham feels. And he is not heaping praise on Farage.
This is a common theme on here: the "how would you feel if it was your child" thing
Stupid question. I would feel sick, I would probably want to kill the perpetrator. Wouldn't any father feel the same? I am a father of a young child.
I just don't see the benefit of discussing it endlessly on here. Some people seem to relish doing so. I don't. I would rather read considered pieces on the subject than listen to the drivel of a bunch of inexpert obsessives.
That's just my view.
That is the view of a Lefty who just wishes it would go away.
If anyone's still wondering about the possible defectors, although Ladbrokes market seems to be gone, surely a good thing to look for is anti interventionists? A handy "final straw" given tomorrow's recall
UKIP is welcome to the cheese-eating surrender monkeys....
@Nigel4England - we know the father if the main prosecution witness in the Rotherham case - who was repeatedly raped by gang members - is sickened by Farage's use of the scandal in the by election. What is your response to him, given his child was a victim?
Firstly he has my deepest sympathies, believe me as a father I know exactly what he is feeling.
As for Farage allegedly using the scandal in the by election, was Dennis McShane wrong to say it was partly his fault for being too PC? Or Shaun Wright wrong to resign?
The fact that politicians have kept quiet for at least 15 years is disgusting, they still don't want to admit it now. Farage is 100% correct to say that politicians have let the victims down, because it is true.
The real scandal is apologists like you and Bob trying to sweep it under the carpet.
Are you accusing me of being an apologist for child rape?
Frankly, I don't think you give two hoots about the victims. I think you just see an opportunity to attack lefties. That's pretty sickening, but not surprising given your posting record on here.
Yes, but over centuries humanity learns a little more, and I fully expect that withing the next few thousand we will have learned to stop jabbing each other with sharp sticks, Another few millennium, and we may also have learned to talk to each other. (talk as in converse, and not a screaming rant)
@Nigel4England - we know the father if the main prosecution witness in the Rotherham case - who was repeatedly raped by gang members - is sickened by Farage's use of the scandal in the by election. What is your response to him, given his child was a victim?
Farage isn't speaking to the emotionally attached father; he's speaking to the broader audience who note the cultural and racial abnormality of these crimes and understandably wonder what the hell is/has gone on.
One particular broadsheet seem to have adopted a see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil mentality towards this whole issue. It's suggests an ongoing determination to minimise this type of stuff. Given their readership and where they are commonly employed that's got to be a worry.
@Nigel4England - we know the father if the main prosecution witness in the Rotherham case - who was repeatedly raped by gang members - is sickened by Farage's use of the scandal in the by election. What is your response to him, given his child was a victim?
Firstly he has my deepest sympathies, believe me as a father I know exactly what he is feeling.
As for Farage allegedly using the scandal in the by election, was Dennis McShane wrong to say it was partly his fault for being too PC? Or Shaun Wright wrong to resign?
The fact that politicians have kept quiet for at least 15 years is disgusting, they still don't want to admit it now. Farage is 100% correct to say that politicians have let the victims down, because it is true.
The real scandal is apologists like you and Bob trying to sweep it under the carpet.
A new betrayal theory to fuel Scotland’s Neverendum campaign
Readers will be familiar with the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. In the wake of its 55 per cent-45 per cent defeat in the referendum on independence the Scottish National party is going through something similar: denial, anger, talk of betrayal, bargaining, anger, more talk of betrayal, anger, time for another referendum.
Impressively, the SNP leadership has managed to condense this process into a period of about five days. Alex Salmond, its outgoing leader – always a quick politician – condensed it into about five hours.
So we can imagine the scene at the party’s Edinburgh HQ as strategists meet to discuss next steps. Of course, they accept the result. Scotland has spoken. But still, they do worry that the meaning of the vote has not been understood. They are the 45 per cent – so really they speak for the majority of Scots once you add those No voters who should have voted Yes.
Who says? If this goes horribly wrong (which imo is pretty likely to), people would probably reward any politician who'd been arguing against it all along.
I say. I was expressing my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
Farage has already been curiously positioned on the Ukraine situation, appearing to side with Putin. Now he risks appearing to side with the beheaders of David Haines. Bad move. In my opinion.
If we bomb them, aren't we going to kill our hostages as well as the IS terrorists?
I think we should pay the ransoms and keep out if it if we really cared about them
Comments
Alternatively, Cameron is a complete PPE twerp who has gone out of his way to offend, ignore or belittle his own support expecting them to continue voting Tory, almost as if he owns them.
I notice fellow Oxford PPE Miliband has performed a similar trick in Scotland and perhaps the North, though not as extreme.
And it's not a fact of life either. Within the next decade a government will be forced by public pressure to reduce immigration to sensible levels. At that point the culturally alien population will gradually assimilate to the mainstream. We have seen this in the USA: during parts of the 19th century they had huge ethnic tensions from mass immigration. But they tightened up the controls, and assimilation happened so that the Irish and the Italians and the Germans adapted into the mainstream English culture. And the nation was far better for it.
The Tories moved to the center under Cameron but they forgot to brake, they continued to move until they lost more votes to their right than votes gained from the center.
Same thing happened to New Labour vs LD but on a longer time scale.
Anyway, just got back to the UK after 5 nights in Geneva! Had really nice weather most days, except a couple of showers on Sunday, and yesterday (Wednesday) was a bit of a wash-out. Saw the UN buildings, botanical gardens, Place de Neuve, CERN (the site of the large hadron collider), the Jet d'Eau (the big fountain on the lake) and took the train to visit Lausanne (briefly) and Montreux (beautiful waterfront walk and the Freddie Mercury statue).
The life of Muhammed is quite different. The early Meccan Surahs are much like teachings of Jesus in terms of tolerance etc (for example "there should be no compulsion in religion" 2.256). After his retreat to Medina further revelations were more violent, and his teachings increasingly intolerant of any criticism. These later revelations are considered to abrogate the earlier Surahs
So, while Christians do not like being mocked, it does fit into their world view, but does not fit into the world view of Islam, where any mocking is considered a very severe insult.
"What about pointing out that Muhammed had sex with a child?"
Point it out all you want, but was it illegal in that society at the time?
If it wasn't, then I fail to see your reasons.
A US soldier and a British soldier are in a bar with an Iraqi.
The US soldier says "Glass is so cheap in America that we don't need to use the same one twice" and throws his into the air and shoots it.
The British soldier says "We've got so much sand in the UK that we don't need to use one twice either" and shoots his.
The Iraqi gets out his gun and shoots the Brit and the Yank dead, saying we've so many Americans and British here that we don't need to drink with them twice.
The YouGov #indyref analysis will surprise many people:
22% SNP's voters voted No = 198,641
27% Labour voters went Yes = 170,224
Chortle......
Changing the subject, it may amuse some to know who's exhibiting at the UKIP conference, apart from my animal welfare group. We're a motley bunch. Leaving aside stands of UKIP individuals and local UKIP groups, it's the Electoral Reform Society, FOREST, the LGA, the EFDD (?), a pro-Heathrow expansion group, an anti-Heathrow expansion group, the Freedom Association, Midshire Business Systems and the Shannah Eagles (?). Stands cost around 10% of Labour's and 5% of the Tory stands.
Just seems basic common sense. Something I would hope most people would agree on - whatever political party they support.
Who'd make the best PM?
Cameron 32%
Brown 26%
Clegg 22%
Same question today
Cameron 37%
Miliband 21%
Clegg 4%
Used to spend a lot of time in Geneva and Neuchatel [was going to move there back in the late 90s].
The lake is superb if you get crystal clear air - the mountains are breathtakingly blue. Did you see Interlaken?
@NickPalmer if you met me you would find that I am rarely rude to anybody. I can separate bring rude to an individual from being rude to a religion in the general.
Right wing and left wing parties in the West, moved towards the center throughout the 90's and the 2000's, they moved so much that they lost their own base.
I dislike the notion of CYP, but there are times when it's best to zip ones fact free opinions. Religion seems to be the most obvious one as it's all about faith/perceptions/beliefs - not facts.
Feel free to be rude about Zen Christianity any time you feel like it Bob, it gets it out of your system, and we don't mind. ;-)
Cleggasm was weird - and poor Philippe stuck all that dosh on him.
The 2012 result was LD 883 Con 482 UKIP 244 Lab 182
and the result in May this year was
LD 847 UKIP 511 Con 420 Lab 128 Green 87
Hemnall (Epping Forest):
Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative.
Hemnall (Epping Forest) vote result:
LDEM - 607
CON - 386
UKIP - 339
GRN - 69
UKIP leader Nigel Farage has said a recall of Parliament to discuss airstrikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq has been scheduled to upstage UKIP's party conference.
Mr Farage said Prime Minister David Cameron "will do anything he can to try to deflect attention away from UKIP".
That just makes him sound tin-foil hat bonkers, but perhaps more significant is his comment on the substance:
Mr Farage told the BBC he would not not support UK airstrikes against Islamic State militants.
"All that will happen, within a few weeks, we will see stories about civilian casualties, which are bound to happen. It will frankly get us nowhere," he said.
I don't think that opposing action against the gruesome murderers of David Haines and other innocent Westerners, not to mention the large-scale atrocities against their own countrymen, women and children, is good politics, whatever the practical and military difficulties.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29358552
The massacre of the Yazidi, the beheadings and the selling of the girls as "wives" to IS Jihadis is not some weird abberation, it is a near direct copy of the actions of Muhammed following the Battle of the Banu Qurayza.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza
It means many complex things, but one of them is that there probably is a God (or Gods) and omnipotence is likely to figure highly on his/her/its CV.
Therefore, it follows that God is unlikely to be overly worried about what the semi evolved apes do, as long as they try to follow a few sensible rules.
Not killing each other, destroying the planet, or being unnecessarily cruel or greedy would seem to be a decent starting point, the rest is probably frippery.
Antifrank, I believe we had a gentleman's bet of £50 on Yes gaining at least 40% of the referendum vote? My nominated charity was Erskine - https://www.erskine.org.uk/donate-online
MarkSenior, we had a £25 bet on the same outcome. Let me know how you want to pay.
Farage has already been curiously positioned on the Ukraine situation, appearing to side with Putin. Now he risks appearing to side with the beheaders of David Haines. Bad move. In my opinion.
Besides, consummation of marriage with a NINE year old seems extreme, even by historical standards. The poor kid was playing with dolls when she found out she was going to be married.
The Left regard the victims as collateral damage, I'm sure they would feel different if it was their child.
Two bob a blow job, this is one episode that Labout cannot draw a line under and say move on, nothing to see here, it will crucify your party. The whole disgusting episode is a result of the PC bollocks imposed on sensible people by the Left, and you should be totally ashamed of yourself telling us we should not discuss it.
Labour are the most disgusting, hypocritical bunch of ideologues I have ever known, everything they support is a paradox of another side of their beliefs.
Women's rights? We're 100% behind them, unless you are a Muslim woman. Homophobia? FGM? Equality?
The most hypocritical disgusting people imaginable and anyone who supports is either brainwashed, totally confused or just plain stupid.
Emily Thornberry is on QT now, she is a prime example, a Socialist telling us how to live, she has a £6m property portfolio.
On bombing Syria (the islamist bit) I agree he probably did a mistake, but I caution to early conclusions as the USA doesn't have the greatest reputation in planning, so the whole thing could go wrong.
It's Christian because I was brought up in a Christian society, had I been born elsewhere I might have been a Zen Buddhist, or Zen Mohammedan. etc,
Religion is only mans response to God, not the godhead itself, but J.C. seems a fairly good starting point for a journey to try to understand it.
Atheism is also a viable starting point, because the end of the journey is most likely going to be the same anyway.
This is a common theme on here: the "how would you feel if it was your child" thing
Stupid question. I would feel sick, I would probably want to kill the perpetrator. Wouldn't any father feel the same? I am a father of a young child.
I just don't see the benefit of discussing it endlessly on here. Some people seem to relish doing so. I don't. I would rather read considered pieces on the subject than listen to the drivel of a bunch of inexpert obsessives.
That's just my view.
Cheers.
"Is Atheism also kinda of a religion"
For most people, yes.
Though you start the Journey with fewer directions, and more options.
As for Farage allegedly using the scandal in the by election, was Dennis McShane wrong to say it was partly his fault for being too PC? Or Shaun Wright wrong to resign?
The fact that politicians have kept quiet for at least 15 years is disgusting, they still don't want to admit it now. Farage is 100% correct to say that politicians have let the victims down, because it is true.
The real scandal is apologists like you and Bob trying to sweep it under the carpet.
Dream on.
Frankly, I don't think you give two hoots about the victims. I think you just see an opportunity to attack lefties. That's pretty sickening, but not surprising given your posting record on here.
"..... It was how the world was."
Yes, but over centuries humanity learns a little more, and I fully expect that withing the next few thousand we will have learned to stop jabbing each other with sharp sticks, Another few millennium, and we may also have learned to talk to each other. (talk as in converse, and not a screaming rant)
One particular broadsheet seem to have adopted a see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil mentality towards this whole issue. It's suggests an ongoing determination to minimise this type of stuff. Given their readership and where they are commonly employed that's got to be a worry.
I think we should pay the ransoms and keep out if it if we really cared about them