3. How the hell is it Islamophobic to believe that the most widespread cases of uninvestigated child abuse in this country is carried out by Muslim-background gangs? We have a case of 1400 kids being raped in one northern town, "hundreds" of child rapists walking free in one of our northern cities, about 20 cases of this model of abuse happening in other towns, and a chief investigator saying what has happened in Rotherham is likely to have happened elsewhere. What evidence is there of anything similar happening by perpetrators of other groups? To avoid the "Islamophobic" slur from politically correct muppets you have to not mention crimes by Muslims. It's ridiculous.
Did you see this?
However Bailey warned that the media was in danger of becoming fixated by “one model of child sexual exploitation” involving Asian gangs. “There has been an unhealthy focus on that particular model of abuse and we cannot afford to take our eye off the fact that it is but one model and we have to look at the bigger picture.”
The concern of the police is that it is not gangs that are the biggest problem when it comes to sexual abuse, but the home.
Bailey said: “[This fixation] is rather overshadowing a far, far, bigger picture, and that bigger picture is that 90% of child sexual abuse takes place in the home where crimes are being perpetrated upon victims by people they know already. It is really important that we get some context around this.”
UKIP are presently 5/2 to take Castle Point with Ladbrokes. BBC London on Breakfast News led with the story that the Canvey Island Independent Party are going to back UKIP at the general election. UKIP should now be closer to evens in this seat, given its strong history in the seat, its continuing strength in the national polls and the backing of this grouping (who hold 16 out of 17 councillors on the island). I'm on!
Cheers.
Should I read too much into last night's result in Thurrock though ?
Others - eg isam - would know better than me. Personally, I generally read little into council by-elections (only the civically obsessed vote in them), but I know others pore over them.
I have same approach as you but Labour going up in Thurrock seems interesting.
I will probably be accused of making excuses, but please remember that I said this before the result last night in Thurrock
I spoke to the Thurrock candidate last week and said "it's almost a certainty isn't it?" Regarding next years GE result
He said it was going well but a lot if hard work to go etc
Then he said "if we win the by election in west Thurrock next week then it would be a certainty because it's the strongest labour ward and we never do well there"
So my rational analysis would be its nothing to worry about. The labour councillor who died was popular etc
But if you think it is bad for ukip, labour are now odds against I think in a place, they're definitely evens., so if you have backed ukip at fancy prices and have concerns on the back of last nights result, you can get out for a nice green
Thanks, I backed Thurrock as a Kipper gain, so I do want UKIP to win, from a betting perspective.
Re: Ipsos-MORI net party like/dislike ratings - September 2014
These are noteworthy since they indicate that the only main party with a small positive are Labour.
The Lib Dems are as disliked as the Conservatives - so the "nasty party" tag applies as much to Lib Dems as Conservatives and the truth is the nasty label is a minor issue.
For UKIP this is surprising and indicates that they have a low upper limit of how many voters they could attarct. Probably limited to 35% max. Usually a "new" party IMHO should have a positive rating. UKIP do not have that.
1. I agree that "indigenous" does mean the second meaning, but sometimes people want a quick word for the "born and brought up here Britons" that doesn't exist, so they use terms like "indigenous" or "native" incorrectly.
2. So if someone points out abuses by Israeli extremist settlers, without then mentioning that other militaries cause abuses, or that there are a lot of decent and kind-hearted Jews, then you're being anti-Semitic? This is an absurd position. Nobody should have to state their entire views nuanced and moderated views on an ethnic group every time they criticise poor behaviour by members of that ethnic group.
Oh, and for the record, I have regularly criticised intolerance from other groups. I post a fair amount about Russian extremism and authoritarianism from our own government, in case you haven't noticed. And I also point out that there are many decent and integrated Muslims ALL THE DAMN TIME. It's just people like you refuse to hear those bits. You've got your existing mindset that UKIP supporters are bigots, and you pick and choose evidence to back up your belief. That's far more prejudice than I display.
3. How the hell is it Islamophobic to believe that the most widespread cases of uninvestigated child abuse in this country is carried out by Muslim-background gangs? We have a case of 1400 kids being raped in one northern town, "hundreds" of child rapists walking free in one of our northern cities, about 20 cases of this model of abuse happening in other towns, and a chief investigator saying what has happened in Rotherham is likely to have happened elsewhere. What evidence is there of anything similar happening by perpetrators of other groups? To avoid the "Islamophobic" slur from politically correct muppets you have to not mention crimes by Muslims. It's ridiculous.
Oh, and I note you just toss out the Islamophobe charge without justifying it. People like you aren't actually interested in the facts. You're just interested in delegitimising uncomfortable facts.
4. Once again, a joke without any argument or evidence to back it up. Your case is weak so you don't even try to make it.
1. I pointed it out to him, and he backed it up, and refused to say what 'rights' would be removed from non-indigenous people. And it was odd how no UKIPpers sought to question him, either, despite there being plenty of people around.
2. If someone constantly and consistently does it, then yes, you would have to ask that question.
3. And you ignore all the other cases committed by non-Muslim gangs. I mean, what was the point of your first post this morning?
4. I suggest you read Nino's posts. I would have thought that was obvious ...
A link to a news story with an entirely neutral description of the story. JosiasJessop is as nutty on this issue as the NUS refusing to condemn ISIS because it would be Islamophobic.
I think he is suffering from Islamophobia-phobia. An absolutely vile affliction that causes him to judge people negatively purely from their Islamophobia.
Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers. What's next? Labourophobia, socialistophobia, greenophobia? Only a matter of time I imagine.
Protecting certain ideologies above others and trying to demonise anyone who criticises them is a sure fire way of showing that you don't have a logical argument. Therefore I expect the left to ramp up this particular way of debating even further.
3. How the hell is it Islamophobic to believe that the most widespread cases of uninvestigated child abuse in this country is carried out by Muslim-background gangs? We have a case of 1400 kids being raped in one northern town, "hundreds" of child rapists walking free in one of our northern cities, about 20 cases of this model of abuse happening in other towns, and a chief investigator saying what has happened in Rotherham is likely to have happened elsewhere. What evidence is there of anything similar happening by perpetrators of other groups? To avoid the "Islamophobic" slur from politically correct muppets you have to not mention crimes by Muslims. It's ridiculous.
Did you see this?
However Bailey warned that the media was in danger of becoming fixated by “one model of child sexual exploitation” involving Asian gangs. “There has been an unhealthy focus on that particular model of abuse and we cannot afford to take our eye off the fact that it is but one model and we have to look at the bigger picture.”
The concern of the police is that it is not gangs that are the biggest problem when it comes to sexual abuse, but the home.
Bailey said: “[This fixation] is rather overshadowing a far, far, bigger picture, and that bigger picture is that 90% of child sexual abuse takes place in the home where crimes are being perpetrated upon victims by people they know already. It is really important that we get some context around this.”
I think UKIP have tapped most successfully into a large swathe of voters whom the mainstream parties have ignored or looked down on for way too long. However, in doing so, their net is also full of a fairly large number of pretty extremist views which go way beyond UKIP party policy but whom appear to be tolerated within the party and which slip out from time to time. I suspect these will get ever greater exposure as time progresses, and may well erode their support base.
Brent Crude at $85.84 right now... I think medium term support will be found for WTI at $80 or so and thus Brent should find support around $82 given the normal difference
1.6112 USD-GBP
Pound seems to have strengthened slightly against the USD too which yields a GBP price of £53.77, the £50 floor is $80.56 right now.
Which means that pump prices should continue to fall I think, and thus inflation will stay very low.
Hey, Antifrank, we've got the Castlepoint price down to 7/4.
Shall we keep backing it, just to frighten Shadsy? ;-)
This is precisely why we should use the "back door" for this sort of thing, I'm fairly convinced there are a fair few lurkers here sniping our tips.
Yes, I agree, Pulpstar, although this time I suspect it was just the sheer weight of our money.
I got fifty on, which is quite big for a constituency market. Antifrank, as we all know, is loaded and probably had ten times that amount. ;-)
shadsy apparently limits me to c£100 of winnings on any constituency, so I was allowed £40.40 on this constituency. I suppose it's a compliment of sorts.
Get thee to a ladbrokes shop, they have slightly higher limits there.
Though you will get weird looks from the people working in there when you asked to bet on a political market.
Hey, Antifrank, we've got the Castlepoint price down to 7/4.
Shall we keep backing it, just to frighten Shadsy? ;-)
This is precisely why we should use the "back door" for this sort of thing, I'm fairly convinced there are a fair few lurkers here sniping our tips.
Yes, I agree, Pulpstar, although this time I suspect it was just the sheer weight of our money.
I got fifty on, which is quite big for a constituency market. Antifrank, as we all know, is loaded and probably had ten times that amount. ;-)
shadsy apparently limits me to c£100 of winnings on any constituency, so I was allowed £40.40 on this constituency. I suppose it's a compliment of sorts.
Shadsy's attitude seems fairy nuff to me.
He's put up prices for just about every constituency. Mostly they are thin markets and vulnerable to inside traders. He can't monitor them all day, 365 days a year, so he sets an exposure limit. It's perfectly reasonable and a damn sight more adventurous than most other firms.
I doubt Lads make a profit on constituency markets, and justify them only in terms of publicity and encouraging other more profitable activities.
No. It's the culture of the people who write VOTE UKIP! after almost every post that's a UKIP PROBLEM.
Blaming the DT for it is missing the point entirely. They've offered up a free commenting platform - what these Kipper online activists are doing with it is another matter. As @SouthamObserver noted, having a free-for-all attitude is great for adding to the gaiety of the nation, not so much when we're wondering what reality would look like.
You know I love you, but that's hand-waving. The DT is a huge newspaper and the behaviour of the Kippers commenting there is doing your Party no favours.
TBH, I don't read the comments in the DT anymore because they're filled with anti-Muslim comments irrespective of the topic under discussion. And when they run out of those, it reverts to the EU. It's hobby-horse stuff writ large, and reminds me of the ugly online Yestapo.
I'm sure all these posters are quite delightful in person, but they give UKIP a very unattractive face to a soft-right Tory like me. It's the volume and the tone that's so off-putting.
You may be right but for many moderate right-wingers like myself UKIP do precious little to re-assure us that they are something more than an organised version of the 'grumpy old men'. Much fun yes and we all like to indulge from time to time but in the real world we need real practical policies that go beyond the sloganizing which conflates the evil immigrant with the evil EU bureaucrat. I doubt if I'd vote Labour to keep UKIP out but I'd certainly consider most of the others.
When have UKIP ever "conflated the evil immigrant with the evil EU bureaucrat"?
In fact, they don't even say immigrants are evil. They say the main problem is with the overall scale of immigration. Of course opposing parties' views seem simplistic and stupid when you simplify them into stupid statements.
I find those comments off-putting, but I simply don't find them representative of UKIP supporters at all.
The problem there is the culture the Telegraph have allowed to grow around their website comments, not UKIP.
No surge for UKIP from Populus. Today's poll LAB 35 (-1), Con 33 (-2), LD 10 (+1), UKIP 14 (+1), GRN 4
Con & Lab both down and UKIP up is the same trend as in the YouGov polls, though, so while the size of the UKIP movement is smaller, today's Populus represents corroboratory evidence to the YouGov poll movements over this week.
It's also the first time the Lib Dems have been in double figures with Populus since June. The fightback starts now?
How is your fear of the ideology of UKIP any different to other people having fear of the ideology of Islam?
Saying one is absolutely disgusting whilst the other cannot be criticised seems a little inconsistent.
It's very different. Firstly, most adherents do not choose to become Muslim, or Christian, or Hindu, or Jewish: they just are. People choose to be UKIPpers (as opposed to UKIP voters, which are a separate matter).
Secondly, your comment 'fear of the ideology of Islam' shows your problem all too well.
Do what? People have a choice about what religion they follow, they can at any time choose not to believe it any more. But of course you know this but are trying to make up differences to try to avoid having to face the logic of the argument.
The fact that you tacitly admit to having a "fear of UKIP" shows your problem all too well.
How is your fear of the ideology of UKIP any different to other people having fear of the ideology of Islam?
Saying one is absolutely disgusting whilst the other cannot be criticised seems a little inconsistent.
It's very different. Firstly, most adherents do not choose to become Muslim, or Christian, or Hindu, or Jewish: they just are. People choose to be UKIPpers (as opposed to UKIP voters, which are a separate matter).
Secondly, your comment 'fear of the ideology of Islam' shows your problem all too well.
I think you have summed up why many people think religions are not the best. People should have to make a decision to become Muslim or Christian or Hindu. ( I accept that the Jews are a race as well as a religion) . Its when those religions insist that babies are adherents due to their parentage that I think its valid to be somewhat 'phobic' about them. In many muslim dominated countries its actually illegal to announce you are no longer a muslim
Hey, Antifrank, we've got the Castlepoint price down to 7/4.
Shall we keep backing it, just to frighten Shadsy? ;-)
This is precisely why we should use the "back door" for this sort of thing, I'm fairly convinced there are a fair few lurkers here sniping our tips.
Yes, I agree, Pulpstar, although this time I suspect it was just the sheer weight of our money.
I got fifty on, which is quite big for a constituency market. Antifrank, as we all know, is loaded and probably had ten times that amount. ;-)
shadsy apparently limits me to c£100 of winnings on any constituency, so I was allowed £40.40 on this constituency. I suppose it's a compliment of sorts.
Shadsy's attitude seems fairy nuff to me.
He's put up prices for just about every constituency. Mostly they are thin markets and vulnerable to inside traders. He can't monitor them all day, 365 days a year, so he sets an exposure limit. It's perfectly reasonable and a damn sight more adventurous than most other firms.
I doubt Lads make a profit on constituency markets, and justify them only in terms of publicity and encouraging other more profitable activities.
I'm not complaining really. As you say, I think it's fair enough for the reasons you give.
3. How the hell is it Islamophobic to believe that the most widespread cases of uninvestigated child abuse in this country is carried out by Muslim-background gangs? We have a case of 1400 kids being raped in one northern town, "hundreds" of child rapists walking free in one of our northern cities, about 20 cases of this model of abuse happening in other towns, and a chief investigator saying what has happened in Rotherham is likely to have happened elsewhere. What evidence is there of anything similar happening by perpetrators of other groups? To avoid the "Islamophobic" slur from politically correct muppets you have to not mention crimes by Muslims. It's ridiculous.
Did you see this?
However Bailey warned that the media was in danger of becoming fixated by “one model of child sexual exploitation” involving Asian gangs. “There has been an unhealthy focus on that particular model of abuse and we cannot afford to take our eye off the fact that it is but one model and we have to look at the bigger picture.”
The concern of the police is that it is not gangs that are the biggest problem when it comes to sexual abuse, but the home.
Bailey said: “[This fixation] is rather overshadowing a far, far, bigger picture, and that bigger picture is that 90% of child sexual abuse takes place in the home where crimes are being perpetrated upon victims by people they know already. It is really important that we get some context around this.”
No. It's the culture of the people who write VOTE UKIP! after almost every post that's a UKIP PROBLEM.
Blaming the DT for it is missing the point entirely. They've offered up a free commenting platform - what these Kipper online activists are doing with it is another matter. As @SouthamObserver noted, having a free-for-all attitude is great for adding to the gaiety of the nation, not so much when we're wondering what reality would look like.
You know I love you, but that's hand-waving. The DT is a huge newspaper and the behaviour of the Kippers commenting there is doing your Party no favours.
TBH, I don't read the comments in the DT anymore because they're filled with anti-Muslim comments irrespective of the topic under discussion. And when they run out of those, it reverts to the EU. It's hobby-horse stuff writ large, and reminds me of the ugly online Yestapo.
I'm sure all these posters are quite delightful in person, but they give UKIP a very unattractive face to a soft-right Tory like me. It's the volume and the tone that's so off-putting.
You may be right but for many moderate right-wingers like myself UKIP do precious little to re-assure us that they are something more than an organised version of the 'grumpy old men'. Much fun yes and we all like to indulge from time to time but in the real world we need real practical policies that go beyond the sloganizing which conflates the evil immigrant with the evil EU bureaucrat. I doubt if I'd vote Labour to keep UKIP out but I'd certainly consider most of the others.
When have UKIP ever "conflated the evil immigrant with the evil EU bureaucrat"?
In fact, they don't even say immigrants are evil. They say the main problem is with the overall scale of immigration. Of course opposing parties' views seem simplistic and stupid when you simplify them into stupid statements.
I find those comments off-putting, but I simply don't find them representative of UKIP supporters at all.
The problem there is the culture the Telegraph have allowed to grow around their website comments, not UKIP.
The culture of a website is something the publisher can and should control. UKIP/UKIP voters don't have any control over what is published on the Telegraph's website.
UKIP are presently 5/2 to take Castle Point with Ladbrokes. BBC London on Breakfast News led with the story that the Canvey Island Independent Party are going to back UKIP at the general election. UKIP should now be closer to evens in this seat, given its strong history in the seat, its continuing strength in the national polls and the backing of this grouping (who hold 16 out of 17 councillors on the island). I'm on!
Cheers.
Should I read too much into last night's result in Thurrock though ?
It will be interesting to read Harry's analysis of last nite's results.
The two big by-elections produced strangely differing results. In West Thurrock, Labour held strong, and didn't lose ground to either the Blues or the Purples. In the Medway constituency of Swale however, UKIP stormed home.
Weejohnny (of this Parish) suggested the Thurrock result might have reflected the absence of a LD candidate. There's another by locally next month which should help to indicate what is going in Thurrock.
There doesn't seem to be much doubt of what is going on in Rochester if the Swale result is indicative.
Cheers, I missed that.
Regarding Rochester, you haven't taken into account one crucial thing.
I'm planning to campaign in Rochester with Grant Shapps' team 2015.
That had to be worth at least 5 to 10 per cent.
"That had to be worth at least 5 to 10 per cent. "
To which side?
I think that's a red card offence, no, TSE?
No, it's a fair comment.
I'm not sure how a Yorkshire manc who quotes latin, pop music references, wears red footwear and will extol the virtues of immigration will go down on the mean streets of Rochester & Strood.
Sir Harry Flashman on Yorkshire : " a kind of English Texas, full of coarse braggarts and a couple of decentish slow bowlers..."
A link to a news story with an entirely neutral description of the story. JosiasJessop is as nutty on this issue as the NUS refusing to condemn ISIS because it would be Islamophobic.
I think he is suffering from Islamophobia-phobia. An absolutely vile affliction that causes him to judge people negatively purely from their Islamophobia.
Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers. What's next? Labourophobia, socialistophobia, greenophobia? Only a matter of time I imagine.
Protecting certain ideologies above others and trying to demonise anyone who criticises them is a sure fire way of showing that you don't have a logical argument. Therefore I expect the left to ramp up this particular way of debating even further.
Here and elsewhere, I've read pretty harsh things expressed about Christianity and it's adherents. But, there seems to be widespread point of view that Christians can take such criticism, while Muslims deserve special sensitivity.
All those polls were done before the game changers of Clacton and Heywood & Middleton
You think both will rank highly in the ITN news index poll at the end of the month?
Your posts are of such bad quality I actually feel sorry for you that Ukip are doing so well
So that's a "no" then.
So much for "game changer"
And like the NATS your modus operandi is to play the player, not the ball......
I haven't given one thought to the itn news index poll !!!
Evidently not.
Otherwise you wouldn't be making ludicrous claims about "game changers"!
So let me get this straight... You are saying that Ukip winning a seat and pushing labour a close 2nd in their heartlands, is not a game changer.
This is despite every respected political journalist saying it is, Ukip hitting record highs in almost every poll
And your justification is that you don't reckon it will be in the itn news index poll at the end of the month?
Can you confirm that is what you really think
As we are interested in politics we tend to grossly over estimate the general public's interest.
The ITN news index poll is a useful antidote to that.
Britain being forced out of the ERM was a "game changer".
I doubt Carsell holding his seat is remotely in the same league.
Do you still think that 35 % of labour and Tories thinking Ukip aren't a wasted vote is bad for Ukip? Or us this nonsense a deflection from that ricket?
I think that only 9% of either think they are "fit to govern" will be more telling next May.
3. How the hell is it Islamophobic to believe that the most widespread cases of uninvestigated child abuse in this country is carried out by Muslim-background gangs? We have a case of 1400 kids being raped in one northern town, "hundreds" of child rapists walking free in one of our northern cities, about 20 cases of this model of abuse happening in other towns, and a chief investigator saying what has happened in Rotherham is likely to have happened elsewhere. What evidence is there of anything similar happening by perpetrators of other groups? To avoid the "Islamophobic" slur from politically correct muppets you have to not mention crimes by Muslims. It's ridiculous.
...However Bailey warned that the media was in danger of becoming fixated by “one model of child sexual exploitation” involving Asian gangs. “There has been an unhealthy focus on that particular model of abuse and we cannot afford to take our eye off the fact that it is but one model and we have to look at the bigger picture.”
The concern of the police is that it is not gangs that are the biggest problem when it comes to sexual abuse, but the home....
When concerns were raised some years ago about Asian gangs the line trotted out was this "there are many more offences going on in homes..." So again today this is used as an excuse not to throw resources at a much more easily investigated and prosecuted area of crime than "in the homes". So they do very little. It is a scandal.
There is also the problem that an offender in the home does not tend to affect the multiplicity of victims that a member of a group or gang does. Removing one gang or group could save hundreds from abuse. Tackling one family only saves a few children. Its the issue of "low hanging fruit" - tackle those first and then use the skills and techniques and publicity (of the convictions) to tackle the harder to prosecute family crimes.
What both the left and the right hate is each other's versions of what they think Britain should be. But that's very different.
Maybe, but I do feel sorry for people who base their lives, and especially their politics, on hate. It is a horrible negative emotion from which good seldom, if ever, can come but it does provide a wide open doorway for evil.
Political discourse, and good governance, would be greatly promoted if people dropped the language of confrontation, metaphors of war and laid off the labelling. It is after all perfectly possible to accept that someone has good intentions but to disagree with the means they promote to achieve them. Calling someone a vile reactionary, let alone labelling a whole group as such, is unlikely to shift a point of view but is more likely to promote an equally unpleasant and probably equally inaccurate response, especially when couple with phrases like "fight against" etc..
I am a UKIP supporter because they come nearest to my views on things that I think are very important to the future of my son and are forcing the mainstream parties to address issues that they would rather sweep under the carpet. That doesn't mean I agree with everything every other member of the UKIP says or even every policy that it might or might not have. On some matters I am very close to the views of Mr. Nabavi on others I agree with Mr. Observer and even the good Dr. Palmer. What I don't recognise is that I and people like me are racist loons who want to live in the 1950s and attempts to cast me as such are counter productive.
Brent Crude at $85.84 right now... I think medium term support will be found for WTI at $80 or so and thus Brent should find support around $82 given the normal difference
1.6112 USD-GBP
Pound seems to have strengthened slightly against the USD too which yields a GBP price of £53.77, the £50 floor is $80.56 right now.
Which means that pump prices should continue to fall I think, and thus inflation will stay very low.
Deeply oversold so bounce was expected, some oil stocks bouncing too so maybe a bottom...
Copper is more interesting to me, if it breaks 3 then Dr Copper would be signalling more serious problems.
1. I agree that "indigenous" does mean the second meaning, but sometimes people want a quick word for the "born and brought up here Britons" that doesn't exist, so they use terms like "indigenous" or "native" incorrectly.
I find that rather hard to believe. Born and Bred is perfectly good shorthand that includes everyone who is British by birth irrespective of race. Indigenous or native implies something quite different.
3. How the hell is it Islamophobic to believe that the most widespread cases of uninvestigated child abuse in this country is carried out by Muslim-background gangs? We have a case of 1400 kids being raped in one northern town, "hundreds" of child rapists walking free in one of our northern cities, about 20 cases of this model of abuse happening in other towns, and a chief investigator saying what has happened in Rotherham is likely to have happened elsewhere. What evidence is there of anything similar happening by perpetrators of other groups? To avoid the "Islamophobic" slur from politically correct muppets you have to not mention crimes by Muslims. It's ridiculous.
Did you see this?
However Bailey warned that the media was in danger of becoming fixated by “one model of child sexual exploitation” involving Asian gangs. “There has been an unhealthy focus on that particular model of abuse and we cannot afford to take our eye off the fact that it is but one model and we have to look at the bigger picture.”
The concern of the police is that it is not gangs that are the biggest problem when it comes to sexual abuse, but the home.
Bailey said: “[This fixation] is rather overshadowing a far, far, bigger picture, and that bigger picture is that 90% of child sexual abuse takes place in the home where crimes are being perpetrated upon victims by people they know already. It is really important that we get some context around this.”
I think the fact that most child abuse stems from the home is nothing new. The sytematic gang abuse in Rotherham and elsewhere is relatively new and for reasons of political correctness was ignored by both councils and police. When we see phrases like "It is really important that we get some context around this.”, you know that the establishment want the problem to disappear.
Mr. Sulphate, point of order: that's not universally true. Can't comment on precise figures, but certainly in some parts of the world apostasy from Islam is considered something punishable by death.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), Texas never gave the world Constantine the Great, made emperor in the city of York.
A link to a news story with an entirely neutral description of the story. JosiasJessop is as nutty on this issue as the NUS refusing to condemn ISIS because it would be Islamophobic.
I think he is suffering from Islamophobia-phobia. An absolutely vile affliction that causes him to judge people negatively purely from their Islamophobia.
Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers. What's next? Labourophobia, socialistophobia, greenophobia? Only a matter of time I imagine.
Protecting certain ideologies above others and trying to demonise anyone who criticises them is a sure fire way of showing that you don't have a logical argument. Therefore I expect the left to ramp up this particular way of debating even further.
Here and elsewhere, I've read pretty harsh things expressed about Christianity and it's adherents. But, there seems to be widespread point of view that Christians can take such criticism, while Muslims deserve special sensitivity.
Yes it seems perfectly acceptable to criticise Christianity, often by the same people claiming Islam shouldn't be criticised.
Just one more spoonful of hypocrisy to pile on the rest of the heap.
All those polls were done before the game changers of Clacton and Heywood & Middleton
You think both will rank highly in the ITN news index poll at the end of the month?
Your posts are of such bad quality I actually feel sorry for you that Ukip are doing so well
So that's a "no" then.
So much for "game changer"
And like the NATS your modus operandi is to play the player, not the ball......
I haven't given one thought to the itn news index poll !!!
Evidently not.
Otherwise you wouldn't be making ludicrous claims about "game changers"!
So let me get this straight... You are saying that Ukip winning a seat and pushing labour a close 2nd in their heartlands, is not a game changer.
This is despite every respected political journalist saying it is, Ukip hitting record highs in almost every poll
And your justification is that you don't reckon it will be in the itn news index poll at the end of the month?
Can you confirm that is what you really think
As we are interested in politics we tend to grossly over estimate the general public's interest.
The ITN news index poll is a useful antidote to that.
Britain being forced out of the ERM was a "game changer".
I doubt Carsell holding his seat is remotely in the same league.
Do you still think that 35 % of labour and Tories thinking Ukip aren't a wasted vote is bad for Ukip? Or us this nonsense a deflection from that ricket?
I think that only 9% of either think they are "fit to govern" will be more telling next May.
I'm sorry, I don't want to argue... We all interpret statistics differently, what you think is relevant is none of my business really
3. How the hell is it Islamophobic to believe that the most widespread cases of uninvestigated child abuse in this country is carried out by Muslim-background gangs? We have a case of 1400 kids being raped in one northern town, "hundreds" of child rapists walking free in one of our northern cities, about 20 cases of this model of abuse happening in other towns, and a chief investigator saying what has happened in Rotherham is likely to have happened elsewhere. What evidence is there of anything similar happening by perpetrators of other groups? To avoid the "Islamophobic" slur from politically correct muppets you have to not mention crimes by Muslims. It's ridiculous.
Did you see this?
However Bailey warned that the media was in danger of becoming fixated by “one model of child sexual exploitation” involving Asian gangs. “There has been an unhealthy focus on that particular model of abuse and we cannot afford to take our eye off the fact that it is but one model and we have to look at the bigger picture.”
The concern of the police is that it is not gangs that are the biggest problem when it comes to sexual abuse, but the home.
Bailey said: “[This fixation] is rather overshadowing a far, far, bigger picture, and that bigger picture is that 90% of child sexual abuse takes place in the home where crimes are being perpetrated upon victims by people they know already. It is really important that we get some context around this.”
A link to a news story with an entirely neutral description of the story. JosiasJessop is as nutty on this issue as the NUS refusing to condemn ISIS because it would be Islamophobic.
Nope, the NUS are stupid for refusing to condemn ISIS. I've even looked up the proposed wording that was objected to, and could find nothing I would term as Islamaphobic.
I've also routinely condemned IS-IS/IL routinely, along with al Nusra.
Professor Fisher's updated GE 2015 seats projection this morning, based on polling averages of Con 31%, Lab 34%, LD 9%, Others 26% is as follows (showing changes over the past week):
Brent Crude at $85.84 right now... I think medium term support will be found for WTI at $80 or so and thus Brent should find support around $82 given the normal difference
Historically, Brent has been cheaper than WTI (i.e. more than 90% of time). There's some weirdness at Cushing which led to the inversion, but I don't pretend to understand the details.
The relevance is what it says about the crazy suggestions of any sort of Con-UKIP pact/deal.
If there is a Con/UKIP pact there'll be one fewer Con vote here.....
Make that 2. I am already concerned about the tendency of the Tories to bend in the wind to accommodate potential UKIP voters.
Enjoy your time in opposition, then.
And I'm sure you'll enjoy a Miliband government and further integration into the EU.....
You do rather prove his point. UKIP get accused here of splitting the right-wing vote, and letting in Labour. But then you, and others here, say you'd refuse to vote Conservative if they made a pact with UKIP. Which does rather suggest that for all the talk of the horrors of a Milliband government, it's not in reality a prospect that bothers you much.
The threat to me and my family from a UKIP majority or minority government, especially given the views of many UKIP supporters on here, is far greater than it would be from a Labour government.
And that's saying something. Therefore, if it comes to play in my constituency, my vote will be an anti-UKIP vote. This was not the case a year (or possibly even six months) ago.
How on earth would UKIP threaten you?
The most bizarre accusations get hurled at UKIP on this forum.
As a cyclist, UKIPs manifesto in 2010 contained many threatening policies directed at me. I've started assuming that the drivers who overtake me most dangerously are more likely to be UKIP supporters, especially the ones who like to shout abuse at me for daring to be on the road at all.
Perhaps UKIPs next manifesto will move away from some of these stereotypical angry middle-aged white man sort of policies. You'd expect that a party that moves from 3% national support to around five times that level would change in some ways.
Matthew Parris once proposed stringing piano wire across country lanes to strangle cyclists.
A cyclist in Exeter was seriously injured last winter after someone did something like that across a cycle bridge over the river. Parris is a dangerous twat.
However, there do seem to be quite a decent number of Tory politicians who are supportive of cycling, and there's been some promising progress from the Coalition, so taking things in the balance I don't think that the Conservative party is a threat to cyclist's.
I just don't see anything positive about cycling from UKIP, or UKIP politicians to counter all the negative things that I have heard.
A link to a news story with an entirely neutral description of the story. JosiasJessop is as nutty on this issue as the NUS refusing to condemn ISIS because it would be Islamophobic.
I think he is suffering from Islamophobia-phobia. An absolutely vile affliction that causes him to judge people negatively purely from their Islamophobia.
Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers. What's next? Labourophobia, socialistophobia, greenophobia? Only a matter of time I imagine.
Protecting certain ideologies above others and trying to demonise anyone who criticises them is a sure fire way of showing that you don't have a logical argument. Therefore I expect the left to ramp up this particular way of debating even further.
I'm suffering from no such thing. I don't want to 'protect' any ideology. And I'm not particularly off the left: in fact, most lefties on here call me a PB Tory.
"Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers."
That's a different question - 'satisfied' vs 'like'. Voters can be 'satisfied' with the job Farage is doing (e.g. in shaking up the establishment) without actually liking him. (Conversely they may quite like Cameron, yet still be dissatisfied with the job he is doing). Whether they will bring themselves to vote for a party they view as 'extreme' and not 'fit for government' will be another matter.
Indeed. I am "satisfied" with the job Miliband is doing because I want Labour to suffer utter, abject defeat. He is doing a great job of making that happen.
If you were a bent copper, taking money to protect local gangs, and you were questioned as to why you had not taken the obvious action to protect an underage victim, you might well argue that you were afraid of appearing racist.
The defence is untenable, of course. Even in a PC culture, people should do their jobs regardless, and there is plenty of evidence that too many haven't, but I suspect the PC excuse is in many cases a subterfuge for something very different, and nastier.
Laziness is another vice that the PC line can be used to obscure, and that of course is universal.
Mr. Sulphate, point of order: that's not universally true. Can't comment on precise figures, but certainly in some parts of the world apostasy from Islam is considered something punishable by death.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), Texas never gave the world Constantine the Great, made emperor in the city of York.
So I guess the logic is that we shouldn't criticise Islam because some of the followers have no choice to follow it because of the brutal Islamic regimes in their countries.
Come on it's an ideology that should be allowed to be criticised like any other. Unless someone can give me a very good reason and a set of logical rules to determine which ideologies can and which can't.
1. I pointed it out to him, and he backed it up, and refused to say what 'rights' would be removed from non-indigenous people. And it was odd how no UKIPpers sought to question him, either, despite there being plenty of people around.
2. If someone constantly and consistently does it, then yes, you would have to ask that question.
3. And you ignore all the other cases committed by non-Muslim gangs. I mean, what was the point of your first post this morning?
4. I suggest you read Nino's posts. I would have thought that was obvious ...
1. If he backed it up as meaning people of white British stock, then that was wrong and I condemn it.
2. You seem to be proposing a situation where anyone wanting to draw attention to any abuse in the world has to constantly take pre-emptive steps to defend themselves against charges of bigotry. People criticising the IDF would have to constantly say nice things about Jews and also post things about Sri Lanka. People criticising evangelicals restricting women's reproductive rights in the US would have to post about similar restrictions in Turkey. People posting about white nation involved in banking fraud would have to draw attention to corruption in China. It's a presumption of guilt for anyone with different political views to yourself.
3. I've actually posted about non-grooming gangs by non-Muslims, when no-one else has mentioned them. There's just not many of them. And they certainly don't exist on the scale of hundreds of rapists in individual towns.
In terms of my post this morning, I was drawing attention to the increased brazeness of jihadists in France. I felt it was a worrying trend. You apparently disagree. That's fine. It doesn't make it a bigoted post.
4. I don't always notice the poster. If you wish to list Nino's posts that are bigotry, I'm happy to condemn them or defend them on the merits. Are they more bigoted than daring to post a news story about jihadists in France?
3. How the hell is it Islamophobic to believe that the most widespread cases of uninvestigated child abuse in this country is carried out by Muslim-background gangs? We have a case of 1400 kids being raped in one northern town, "hundreds" of child rapists walking free in one of our northern cities, about 20 cases of this model of abuse happening in other towns, and a chief investigator saying what has happened in Rotherham is likely to have happened elsewhere. What evidence is there of anything similar happening by perpetrators of other groups? To avoid the "Islamophobic" slur from politically correct muppets you have to not mention crimes by Muslims. It's ridiculous.
Did you see this?
However Bailey warned that the media was in danger of becoming fixated by “one model of child sexual exploitation” involving Asian gangs. “There has been an unhealthy focus on that particular model of abuse and we cannot afford to take our eye off the fact that it is but one model and we have to look at the bigger picture.”
The concern of the police is that it is not gangs that are the biggest problem when it comes to sexual abuse, but the home.
Bailey said: “[This fixation] is rather overshadowing a far, far, bigger picture, and that bigger picture is that 90% of child sexual abuse takes place in the home where crimes are being perpetrated upon victims by people they know already. It is really important that we get some context around this.”
I think the fact that most child abuse stems from the home is nothing new. The sytematic gang abuse in Rotherham and elsewhere is relatively new and for reasons of political correctness was ignored by both councils and police. When we see phrases like "It is really important that we get some context around this.”, you know that the establishment want the problem to disappear.
A link to a news story with an entirely neutral description of the story. JosiasJessop is as nutty on this issue as the NUS refusing to condemn ISIS because it would be Islamophobic.
I think he is suffering from Islamophobia-phobia. An absolutely vile affliction that causes him to judge people negatively purely from their Islamophobia.
Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers. What's next? Labourophobia, socialistophobia, greenophobia? Only a matter of time I imagine.
Protecting certain ideologies above others and trying to demonise anyone who criticises them is a sure fire way of showing that you don't have a logical argument. Therefore I expect the left to ramp up this particular way of debating even further.
I'm suffering from no such thing. I don't want to 'protect' any ideology. And I'm not particularly off the left: in fact, most lefties on here call me a PB Tory.
"Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers."
Thereby showing your problem.
I think my main problem appears to be that you refuse to engage me on the logic on my argument.
Demonising people for criticising an ideology, which branding people as Islamophobes is no doubt doing is the very definition of protecting an ideology.
Please try to refute the above statement without resorting to the "and that shows your problem" nonsense.
A cyclist in Exeter was seriously injured last winter after someone did something like that across a cycle bridge over the river. Parris is a dangerous twat.
However, there do seem to be quite a decent number of Tory politicians who are supportive of cycling, and there's been some promising progress from the Coalition, so taking things in the balance I don't think that the Conservative party is a threat to cyclist's.
I just don't see anything positive about cycling from UKIP, or UKIP politicians to counter all the negative things that I have heard.
UKIP are probably too busy countering the constant media exaggeration of racism to deal with their supposed anti-cycling bigotry.
Freedom of speech trumps religious sensitivity every single time (or it should, even if the media thinks every image of Mohammed from Jesus and Mo should be censored as part of a de facto blasphemy/censorship law...).
It is a legitimate point that apostasy isn't a free choice in many parts of the world, though. It'd be a brave move in Pakistan, for example.
Since these people are literally advocating VOTE UKIP!! and are presumably Party members , then surely it's within Kipper HQ's remit to ask them to tone it down if they don't want to frighten unicorns like me.
Or does Kipper HQ approve and think the DT is a smashing shop window for their cause? If that's the case, fine - it just confirms that the views expressed are fairly representative of the sort of voter they'd like to attract.
Either way - holding the DT responsible is just daft. What real Kippers are saying isn't. I don't hold the Guardian responsible for the views in their comments either [well apart from all the ones they censor about where many of their journalists went to school!]
You know I love you, but that's hand-waving. The DT is a huge newspaper and the behaviour of the Kippers commenting there is doing your Party no favours.
TBH, I don't read the comments in the DT anymore because they're filled with anti-Muslim comments irrespective of the topic under discussion. And when they run out of those, it reverts to the EU. It's hobby-horse stuff writ large, and reminds me of the ugly online Yestapo.
I'm sure all these posters are quite delightful in person, but they give UKIP a very unattractive face to a soft-right Tory like me. It's the volume and the tone that's so off-putting.
When have UKIP ever "conflated the evil immigrant with the evil EU bureaucrat"?
In fact, they don't even say immigrants are evil. They say the main problem is with the overall scale of immigration. Of course opposing parties' views seem simplistic and stupid when you simplify them into stupid statements.
I find those comments off-putting, but I simply don't find them representative of UKIP supporters at all.
The problem there is the culture the Telegraph have allowed to grow around their website comments, not UKIP.
The culture of a website is something the publisher can and should control. UKIP/UKIP voters don't have any control over what is published on the Telegraph's website.
whats more UKIP don't like parkrun either (see youtube and type in 'downfall and parkrun') .They just want everyone to buy a dog and walk it by getting in the way of cyclists and runners -SO THERE
If you were a bent copper, taking money to protect local gangs, and you were questioned as to why you had not taken the obvious action to protect an underage victim, you might well argue that you were afraid of appearing racist.
The defence is untenable, of course. Even in a PC culture, people should do their jobs regardless, and there is plenty of evidence that too many haven't, but I suspect the PC excuse is in many cases a subterfuge for something very different, and nastier.
Laziness is another vice that the PC line can be used to obscure, and that of course is universal.
Don't you think the theory is a bit unlikely that such corruption just happened to occur on a mass scale with overwhelmingly Pakistani gangs in the two towns with big investigations so far, and possibly another 20 places?
I think the relevance of this poll is perhaps not in the effect on UKIP's chances of winning seats (which i think should fall apart under scrutiny in the course of a GE campaign as long as the Conservatives keep their heads). The relevance is what it says about the crazy suggestions of any sort of Con-UKIP pact/deal. For the sake of avoiding a few Conservative MPs in safe seats actually having to do some proper election campaigning, a deal/pact would throw away huge number of moderate Conservative or potential Conservative voters in more marginal seats.
The LibDems must be praying for such an eventuality, as they will become the natural home for those voters, considering their participation in the coalition government.
I've been saying this for some time: too many people assume that, by shifting towards UKIP's position to capture UKIP voters, the Conservatives will end up with more voters in total.
Whereas they would probably lose more voters from the centre, who are actively repelled by UKIP. And who can blame them?
If we assume that there is a Labour government after GE 2015, led by Ed Miliband, then it is probable that Labour will move slightly further to the left. It's also very possible that the Lib Dems, once Clegg resigns or is defenestrated, will also move to the left to differentiate themselves from the coalition.
If this transpires, the centre ground will be more open. That is where parties need to be, and not at the ground that UKIP currently holds.
Having said all that, UKIP shows the need for all parties to understand and cater for all segments of society. That has to be the lesson for, and of, GE2015.
No. The whole point of a Party is to prefer one part of society over another. Activists often suffer from the delusion that their Party of choice in some magical way eludes this point, bit that's what they suffer from - a delusion...
Only if you take a class-based view of politics, rather than a principle-based one.
This is what I find baffling about Labour. As a party, it seems to hate almost everyone.
It hates the WWC, it hates the middle class, it hates the affluent and it hates what it quaintly still calls "toffs". It hates men, it hates the police, it hates business, it hates the countryside, it hates England, it hates the well-educated. It hates car drivers, it hates savers, it hates privately-held pensions, it hates the press, it hates the armed forces.
It likes immigrants and poor people, especially where they are the same, but only as electorally useful i.e. not enough to do anything about poverty other than perpetuate it for electoral advantage. It likes envious people.
1. I pointed it out to him, and he backed it up, and refused to say what 'rights' would be removed from non-indigenous people. And it was odd how no UKIPpers sought to question him, either, despite there being plenty of people around.
2. If someone constantly and consistently does it, then yes, you would have to ask that question.
3. And you ignore all the other cases committed by non-Muslim gangs. I mean, what was the point of your first post this morning?
4. I suggest you read Nino's posts. I would have thought that was obvious ...
1. If he backed it up as meaning people of white British stock, then that was wrong and I condemn it.
2. You seem to be proposing a situation where anyone wanting to draw attention to any abuse in the world has to constantly take pre-emptive steps to defend themselves against charges of bigotry. People criticising the IDF would have to constantly say nice things about Jews and also post things about Sri Lanka. People criticising evangelicals restricting women's reproductive rights in the US would have to post about similar restrictions in Turkey. People posting about white nation involved in banking fraud would have to draw attention to corruption in China. It's a presumption of guilt for anyone with different political views to yourself.
3. I've actually posted about non-grooming gangs by non-Muslims, when no-one else has mentioned them. There's just not many of them. And they certainly don't exist on the scale of hundreds of rapists in individual towns.
In terms of my post this morning, I was drawing attention to the increased brazeness of jihadists in France. I felt it was a worrying trend. You apparently disagree. That's fine. It doesn't make it a bigoted post.
4. I don't always notice the poster. If you wish to list Nino's posts that are bigotry, I'm happy to condemn them or defend them on the merits. Are they more bigoted than daring to post a news story about jihadists in France?
1. It's a shame it was not condemned by UKIPpers at the time.
2. No, I'm not. It;'s just when the body of someone's work leans towards it. Before anyone says: I'm furious about Rotherham, Rochdale and the others. But they are just part of the problem, as we've discussed passim, and criminality might have more to do with it than religion or race.
3. You seem to not understand child abuse (especially the fact it occurs to boys as well as girls), and be fixated on gang abuse, especially by Muslims. Your post this morning just seemed another one of yours to point at how 'bad' Muslims are.
Q.4 Regardless of which party, if any, you are likely to end up voting for at the next General Election due in May 2015 or are leaning towards at the moment, which political party would you say you have usually most closely identified yourself with?
UKIP 243 81 12% 4%
is a crock of pots.
Yougov's PPI weighter is far better
Others 159 -> 100...
Both Yougov and Populus can't be right...
Given this, it is sensible to to look at the Populus number as a MINIMUM for the UKIP vote.
I've not placed any UKIP specific turnout bets for the GE yet, but when I do I'll take Populus as the minimum and Yougov as a midpoint nearer to the time.
Also I think anyone who has bet UKIP < 10% has done their money.
If you were a bent copper, taking money to protect local gangs, and you were questioned as to why you had not taken the obvious action to protect an underage victim, you might well argue that you were afraid of appearing racist.
The defence is untenable, of course. Even in a PC culture, people should do their jobs regardless, and there is plenty of evidence that too many haven't, but I suspect the PC excuse is in many cases a subterfuge for something very different, and nastier.
Laziness is another vice that the PC line can be used to obscure, and that of course is universal.
Didn't it emerge the whole Stephen Lawrence thing have more to do with corrupt coppers seeking to protect a friend's son?
Still the Left publicised and used the murder to achieve their aims regardless. Amazed the media still prattles on about it even today.
Professor Fisher's updated GE 2015 seats projection this morning, based on polling averages of Con 31%, Lab 34%, LD 9%, Others 26% is as follows (showing changes over the past week):
It's the Life Of Brian test. Islam is an epic fail here. Even the edgiest publisher/broadcaster wouldn't go anywhere near that one - well unless they fancied a no-head-and-sides haircut.
A link to a news story with an entirely neutral description of the story. JosiasJessop is as nutty on this issue as the NUS refusing to condemn ISIS because it would be Islamophobic.
I think he is suffering from Islamophobia-phobia. An absolutely vile affliction that causes him to judge people negatively purely from their Islamophobia.
Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers. What's next? Labourophobia, socialistophobia, greenophobia? Only a matter of time I imagine.
Protecting certain ideologies above others and trying to demonise anyone who criticises them is a sure fire way of showing that you don't have a logical argument. Therefore I expect the left to ramp up this particular way of debating even further.
Here and elsewhere, I've read pretty harsh things expressed about Christianity and it's adherents. But, there seems to be widespread point of view that Christians can take such criticism, while Muslims deserve special sensitivity.
Seems to me little evidence on here of people criticising Muslims for the Rotherham scandal. I certainly never have. The failure is on the part of those that turned a blind eye because of the race or religion of the perpetrators, the people who sent a lady on a diversity course and told her never to say such things again when she said the gangs were Asian.
I can imagine people who inferred jimmy saville was at it got a similar reaction from bbc officials.
I've little doubt it's the same forces at work that saw celebrities and politicians able to get away with it in the 70s and 80s. An atmosphere is allowed to build where certain people are not allowed to be challenged, and that failure has been criticised on those occasions without anyone being accused of being anti 70s celebrity although some did say others were being partisan in their criticism of politicians accused of noncery
The use of the term indigenous as a shorthand for born in the UK always leaves me cold, because indigenous has very strong blood and soil undertones. In the same way, I am always wary of the use of the word "import" when applied to immigrants. Talking about people being "imported" into a country implies to me that the person using the term believes that they are somehow less then human, but are instead goods. I am sure it is not intentional and maybe I am being over-sensitive (not something that I can usually be accused of), but it jars. Language is incredibly important when you are seeking to persuade others of the merits of your views. What seems fine and dandy in your own bubble can look and sound very different to people outside of it. I am sure exactly the same applies to stuff that the leftie contributors on here write.
No. It's the culture of the people who write VOTE UKIP! after almost every post that's a UKIP PROBLEM.
Blaming the DT for it is missing the point entirely. They've offered up a free commenting platform - what these Kipper online activists are doing with it is another matter. As @SouthamObserver noted, having a free-for-all attitude is great for adding to the gaiety of the nation, not so much when we're wondering what reality would look like.
You know I love you, but that's hand-waving. The DT is a huge newspaper and the behaviour of the Kippers commenting there is doing your Party no favours.
TBH, I don't read the comments in the DT anymore because they're filled with anti-Muslim comments irrespective of the topic under discussion. And when they run out of those, it reverts to the EU. It's hobby-horse stuff writ large, and reminds me of the ugly online Yestapo.
I'm sure all these posters are quite delightful in person, but they give UKIP a very unattractive face to a soft-right Tory like me. It's the volume and the tone that's so off-putting.
You may be right but for many moderate right-wingers like myself UKIP do precious little to re-assure us that they are something more than an organised version of the 'grumpy old men'. Much fun yes and we all like to indulge from time to time but in the real world we need real practical policies that go beyond the sloganizing which conflates the evil immigrant with the evil EU bureaucrat. I doubt if I'd vote Labour to keep UKIP out but I'd certainly consider most of the others.
When have UKIP ever "conflated the evil immigrant with the evil EU bureaucrat"?
In fact, they don't even say immigrants are evil. They say the main problem is with the overall scale of immigration. Of course opposing parties' views seem simplistic and stupid when you simplify them into stupid statements.
I find those comments off-putting, but I simply don't find them representative of UKIP supporters at all.
The problem there is the culture the Telegraph have allowed to grow around their website comments, not UKIP.
The culture of a website is something the publisher can and should control. UKIP/UKIP voters don't have any control over what is published on the Telegraph's website.
You appear to be suggesting that The Telegraph curtail free speech, where it might offend UKIP. Strange.
If you were a bent copper, taking money to protect local gangs, and you were questioned as to why you had not taken the obvious action to protect an underage victim, you might well argue that you were afraid of appearing racist.
The defence is untenable, of course. Even in a PC culture, people should do their jobs regardless, and there is plenty of evidence that too many haven't, but I suspect the PC excuse is in many cases a subterfuge for something very different, and nastier.
Laziness is another vice that the PC line can be used to obscure, and that of course is universal.
Don't you think the theory is a bit unlikely that such corruption just happened to occur on a mass scale with overwhelmingly Pakistani gangs in the two towns with big investigations so far, and possibly another 20 places?
I don't know, Socrates, and neither do you.
There are doubtless many people trying to establish the facts right now but it won't be easy. If corruption is a major factor, that will be very difficult to expose and eliminate. There are likely to be other factors too. Personally I suspect that PC will prove to be part of it, if not in the sense of a genuine fear of taking the appropriate action because of political repercussions then at least in the sense that it creates a smokes a smokescreen behind which corruption, laziness and incompetence can hide.
The numerous other probable factors - such as poverty, poor education, cultural attitudes etc - have all been sufficiently aired on here and elsewhere for me to feel I don't want to add my two pennyworth.
A cyclist in Exeter was seriously injured last winter after someone did something like that across a cycle bridge over the river. Parris is a dangerous twat.
However, there do seem to be quite a decent number of Tory politicians who are supportive of cycling, and there's been some promising progress from the Coalition, so taking things in the balance I don't think that the Conservative party is a threat to cyclist's.
I just don't see anything positive about cycling from UKIP, or UKIP politicians to counter all the negative things that I have heard.
UKIP are probably too busy countering the constant media exaggeration of racism to deal with their supposed anti-cycling bigotry.
They had time to craft a whole bunch of anti-cycling policies for the 2010 election. They have had time to put together an overview of policies for 2015, which as yet say nothing about cycling.
Maybe they will change their position for the 2015GE, but how else am I supposed to judge their cycling policy?
And given the reactions I have had from a small minority of drivers to my presence on the roads, I think I am perfectly right to fear what would happen if they were encouraged in their views by an anti-cycling [UKIP] government.
Your trying to belittle that judgement of mine by saying that I have accused UKIP of "anti-cycling bigotry" demeans you. Some criticism of UKIP might possibly be valid, you know. I don't agree with every single Green Party policy.
No. It's the culture of the people who write VOTE UKIP! after almost every post that's a UKIP PROBLEM.
Blaming the DT for it is missing the point entirely. They've offered up a free commenting platform - what these Kipper online activists are doing with it is another matter. As @SouthamObserver noted, having a free-for-all attitude is great for adding to the gaiety of the nation, not so much when we're wondering what reality would look like.
You know I love you, but that's hand-waving. The DT is a huge newspaper and the behaviour of the Kippers commenting there is doing your Party no favours.
TBH, I don't read the comments in the DT anymore because they're filled with anti-Muslim comments irrespective of the topic under discussion. And when they run out of those, it reverts to the EU. It's hobby-horse stuff writ large, and reminds me of the ugly online Yestapo.
I'm sure all these posters are quite delightful in person, but they give UKIP a very unattractive face to a soft-right Tory like me. It's the volume and the tone that's so off-putting.
You may be right but for many moderate right-wingers like myself UKIP do precious little to re-assure us that they are something more than an organised version of the 'grumpy old men'. Much fun yes and we all like to indulge from time to time but in the real world we need real practical policies that go beyond the sloganizing which conflates the evil immigrant with the evil EU bureaucrat. I doubt if I'd vote Labour to keep UKIP out but I'd certainly consider most of the others.
When have UKIP ever "conflated the evil immigrant with the evil EU bureaucrat"?
In fact, they don't even say immigrants are evil. They say the main problem is with the overall scale of immigration. Of course opposing parties' views seem simplistic and stupid when you simplify them into stupid statements.
I find those comments off-putting, but I simply don't find them representative of UKIP supporters at all.
The problem there is the culture the Telegraph have allowed to grow around their website comments, not UKIP.
The culture of a website is something the publisher can and should control. UKIP/UKIP voters don't have any control over what is published on the Telegraph's website.
You appear to be suggesting that The Telegraph curtail free speech, where it might offend UKIP. Strange.
I'm suggesting they improve their comment moderation system, and encourage a better culture.
What I don't recognise is that I and people like me are racist loons who want to live in the 1950s and attempts to cast me as such are counter productive.
So sharing a roasted black baby with me is off the cards then? I was hoping that if I came dressed in a gym slip this would be appropriate attire too. Damnit.
I feel rather sorry for Kipper voters in many respects - it must be hard to be hated more than a common or garden Tory. Funny ole world. I hope @MrJones returns to posting myself - IIRC he was a Kipper of ex-Labour stock.
Since these people are literally advocating VOTE UKIP!! and are presumably Party members , then surely it's within Kipper HQ's remit to ask them to tone it down if they don't want to frighten unicorns like me.
Or does Kipper HQ approve and think the DT is a smashing shop window for their cause? If that's the case, fine - it just confirms that the views expressed are fairly representative of the sort of voter they'd like to attract.
Either way - holding the DT responsible is just daft. What real Kippers are saying isn't. I don't hold the Guardian responsible for the views in their comments either [well apart from all the ones they censor about where many of their journalists went to school!]
You know I love you, but that's hand-waving. The DT is a huge newspaper and the behaviour of the Kippers commenting there is doing your Party no favours.
TBH, I don't read the comments in the DT anymore because they're filled with anti-Muslim comments irrespective of the topic under discussion. And when they run out of those, it reverts to the EU. It's hobby-horse stuff writ large, and reminds me of the ugly online Yestapo.
I'm sure all these posters are quite delightful in person, but they give UKIP a very unattractive face to a soft-right Tory like me. It's the volume and the tone that's so off-putting.
When have UKIP ever "conflated the evil immigrant with the evil EU bureaucrat"?
In fact, they don't even say immigrants are evil. They say the main problem is with the overall scale of immigration. Of course opposing parties' views seem simplistic and stupid when you simplify them into stupid statements.
I find those comments off-putting, but I simply don't find them representative of UKIP supporters at all.
The problem there is the culture the Telegraph have allowed to grow around their website comments, not UKIP.
The culture of a website is something the publisher can and should control. UKIP/UKIP voters don't have any control over what is published on the Telegraph's website.
??
It's the Telegraph's website. They control it. They rely on the platform for income.
I think the relevance of this poll is perhaps not in the effect on UKIP's chances of winning seats (which i think should fall apart under scrutiny in the course of a GE campaign as long as the Conservatives keep their heads). The relevance is what it says about the crazy suggestions of any sort of Con-UKIP pact/deal. For the sake of avoiding a few Conservative MPs in safe seats actually having to do some proper election campaigning, a deal/pact would throw away huge number of moderate Conservative or potential Conservative voters in more marginal seats. participation in the coalition government.
If we assume that there is a Labour government after GE 2015, led by Ed Miliband, then it is probable that Labour will move slightly further to the left. It's also very possible that the Lib Dems, once Clegg resigns or is defenestrated, will also move to the left to differentiate themselves from the coalition.
If this transpires, the centre ground will be more open. That is where parties need to be, and not at the ground that UKIP currently holds.
Having said all that, UKIP shows the need for all parties to understand and cater for all segments of society. That has to be the lesson for, and of, GE2015.
No. The whole point of a Party is to prefer one part of society over another. Activists often suffer from the delusion that their Party of choice in some magical way eludes this point, bit that's what they suffer from - a delusion...
Only if you take a class-based view of politics, rather than a principle-based one.
This is what I find baffling about Labour. As a party, it seems to hate almost everyone.
It hates the WWC, it hates the middle class, it hates the affluent and it hates what it quaintly still calls "toffs". It hates men, it hates the police, it hates business, it hates the countryside, it hates England, it hates the well-educated. It hates car drivers, it hates savers, it hates privately-held pensions, it hates the press, it hates the armed forces.
It likes immigrants and poor people, especially where they are the same, but only as electorally useful i.e. not enough to do anything about poverty other than perpetuate it for electoral advantage. It likes envious people.
It doesn't seem like much of a coalition.
You could add business, Christianity and the Monarchy to that list.
Labour is driven entirely by hated and always has been. It's the only thing that keeps them going now they seem to have entirely abandoned their principles.
It always amazes me they have the cheek to describe other groups as hateful.
whats more UKIP don't like parkrun either (see youtube and type in 'downfall and parkrun') .They just want everyone to buy a dog and walk it by getting in the way of cyclists and runners -SO THERE
Runners with dogs are allowed at many parkruns. I really love parkrun. Fantastic example of the Big Society at work. [NB parkrun started in 2004, before Cameron became Conservative party leader]
A link to a news story with an entirely neutral description of the story. JosiasJessop is as nutty on this issue as the NUS refusing to condemn ISIS because it would be Islamophobic.
I think he is suffering from Islamophobia-phobia. An absolutely vile affliction that causes him to judge people negatively purely from their Islamophobia.
Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers. What's next? Labourophobia, socialistophobia, greenophobia? Only a matter of time I imagine.
Protecting certain ideologies above others and trying to demonise anyone who criticises them is a sure fire way of showing that you don't have a logical argument. Therefore I expect the left to ramp up this particular way of debating even further.
I'm suffering from no such thing. I don't want to 'protect' any ideology. And I'm not particularly off the left: in fact, most lefties on here call me a PB Tory.
"Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers."
Thereby showing your problem.
I think my main problem appears to be that you refuse to engage me on the logic on my argument.
Demonising people for criticising an ideology, which branding people as Islamophobes is no doubt doing is the very definition of protecting an ideology.
Please try to refute the above statement without resorting to the "and that shows your problem" nonsense.
I'm not trying to protect an ideology. I'm trying to be fair.
Since these people are literally advocating VOTE UKIP!! and are presumably Party members , then surely it's within Kipper HQ's remit to ask them to tone it down if they don't want to frighten unicorns like me.
Or does Kipper HQ approve and think the DT is a smashing shop window for their cause? If that's the case, fine - it just confirms that the views expressed are fairly representative of the sort of voter they'd like to attract.
Either way - holding the DT responsible is just daft. What real Kippers are saying isn't. I don't hold the Guardian responsible for the views in their comments either [well apart from all the ones they censor about where many of their journalists went to school!]
You know I love you, but that's hand-waving. The DT is a huge newspaper and the behaviour of the Kippers commenting there is doing your Party no favours.
TBH, I don't read the comments in the DT anymore because they're filled with anti-Muslim comments irrespective of the topic under discussion. And when they run out of those, it reverts to the EU. It's hobby-horse stuff writ large, and reminds me of the ugly online Yestapo.
I'm sure all these posters are quite delightful in person, but they give UKIP a very unattractive face to a soft-right Tory like me. It's the volume and the tone that's so off-putting.
I find those comments off-putting, but I simply don't find them representative of UKIP supporters at all.
The problem there is the culture the Telegraph have allowed to grow around their website comments, not UKIP.
The culture of a website is something the publisher can and should control. UKIP/UKIP voters don't have any control over what is published on the Telegraph's website.
I wouldn't presume they are party members if I were you... The rest that follows in your post relies on that presumption too heavily
There were people in a packed Clacton McDonalds last Thursday speaking in loud voices so everyone could hear about the ISIS beheadings and what should be done to Muslims in this country
They were wearing ukip badges and rosettes, but they weren't ukip members
3. How the hell is it Islamophobic to believe that the most widespread cases of uninvestigated child abuse in this country is carried out by Muslim-background gangs? We have a case of 1400 kids being raped in one northern town, "hundreds" of child rapists walking free in one of our northern cities, about 20 cases of this model of abuse happening in other towns, and a chief investigator saying what has happened in Rotherham is likely to have happened elsewhere. What evidence is there of anything similar happening by perpetrators of other groups? To avoid the "Islamophobic" slur from politically correct muppets you have to not mention crimes by Muslims. It's ridiculous.
Did you see this?
However Bailey warned that the media was in danger of becoming fixated by “one model of child sexual exploitation” involving Asian gangs. “There has been an unhealthy focus on that particular model of abuse and we cannot afford to take our eye off the fact that it is but one model and we have to look at the bigger picture.”
The concern of the police is that it is not gangs that are the biggest problem when it comes to sexual abuse, but the home.
Bailey said: “[This fixation] is rather overshadowing a far, far, bigger picture, and that bigger picture is that 90% of child sexual abuse takes place in the home where crimes are being perpetrated upon victims by people they know already. It is really important that we get some context around this.”
Without wanting to be unduly rude, this sounds like a PC lie.
IF 90% of abuse is in the home are we to infer that there are another 12,600 victims of it in Rotherham?
If that were true what should the police approach be?
1/ allocate resources to a type of abuse where you can nail hundreds of abusers in one go 2/ retreat from 1/ because you're scared of being labelled a racist, and proceed ineffectualyl against the other 90% while insisting that Rotherham tells us nothing about how to identify paedophiles?
If you were a bent copper, taking money to protect local gangs, and you were questioned as to why you had not taken the obvious action to protect an underage victim, you might well argue that you were afraid of appearing racist.
The defence is untenable, of course. Even in a PC culture, people should do their jobs regardless, and there is plenty of evidence that too many haven't, but I suspect the PC excuse is in many cases a subterfuge for something very different, and nastier.
Laziness is another vice that the PC line can be used to obscure, and that of course is universal.
Don't you think the theory is a bit unlikely that such corruption just happened to occur on a mass scale with overwhelmingly Pakistani gangs in the two towns with big investigations so far, and possibly another 20 places?
I don't know, Socrates, and neither do you.
There are doubtless many people trying to establish the facts right now but it won't be easy. If corruption is a major factor, that will be very difficult to expose and eliminate. There are likely to be other factors too. Personally I suspect that PC will prove to be part of it, if not in the sense of a genuine fear of taking the appropriate action because of political repercussions then at least in the sense that it creates a smokes a smokescreen behind which corruption, laziness and incompetence can hide.
The numerous other probable factors - such as poverty, poor education, cultural attitudes etc - have all been sufficiently aired on here and elsewhere for me to feel I don't want to add my two pennyworth.
A very fair summary Peter. One of the most insidious things about political correctness is that it gives so many bad/mediocre/stupid/lazy people a screen to hide behind. In that way it is very similar health and safety and data protection. That the left unthinkingly encouraged its promotion without acknowledging its flaws is to its (our) eternal shame.
1. It's a shame it was not condemned by UKIPpers at the time.
2. No, I'm not. It;'s just when the body of someone's work leans towards it. Before anyone says: I'm furious about Rotherham, Rochdale and the others. But they are just part of the problem, as we've discussed passim, and criminality might have more to do with it than religion or race.
3. You seem to not understand child abuse (especially the fact it occurs to boys as well as girls), and be fixated on gang abuse, especially by Muslims. Your post this morning just seemed another one of yours to point at how 'bad' Muslims are.
4. Yes.
1. I didn't see the posts you are talking about, if they did go down as you say, and it only meant British whites. However, just recently FalseFlag posted something about British just meaning white British people and it was criticised by both myself and other Kippers (as well as others). Again, you are still indicating a system based on the presumption of guilt of bigotry: people have to take positive action to show they are not bigots. It's a very unpleasant mentality.
2. Criminality surely is a huge part to do with it, but everyone accepts that. I don't think race has anything to do with it at all: people of Indian stock are virtually racially identical to Pakistanis and I don't believe we have a problem there. Culture, however, is something that matters, and that is something of which religion plays a part. You openly say that these additional factors "might" have something to do with it, so surely people can make this case without being called bigots.
3a. I think I understand child abuse better than most, although obviously it's very hard to comprehend for all of us regular folk that find the harming of a child so barbaric. I'm very aware that it happens to boys as well as girls, and I regularly posted about the Catholic Church scandal before it properly broke. The reason I post about grooming gangs more than most is because of the sheer scale of the abuse by a relatively small number of gangs, and because the government and media response to it has been especially neglectful. Heck, before the Rotherham case came out, people were denying that there was even a particular problem related to Pakistani gangs. That's how uninformed people are. Once there is a proper nationwide investigation and the intense media coverage that such abuse needs, I will feel less need to draw attention.
3b. What my post "seemed" is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I did not even mention Muslims in my post, referring to "jihadists" instead. You are making your own interpretation up of what I "mean" by such posts, and then condemning me as a bigot for it. This speaks to your prejudice, not mine.
Seems to me little evidence on here of people criticising Muslims for the Rotherham scandal. I certainly never have. The failure is on the part of those that turned a blind eye because of the race or religion of the perpetrators, the people who sent a lady on a diversity course and told her never to say such things again when she said the gangs were Asian.
I can imagine people who inferred jimmy saville was at it got a similar reaction from bbc officials.
I've little doubt it's the same forces at work that saw celebrities and politicians able to get away with it in the 70s and 80s. An atmosphere is allowed to build where certain people are not allowed to be challenged, and that failure has been criticised on those occasions without anyone being accused of being anti 70s celebrity although some did say others were being partisan in their criticism of politicians accused of noncery
The Savile analogy is a good one.
We know the reason voices were not raised against him were because a culture of complicity existed which had its roots in the financial interests of those in a position to do something about it. PC wasn't an issue. Celebrity culture probably was. BBC management culture almost certainly was.
A link to a news story with an entirely neutral description of the story. JosiasJessop is as nutty on this issue as the NUS refusing to condemn ISIS because it would be Islamophobic.
I think he is suffering from Islamophobia-phobia. An absolutely vile affliction that causes him to judge people negatively purely from their Islamophobia.
Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers. What's next? Labourophobia, socialistophobia, greenophobia? Only a matter of time I imagine.
Protecting certain ideologies above others and trying to demonise anyone who criticises them is a sure fire way of showing that you don't have a logical argument. Therefore I expect the left to ramp up this particular way of debating even further.
I'm suffering from no such thing. I don't want to 'protect' any ideology. And I'm not particularly off the left: in fact, most lefties on here call me a PB Tory.
"Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers."
Thereby showing your problem.
I think my main problem appears to be that you refuse to engage me on the logic on my argument.
Demonising people for criticising an ideology, which branding people as Islamophobes is no doubt doing is the very definition of protecting an ideology.
Please try to refute the above statement without resorting to the "and that shows your problem" nonsense.
I'm not trying to protect an ideology. I'm trying to be fair.
I'm sure you are, but people have a different view on what is fair or not so it always helps for it to be backed up by logical thought otherwise it degrades into a slanging match where accusations of -isms and -phobes are thrown about.
If certain criticisms of certain ideologies are shouted down for being a phobia and others aren't then how can that possibly be fair? What in your mind makes this situation a fair one?
I'm genuinely interested because it's a common mindset and I just don't understand it in the slightest.
whats more UKIP don't like parkrun either (see youtube and type in 'downfall and parkrun') .They just want everyone to buy a dog and walk it by getting in the way of cyclists and runners -SO THERE
Runners with dogs are allowed at many parkruns. I really love parkrun. Fantastic example of the Big Society at work. [NB parkrun started in 2004, before Cameron became Conservative party leader]
Everyone loves parkrun until they are actually doing the second lap of one
If only the world could be as unfilled with hate as Copper Sulphate and Mr Bond of this parish it would be a much better place. Their entirely non-hateful summaries of the Labour party certainly add to the gaiety of the nation.
If only the world could be as unfilled with hate as Copper Sulphate and Mr Bond of this parish it would be a much better place. Their entirely non-hateful summaries of the Labour party certainly add to the gaiety of the nation.
If you were a bent copper, taking money to protect local gangs, and you were questioned as to why you had not taken the obvious action to protect an underage victim, you might well argue that you were afraid of appearing racist.
The defence is untenable, of course. Even in a PC culture, people should do their jobs regardless, and there is plenty of evidence that too many haven't, but I suspect the PC excuse is in many cases a subterfuge for something very different, and nastier.
Laziness is another vice that the PC line can be used to obscure, and that of course is universal.
Don't you think the theory is a bit unlikely that such corruption just happened to occur on a mass scale with overwhelmingly Pakistani gangs in the two towns with big investigations so far, and possibly another 20 places?
I don't know, Socrates, and neither do you.
There are doubtless many people trying to establish the facts right now but it won't be easy. If corruption is a major factor, that will be very difficult to expose and eliminate. There are likely to be other factors too. Personally I suspect that PC will prove to be part of it, if not in the sense of a genuine fear of taking the appropriate action because of political repercussions then at least in the sense that it creates a smokes a smokescreen behind which corruption, laziness and incompetence can hide.
The numerous other probable factors - such as poverty, poor education, cultural attitudes etc - have all been sufficiently aired on here and elsewhere for me to feel I don't want to add my two pennyworth.
A very fair summary Peter. One of the most insidious things about political correctness is that it gives so many bad/mediocre/stupid/lazy people a screen to hide behind. In that way it is very similar health and safety and data protection. That the left unthinkingly encouraged its promotion without acknowledging its flaws is to its (our) eternal shame.
Thanks Southam.
To be honest it's not a subject I like to think or write about. But when I do, I like to think I'm neither unduly naive or biased.
What I don't recognise is that I and people like me are racist loons who want to live in the 1950s and attempts to cast me as such are counter productive.
So sharing a roasted black baby with me is off the cards then? I was hoping that if I came dressed in a gym slip this would be appropriate attire too. Damnit.
I feel rather sorry for Kipper voters in many respects - it must be hard to be hated more than a common or garden Tory. Funny ole world. I hope @MrJones returns to posting myself - IIRC he was a Kipper of ex-Labour stock.
No, MrJones was a supporter of the BNP. He may have switched to UKIP though. He never made that clear.
Your trying to belittle that judgement of mine by saying that I have accused UKIP of "anti-cycling bigotry" demeans you. Some criticism of UKIP might possibly be valid, you know. I don't agree with every single Green Party policy.
Your first line is fair criticism - I was being excessive to make a joke. Your second line is inaccurate, however. I have regularly criticised UKIP on foreign policy and gay marriage.
If only the world could be as unfilled with hate as Copper Sulphate and Mr Bond of this parish it would be a much better place. Their entirely non-hateful summaries of the Labour party certainly add to the gaiety of the nation.
Touche, Mr. O, but like that radio bloke who invited a UKIP caller to say what UKIP was in favour of (and who couldn't hink of anything), am I / are we wrong about any of those?
Are you suggesting for example that Labour does not hate well educated people? That it does not hate the police? Really?
What both the left and the right hate is each other's versions of what they think Britain should be. But that's very different.
Maybe, but I do feel sorry for people who base their lives, and especially their politics, on hate. It is a horrible negative emotion from which good seldom, if ever, can come but it does provide a wide open doorway for evil.
Political discourse, and good governance, would be greatly promoted if people dropped the language of confrontation, metaphors of war and laid off the labelling. It is after all perfectly possible to accept that someone has good intentions but to disagree with the means they promote to achieve them. Calling someone a vile reactionary, let alone labelling a whole group as such, is unlikely to shift a point of view but is more likely to promote an equally unpleasant and probably equally inaccurate response, especially when couple with phrases like "fight against" etc..
I am a UKIP supporter because they come nearest to my views on things that I think are very important to the future of my son and are forcing the mainstream parties to address issues that they would rather sweep under the carpet. That doesn't mean I agree with everything every other member of the UKIP says or even every policy that it might or might not have. On some matters I am very close to the views of Mr. Nabavi on others I agree with Mr. Observer and even the good Dr. Palmer. What I don't recognise is that I and people like me are racist loons who want to live in the 1950s and attempts to cast me as such are counter productive.
Good post. In general something left and right should be able to agree on is that it's lazy and unfair, if not worse, to judge individuals as part of a bloc - whether it's because of their race, or where they went to school, or whatever. PB in particular gets boring when anonymous posters spend acres of space debating whether other anonymous posters are one thing or another. Who cares?
Your trying to belittle that judgement of mine by saying that I have accused UKIP of "anti-cycling bigotry" demeans you. Some criticism of UKIP might possibly be valid, you know. I don't agree with every single Green Party policy.
Your first line is fair criticism - I was being excessive to make a joke. Your second line is inaccurate, however. I have regularly criticised UKIP on foreign policy and gay marriage.
That is true, and it was wrong of me to overlook it.
What both the left and the right hate is each other's versions of what they think Britain should be. But that's very different.
Maybe, but I do feel sorry for people who base their lives, and especially their politics, on hate. It is a horrible negative emotion from which good seldom, if ever, can come but it does provide a wide open doorway for evil.
Political discourse, and good governance, would be greatly promoted if people dropped the language of confrontation, metaphors of war and laid off the labelling. It is after all perfectly possible to accept that someone has good intentions but to disagree with the means they promote to achieve them. Calling someone a vile reactionary, let alone labelling a whole group as such, is unlikely to shift a point of view but is more likely to promote an equally unpleasant and probably equally inaccurate response, especially when couple with phrases like "fight against" etc..
I am a UKIP supporter because they come nearest to my views on things that I think are very important to the future of my son and are forcing the mainstream parties to address issues that they would rather sweep under the carpet. That doesn't mean I agree with everything every other member of the UKIP says or even every policy that it might or might not have. On some matters I am very close to the views of Mr. Nabavi on others I agree with Mr. Observer and even the good Dr. Palmer. What I don't recognise is that I and people like me are racist loons who want to live in the 1950s and attempts to cast me as such are counter productive.
Good post. In general something left and right should be able to agree on is that it's lazy and unfair, if not worse, to judge individuals as part of a bloc - whether it's because of their race, or where they went to school, or whatever. PB in particular gets boring when anonymous posters spend acres of space debating whether other anonymous posters are one thing or another. Who cares?
What I don't recognise is that I and people like me are racist loons who want to live in the 1950s and attempts to cast me as such are counter productive.
So sharing a roasted black baby with me is off the cards then? I was hoping that if I came dressed in a gym slip this would be appropriate attire too. Damnit.
I feel rather sorry for Kipper voters in many respects - it must be hard to be hated more than a common or garden Tory. Funny ole world. I hope @MrJones returns to posting myself - IIRC he was a Kipper of ex-Labour stock.
No, MrJones was a supporter of the BNP. He may have switched to UKIP though. He never made that clear. I don't remember Mr Jones backing the BNP.
A cyclist in Exeter was seriously injured last winter after someone did something like that across a cycle bridge over the river. Parris is a dangerous twat.
However, there do seem to be quite a decent number of Tory politicians who are supportive of cycling, and there's been some promising progress from the Coalition, so taking things in the balance I don't think that the Conservative party is a threat to cyclist's.
I just don't see anything positive about cycling from UKIP, or UKIP politicians to counter all the negative things that I have heard.
UKIP are probably too busy countering the constant media exaggeration of racism to deal with their supposed anti-cycling bigotry.
They had time to craft a whole bunch of anti-cycling policies for the 2010 election. They have had time to put together an overview of policies for 2015, which as yet say nothing about cycling.
Maybe they will change their position for the 2015GE, but how else am I supposed to judge their cycling policy?
And given the reactions I have had from a small minority of drivers to my presence on the roads, I think I am perfectly right to fear what would happen if they were encouraged in their views by an anti-cycling [UKIP] government.
Your trying to belittle that judgement of mine by saying that I have accused UKIP of "anti-cycling bigotry" demeans you. Some criticism of UKIP might possibly be valid, you know. I don't agree with every single Green Party policy.
I thought you were mucking about when you said the drivers were probably ukip supporters!!
If it's any consolation I am a cyclist too, I haven't had a car for a year or so and actually only for one year out of the last five
whats more UKIP don't like parkrun either (see youtube and type in 'downfall and parkrun') .They just want everyone to buy a dog and walk it by getting in the way of cyclists and runners -SO THERE
Runners with dogs are allowed at many parkruns. I really love parkrun. Fantastic example of the Big Society at work. [NB parkrun started in 2004, before Cameron became Conservative party leader]
Everyone loves parkrun until they are actually doing the second lap of one
If only the world could be as unfilled with hate as Copper Sulphate and Mr Bond of this parish it would be a much better place. Their entirely non-hateful summaries of the Labour party certainly add to the gaiety of the nation.
Touche, Mr. O, but like that radio bloke who invited a UKIP caller to say what UKIP was in favour of (and who couldn't hink of anything), am I / are we wrong about any of those?
Are you suggesting for example that Labour does not hate well educated people? That it does not hate the police? Really?
Yes, I am suggesting that. In fact, I firmly believe it.
I have a degree and co-own a business. I don't think Labour hates me.
My brother-in-law is a policeman. I don't think Labour hates him.
My initial point still stands. People Like Me who see the comments in the DT recoil from much of the sentiment expressed.
Such comments inform our views of what the active Kipperite is saying online. If they aren't Party members - why not? They're clearly very very committed, and we regularly see posts on here about how UKIP membership is rising. If any group were likely to be members - surely the DTers are fertile ground.
What makes you think that those on the DT board are somehow not Party members? I can see converted newbies in Clacton not being members yet - they're experiencing an epiphany/may fade away again after the rush of blood - but the regulars at the DT are very long in the tooth.
I'm quite sympathetic to several notions that UKIP raised in the past - I don't like the persecution of smokers for example, though I loathe the things myself.
You know I love you, but that's hand-waving. The DT is a huge newspaper and the behaviour of the Kippers commenting there is doing your Party no favours.
TBH, I don't read the comments in the DT anymore because they're filled with anti-Muslim comments irrespective of the topic under discussion. And when they run out of those, it reverts to the EU. It's hobby-horse stuff writ large, and reminds me of the ugly online Yestapo.
I'm sure all these posters are quite delightful in person, but they give UKIP a very unattractive face to a soft-right Tory like me. It's the volume and the tone that's so off-putting.
I find those comments off-putting, but I simply don't find them representative of UKIP supporters at all.
The problem there is the culture the Telegraph have allowed to grow around their website comments, not UKIP.
The culture of a website is something the publisher can and should control. UKIP/UKIP voters don't have any control over what is published on the Telegraph's website.
I wouldn't presume they are party members if I were you... The rest that follows in your post relies on that presumption too heavily
There were people in a packed Clacton McDonalds last Thursday speaking in loud voices so everyone could hear about the ISIS beheadings and what should be done to Muslims in this country
They were wearing ukip badges and rosettes, but they weren't ukip members
What I don't recognise is that I and people like me are racist loons who want to live in the 1950s and attempts to cast me as such are counter productive.
So sharing a roasted black baby with me is off the cards then? I was hoping that if I came dressed in a gym slip this would be appropriate attire too. Damnit.
I feel rather sorry for Kipper voters in many respects - it must be hard to be hated more than a common or garden Tory. Funny ole world. I hope @MrJones returns to posting myself - IIRC he was a Kipper of ex-Labour stock.
No, MrJones was a supporter of the BNP. He may have switched to UKIP though. He never made that clear.
I don't remember Mr Jones backing the BNP.
Yes, he did. He was very upfront about it. He may well have drifted to UKIP though.
Comments
However Bailey warned that the media was in danger of becoming fixated by “one model of child sexual exploitation” involving Asian gangs. “There has been an unhealthy focus on that particular model of abuse and we cannot afford to take our eye off the fact that it is but one model and we have to look at the bigger picture.”
The concern of the police is that it is not gangs that are the biggest problem when it comes to sexual abuse, but the home.
Bailey said: “[This fixation] is rather overshadowing a far, far, bigger picture, and that bigger picture is that 90% of child sexual abuse takes place in the home where crimes are being perpetrated upon victims by people they know already. It is really important that we get some context around this.”
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/15/rotherham-child-sexual-abuse-scandal-tip-iceberg-police-chief
These are noteworthy since they indicate that the only main party with a small positive are Labour.
The Lib Dems are as disliked as the Conservatives - so the "nasty party" tag applies as much to Lib Dems as Conservatives and the truth is the nasty label is a minor issue.
For UKIP this is surprising and indicates that they have a low upper limit of how many voters they could attarct. Probably limited to 35% max. Usually a "new" party IMHO should have a positive rating. UKIP do not have that.
2. If someone constantly and consistently does it, then yes, you would have to ask that question.
3. And you ignore all the other cases committed by non-Muslim gangs. I mean, what was the point of your first post this morning?
4. I suggest you read Nino's posts. I would have thought that was obvious ...
Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers. What's next? Labourophobia, socialistophobia, greenophobia? Only a matter of time I imagine.
Protecting certain ideologies above others and trying to demonise anyone who criticises them is a sure fire way of showing that you don't have a logical argument. Therefore I expect the left to ramp up this particular way of debating even further.
Brent Crude at $85.84 right now... I think medium term support will be found for WTI at $80 or so and thus Brent should find support around $82 given the normal difference
1.6112 USD-GBP
Pound seems to have strengthened slightly against the USD too which yields a GBP price of £53.77, the £50 floor is $80.56 right now.
Which means that pump prices should continue to fall I think, and thus inflation will stay very low.
Though you will get weird looks from the people working in there when you asked to bet on a political market.
He's put up prices for just about every constituency. Mostly they are thin markets and vulnerable to inside traders. He can't monitor them all day, 365 days a year, so he sets an exposure limit. It's perfectly reasonable and a damn sight more adventurous than most other firms.
I doubt Lads make a profit on constituency markets, and justify them only in terms of publicity and encouraging other more profitable activities.
Blaming the DT for it is missing the point entirely. They've offered up a free commenting platform - what these Kipper online activists are doing with it is another matter. As @SouthamObserver noted, having a free-for-all attitude is great for adding to the gaiety of the nation, not so much when we're wondering what reality would look like.
It's also the first time the Lib Dems have been in double figures with Populus since June. The fightback starts now?
The fact that you tacitly admit to having a "fear of UKIP" shows your problem all too well.
There has to be a suspicion that protection money was being paid.
There is also the problem that an offender in the home does not tend to affect the multiplicity of victims that a member of a group or gang does. Removing one gang or group could save hundreds from abuse. Tackling one family only saves a few children. Its the issue of "low hanging fruit" - tackle those first and then use the skills and techniques and publicity (of the convictions) to tackle the harder to prosecute family crimes.
Political discourse, and good governance, would be greatly promoted if people dropped the language of confrontation, metaphors of war and laid off the labelling. It is after all perfectly possible to accept that someone has good intentions but to disagree with the means they promote to achieve them. Calling someone a vile reactionary, let alone labelling a whole group as such, is unlikely to shift a point of view but is more likely to promote an equally unpleasant and probably equally inaccurate response, especially when couple with phrases like "fight against" etc..
I am a UKIP supporter because they come nearest to my views on things that I think are very important to the future of my son and are forcing the mainstream parties to address issues that they would rather sweep under the carpet. That doesn't mean I agree with everything every other member of the UKIP says or even every policy that it might or might not have. On some matters I am very close to the views of Mr. Nabavi on others I agree with Mr. Observer and even the good Dr. Palmer. What I don't recognise is that I and people like me are racist loons who want to live in the 1950s and attempts to cast me as such are counter productive.
Copper is more interesting to me, if it breaks 3 then Dr Copper would be signalling more serious problems.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), Texas never gave the world Constantine the Great, made emperor in the city of York.
Just one more spoonful of hypocrisy to pile on the rest of the heap.
I've also routinely condemned IS-IS/IL routinely, along with al Nusra.
You'll have to try better.
Con .......... 291 (-8 seats)
Lab .......... 298 (+5 seats)
LibDem....... 31 (+3 seats)
Others ....... 30 (unchanged)
Total ........ 650 seats
However, there do seem to be quite a decent number of Tory politicians who are supportive of cycling, and there's been some promising progress from the Coalition, so taking things in the balance I don't think that the Conservative party is a threat to cyclist's.
I just don't see anything positive about cycling from UKIP, or UKIP politicians to counter all the negative things that I have heard.
"Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers."
Thereby showing your problem.
I'd be wary of overstating the PC line.
If you were a bent copper, taking money to protect local gangs, and you were questioned as to why you had not taken the obvious action to protect an underage victim, you might well argue that you were afraid of appearing racist.
The defence is untenable, of course. Even in a PC culture, people should do their jobs regardless, and there is plenty of evidence that too many haven't, but I suspect the PC excuse is in many cases a subterfuge for something very different, and nastier.
Laziness is another vice that the PC line can be used to obscure, and that of course is universal.
Andrew Mitchell also got very angry when the Babylon tried to stop him cycling
Come on it's an ideology that should be allowed to be criticised like any other. Unless someone can give me a very good reason and a set of logical rules to determine which ideologies can and which can't.
2. You seem to be proposing a situation where anyone wanting to draw attention to any abuse in the world has to constantly take pre-emptive steps to defend themselves against charges of bigotry. People criticising the IDF would have to constantly say nice things about Jews and also post things about Sri Lanka. People criticising evangelicals restricting women's reproductive rights in the US would have to post about similar restrictions in Turkey. People posting about white nation involved in banking fraud would have to draw attention to corruption in China. It's a presumption of guilt for anyone with different political views to yourself.
3. I've actually posted about non-grooming gangs by non-Muslims, when no-one else has mentioned them. There's just not many of them. And they certainly don't exist on the scale of hundreds of rapists in individual towns.
In terms of my post this morning, I was drawing attention to the increased brazeness of jihadists in France. I felt it was a worrying trend. You apparently disagree. That's fine. It doesn't make it a bigoted post.
4. I don't always notice the poster. If you wish to list Nino's posts that are bigotry, I'm happy to condemn them or defend them on the merits. Are they more bigoted than daring to post a news story about jihadists in France?
Demonising people for criticising an ideology, which branding people as Islamophobes is no doubt doing is the very definition of protecting an ideology.
Please try to refute the above statement without resorting to the "and that shows your problem" nonsense.
I'm being unfair; there are possibly 2% who are .... honest, but the other 98% are lying, cheating, bastards and deserve to be discriminated against.
Freedom of speech trumps religious sensitivity every single time (or it should, even if the media thinks every image of Mohammed from Jesus and Mo should be censored as part of a de facto blasphemy/censorship law...).
It is a legitimate point that apostasy isn't a free choice in many parts of the world, though. It'd be a brave move in Pakistan, for example.
Or does Kipper HQ approve and think the DT is a smashing shop window for their cause? If that's the case, fine - it just confirms that the views expressed are fairly representative of the sort of voter they'd like to attract.
Either way - holding the DT responsible is just daft. What real Kippers are saying isn't. I don't hold the Guardian responsible for the views in their comments either [well apart from all the ones they censor about where many of their journalists went to school!]
'Actually I was thinking about the Greens the other day. I think the protest lefty vote is going to go to them'
The Greens are the old left with a vegan diet.
It hates the WWC, it hates the middle class, it hates the affluent and it hates what it quaintly still calls "toffs". It hates men, it hates the police, it hates business, it hates the countryside, it hates England, it hates the well-educated. It hates car drivers, it hates savers, it hates privately-held pensions, it hates the press, it hates the armed forces.
It likes immigrants and poor people, especially where they are the same, but only as electorally useful i.e. not enough to do anything about poverty other than perpetuate it for electoral advantage. It likes envious people.
It doesn't seem like much of a coalition.
2. No, I'm not. It;'s just when the body of someone's work leans towards it. Before anyone says: I'm furious about Rotherham, Rochdale and the others. But they are just part of the problem, as we've discussed passim, and criminality might have more to do with it than religion or race.
3. You seem to not understand child abuse (especially the fact it occurs to boys as well as girls), and be fixated on gang abuse, especially by Muslims. Your post this morning just seemed another one of yours to point at how 'bad' Muslims are.
4. Yes.
Populus unweighted: 313 (2031 base)
Populus weighted: 198
Yougov unweighted: 265 (2045 base)
Yougov weighted: 291
A staggering difference.
Yougov's last UKIP poll was 302 for UKIP in both the weighted and unweighted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The reasons for the above lie in Populus Q4:
Q.4 Regardless of which party, if any, you are likely to end up voting for at the next General Election due in
May 2015 or are leaning towards at the moment, which political party would you say you have usually most closely
identified yourself with?
UKIP 243 81
12% 4%
is a crock of pots.
Yougov's PPI weighter is far better
Others 159 -> 100...
Both Yougov and Populus can't be right...
Given this, it is sensible to to look at the Populus number as a MINIMUM for the UKIP vote.
I've not placed any UKIP specific turnout bets for the GE yet, but when I do I'll take Populus as the minimum and Yougov as a midpoint nearer to the time.
Also I think anyone who has bet UKIP < 10% has done their money.
Still the Left publicised and used the murder to achieve their aims regardless. Amazed the media still prattles on about it even today.
That looks low.
I can imagine people who inferred jimmy saville was at it got a similar reaction from bbc officials.
I've little doubt it's the same forces at work that saw celebrities and politicians able to get away with it in the 70s and 80s. An atmosphere is allowed to build where certain people are not allowed to be challenged, and that failure has been criticised on those occasions without anyone being accused of being anti 70s celebrity although some did say others were being partisan in their criticism of politicians accused of noncery
There are doubtless many people trying to establish the facts right now but it won't be easy. If corruption is a major factor, that will be very difficult to expose and eliminate. There are likely to be other factors too. Personally I suspect that PC will prove to be part of it, if not in the sense of a genuine fear of taking the appropriate action because of political repercussions then at least in the sense that it creates a smokes a smokescreen behind which corruption, laziness and incompetence can hide.
The numerous other probable factors - such as poverty, poor education, cultural attitudes etc - have all been sufficiently aired on here and elsewhere for me to feel I don't want to add my two pennyworth.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/142e54a4-547b-11e4-b2ea-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3GJxNjBiH
Maybe they will change their position for the 2015GE, but how else am I supposed to judge their cycling policy?
And given the reactions I have had from a small minority of drivers to my presence on the roads, I think I am perfectly right to fear what would happen if they were encouraged in their views by an anti-cycling [UKIP] government.
Your trying to belittle that judgement of mine by saying that I have accused UKIP of "anti-cycling bigotry" demeans you. Some criticism of UKIP might possibly be valid, you know. I don't agree with every single Green Party policy.
I feel rather sorry for Kipper voters in many respects - it must be hard to be hated more than a common or garden Tory. Funny ole world. I hope @MrJones returns to posting myself - IIRC he was a Kipper of ex-Labour stock.
That, or I like horsemeat more than I thought I would.
It's the Telegraph's website. They control it. They rely on the platform for income.
For them to ignore the culture is foolish.
(That goes for the Guardian too.)
Labour is driven entirely by hated and always has been. It's the only thing that keeps them going now they seem to have entirely abandoned their principles.
It always amazes me they have the cheek to describe other groups as hateful.
There were people in a packed Clacton McDonalds last Thursday speaking in loud voices so everyone could hear about the ISIS beheadings and what should be done to Muslims in this country
They were wearing ukip badges and rosettes, but they weren't ukip members
IF 90% of abuse is in the home are we to infer that there are another 12,600 victims of it in Rotherham?
If that were true what should the police approach be?
1/ allocate resources to a type of abuse where you can nail hundreds of abusers in one go
2/ retreat from 1/ because you're scared of being labelled a racist, and proceed ineffectualyl against the other 90% while insisting that Rotherham tells us nothing about how to identify paedophiles?
2. Criminality surely is a huge part to do with it, but everyone accepts that. I don't think race has anything to do with it at all: people of Indian stock are virtually racially identical to Pakistanis and I don't believe we have a problem there. Culture, however, is something that matters, and that is something of which religion plays a part. You openly say that these additional factors "might" have something to do with it, so surely people can make this case without being called bigots.
3a. I think I understand child abuse better than most, although obviously it's very hard to comprehend for all of us regular folk that find the harming of a child so barbaric. I'm very aware that it happens to boys as well as girls, and I regularly posted about the Catholic Church scandal before it properly broke. The reason I post about grooming gangs more than most is because of the sheer scale of the abuse by a relatively small number of gangs, and because the government and media response to it has been especially neglectful. Heck, before the Rotherham case came out, people were denying that there was even a particular problem related to Pakistani gangs. That's how uninformed people are. Once there is a proper nationwide investigation and the intense media coverage that such abuse needs, I will feel less need to draw attention.
3b. What my post "seemed" is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I did not even mention Muslims in my post, referring to "jihadists" instead. You are making your own interpretation up of what I "mean" by such posts, and then condemning me as a bigot for it. This speaks to your prejudice, not mine.
We know the reason voices were not raised against him were because a culture of complicity existed which had its roots in the financial interests of those in a position to do something about it. PC wasn't an issue. Celebrity culture probably was. BBC management culture almost certainly was.
If certain criticisms of certain ideologies are shouted down for being a phobia and others aren't then how can that possibly be fair? What in your mind makes this situation a fair one?
I'm genuinely interested because it's a common mindset and I just don't understand it in the slightest.
To be honest it's not a subject I like to think or write about. But when I do, I like to think I'm neither unduly naive or biased.
You words of support are very welcome.
I feel rather sorry for Kipper voters in many respects - it must be hard to be hated more than a common or garden Tory. Funny ole world. I hope @MrJones returns to posting myself - IIRC he was a Kipper of ex-Labour stock.
No, MrJones was a supporter of the BNP. He may have switched to UKIP though. He never made that clear.
Are you suggesting for example that Labour does not hate well educated people? That it does not hate the police? Really?
@Martin Shapland
Tories out-polling Labour in Scotland 20/19? Well hit me with a shovel and bury me in disbeleif @AGilinsky
It's a Tory surge...
Speechless. Just speechless.
I don't remember Mr Jones backing the BNP.
If it's any consolation I am a cyclist too, I haven't had a car for a year or so and actually only for one year out of the last five
And I don't eat red meat...
And I've never been to church...
I'm in the wrong party!
I must say I didn't know ukip were anti cycling
I once did a four-lap parkrun, which was probably a mistake.
I have a degree and co-own a business. I don't think Labour hates me.
My brother-in-law is a policeman. I don't think Labour hates him.
Such comments inform our views of what the active Kipperite is saying online. If they aren't Party members - why not? They're clearly very very committed, and we regularly see posts on here about how UKIP membership is rising. If any group were likely to be members - surely the DTers are fertile ground.
What makes you think that those on the DT board are somehow not Party members? I can see converted newbies in Clacton not being members yet - they're experiencing an epiphany/may fade away again after the rush of blood - but the regulars at the DT are very long in the tooth.
I'm quite sympathetic to several notions that UKIP raised in the past - I don't like the persecution of smokers for example, though I loathe the things myself.
What do you think of the DT Kipperite Tendency?
Yes, he did. He was very upfront about it. He may well have drifted to UKIP though.
' it's lazy and unfair, if not worse, to judge individuals as part of a bloc'
But that's exactly what Labour does with its class war hatred of toffs.