Mr. Eagles, yeah, saw it yesterday but was occupied with the Parisian attack.
Malaysia's ok, Bahrain is normally a dog (but was fantastic last year, so we'll see how that goes), Canada and Britain are good, Hungary's the most boring circuit outside of Singapore and Monaco, Spa and Suzuka are very good, Russia was a bit tedious [NB it may be similar to Australia, which may help McLaren], Interlagos is fantastic and Abu Dhabi is rubbish.
Overall, a decent list, for one that's half what it should be due to the BBC having Judas Iscariot in charge of its F1 division. We're missing the return of Mexico and it'd be good to see Italy, but there we are.
Not to deny what is undoubtedly going to be a complex re-alignment in some ways but isn't it the case that the EFTA and through it the EEA already exists as an organisation that does exactly what you (and I) would want? It provides a trading bloc without the political involvement. Yes there would be issues that would need to be resolved but as a basic structure to provide that separation surely it is already in place.
Edit. Good post by the way.
I don't think that either EFTA or the EEA give us the relationship that we would want although they could certainly be a template.
I am not convinced we should leave either, provided our essential interests are protected internally. David MacAllister again made the point that the UK and the Germans typically work together to ensure the EU remains competitive and trade focussed. An EU without the UK may well prove to be more inward looking and more likely to build fences rather than bridges. We have a lot more to contribute to the EU than our money.
I think Merkel could live with repatriation of car seat regulations!
Jesus:
The report recommended that the EU’s working time directive, water standards, car safety seats and agency working standards should be taken back under Britain’s control.
That's it? That's the starting point of Cameron's repatriation demands? No one can claim the Conservatives are a eurosceptic party any more.
The British Sausage lives on (c) Yes Minister (Party Games)
I am not so easily fooled by Socrates' propaganda. The Working Time Directive and Agency Working Standards are important issues to our economy.
Call it propaganda all you like, but I listed 14 major things had been called for by Fresh Start, and said that 11 have been abandoned, and two more had been retreated to partial positions.
That leaves one, which is employment regulation. I was being entirely accurate.
So where are the demands on the CAP, structural funds, fisheries, the EU budget, a finance sector veto, emergency brake on immigration, etc? They've all disappeared. Boasting that you're still fighting one battle (and two partial) battles out of 14 is pretty lame.
Nick, I agree with you on this. What I have difficulty with is having such a position and then voting for the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. That Act was an unacceptable restriction of free speech and one of the reasons at least some of the cartoons from the French publication are shown here in pixilated form is apprehension that showing them entire might well be an offence. The amendments to the Public Order Act included the following:
s29C (1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
(2) References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public."
"Threatening" is not defined.
This Act should be repealed. It would be a fitting and appropriate response to yesterday's disgrace. Our assertions of our principles cannot be merely words. We need to be more vigorous in defending our values, even if some are offended as a result.
Nick, I agree with you on this. What I have difficulty with is having such a position and then voting for the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. That Act was an unacceptable restriction of free speech and one of the reasons at least some of the cartoons from the French publication are shown here in pixilated form is apprehension that showing them entire might well be an offence. The amendments to the Public Order Act included the following:
s29C (1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
(2) References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public."
"Threatening" is not defined.
This Act should be repealed. It would be a fitting and appropriate response to yesterday's disgrace. Our assertions of our principles cannot be merely words. We need to be more vigorous in defending our values, even if some are offended as a result.
I think I'd prefer to see *all* incitement to hatred legislation removed (as opposed to incitement to commit crime).
It legitimises the view that a publication should be banned if an interest group finds it offensive. Also, the 2006 Act was brought in to cover "loopholes" in existing legislation (the police were upset that they couldn't prosecute the producers of The Undercover Mosque for incitement to racial hatred).
What's happening in France is terrible and quite rightly is dominating the news channels.
Politically in the UK it will favour the Tories, which I doubt they are actively seeking but is a reality.
Firstly, it puts strong law and order up the agenda, which pretty much always favours the Tories.
Secondly, its blown Labour's NHS crisis week out of the water. Am I alone in being a tad suspicious of Labour launching their election campaign on the NHS on Sunday, just before a "crisis" suddenly blows up. Vested NHS interests anyone from those who prefer the soft ride they get from labour?
BBC saying that Evans with Oldham off due partly to "threats to staff and their families". If so, that is deeply disturbing.
All this whipped up by the media. They weren't interested when Marlon "14 convictions" King signed for Sheffield United, or killers Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick signed for clubs upon their release from prison.
You may have noticed that Evans, who is out on licence after serving half of his five-year jail sentence, has become the designated lightning rod for anger about rape. (An anger I have long shared.) It’s ironic, given the wide selection of evil bastards out there, that feminists should alight on Evans, who makes a rather pathetic poster boy for rape. To take an example at random, how about Brian Shayanowaka, who poured boiling water over a woman and raped her in August last year, deliberately infecting her with HIV? Shayanowaka was sentenced to 12 years, but only in his absence, because he had fled to Zimbabwe. Absolutely grotesque – yet the sadistic, woman-hating Shayanowaka attracted none of the shrill opprobrium poured on Evans. The same goes for thousands of other rapists all of them, I would contend, posing a far greater danger to my sex than Ched Evans.
You sound like Russell Brand after he has read The God Delusion
I note you are trying to be offensive and no doubt hoping I am upset, but as I am not particularly religious, and have never been to Church, you are wide of the mark.
You say "civil" discourse.. well the "civil" part of it to me is not rubbishing something that is close to someones heart, because one way or the other it doesn't stay civil for long
Libertarianism isn't about saying whatever you like, it is about saying whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt someone else, and so, painful and tiresome as it may be, consideration and judgement have to be used
I agree with you on a lot isam, but I think you are completely and utterly wrong here. Free debate, including polite discourse, teasing, screaming loudly, mockery, accusations and all the rest, is all essential. It's in the back and forth of frenzy of communication that society comes to higher understanding and progress. Holding back weakens that process and prevents people from being exposed to truth. Sometimes a mocking cartoon or a charged accusation can emphasise a point to someone in a way that a delicately worded letter can not. If people don't like to hear things that offend them, they can avoid internet forums and media that contain such views. At some point, people just need to deal with it and accept free public discourse is for the greater good.
"Here's a theory. Terrorists aren't offended by cartoons. Not even cartoons that satirise the Prophet Muhammad. They don't care about satire. For all I know they may not even care about the Prophet Muhammad.
Instead, they merely pretend to be offended by cartoons, in order to give themselves a pretext to commit murder. Murder so horrifying, on a pretext so unWestern, that non-Muslims – blinded by grief and rage – turn on Muslims. Blame them. Persecute them. Burn their book, attack their mosques, threaten them in the street, demand their expulsion from Western societies. Actions that, in turn, scare Western Muslims, isolate them, alienate them. And thus drive some of them to support – and even become – terrorists.
Result: terrorists swell their ranks for a civil war they long to provoke non-Muslims into starting"
Mr. Socrates, I agree entirely, and am a little surprised by Mr. Isam's take on freedom of speech, which seems akin to those who wanted Maajid Nawaz deselected for blasphemy.
I think I'd prefer to see *all* incitement to hatred legislation removed (as opposed to incitement to commit crime).
Yes, I agree with that. We should start from the clear principle that free speech is paramount, and that therefore any restrictions should be kept to the absolute minimum - direct incitement and libel.
We even have a proverb to express the principle, one which used to be heard quite often but now seems to have been largely forgotten: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me"
Mr. Eagles, if you think you're being victimised, just remember when I was all green for the SCD final, until the BBC gerrymandered the rules to let Tom Chambers through, and the subsequent rejigging of bets left me with a far smaller profit margin.
I had spotted the voting system cock-up ahead of time and realised what was going to happen but lacked the funds to lump onto housewife's favourite Chambers.
Although he was the worst dancer of the three he did the best Showdance.
You sound like Russell Brand after he has read The God Delusion
I note you are trying to be offensive and no doubt hoping I am upset, but as I am not particularly religious, and have never been to Church, you are wide of the mark.
You say "civil" discourse.. well the "civil" part of it to me is not rubbishing something that is close to someones heart, because one way or the other it doesn't stay civil for long
Libertarianism isn't about saying whatever you like, it is about saying whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt someone else, and so, painful and tiresome as it may be, consideration and judgement have to be used
I'm not trying to offend or upset you, I didn't even know you were a Muslim.
I just genuinely think people who believe in invisible superheroes believe in stupid shit, and people who think they have strong opinions about cartoons believe in even stupider shit.
People on this site who think the same thing about my opinions won't hesitate to say so, it doesn't matter whether they're close to my heart or not. I don't see why stupid _religious_ opinions should get a pass.
I think Merkel could live with repatriation of car seat regulations!
Jesus:
The report recommended that the EU’s working time directive, water standards, car safety seats and agency working standards should be taken back under Britain’s control.
That's it? That's the starting point of Cameron's repatriation demands? No one can claim the Conservatives are a eurosceptic party any more.
The British Sausage lives on (c) Yes Minister (Party Games)
I am not so easily fooled by Socrates' propaganda. The Working Time Directive and Agency Working Standards are important issues to our economy.
''Subsidiarity and proportionality underpins the application of EU competence in all areas. However, many contributors believed these principles have been insufficiently implemented, '' ''Respondents highlighted the need for greater democratic accountability of EU institutions with some arguing that the ECJ had too wide a margin over interpretation of competence.'' ''the UK has often been successful in shaping the EU agenda. Respondents to the Enlargement report emphasised the UK’s influence in directing reforms of the enlargement process. Other reports highlighted how EU programmes benefit the UK- '' ''respondents also called for further progress in many areas. The need for less and better EU regulation was a common theme in all reports,'' '' many stated the importance of the EU focusing on the areas where it adds genuine value. Member States should retain the ability to take actions appropriate to national circumstances, in recognition that one size does not always fit all. This was particularly true in areas where questions were raised over how far the single market provided a rationale for action.''
I think I'd prefer to see *all* incitement to hatred legislation removed (as opposed to incitement to commit crime).
Yes, I agree with that. We should start from the clear principle that free speech is paramount, and that therefore any restrictions should be kept to the absolute minimum - direct incitement and libel.
We even have a proverb to express the principle, one which used to be heard quite often but now seems to have been largely forgotten: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me"
Virtually every right-of-centre person I speak to on such issues agrees with this. So why haven't the Tories pushed to do it? Why not put it in a manifesto? On social matters like this, I used to always assume the Conservatives were on my side, but their failure to act on such things is a big part of why I lost faith in them.
Result: terrorists swell their ranks for a civil war they long to provoke non-Muslims into starting
B8llocks. They have adopted this gradualist approach for centuries. Whenever they get into pitched battles they get stuffed out of sight. And they know it.
I agree with you that all incitement to hate legislation should be repealed. An incitement to assault or murder someone or to carry out a specific criminal act (such as burn the synagogue) would of course remain illegal, as it was prior to the 2006 Act.
Virtually every right-of-centre person I speak to on such issues agrees with this. So why haven't the Tories pushed to do it? Why not put it in a manifesto? On social matters like this, I used to always assume the Conservatives were on my side, but their failure to act on such things is a big part of why I lost faith in them.
I don't think Cameron agrees with me on this one. I also think the view I expressed is not commonly held amongst younger people. So, whilst I would like legislation to be amended along the lines Sean suggested, I don't think it is likely to happen.
I think Merkel could live with repatriation of car seat regulations!
Jesus:
The report recommended that the EU’s working time directive, water standards, car safety seats and agency working standards should be taken back under Britain’s control.
That's it? That's the starting point of Cameron's repatriation demands? No one can claim the Conservatives are a eurosceptic party any more.
The British Sausage lives on (c) Yes Minister (Party Games)
I am not so easily fooled by Socrates' propaganda. The Working Time Directive and Agency Working Standards are important issues to our economy.
''Subsidiarity and proportionality underpins the application of EU competence in all areas. However, many contributors believed these principles have been insufficiently implemented, '' ''Respondents highlighted the need for greater democratic accountability of EU institutions with some arguing that the ECJ had too wide a margin over interpretation of competence.'' ''the UK has often been successful in shaping the EU agenda. Respondents to the Enlargement report emphasised the UK’s influence in directing reforms of the enlargement process. Other reports highlighted how EU programmes benefit the UK- '' ''respondents also called for further progress in many areas. The need for less and better EU regulation was a common theme in all reports,'' '' many stated the importance of the EU focusing on the areas where it adds genuine value. Member States should retain the ability to take actions appropriate to national circumstances, in recognition that one size does not always fit all. This was particularly true in areas where questions were raised over how far the single market provided a rationale for action.''
The reviews basically came back with an answer the Tories and its euroscpetic backbenchers didn't like - ie. the EU is messy, perhaps not optimal, but it does the job and isn't the beast of europhobe myth - so got quietly buried a week before Christmas!
Virtually every right-of-centre person I speak to on such issues agrees with this. So why haven't the Tories pushed to do it? Why not put it in a manifesto? On social matters like this, I used to always assume the Conservatives were on my side, but their failure to act on such things is a big part of why I lost faith in them.
I don't think Cameron agrees with me on this one. I also think the view I expressed is not commonly held amongst younger people. So, whilst I would like legislation to be amended along the lines Sean suggested, I don't think it is likely to happen.
I think you're confusing the views of students groups with views of younger people. In my experience a great many young people have very libertarian mindsets on such matters, forged in part by internet culture.
EDIT: Kudos for admitting Cameron doesn't take the civil libertarian position here.
I think you're confusing the views of students groups with views of younger people. In my experience a great many young people have very libertarian mindsets on such matters, forged in part by internet culture.
I'm not sure - I think restrictions on disagreeable comments on race or gay rights are widely supported by younger people . (They probably wouldn't be fussed about religion). Certainly any attempt by the Conservatives to un-Harriet the legislation would be portrayed as supporting nasty views, which of course is a logical nonsense but one which I suspect would have a fair bit of political potency.
DavidL - there is to my mind another distinction here, between mocking someone's religion (a matter of taste, as I suggested on the previous thread) and inciting to hatred of its followers. The government has a right to try to prevent civil disorder, and stirring up hatred is clearly undesirable.
To move it to a less emotive area, I've no problem with someone saying that he thinks all Labour policies are ridiculous, but I would think it dubious if someone said that anyone who was Labour was a traitor who should be treated accordingly. In practice, this sort of thing mainly arises in the racial and religious area, which is why the Act is limited to those.
But I'll leave it there - need to do some work. On topic, I don't think PtP is right that NOM is nailed on - the Tory and Labour voting shares are pretty stable, but it's still hard to predict what will happen to the others.
Nick: You are being disingenuous. We already had laws against inciting violence. The Religious Hatred Act was not needed. It was brought in to protect followers of a religion. It is rancid and needs to go.
Those who incite violence against Muslims or Catholics or anyone else can perfectly well be dealt with under existing laws.
Virtually every right-of-centre person I speak to on such issues agrees with this. So why haven't the Tories pushed to do it? Why not put it in a manifesto? On social matters like this, I used to always assume the Conservatives were on my side, but their failure to act on such things is a big part of why I lost faith in them.
I don't think Cameron agrees with me on this one. I also think the view I expressed is not commonly held amongst younger people. So, whilst I would like legislation to be amended along the lines Sean suggested, I don't think it is likely to happen.
I think you're confusing the views of students groups with views of younger people. In my experience a great many young people have very libertarian mindsets on such matters, forged in part by internet culture.
EDIT: Kudos for admitting Cameron doesn't take the civil libertarian position here.
The internet culture of violent shoot em up role play games? Or gross You Tube clips?
the EU is messy, perhaps not optimal, but it does the job and isn't the beast of europhobe myth - so got quietly buried a week before Christmas!
It does the job. Right. Is that why its the only continent where there is no growth??
That's why its share of global trade is shrinking dramatically???
Look at France. Jeez just look at it.
Never mind France, have you seen AEP on the figures on Italy today ?
Italy's political system is going to blow up soon. Its unemployment rate has just reached a modern-era high of 13.4pc, with youth unemployment hitting a record 43.9pc. The Mezzogiorno is sliding from depression towards social collapse.
Mr Draghi issued his own cri de coeur in Helsinki six weeks ago, laying out the "minimum requirements for monetary union". His prescription amounts to an EU superstate, with economic sovereignty to be "exercised jointly".
His plea is Utopian. There is no popular groundswell anywhere for such a vaulting leap forward, and it would imply a technocrat dictatorship beyond democratic control if ever attempted. The northern creditor states have in any case spent the past four years methodically preventing any durable pooling of risk or any step towards fiscal union.
In airing such thoughts, Mr Draghi is really telling us that he no longer thinks EMU can work. Nobody can fault him for lack of effort.
You sound like Russell Brand after he has read The God Delusion
I note you are trying to be offensive and no doubt hoping I am upset, but as I am not particularly religious, and have never been to Church, you are wide of the mark.
You say "civil" discourse.. well the "civil" part of it to me is not rubbishing something that is close to someones heart, because one way or the other it doesn't stay civil for long
Libertarianism isn't about saying whatever you like, it is about saying whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt someone else, and so, painful and tiresome as it may be, consideration and judgement have to be used
I'm not trying to offend or upset you, I didn't even know you were a Muslim.
I just genuinely think people who believe in invisible superheroes believe in stupid shit, and people who think they have strong opinions about cartoons believe in even stupider shit.
People on this site who think the same thing about my opinions won't hesitate to say so, it doesn't matter whether they're close to my heart or not. I don't see why stupid _religious_ opinions should get a pass.
Well I used to think like you, and I don't mean to sound like " But then I saw the light" because you may be right and I am wrong,.. having been right before!
But I don't have disrespect for religion, and I dont care if it is no more based on fact than anything else... if it means something deep to someone, I wouldn't trash it in their face.. even if someone said they held the EU close to their heart and truly believed in it, I would feel bad pissing on their chips!
I am not a muslim! I am not really religious.. token CofE if anything, never been to church
But I don't have disrespect for religion, and I dont care if it is no more based on fact than anything else... if it means something deep to someone, I wouldn't trash it in their face.. even if someone said they held the EU close to their heart and truly believed in it, I would feel bad pissing on their chips!
Fair enough. For future reference, I hold the EU close to my heart and truly believe in it. I trust we won't be hearing any more of this UKIP business.
I think Merkel could live with repatriation of car seat regulations!
Jesus:
The report recommended that the EU’s working time directive, water standards, car safety seats and agency working standards should be taken back under Britain’s control.
That's it? That's the starting point of Cameron's repatriation demands? No one can claim the Conservatives are a eurosceptic party any more.
The British Sausage lives on (c) Yes Minister (Party Games)
I am not so easily fooled by Socrates' propaganda. The Working Time Directive and Agency Working Standards are important issues to our economy.
The reviews basically came back with an answer the Tories and its euroscpetic backbenchers didn't like - ie. the EU is messy, perhaps not optimal, but it does the job and isn't the beast of europhobe myth - so got quietly buried a week before Christmas!
32 reports published regularly and only the last 7 as per programme published in December. There is plenty scope in them, not just the odd snippet picked up by pro EU Mr Palmer and eagerly repeated by anti EU Socrates.
I would refer everyone to the thread on here on 27th January 2010 . The consensus of posters , pollsters and the betting markets for the result in the forthcoming GE was Conservative lead of 8-14% mean 12% Conservative overall majority with circa 350-355 seats to Labour 210-215 seats The immediately previous thread was on CCHQ expectations that the Conservatives would gain 10 seats from the Lib Dems .
I would refer everyone to the thread on here on 27th January 2010 . The consensus of posters , pollsters and the betting markets for the result in the forthcoming GE was Conservative lead of 8-14% mean 12% Conservative overall majority with circa 350-355 seats to Labour 210-215 seats The immediately previous thread was on CCHQ expectations that the Conservatives would gain 10 seats from the Lib Dems .
Where did it all go wrong ?
Quite probably the same way it is going wrong at the moment - too much reliance on the polls not changing much over five months.
I would refer everyone to the thread on here on 27th January 2010 . The consensus of posters , pollsters and the betting markets for the result in the forthcoming GE was Conservative lead of 8-14% mean 12% Conservative overall majority with circa 350-355 seats to Labour 210-215 seats The immediately previous thread was on CCHQ expectations that the Conservatives would gain 10 seats from the Lib Dems .
Where did it all go wrong ?
Tories taking 10 seats from the Lib Dems is about a par prediction is it not ?
But I don't have disrespect for religion, and I dont care if it is no more based on fact than anything else... if it means something deep to someone, I wouldn't trash it in their face.. even if someone said they held the EU close to their heart and truly believed in it, I would feel bad pissing on their chips!
What about if we leave satire and taking the piss to one side and talk about proper informed debate, possibly quite heated informed debate. I still think that a) that would cause the same problem, possibly worse because its implied or explicit criticism, and b) would probably be declared unlawful because its would be seen as inspiring religious hatred.
When are afraid to have a full-on informed debate on something, the endarkenment has really arrived.
The Intelligence Squared debate on "Is the Catholic Church a force for Good" is a textbook televised debate (www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwP4C5hjo4Y 46mins of the speeches, www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIHw0fZNOA 2hrs including votes etc), can anyone imagine a similar debate being held under similar conditions about Islam ?
I would refer everyone to the thread on here on 27th January 2010 . The consensus of posters , pollsters and the betting markets for the result in the forthcoming GE was Conservative lead of 8-14% mean 12% Conservative overall majority with circa 350-355 seats to Labour 210-215 seats The immediately previous thread was on CCHQ expectations that the Conservatives would gain 10 seats from the Lib Dems .
Where did it all go wrong ?
Cameron's team under-performed, the Labour side got their shit together and the debates shook things up. But all kinds of things could produce a similar-sized move in either direction, hence the wisdom of Nick Palmer's point up-thread about the probability of NOM.
Then the eurozone imposed ultra Austerity upon itself and faded.
Now you are openly contradicting yourself. First up the EU was 'working' and suddenly its economic policy is at fault for France's epically dismal performance in recent years.
I would refer everyone to the thread on here on 27th January 2010 . The consensus of posters , pollsters and the betting markets for the result in the forthcoming GE was Conservative lead of 8-14% mean 12% Conservative overall majority with circa 350-355 seats to Labour 210-215 seats The immediately previous thread was on CCHQ expectations that the Conservatives would gain 10 seats from the Lib Dems .
Where did it all go wrong ?
Tories taking 10 seats from the Lib Dems is about a par prediction is it not ?
Wow look at the difference in what two million quid gets you. If I had a few million I know where I'd rather live.
Good.This will strengthen Murphy in Scotland standing up to London and London Labour.It makes those of us who are not very keen on London in England feel good too.Long may the cockney Russians whine.
You know that Kipper councillor that was dumped by the party because she said something to the BBC that was really shocking but no one would say what it was.
Well the Times has found out what she said.
A Ukip councillor was expelled from the party for allegedly saying that she had a problem with “negroes” because there was “something about their faces,” The Times can reveal.
Rozanne Duncan was kicked out last month after making “jaw-dropping” remarks to a BBC documentary-maker, but both the party and the broadcaster declined to reveal what she had said.
I would refer everyone to the thread on here on 27th January 2010 . The consensus of posters , pollsters and the betting markets for the result in the forthcoming GE was Conservative lead of 8-14% mean 12% Conservative overall majority with circa 350-355 seats to Labour 210-215 seats The immediately previous thread was on CCHQ expectations that the Conservatives would gain 10 seats from the Lib Dems .
Where did it all go wrong ?
Tories taking 10 seats from the Lib Dems is about a par prediction is it not ?
You sound like Russell Brand after he has read The God Delusion
I note you are trying to be offensive and no doubt hoping I am upset, but as I am not particularly religious, and have never been to Church, you are wide of the mark.
You say "civil" discourse.. well the "civil" part of it to me is not rubbishing something that is close to someones heart, because one way or the other it doesn't stay civil for long
Libertarianism isn't about saying whatever you like, it is about saying whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt someone else, and so, painful and tiresome as it may be, consideration and judgement have to be used
I'm not trying to offend or upset you, I didn't even know you were a Muslim.
I just genuinely think people who believe in invisible superheroes believe in stupid shit, and people who think they have strong opinions about cartoons believe in even stupider shit.
People on this site who think the same thing about my opinions won't hesitate to say so, it doesn't matter whether they're close to my heart or not. I don't see why stupid _religious_ opinions should get a pass.
Well I used to think like you, and I don't mean to sound like " But then I saw the light" because you may be right and I am wrong,.. having been right before!
But I don't have disrespect for religion, and I dont care if it is no more based on fact than anything else... if it means something deep to someone, I wouldn't trash it in their face.. even if someone said they held the EU close to their heart and truly believed in it, I would feel bad pissing on their chips!
I am not a muslim! I am not really religious.. token CofE if anything, never been to church
Sam I think you are confusing the law and good manners. Manners are an underrated public good and should be encouraged but being ill-mannered is a matter of personal choice, not a matter for the law.
I would never talk about Sky Fairies or superstitions in front of anyone who I knew to be religious or indeed in front of anyone I didn't know had a religious belief or not. But that is a matter of manners and a reluctance to give unnecessary offence; it is not a matter for the law.
I would even agree with you that manners means you are much less likely to express incredulity about the fact someone is religious than the fact that they support Arsenal, to take an extreme example. Both might be examples in my mind of clear wrong headedness but one deserves more self restraint than the other. But this is again not a matter for the law.
the EU is messy, perhaps not optimal, but it does the job and isn't the beast of europhobe myth - so got quietly buried a week before Christmas!
It does the job. Right. Is that why its the only continent where there is no growth??
That's why its share of global trade is shrinking dramatically???
Look at France. Jeez just look at it.
France recovered quicker than the UK from the Global crisis, as did Germany.
Then the eurozone imposed ultra Austerity upon itself and faded.
France and Germany have had far less austerity than the UK has had. The reason for their economic depression is a four letter word that begins in "e" and ends in "o".
I think I'd prefer to see *all* incitement to hatred legislation removed (as opposed to incitement to commit crime).
Yes, I agree with that. We should start from the clear principle that free speech is paramount, and that therefore any restrictions should be kept to the absolute minimum - direct incitement and libel.
We even have a proverb to express the principle, one which used to be heard quite often but now seems to have been largely forgotten: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me"
But what happens when incitement to hatred leads to someone who is thereby incited committing violence? 'I incite hatred against homosexuals. Gullible loony is incited to hate homosexuals. Homosexual is assaulted by the incited gullible loony out of hatred.' Of course it does not have to be assault it can be simple discrimination because someone has been incited into hatred. You seem to think that incitement is always going to fail or is harmeless 'words' and have no consequences.
Incitement is of course very cowardly and one persons incitement is anothers dog whistle.
I think Merkel could live with repatriation of car seat regulations!
Jesus:
The report recommended that the EU’s working time directive, water standards, car safety seats and agency working standards should be taken back under Britain’s control.
That's it? That's the starting point of Cameron's repatriation demands? No one can claim the Conservatives are a eurosceptic party any more.
The British Sausage lives on (c) Yes Minister (Party Games)
I am not so easily fooled by Socrates' propaganda. The Working Time Directive and Agency Working Standards are important issues to our economy.
The reviews basically came back with an answer the Tories and its euroscpetic backbenchers didn't like - ie. the EU is messy, perhaps not optimal, but it does the job and isn't the beast of europhobe myth - so got quietly buried a week before Christmas!
32 reports published regularly and only the last 7 as per programme published in December. There is plenty scope in them, not just the odd snippet picked up by pro EU Mr Palmer and eagerly repeated by anti EU Socrates.
And none of them reflect the EU paranoia that has taken hold in this country.
My personal highlight was the migration one whose positive appraisal of EU migration caused total consternation in the usual eurosceptic circles. Which is why the reports have since largely been ignored by the frothing Murdoch, Rothermere and Barclay brothers press.
Had the conclusions of thse reports (no doubt the driving aim when Hague kicked them off) chimed with their prejudices and the equally wrongheaded prejudices of too many in the Tory Party (let's ignore the impotent wailing of the fading kippers) then all hell would have broken loose! The reports would be held up repeatedly as evidence of the behemoth lurking in Brussels and other such tosh.
As it is, the EU is proven by the Tories themselves to be nothing more than what those of us who take a pragmatic line about it warned you lot these reports would show it to be: a dull necessity.
We import vast numbers of people from an alien culture.
In that alien culture, to insult their prophet is, for over a thousand years, to invite death. We know this, and cannot pretend otherwise.
The argument that they "choose" to believe and are therefore fair game is specious nonsense.
They no more choose to believe in Islam than they choose to be black or brown or whatever. The vast majority are born into it - a few may convert to Islam after some epiphany, but that is neither here or there.
So we build an edifice that gives special protection to aliens in every respect, bar one. You cannot mock a man for his skin colour, his cultural dress, his language, his accent, his culinary and cultural practices, etc., yet we demand the right to [literally, in extremis] piss on his religion, something he values more highly and intensely than all the aforementioned put together!
Virtually every right-of-centre person I speak to on such issues agrees with this. So why haven't the Tories pushed to do it? Why not put it in a manifesto? On social matters like this, I used to always assume the Conservatives were on my side, but their failure to act on such things is a big part of why I lost faith in them.
I don't think Cameron agrees with me on this one. I also think the view I expressed is not commonly held amongst younger people. So, whilst I would like legislation to be amended along the lines Sean suggested, I don't think it is likely to happen.
I think you're confusing the views of students groups with views of younger people. In my experience a great many young people have very libertarian mindsets on such matters, forged in part by internet culture.
EDIT: Kudos for admitting Cameron doesn't take the civil libertarian position here.
The internet culture of violent shoot em up role play games? Or gross You Tube clips?
Those and online forums full rambunctious debate! When I checked this morning, the top post on reddit (possibly the biggest discussion forum on the internet) was a drawing of Muhammed.
You know that Kipper councillor that was dumped by the party because she said something to the BBC that was really shocking but no one would say what it was.
Well the Times has found out what she said.
A Ukip councillor was expelled from the party for allegedly saying that she had a problem with “negroes” because there was “something about their faces,” The Times can reveal.
Rozanne Duncan was kicked out last month after making “jaw-dropping” remarks to a BBC documentary-maker, but both the party and the broadcaster declined to reveal what she had said.
A point about the OFCOM ruling (if they confirm it in March) which seems not to have attracted much attention is that it explicitly gives comparable standing to UKIP as a major party to others *for the purposes of broadcast coverage and PPBs*. That's just as important as the debates, since up to now we've been assuming that April/May will be dominated by Con/Lab/LD coverage. If there's going to be a comparable amount of stuff about UKIP, the terms of the campaign and the probability of a UKIP decline are markedly affected.
Nigel Farage is wrong on much, but on this is he correct and crystal clear.
Charlie Hebdo is the fault of those in power. The fact British papers are terrified of printing these cartoons is not the fault of journalists, but of politicians who are failing completely to protect them.
If you're looking for someone to blame, blame those who are in power. They are the architects of the society we live in.
Mr. Socrates, I agree entirely, and am a little surprised by Mr. Isam's take on freedom of speech, which seems akin to those who wanted Maajid Nawaz deselected for blasphemy.
Do we still have any blasphemy laws on the books by the way? Time to repeal if we do.
(and blasphemy against which religion? the concept of blasphemy laws surely enshrines the rights of one religion over another in law. I strongly feel that the flying spaghetti monster - all hail his noodly appendage - will be sorely displeased with how all the recent events in Paris and associated heartsearching are distracting thoughts and actions from obeisance to the one true god...)
Trying to figure out which side this guy is actually on? Miliband and the election team must be spitting nails. The way this is panning out Murphy would be better suited to the SNP ( or maybe not given the damage he's inflicting)
A virtual impossibility I suppose but what if SLAB and SNP combined forces for another referendum? I know they hate each other with a passion but my enemies enemy is my friend seems to be the order of the day the way Murphy " I am leader of Scottish Labour and Dianne and Ed can get stuffed" is treating Westminster.
Mind you he may not have many seats to bargain with because if you vote Labour in this circumstance the Scot's are better voting for the real thingy that is SNP.
It's a bit of a can of devoluted worms Labour has opened up here.
the EU is messy, perhaps not optimal, but it does the job and isn't the beast of europhobe myth - so got quietly buried a week before Christmas!
It does the job. Right. Is that why its the only continent where there is no growth??
That's why its share of global trade is shrinking dramatically???
Look at France. Jeez just look at it.
France recovered quicker than the UK from the Global crisis, as did Germany.
Then the eurozone imposed ultra Austerity upon itself and faded.
France and Germany have had far less austerity than the UK has had. The reason for their economic depression is a four letter word that begins in "e" and ends in "o".
Germany does not have economic depression. While growth is anaemic, that is not the same as a depression. German GDP per capita has, I believe, managed to rise in every year since 2008 and unemployment is at a 20 year low.
Whilst I do like the South, except Mississippi and Arkansas, I'm more of a New Yorker/New Englander/California type chap
Ah, then can I suggest Durham, NC - it's like the north east, but in the south(ish). Lots of techy geeks have moved down there, and the city centre is nothing like most skyscraper filled US cities.
1. the people who have been 'imported' did not choose to come here (they did).
2. they weren;t aware of the social state of play in Britain before they came (ie 90% white boozy secular) (they were).
Get real. They want our advantages but their culture. It does not seem to occur to them we have our advantages because we have our culture, and not theirs.
It's time that point was made to them in no uncertain terms.
We import vast numbers of people from an alien culture.
In that alien culture, to insult their prophet is, for over a thousand years, to invite death. We know this, and cannot pretend otherwise.
The argument that they "choose" to believe and are therefore fair game is specious nonsense.
They no more choose to believe in Islam than they choose to be black or brown or whatever. The vast majority are born into it - a few may convert to Islam after some epiphany, but that is neither here or there.
So we build an edifice that gives special protection to aliens in every respect, bar one. You cannot mock a man for his skin colour, his cultural dress, his language, his accent, his culinary and cultural practices, etc., yet we demand the right to [literally, in extremis] piss on his religion, something he values more highly and intensely than all the aforementioned put together!
Are we quite mad?
you imply that muslim culture is unchanged in 1000 years and unchanged in this country since large scale immigration began. I don't think this is exactly true. (It's not my culture so I'm not sure, but). My impression is that the younger generation is much less inclined to enlightenment values than the older- partly , I suppose, due to the importation of a particular political brand of islamism sponsored by our friends and allies the saudis.
either way, i think the situation is more nuanced than you suggest
You know that Kipper councillor that was dumped by the party because she said something to the BBC that was really shocking but no one would say what it was.
Well the Times has found out what she said.
A Ukip councillor was expelled from the party for allegedly saying that she had a problem with “negroes” because there was “something about their faces,” The Times can reveal.
Rozanne Duncan was kicked out last month after making “jaw-dropping” remarks to a BBC documentary-maker, but both the party and the broadcaster declined to reveal what she had said.
Whilst I do like the South, except Mississippi and Arkansas, I'm more of a New Yorker/New Englander/California type chap
Ah, then can I suggest Durham, NC - it's like the north east, but in the south(ish). Lots of techy geeks have moved down there, and the city centre is nothing like most skyscraper filled US cities.
Is that your way of saying it is like Middlesbrough?
1. the people who have been 'imported' did not choose to come here (they did).
2. they weren;t aware of the social state of play in Britain before they came (ie 90% white boozy secular) (they were).
Get real. They want our advantages but their culture. It does not seem to occur to them we have our advantages because we have our culture, and not theirs.
It's time that point was made to them in no uncertain terms.
I thought I'd leave it to someone else to reach the logical conclusion... Well done, sir!
the EU is messy, perhaps not optimal, but it does the job and isn't the beast of europhobe myth - so got quietly buried a week before Christmas!
It does the job. Right. Is that why its the only continent where there is no growth??
That's why its share of global trade is shrinking dramatically???
Look at France. Jeez just look at it.
France recovered quicker than the UK from the Global crisis, as did Germany.
Then the eurozone imposed ultra Austerity upon itself and faded.
France and Germany have had far less austerity than the UK has had. The reason for their economic depression is a four letter word that begins in "e" and ends in "o".
''Mr Hollande is paying the price for a failed strategy in his first two years in office when he clung to the old model and relied on tax rises rather than spending cuts to cover austerity packages. The state sector has risen to 57pc of GDP, suffocating the private economy.'' ''Yet the country is also caught in a vicious circle as it tries to meet EMU deficit rules, forced to push through successive austerity packages without offsetting monetary stimulus or a weaker currency. The IMF said France’s exchange rate is over-valued by 5-10pc.'' ''President Hollande has made his peace with the employers’ federation Medef this year, launching a burst of Gallic Thatcherism. He is pushing through tax relief for business and a shake-up of labour markets along with wage freezes, despite ever-louder protests from his Socialist Party base. The IMF praised the package of measures but said dismissal rules are still among the most restrictive in the OECD club of rich states, and there has been “no progress” on product market reform for five years. At best it will take years to pull France out of its deep malaise.'' (Ambrose Evans-Pritchard . Telegraph June '14)
The inevitable consequence of the Euro must surely be ever closer fiscal as well as monetary union leading to de facto political union, at least on a macro scale.
Hence the need for renegotiations as outlined in the Govts. 32 reports on the subject.
Whilst I do like the South, except Mississippi and Arkansas, I'm more of a New Yorker/New Englander/California type chap
Ah, then can I suggest Durham, NC - it's like the north east, but in the south(ish). Lots of techy geeks have moved down there, and the city centre is nothing like most skyscraper filled US cities.
Is that your way of saying it is like Middlesbrough?
I think you're confusing the views of students groups with views of younger people. In my experience a great many young people have very libertarian mindsets on such matters, forged in part by internet culture.
I would say it's the opposite. Young people on line go absolutely bananas about perceived racism, sexism, and homophobia. Really seriously over-the-top blowing-their-fuse angry. And usually it's taking offence on some other party's behalf.
You must have seen Tumblr, and heard of SJWs, and seen the memes, and twitter hashtags, and petitions.
The internet definitely had a libertarian culture in the past, but that's long gone now.
Whilst I do like the South, except Mississippi and Arkansas, I'm more of a New Yorker/New Englander/California type chap
Ah, then can I suggest Durham, NC - it's like the north east, but in the south(ish). Lots of techy geeks have moved down there, and the city centre is nothing like most skyscraper filled US cities.
Boulder, CO was a nice place while I was there in 2011.
As it is, the EU is proven by the Tories themselves to be nothing more than what those of us who take a pragmatic line about it warned you lot these reports would show it to be: a dull necessity.
Euroscepticism is bunk.
I notice the ease with with you dismiss the views of your fellow countrymen.
A brief inspection of the BES Survey shows three quarters of the public want immigration reduced, half of them want it reduced by a lot. The same survey, and other recent surveys have shown that this is the most important issue for voters. Immigration cannot be meaningfully reduced while we are in the EU. Ergo the majority of people at least implicitly want to leave the EU.
Mind you he may not have many seats to bargain with because if you vote Labour in this circumstance the Scot's are better voting for the real thingy that is SNP.
It's a bit of a can of devoluted worms Labour has opened up here.
@Socrates: also Germany and France have had more economic austerity than we've had. Spending in real terms in Germany and France has declined more than in the UK. I've published the government spending as a percent GDP data in the past, and IIRC, France has gone from 61% to 56%. I realise that's a little bit like saying "Mike has his alcohol consumption under control, he's gone from three bottles of whisky a day to two", but it is patently incorrect to say that France and Germany have not cut government spending.
In response to Indigo, Isam, Flightpath and others:-
Exactly so.
This is about ensuring that a religion does not get to dictate the limits of speech and behaviour of non-believers, does not get to carve out a space where they answer to an authority other than the laws of our land.
You simply cannot have a group of people living in a country who have values fundamentally incompatible with the values of our civilization and who answer to an authority which is not the law of our land.
30 years ago I couldn't have cared less about Islam. What made me take an interest was when I saw book burning and threats of violence to a writer on the streets of Britain by British citizens at the behest of a foreign political/religious leader. I thought then that that was very ominous and a very bad sign indeed if if it was not stamped down hard on. And it wasn't. And now look where we are.
I do not go round insulting Muslims or others. I have had nothing but hospitality and friendliness in the two Muslim countries I have visited: Turkey and Kashmir. Those mosques I have visited often seem to me to be places of great calm and beauty and peacefulness.
I am a practising half-Irish Catholic so I understand what it is to have a religious sensibility and to hear insulting comments about my religion and my nationality and the propensity of Irish Catholics to commit violence.
But when I hear people telling me that I cannot say this or that about Islam - and, frankly, the more I've learnt about it and its Islamist offshoot, the less I've been impressed - then my reaction is to say what I think and the more frankly the better, precisely to make the point that I am - and should be - free to do so. I will shut up when those who are trying to shut down my freedom stop doing so.
People may well be offended. But they have a choice as to how to react. If you don't like what you are reading and seeing, don't read it. Don't look. The fact that people choose not to do it but to take active - and sometimes violent - steps is evidence to me that this is not about assuaging hurt feelings but about using this pretext as a way of controlling what others say and do.
And, frankly, a religion that is so insecure and brittle that it cannot survive a bit of criticism is not one worth saving or respecting, in my opinion.
I think you're confusing the views of students groups with views of younger people. In my experience a great many young people have very libertarian mindsets on such matters, forged in part by internet culture.
The internet definitely had a libertarian culture in the past, but that's long gone now.
You clearly don't go to Buzzfeed or 9gag or many of the most popular sites for teens....
Really - go to 9gag and have a laugh. Very libertarian on occasion.
Whilst I do like the South, except Mississippi and Arkansas, I'm more of a New Yorker/New Englander/California type chap
Ah, then can I suggest Durham, NC - it's like the north east, but in the south(ish). Lots of techy geeks have moved down there, and the city centre is nothing like most skyscraper filled US cities.
Is that your way of saying it is like Middlesbrough?
The A19/A66 junction just outside 'Boro is one of the few fully-free flowing interchanges between two A-roads (as opposed to Motorways).
We import vast numbers of people from an alien culture.
....
Are we quite mad?
Yes, we shouldn't have imported vast numbers, then it wouldn't have been an issue.
But anyway that's tosh, we didn't force anyone at gunpoint to come here. What we should have done is explained to people coming here that these were our values, we allow anyone to criticize, debate, argue or mock anything, if they can't cope with that, there are other countries they might find more agreeable to settle in. Asking our population to give up their rights, to placate people choosing to come to our country, and threatening to be violent if we dont, it both undemocratic, dangerous, and idiotic.
France, contrary to popular belief, is actually doing ok, broadly flatlining.
We are currently doing the best and our lead should increase over 2015 as we have much faster growth forecasted than any of the EZ. Greece, of course, is a basket case and has dragged Cyprus down with it. Italy has much greater problems than France.
@Socrates: also Germany and France have had more economic austerity than we've had. Spending in real terms in Germany and France has declined more than in the UK. I've published the government spending as a percent GDP data in the past, and IIRC, France has gone from 61% to 56%. I realise that's a little bit like saying "Mike has his alcohol consumption under control, he's gone from three bottles of whisky a day to two", but it is patently incorrect to say that France and Germany have not cut government spending.
Percentage of GDP is not very comparable when the denominator is jumping around so much. You need to look at real absolute levels.
Those and online forums full rambunctious debate! When I checked this morning, the top post on reddit (possibly the biggest discussion forum on the internet) was a drawing of Muhammed.
That same reddit will go completely nuts if a Republican politician says something ever so mildly offensive. Post anything even remotely controversial there and it will be buried by down votes.
@Socrates: also Germany and France have had more economic austerity than we've had. Spending in real terms in Germany and France has declined more than in the UK. I've published the government spending as a percent GDP data in the past, and IIRC, France has gone from 61% to 56%. I realise that's a little bit like saying "Mike has his alcohol consumption under control, he's gone from three bottles of whisky a day to two", but it is patently incorrect to say that France and Germany have not cut government spending.
Percentage of GDP is not very comparable when the denominator is jumping around so much. You need to look at real absolute levels.
I think you're confusing the views of students groups with views of younger people. In my experience a great many young people have very libertarian mindsets on such matters, forged in part by internet culture.
The internet definitely had a libertarian culture in the past, but that's long gone now.
You clearly don't go to Buzzfeed or 9gag or many of the most popular sites for teens....
Really - go to 9gag and have a laugh. Very libertarian on occasion.
I don't go to 9gag but I do read a lot of different forums, and I simply disagree about how open minded and libertarian the internet is said to be. If you hold the "wrong" opinions you will soon see how censorious it is. The internet did used to be very libertarian, probably too much so in the days when Usenet was the big thing and the attitude was anything goes.
1. the people who have been 'imported' did not choose to come here (they did).
2. they weren;t aware of the social state of play in Britain before they came (ie 90% white boozy secular) (they were).
Get real. They want our advantages but their culture. It does not seem to occur to them we have our advantages because we have our culture, and not theirs.
I think I'd prefer to see *all* incitement to hatred legislation removed (as opposed to incitement to commit crime).
Yes, I agree with that. We should start from the clear principle that free speech is paramount, and that therefore any restrictions should be kept to the absolute minimum - direct incitement and libel.
We even have a proverb to express the principle, one which used to be heard quite often but now seems to have been largely forgotten: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me"
But what happens when incitement to hatred leads to someone who is thereby incited committing violence? 'I incite hatred against homosexuals. Gullible loony is incited to hate homosexuals. Homosexual is assaulted by the incited gullible loony out of hatred.' Of course it does not have to be assault it can be simple discrimination because someone has been incited into hatred. You seem to think that incitement is always going to fail or is harmeless 'words' and have no consequences.
Incitement is of course very cowardly and one persons incitement is anothers dog whistle.
"Hating" someone is not a criminal offence. The principle is therefore clear. Incitement to commit a crime should be a criminal offence. Incitement to hatred should not be.
It can fairly be argued that almost any passionate religious or political opinion incites hatred. But, protecting free speech should be paramount.
In your scenario, the responsibility for assaulting the homosexual rests with his assailant. Unless the other person has encouraged him to commit the assault, he should not face prosecution.
Comments
Malaysia's ok, Bahrain is normally a dog (but was fantastic last year, so we'll see how that goes), Canada and Britain are good, Hungary's the most boring circuit outside of Singapore and Monaco, Spa and Suzuka are very good, Russia was a bit tedious [NB it may be similar to Australia, which may help McLaren], Interlagos is fantastic and Abu Dhabi is rubbish.
Overall, a decent list, for one that's half what it should be due to the BBC having Judas Iscariot in charge of its F1 division. We're missing the return of Mexico and it'd be good to see Italy, but there we are.
I am not convinced we should leave either, provided our essential interests are protected internally. David MacAllister again made the point that the UK and the Germans typically work together to ensure the EU remains competitive and trade focussed. An EU without the UK may well prove to be more inward looking and more likely to build fences rather than bridges. We have a lot more to contribute to the EU than our money.
That leaves one, which is employment regulation. I was being entirely accurate.
So where are the demands on the CAP, structural funds, fisheries, the EU budget, a finance sector veto, emergency brake on immigration, etc? They've all disappeared. Boasting that you're still fighting one battle (and two partial) battles out of 14 is pretty lame.
It legitimises the view that a publication should be banned if an interest group finds it offensive. Also, the 2006 Act was brought in to cover "loopholes" in existing legislation (the police were upset that they couldn't prosecute the producers of The Undercover Mosque for incitement to racial hatred).
http://politicalbookie.com/2015/01/08/bookies-predict-turnout-rise-for-general-election/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11331866/Charlie-Hebdo-attack-Europe-has-a-terrorism-problem-not-a-Muslim-problem.html
What's happening in France is terrible and quite rightly is dominating the news channels.
Politically in the UK it will favour the Tories, which I doubt they are actively seeking but is a reality.
Firstly, it puts strong law and order up the agenda, which pretty much always favours the Tories.
Secondly, its blown Labour's NHS crisis week out of the water. Am I alone in being a tad suspicious of Labour launching their election campaign on the NHS on Sunday, just before a "crisis" suddenly blows up. Vested NHS interests anyone from those who prefer the soft ride they get from labour?
That is a nauseating article. Nauseating.
"Here's a theory. Terrorists aren't offended by cartoons. Not even cartoons that satirise the Prophet Muhammad. They don't care about satire. For all I know they may not even care about the Prophet Muhammad.
Instead, they merely pretend to be offended by cartoons, in order to give themselves a pretext to commit murder. Murder so horrifying, on a pretext so unWestern, that non-Muslims – blinded by grief and rage – turn on Muslims. Blame them. Persecute them. Burn their book, attack their mosques, threaten them in the street, demand their expulsion from Western societies. Actions that, in turn, scare Western Muslims, isolate them, alienate them. And thus drive some of them to support – and even become – terrorists.
Result: terrorists swell their ranks for a civil war they long to provoke non-Muslims into starting"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11332535/We-think-the-Paris-terrorists-were-offended-by-Charlie-Hebdos-satire.-What-if-were-wrong.html
Sadly, I don't believe that's true. I'd very much like someone to convince me otherwise, however.
Also, no comments under that one, I see. The mods must need a break, I'd guess!
We even have a proverb to express the principle, one which used to be heard quite often but now seems to have been largely forgotten: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me"
Although he was the worst dancer of the three he did the best Showdance.
I just genuinely think people who believe in invisible superheroes believe in stupid shit, and people who think they have strong opinions about cartoons believe in even stupider shit.
People on this site who think the same thing about my opinions won't hesitate to say so, it doesn't matter whether they're close to my heart or not. I don't see why stupid _religious_ opinions should get a pass.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/final-reports-in-review-of-eu-balance-of-competences-published
''Subsidiarity and proportionality underpins the application of EU competence in all areas. However, many contributors believed these principles have been insufficiently implemented, ''
''Respondents highlighted the need for greater democratic accountability of EU institutions with some arguing that the ECJ had too wide a margin over interpretation of competence.''
''the UK has often been successful in shaping the EU agenda. Respondents to the Enlargement report emphasised the UK’s influence in directing reforms of the enlargement process. Other reports highlighted how EU programmes benefit the UK- ''
''respondents also called for further progress in many areas. The need for less and better EU regulation was a common theme in all reports,''
'' many stated the importance of the EU focusing on the areas where it adds genuine value. Member States should retain the ability to take actions appropriate to national circumstances, in recognition that one size does not always fit all. This was particularly true in areas where questions were raised over how far the single market provided a rationale for action.''
I'm assuming the SNP haven't set up an oil fund because oil is now $50 a barrel cheaper than their worst case scenario?
I loved the "I predict that turnout will be less that 75%" Indyref money from September.
B8llocks. They have adopted this gradualist approach for centuries. Whenever they get into pitched battles they get stuffed out of sight. And they know it.
I agree with you that all incitement to hate legislation should be repealed. An incitement to assault or murder someone or to carry out a specific criminal act (such as burn the synagogue) would of course remain illegal, as it was prior to the 2006 Act.
This would no doubt mean tolerating some seriously objectionable sermons by some Muslim clerics but, as SeanT pointed out in one of his better pieces, we never prosecute them anyway:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100250831/laws-against-inciting-hatred-funny-how-an-islamist-hate-preacher-is-never-prosecuted/
Mr. Tokyo, quite right [and I do disagree with you all the time ].
Mr. Alistair, indeed, it was a travesty. Boo hiss!
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-46732934.html?premiumA=true
EDIT: Kudos for admitting Cameron doesn't take the civil libertarian position here.
It does the job. Right. Is that why its the only continent where there is no growth??
That's why its share of global trade is shrinking dramatically???
Look at France. Jeez just look at it.
Those who incite violence against Muslims or Catholics or anyone else can perfectly well be dealt with under existing laws.
from the same article
But I don't have disrespect for religion, and I dont care if it is no more based on fact than anything else... if it means something deep to someone, I wouldn't trash it in their face.. even if someone said they held the EU close to their heart and truly believed in it, I would feel bad pissing on their chips!
I am not a muslim! I am not really religious.. token CofE if anything, never been to church
Conservative lead of 8-14% mean 12%
Conservative overall majority with circa 350-355 seats to Labour 210-215 seats
The immediately previous thread was on CCHQ expectations that the Conservatives would gain 10 seats from the Lib Dems .
Where did it all go wrong ?
I would vote for the party that put this in its manifesto, whatever other rancid sh8t it was promising.
North Cornwall (10th Tory target)
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/cornwall-north/winning-party
6-5 Tories, 100% of bets taken, 8-11 Lib Dems - so that prediction is looking largely plausible and "roughly" where the money lies at the moment.
When are afraid to have a full-on informed debate on something, the endarkenment has really arrived.
The Intelligence Squared debate on "Is the Catholic Church a force for Good" is a textbook televised debate (www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwP4C5hjo4Y 46mins of the speeches, www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIHw0fZNOA 2hrs including votes etc), can anyone imagine a similar debate being held under similar conditions about Islam ?
Then the eurozone imposed ultra Austerity upon itself and faded.
http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/8347-Providence-Rd_Charlotte_NC_28277_M55584-94628?row=4
Now you are openly contradicting yourself. First up the EU was 'working' and suddenly its economic policy is at fault for France's epically dismal performance in recent years.
*innocent face*
Oops !
I would never talk about Sky Fairies or superstitions in front of anyone who I knew to be religious or indeed in front of anyone I didn't know had a religious belief or not. But that is a matter of manners and a reluctance to give unnecessary offence; it is not a matter for the law.
I would even agree with you that manners means you are much less likely to express incredulity about the fact someone is religious than the fact that they support Arsenal, to take an extreme example. Both might be examples in my mind of clear wrong headedness but one deserves more self restraint than the other. But this is again not a matter for the law.
Of course it does not have to be assault it can be simple discrimination because someone has been incited into hatred. You seem to think that incitement is always going to fail or is harmeless 'words' and have no consequences.
Incitement is of course very cowardly and one persons incitement is anothers dog whistle.
Whilst I do like the South, except Mississippi and Arkansas, I'm more of a New Yorker/New Englander/California type chap
My personal highlight was the migration one whose positive appraisal of EU migration caused total consternation in the usual eurosceptic circles. Which is why the reports have since largely been ignored by the frothing Murdoch, Rothermere and Barclay brothers press.
Had the conclusions of thse reports (no doubt the driving aim when Hague kicked them off) chimed with their prejudices and the equally wrongheaded prejudices of too many in the Tory Party (let's ignore the impotent wailing of the fading kippers) then all hell would have broken loose! The reports would be held up repeatedly as evidence of the behemoth lurking in Brussels and other such tosh.
As it is, the EU is proven by the Tories themselves to be nothing more than what those of us who take a pragmatic line about it warned you lot these reports would show it to be: a dull necessity.
Euroscepticism is bunk.
In that alien culture, to insult their prophet is, for over a thousand years, to invite death. We know this, and cannot pretend otherwise.
The argument that they "choose" to believe and are therefore fair game is specious nonsense.
They no more choose to believe in Islam than they choose to be black or brown or whatever. The vast majority are born into it - a few may convert to Islam after some epiphany, but that is neither here or there.
So we build an edifice that gives special protection to aliens in every respect, bar one. You cannot mock a man for his skin colour, his cultural dress, his language, his accent, his culinary and cultural practices, etc., yet we demand the right to [literally, in extremis] piss on his religion, something he values more highly and intensely than all the aforementioned put together!
Are we quite mad?
Nigel Farage is wrong on much, but on this is he correct and crystal clear.
Charlie Hebdo is the fault of those in power. The fact British papers are terrified of printing these cartoons is not the fault of journalists, but of politicians who are failing completely to protect them.
If you're looking for someone to blame, blame those who are in power. They are the architects of the society we live in.
Turns out an Oldham board member was told the address of where his daughter works, and that she'd be raped if Ched Evans was signed.
(and blasphemy against which religion? the concept of blasphemy laws surely enshrines the rights of one religion over another in law. I strongly feel that the flying spaghetti monster - all hail his noodly appendage - will be sorely displeased with how all the recent events in Paris and associated heartsearching are distracting thoughts and actions from obeisance to the one true god...)
A virtual impossibility I suppose but what if SLAB and SNP combined forces for another referendum? I know they hate each other with a passion but my enemies enemy is my friend seems to be the order of the day the way Murphy " I am leader of Scottish Labour and Dianne and Ed can get stuffed" is treating Westminster.
Mind you he may not have many seats to bargain with because if you vote Labour in this circumstance the Scot's are better voting for the real thingy that is SNP.
It's a bit of a can of devoluted worms Labour has opened up here.
But I think that God has a sick sense of humour
And when I die
I expect to find him laughing
- Depeche Mode, 1984.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZRGPg5laDU
You make two utterly nonsensical assumptions
1. the people who have been 'imported' did not choose to come here (they did).
2. they weren;t aware of the social state of play in Britain before they came (ie 90% white boozy secular) (they were).
Get real. They want our advantages but their culture. It does not seem to occur to them we have our advantages because we have our culture, and not theirs.
It's time that point was made to them in no uncertain terms.
either way, i think the situation is more nuanced than you suggest
''Yet the country is also caught in a vicious circle as it tries to meet EMU deficit rules, forced to push through successive austerity packages without offsetting monetary stimulus or a weaker currency. The IMF said France’s exchange rate is over-valued by 5-10pc.''
''President Hollande has made his peace with the employers’ federation Medef this year, launching a burst of Gallic Thatcherism. He is pushing through tax relief for business and a shake-up of labour markets along with wage freezes, despite ever-louder protests from his Socialist Party base.
The IMF praised the package of measures but said dismissal rules are still among the most restrictive in the OECD club of rich states, and there has been “no progress” on product market reform for five years. At best it will take years to pull France out of its deep malaise.''
(Ambrose Evans-Pritchard . Telegraph June '14)
The inevitable consequence of the Euro must surely be ever closer fiscal as well as monetary union leading to de facto political union, at least on a macro scale.
Hence the need for renegotiations as outlined in the Govts. 32 reports on the subject.
You must have seen Tumblr, and heard of SJWs, and seen the memes, and twitter hashtags, and petitions.
The internet definitely had a libertarian culture in the past, but that's long gone now.
A brief inspection of the BES Survey shows three quarters of the public want immigration reduced, half of them want it reduced by a lot. The same survey, and other recent surveys have shown that this is the most important issue for voters. Immigration cannot be meaningfully reduced while we are in the EU. Ergo the majority of people at least implicitly want to leave the EU.
*basks in schadenfreude*
Exactly so.
This is about ensuring that a religion does not get to dictate the limits of speech and behaviour of non-believers, does not get to carve out a space where they answer to an authority other than the laws of our land.
You simply cannot have a group of people living in a country who have values fundamentally incompatible with the values of our civilization and who answer to an authority which is not the law of our land.
30 years ago I couldn't have cared less about Islam. What made me take an interest was when I saw book burning and threats of violence to a writer on the streets of Britain by British citizens at the behest of a foreign political/religious leader. I thought then that that was very ominous and a very bad sign indeed if if it was not stamped down hard on. And it wasn't. And now look where we are.
I do not go round insulting Muslims or others. I have had nothing but hospitality and friendliness in the two Muslim countries I have visited: Turkey and Kashmir. Those mosques I have visited often seem to me to be places of great calm and beauty and peacefulness.
I am a practising half-Irish Catholic so I understand what it is to have a religious sensibility and to hear insulting comments about my religion and my nationality and the propensity of Irish Catholics to commit violence.
But when I hear people telling me that I cannot say this or that about Islam - and, frankly, the more I've learnt about it and its Islamist offshoot, the less I've been impressed - then my reaction is to say what I think and the more frankly the better, precisely to make the point that I am - and should be - free to do so. I will shut up when those who are trying to shut down my freedom stop doing so.
People may well be offended. But they have a choice as to how to react. If you don't like what you are reading and seeing, don't read it. Don't look. The fact that people choose not to do it but to take active - and sometimes violent - steps is evidence to me that this is not about assuaging hurt feelings but about using this pretext as a way of controlling what others say and do.
And, frankly, a religion that is so insecure and brittle that it cannot survive a bit of criticism is not one worth saving or respecting, in my opinion.
Really - go to 9gag and have a laugh. Very libertarian on occasion.
But anyway that's tosh, we didn't force anyone at gunpoint to come here. What we should have done is explained to people coming here that these were our values, we allow anyone to criticize, debate, argue or mock anything, if they can't cope with that, there are other countries they might find more agreeable to settle in. Asking our population to give up their rights, to placate people choosing to come to our country, and threatening to be violent if we dont, it both undemocratic, dangerous, and idiotic.
France, contrary to popular belief, is actually doing ok, broadly flatlining.
We are currently doing the best and our lead should increase over 2015 as we have much faster growth forecasted than any of the EZ. Greece, of course, is a basket case and has dragged Cyprus down with it. Italy has much greater problems than France.
(I agree with the rest of your post whole-heartedly BTW!)
It can fairly be argued that almost any passionate religious or political opinion incites hatred. But, protecting free speech should be paramount.
In your scenario, the responsibility for assaulting the homosexual rests with his assailant. Unless the other person has encouraged him to commit the assault, he should not face prosecution.