1) All parliamentary parties 2) Three parties over ten points in the polls 3) Two parties over twenty points in the polls
Fair to everyone.
I get the impression that you picked those criteria knowing what the answer would be. (Namely, (1) gives Conservative, Labour, LibDem, DUP, SNP, SF, PC, SDLP, UKIP, Alliance, GPF&W, Respect; (2) gives Con, Lab, UKIP; (3) gives Con and Lab.)
One could pick a different set of criteria that looks just as fair, but produce a very different result. Say...
1) All parties with >5 MPs (Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP) 2) All parties over five points in the polls (Con, Lab, LibDem, UKIP, Green) 3) All parties currently in government + the Official Opposition (Con, LibDem, Lab)
That's the problem. There's lots of rules that look fair, and they give different answers. Do you give more weight to getting MPs elected or opinion polls? Do you give more weight to performance last time or current standings? Do you look at polling right now, or over the entire period since the last election? How do you handle parties active in only parts of the UK (and the Conservative and UKIP are the only parties who organise across all of the UK)?
Do the Tories and UKIP organise in Northern Ireland?
I ask myself: “why don’t the LDs, Lab and UKIP want the Greens?” Could it be that the Green leader rather than Farage is likely to be the fresh face with the novelty value? Could it be that the Libdems in particular fear the haemorrhage of votes to the Greens by environmentalists? Could it be that the left-leaning Greens are going to undermine Labour’s credentials as the only anti-austerity option?
Because, Fernando, we still have the outdated and inefficient FPTP system of voting. All parties have to claim that the election is between "us and them", which will vary from one constituency and another. There are not many constituencies where the Green Party is in contention.
In the case of the Labour and Tory Parties, they have to pretend that they are the only two who can lead the next government. And so try to polarise the vote throughout the country.
Our electoral system is a mess, and we need to elect lots of MPs who will bring us into the 21st Century.
I completely disagree with David. It the Conservative leader did not attend he would need to be given time elsewhere to put his case across.
I ask myself: “why don’t the LDs, Lab and UKIP want the Greens?” Could it be that the Green leader rather than Farage is likely to be the fresh face with the novelty value? Could it be that the Libdems in particular fear the haemorrhage of votes to the Greens by environmentalists? Could it be that the left-leaning Greens are going to undermine Labour’s credentials as the only anti-austerity option?
Why don’t they just let the Greens join in, in which case Cameron will have to go forward with the debates? I can see the point the point of a debate between the two candidates almost certain to be PM. If you move from this surely all the parties need to have a voice and I can see no grounds for excluding the Greens with an MP, experience running a council and over 5% consistently in the polls.
Correct. And just because you have 4 or 5 leaders does not mean they have to have the same air time. Green politics is dopey. But they have been around years and are as much a single issue party as UKIP. But of course they threaten left wing votes and so the lefties will stick to their usual hypocrisy.
Do the debates have any point? Anyone who thought so must have been disabused by the last ones. I have a suspicion the debates will go ahead with Cameron but probably before the campaign proper starts.
Indigo No Scottish Labour will have to become the centrist party of Scotland, in between the SNP and Greens to its left and Tories and UKIP to its right, that is where the Quebec Liberals positioned themselves, to the right of the Quebec nationalists and leftist parties and to the left of the AD, the main rightwing party in Quebec elections. Indeed, Jean Charest was leader of the Canadian Progressive Conservative Party from 1993 to 1998 and then leader of the Quebec Liberals from 1998 to 2012 and Premier of Quebec from 2003 to 2012
I know Murphy is thin but is he as thin as a piece of cigarette paper??
1) All parliamentary parties 2) Three parties over ten points in the polls 3) Two parties over twenty points in the polls
Fair to everyone.
I get the impression that you picked those criteria knowing what the answer would be. (Namely, (1) gives Conservative, Labour, LibDem, DUP, SNP, SF, PC, SDLP, UKIP, Alliance, GPF&W, Respect; (2) gives Con, Lab, UKIP; (3) gives Con and Lab.)
One could pick a different set of criteria that looks just as fair, but produce a very different result. Say...
1) All parties with >5 MPs (Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP) 2) All parties over five points in the polls (Con, Lab, LibDem, UKIP, Green) 3) All parties currently in government + the Official Opposition (Con, LibDem, Lab)
That's the problem. There's lots of rules that look fair, and they give different answers. Do you give more weight to getting MPs elected or opinion polls? Do you give more weight to performance last time or current standings? Do you look at polling right now, or over the entire period since the last election? How do you handle parties active in only parts of the UK (and the Conservative and UKIP are the only parties who organise across all of the UK)?
Do the Tories and UKIP organise in Northern Ireland?
'Whose interest would be served by either side gratuitously causing offense to the other by breaking this convention or do you see it as a collective punishment that should be meted out to all those who don't share your sensibilities?'
Maybe people have had enough of the liberal establishment kowtowing to this minority which clearly isn't working,we're in a western democracy and you can either like it,lump it or find an Islamic country to live in in which you will be more comfortable in.
JohnZims Not necessarily at all, in 1993 Quebec nationalists won 54 seats and became the main opposition in the Canadian House of Commons and the following year won a majority in the Quebec Parliament, in Quebec's second independence referendum the year after in 1995 Quebec voted to stay in Canada 51-49%
Hmm. That's an interesting approach. But I think you've forgotten that the 'average scot' score is badly weighed down by about, say, 20% Tories and Kippers at 8.1 and 8.3 - much more rightwing than the rest of the UK, interestingly (and so are the LDs, though not so markedly). And they're not very likely to vote SNP or Labour, or Green. So we can forget those.
You take out the right wingers - on the principle that the rest are unlikely to vote for them, and including the LDs leaves a fudge factor for the flow each way. Then you get a score for the remaining 80% comprising "shall I vote SNP or SLAB or Green or perhaps even LD" of about 3.45, which is to the left of the SNP. Here's the arithmetic:
80% of 3.45 = 2.76 20% of 8.2 = 1.64 total 4.4
The other assumption, which is not a trivial one, is that SLAB actually espouses policies that their voters would consider to be Labour policies.
bondegezou As I have already pointed out, Scotland, Wales and NI can have their own debates, the UK have Cameron, Clegg, Farage, Bennett and Miliband in 1 UK-wide debate
Carnyx There is every chance Scottish Tories and LDs could tactically vote Labour in a seat which is a straight Labour v SNP contest, I certainly would!
1) All parliamentary parties 2) Three parties over ten points in the polls 3) Two parties over twenty points in the polls
Fair to everyone.
I get the impression that you picked those criteria knowing what the answer would be. (Namely, (1) gives Conservative, Labour, LibDem, DUP, SNP, SF, PC, SDLP, UKIP, Alliance, GPF&W, Respect; (2) gives Con, Lab, UKIP; (3) gives Con and Lab.)
One could pick a different set of criteria that looks just as fair, but produce a very different result. Say...
1) All parties with >5 MPs (Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP) 2) All parties over five points in the polls (Con, Lab, LibDem, UKIP, Green) 3) All parties currently in government + the Official Opposition (Con, LibDem, Lab)
That's the problem. There's lots of rules that look fair, and they give different answers. Do you give more weight to getting MPs elected or opinion polls? Do you give more weight to performance last time or current standings? Do you look at polling right now, or over the entire period since the last election? How do you handle parties active in only parts of the UK (and the Conservative and UKIP are the only parties who organise across all of the UK)?
Do the Tories and UKIP organise in Northern Ireland?
Always possible,but when separation is based on emotional arguments,much more difficult.
Four months ago one of the key SNP economic criteria was the price of oil would remain around $100,no notice was taken of the argument of price volatility,the price has since halved and the SNP is even more popular than before.
Carnyx There is every chance Scottish Tories and LDs could tactically vote Labour in a seat which is a straight Labour v SNP contest, I certainly would!
Indeed. But so could disenchanted Labour voters, and the greenies and Socialists. Which makes it even harder to call.
'As I have already pointed out, Scotland, Wales and NI can have their own debates, the UK have Cameron, Clegg, Farage, Bennett and Miliband in 1 UK-wide debate'
Agree, the TV companies should invite whichever parties they want.
"Because, Fernando, we still have the outdated and inefficient FPTP system of voting. All parties have to claim that the election is between "us and them", which will vary from one constituency and another. There are not many constituencies where the Green Party is in contention.
In the case of the Labour and Tory Parties, they have to pretend that they are the only two who can lead the next government. And so try to polarise the vote throughout the country.
Our electoral system is a mess, and we need to elect lots of MPs who will bring us into the 21st Century."
Unfortunately, the voters, when consulted, decided rather emphatically to keep the current electoral system. The Labour and conservative Parties don't have to pretend they are the only two who can lead the country: they ARE the only two, either on their own or in coalition with smaller groups.
JohnZims As I said, in the 1993 Canadian General Election, the Bloc Quebecois won 54 seats and 49% of the vote in Quebec, support for them was just as emotional as for the SNP, and indeed a majority of French speaking Quebecois voted for independence in 1995, it was only English speakers which kept Quebec in Canada
"Because, Fernando, we still have the outdated and inefficient FPTP system of voting. All parties have to claim that the election is between "us and them", which will vary from one constituency and another. There are not many constituencies where the Green Party is in contention.
In the case of the Labour and Tory Parties, they have to pretend that they are the only two who can lead the next government. And so try to polarise the vote throughout the country.
Our electoral system is a mess, and we need to elect lots of MPs who will bring us into the 21st Century."
Unfortunately, the voters, when consulted, decided rather emphatically to keep the current electoral system. The Labour and conservative Parties don't have to pretend they are the only two who can lead the country: they ARE the only two, either on their own or in coalition with smaller groups.
[snipped] What! I make you feel unwelcome and MG doesn't!?
How do you think the English feel when all we hear day in day out is a whole queue of Scots telling us how much they hate us and how much they dont want to be part of it any more. After several years of that the instinctive response its so say "just go then will you, i dont want to hear it any more". I am sure that is part of the plan from the pro-independence crowd, and its working, most English people I speak to are heartily sick of the whole thing, especially as its painfully obvious that it can only end one way.
As for your cheap shot, if you went abroad for a few years on business would that make you any less a Scot ?
You are confounding anti-Westminster rule (or anti-Toryism, etc.) with anti-Englishness, and also confusing England with the UK, and seemingly deriving an excuse for your own anti-Scottish rant. The indyref period saw some very interesting discussions on English governance and its problems, often expressed with considerable sympathy (and for one thing, consider how it is the Unionist parties which cause the biggest problems over EV4EL whereas the SNP has done its best to minimise the issue: who's being anti-Engish there?) . I suggest you have a look at the debate with a fresh eye (and not constrained by the DT's Mr Cochrane, etc.). You might be surprised.
To be fair, there is that very strange behaviour of Mr Murphy over the 1000 Nurses on London money, but one reason for the impact of that is that it is so unusual in Scottish political debate to see such an approach (and even that was anti-London rather than anti-English).
It is quite amazing on here how they equate criticism of Westminster politics as "hating the English". Shows how warped their idea of the UK is or they are just plain ignorant. Luckily a few seem to get it.
"What’s Labour’s biggest electoral failing in this Parliament? It’s failure to win over voters from the Tories. (The number of Conservative to Labour converts in this Parliament is tiny. Towards the end of last year ICM found just 2% of the Conservative 2010 vote had switched to Labour whilst Lord Ashcroft put it only at 4%.)
And what’s the biggest risk that things might get even worse? That left-wing voters who don’t like Labour’s boasts of making further cuts after May, curbing welfare further and reducing immigration will switch to the Greens.
Which is why David Cameron’s reaction to the news that Ukip but not the Greens has passed the de facto threshold for inclusion in TV election debates smart: insist he’ll only take part if the Greens are there too. Miliband’s votes, not his, are the ones that puts at risk."
Also, if they went ahead with just Miliband, Clegg and Farage, it would be either Clegg or Farage who would come out on top as they are both better speakers than Miliband, which would increase both their votes and in the case of the Lib Dems reduce Labours, so I doubt whether Ed Miliband would agree to go ahead without Cameron being there.
In fact it is a daft suggestion to say that they would all just go against Cameron because they will be debating each other on the night and they can't all just talk about him, they have got to win the debate against the people present, not the ones that aren't! If the public feel Cameron had been bullied by the others, they won't like it, so all in all I think this is a totally stupid assessment.
I agree.It is highly unlikely they would go ahead without Cameron just to deny the Greens the little time they would get anyway. I believe Cameron is more interested to giving the Greens a boost than dodging the debates. His position is more an act of genius than an epic mistake.
Exactly. The debates will happen anyway and the Greens will be a lot stronger because of Cameron's position.
The fact is that the Greens have been steadily rising in the polls with minimal publicity and a softly spoken leader who isn't a showstopper in front of a camera.
Just a little extra publicity could push them into double digits in some polls in the next weeks. They are the only party that is surging right now and their impact as the margins could decide the outcome of the election.
Carnyx The way I see it Murphy will find it easier to win tactical Tory and LD votes v the SNP, than win back leftwing Labour voters now backing independence and the SNP or Greens
"In response to Zen Pagan (fpt): "if no paper was willing to do it the government should have done so. It sends the message we will not be intimidated, here we are and here are those cartoons you hate"."
As so often I just can't understand the point you're making. You appear to be saying that it's essential to grievously insult all Muslims living in the UK just to show we can.
What would you be hoping to achieve? In Beirut which is roughly divided 50% 50% Muslim and Christian the Muslim areas don't have naked women on their hoardings whereas in the Christan areas they do.
Whose interest would be served by either side gratuitously causing offense to the other by breaking this convention or do you see it as a collective punishment that should be meted out to all those who don't share your sensibilities?
Exactly
Freedom of speech doesn't = Nationwide Tourettes
We have a free society which allows controversial magazines to say what they want, doesn't mean EVERY newspaper & magazine has to be controversial
As I said before, I think the terrorists would love the western media to start making moderate muslims angry by insulting their beliefs.. they'd be doing their recruiting work for them
"In response to Zen Pagan (fpt): "if no paper was willing to do it the government should have done so. It sends the message we will not be intimidated, here we are and here are those cartoons you hate"."
As so often I just can't understand the point you're making. You appear to be saying that it's essential to grievously insult all Muslims living in the UK just to show we can.
What would you be hoping to achieve? In Beirut which is roughly divided 50% 50% Muslim and Christian the Muslim areas don't have naked women on their hoardings whereas in the Christan areas they do.
Whose interest would be served by either side gratuitously causing offense to the other by breaking this convention or do you see it as a collective punishment that should be meted out to all those who don't share your sensibilities?
Exactly
Freedom of speech doesn't = Nationwide Tourettes
We have a free society which allows controversial magazines to say what they want, doesn't mean EVERY newspaper & magazine has to be controversial
As I said before, I think the terrorists would love the western media to start making moderate muslims angry by insulting their beliefs.. they'd be doing their recruiting work for them
Exactly.
Does your average - non-terrorist, law abiding - British Muslim see Socrates retweeting some of those cartoons as someone standing up for free speech? Or as someone mocking his religion?
Thanks for that assessment of the situation - interesting to see what you think.
I would hesitate to suggest how widespread Mr. Indigo's views are but they make sense to me. I really don't see how the Union can do anything but stagger on to the increasing annoyance and embitterment of both countries. A split is going to happen eventually so lets get it over with.
To quote the Scottish Play, "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly"
The effect of years of influence from the left on the concept of a unified UK has eroded our sense of nationhood so badly that some parts such as Scotland need to leave and face up to life on their own.
Labour and the Lib Dems soiled the image of England through their anti-tory joint campaigns in Scotland. Scotland became separate after years of this propaganda all done for their own party's short term gain. Ironic when they will lose 50% to 90% of their Scottish seats at this coming GE. As you sow so shall you reap.
You have a good point. Labour and the LDs have once again done the UK a bad service. But I do not see Scotland becoming Independent. If they do then it would be sad - mainly for them, but equally for all of us. But England can happily exist - we would all though be greatly diminished.
The oil price is not only on the way down - it is exposed for all to see as being volatile, plus it is running out in the North Sea if not in Saudi Arabia. The supply of hydrocarbons has increased dramatically with the advent of fracking and I venture to suggest it will put a floor under the price of oil at least as long as the North Sea price lasts. All of which throws the SNP economic argument into ruin. We have had a joint, Scottish, monarch for over 400 years and a united country for over 300. There is little to suggest why we should split.
I ask myself: “why don’t the LDs, Lab and UKIP want the Greens?” Could it be that the Green leader rather than Farage is likely to be the fresh face with the novelty value? Could it be that the Libdems in particular fear the haemorrhage of votes to the Greens by environmentalists? Could it be that the left-leaning Greens are going to undermine Labour’s credentials as the only anti-austerity option?
Because, Fernando, we still have the outdated and inefficient FPTP system of voting. All parties have to claim that the election is between "us and them", which will vary from one constituency and another. There are not many constituencies where the Green Party is in contention.
In the case of the Labour and Tory Parties, they have to pretend that they are the only two who can lead the next government. And so try to polarise the vote throughout the country.
Our electoral system is a mess, and we need to elect lots of MPs who will bring us into the 21st Century.
It's not about that, Labour have already said that they'll do what the broadcasters want to do, and if that means the Greens, so be it. For Labour, UKIP and the Lib Dems the advantage of debates greatly outweighs any disadvantage of having the Greens in. Certain people even think debating the Greens would actually help Labour due to Bennett being no Farage, and it giving them a chance to put the greens on the spot about what they actually want.
The reason the broadcasters are worried is fairly obvious - for all the talk of a Green surge, there's little concrete in the way of electoral achievement to back it up (unlike UKIP and the LDs). They've lost their deposit in every by-election they've contested, and although they appear to be level pegging with the LDs - that's within the context of record lows, and no one's saying the Lib Dems should be in the debates on the basis of poll ratings, but because they're in government with 60 odd MPs. For the broadcasters letting in the Greens means legal carnage - if you allow the Greens in, why not Respect, who also have an MP? The SNP could be assured to make hay out of it and possibly 7 or 8 party debates. The knock on effect being that then UKIP get upset about effectively being demoted to the same level as those parties and demand inclusion
IMHO the best way out of it is for Ed, Nick and Farage to agree to the YouTube debate with the Greens - which isn't subject to broadcasting regulations and so avoids the mess of allowing them into the main TV ones, but also gives them a platform. Then proceed as normal with the other debates telling Cameron that he's got the Greens, now he has to front up.
Carnyx The way I see it Murphy will find it easier to win tactical Tory and LD votes v the SNP, than win back leftwing Labour voters now backing independence and the SNP or Greens
That I can well believe, given how the Tories on PB and in the Speccy, DT etc. love him to bits. But is that a good reference for a SLAB leader to his voters? And there are a lot more SLAB voters (in the past) than Tory and LD ones (in Scotland I mean).
Mind you, tactical voting will be important in some seats - both ways.
As I have pointed out SNP triumph in Holyrood elections is no guarantee of referendum success, as we saw in the 2014 referendum after the SNP won a majority in 2011 at Holyrood. Nor would SNP triumph at Westminster, as I said in Quebec in 1993 the Bloc Quebecois won 54 seats and 49% of the vote in Quebec at the Canadian general election, but still lost Quebec's second independence referendum 2 years later in 1995 51-49%
"In response to Zen Pagan (fpt): "if no paper was willing to do it the government should have done so. It sends the message we will not be intimidated, here we are and here are those cartoons you hate"."
As so often I just can't understand the point you're making. You appear to be saying that it's essential to grievously insult all Muslims living in the UK just to show we can.
What would you be hoping to achieve? In Beirut which is roughly divided 50% 50% Muslim and Christian the Muslim areas don't have naked women on their hoardings whereas in the Christan areas they do.
Whose interest would be served by either side gratuitously causing offense to the other by breaking this convention or do you see it as a collective punishment that should be meted out to all those who don't share your sensibilities?
Exactly
Freedom of speech doesn't = Nationwide Tourettes
We have a free society which allows controversial magazines to say what they want, doesn't mean EVERY newspaper & magazine has to be controversial
As I said before, I think the terrorists would love the western media to start making moderate muslims angry by insulting their beliefs.. they'd be doing their recruiting work for them
There is precisely no point in having freedoms you dont use, at least from time to time, and there is even less point in the government "granting" freedoms and then not supporting you using them.
Many jurisdictions have the idea of "sleeping on your rights" or "statutes of repose" where by if you dont exercise a right within a given timeframe, you lose that right. This is the same sort of idea, only a cultural one, if someone doesn't occasionally exert their right to be profoundly offensive, people will soon forget that they have such a right. If someone isn't seriously offended from time to time they will assume they have a right to not be offended, and they dont.
In medieval times there was the concept of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_the_bounds, in which on an annual basis the inhabitants of a village visited all the boundaries of their land, to establish common knowledge of those bounds, and to prevent the encroachment of neighbours, some times those neighbours will have moved those boundary markers and they would need putting back.
It is important that we beat the boundaries of our rights and our culture regularly, or we will forget where they are, the neighbours will encroach and move the cultural markers, and soon we will find our cultural and legal real estate rather smaller than we remembered, and it will be too late to do anything about it.
"In response to Zen Pagan (fpt): "if no paper was willing to do it the government should have done so. It sends the message we will not be intimidated, here we are and here are those cartoons you hate"."
As so often I just can't understand the point you're making. You appear to be saying that it's essential to grievously insult all Muslims living in the UK just to show we can.
What would you be hoping to achieve? In Beirut which is roughly divided 50% 50% Muslim and Christian the Muslim areas don't have naked women on their hoardings whereas in the Christan areas they do.
Whose interest would be served by either side gratuitously causing offense to the other by breaking this convention or do you see it as a collective punishment that should be meted out to all those who don't share your sensibilities?
Exactly
Freedom of speech doesn't = Nationwide Tourettes
We have a free society which allows controversial magazines to say what they want, doesn't mean EVERY newspaper & magazine has to be controversial
As I said before, I think the terrorists would love the western media to start making moderate muslims angry by insulting their beliefs.. they'd be doing their recruiting work for them
There is precisely no point in having freedoms you dont use, at least from time to time, and there is even less point in the government "granting" freedoms and then not supporting you using them.
Many jurisdictions have the idea of "sleeping on your rights" or "statutes of repose" where by if you dont exercise a right within a given timeframe, you lose that right. This is the same sort of idea, only a cultural one, if someone doesn't occasionally exert their right to be profoundly offensive, people will soon forget that they have such a right. If someone isn't seriously offended from time to time they will assume they have a right to not be offended, and they dont.
In medieval times there was the concept of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_the_bounds, in which on an annual basis the inhabitants of a village visited all the boundaries of their land, to establish common knowledge of those bounds, and to prevent the encroachment of neighbours, some times those neighbours will have moved those boundary markers and they would need putting back.
It is important that we beat the boundaries of our rights and our culture regularly, or we will forget where they are, the neighbours will encroach and move the cultural markers, and soon we will find our cultural and legal real estate rather smaller than we remembered, and it will be too late to do anything about it.
But the Charlie Hebdo magazine did push the boundaries and wasn't prohibited from doing so... it is on sale again next week. Surely the best response to the terrorists is to show nothing has changed?
Carnyx True, but the traditional SLAB vote is split between a leftwing independence one (now voting SNP and Green) and a centrist unionist one still voting SLAB, the latter has more in common with Ruth Davidson and Winnie Rennie than Sturgeon. Anyway, off to the bank!
15.25 The family of murdered police officer Ahmed Merabet are holding a press conference. It is a tense affair and the family have just refused to answer a question about their opinion of the Mohammed cartoons featured in Charlie Hebdo. His relatives looked down and shook their heads...
There is precisely no point in having freedoms you dont use, at least from time to time, and there is even less point in the government "granting" freedoms and then not supporting you using them.
Many jurisdictions have the idea of "sleeping on your rights" or "statutes of repose" where by if you dont exercise a right within a given timeframe, you lose that right. This is the same sort of idea, only a cultural one, if someone doesn't occasionally exert their right to be profoundly offensive, people will soon forget that they have such a right. If someone isn't seriously offended from time to time they will assume they have a right to not be offended, and they dont.
In medieval times there was the concept of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_the_bounds, in which on an annual basis the inhabitants of a village visited all the boundaries of their land, to establish common knowledge of those bounds, and to prevent the encroachment of neighbours, some times those neighbours will have moved those boundary markers and they would need putting back.
It is important that we beat the boundaries of our rights and our culture regularly, or we will forget where they are, the neighbours will encroach and move the cultural markers, and soon we will find our cultural and legal real estate rather smaller than we remembered, and it will be too late to do anything about it.
But to spread or display the cartoons right now will inevitably be seen as a reaction to the attacks. Nobody's going to buy that you've picked this particular form of "beating" just after the attacks as a sheer coincidence.
It's not that I have anything against spreading the cartoons, or any display of freedom of speech in the face of religious offense.,But doing it with the obvious motive of showing defiance in the face of terrorism implicitly buys into the idea that the attackers represented the much wider group of people who might find those images offensive or disturbing. It's helping the attackers to achieve what they wanted: making those cartoons be the dividing line which separates "us" from "them".
12.35 General Denis Favier, director general of the Gendarmerie, has said that France's intelligence services now face "an immense task". The General also confirmed that the gendarmerie will be heavily involved in the policing of Sunday's unity rally in Paris. He: "We will make our men available for the Paris police department. We will do everything to secure Sunday's events."
They'd best get out into the French countryside looking for resprayed Jaguar.
I have always felt there is no shortage of French police and the Gendarmerie are in fact part of the armed forces (I'd always thought they were just the country bobby). There is also the CRS Riot Police. They seem all armed to the teeth. Yet this event still happened. The terrorist 'will always get through' eventually - they have an infinite number of targets and their mind set makes it impossible to guess what target they may think 'justified'. Under these circumstances it seems silly to play the terrorist game by criticising the security forces. We should just get on with life and refused to be terrorised.
There is precisely no point in having freedoms you dont use, at least from time to time, and there is even less point in the government "granting" freedoms and then not supporting you using them.
Many jurisdictions have the idea of "sleeping on your rights" or "statutes of repose" where by if you dont exercise a right within a given timeframe, you lose that right. This is the same sort of idea, only a cultural one, if someone doesn't occasionally exert their right to be profoundly offensive, people will soon forget that they have such a right. If someone isn't seriously offended from time to time they will assume they have a right to not be offended, and they dont.
In medieval times there was the concept of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_the_bounds, in which on an annual basis the inhabitants of a village visited all the boundaries of their land, to establish common knowledge of those bounds, and to prevent the encroachment of neighbours, some times those neighbours will have moved those boundary markers and they would need putting back.
It is important that we beat the boundaries of our rights and our culture regularly, or we will forget where they are, the neighbours will encroach and move the cultural markers, and soon we will find our cultural and legal real estate rather smaller than we remembered, and it will be too late to do anything about it.
But to spread or display the cartoons right now will inevitably be seen as a reaction to the attacks. Nobody's going to buy that you've picked this particular form of "beating" just after the attacks as a sheer coincidence.
It's not that I have anything against spreading the cartoons, or any display of freedom of speech in the face of religious offense.,But doing it with the obvious motive of showing defiance in the face of terrorism implicitly buys into the idea that the attackers represented the much wider group of people who might find those images offensive or disturbing. It's helping the attackers to achieve what they wanted: making those cartoons be the dividing line which separates "us" from "them".
And not showing them sends a clear message to the terrorists "Your violence has cowed us into submission"
Yep. Amazing that enough people either don't see it or don't care about it that Labour could still end winning this thing, depending on how badly they do up north.
"In response to Zen Pagan (fpt): "if no paper was willing to do it the government should have done so. It sends the message we will not be intimidated, here we are and here are those cartoons you hate"."
As so often I just can't understand the point you're making. You appear to be saying that it's essential to grievously insult all Muslims living in the UK just to show we can.
What would you be hoping to achieve? In Beirut which is roughly divided 50% 50% Muslim and Christian the Muslim areas don't have naked women on their hoardings whereas in the Christan areas they do.
Whose interest would be served by either side gratuitously causing offense to the other by breaking this convention or do you see it as a collective punishment that should be meted out to all those who don't share your sensibilities?
We have a free society which allows controversial magazines to say what they want, doesn't mean EVERY newspaper & magazine has to be controversial
True enough. Though If a major publication were to make the decision in future, even only a single one, then it would be impossible to argue that the entire industry was just unwilling to ever tempt fate in that fashion. If none will, someone doing it, even to be gratuitous, does little harm as far as I can see. Why would the motivation matter, if we accept the others could choose to do so if they wanted? It would remove the need to mention the uncomfortable reality that publications don't want to take the risk, because the fact is there is a risk, which is what is happening at the moment.
There is precisely no point in having freedoms you dont use, at least from time to time, and there is even less point in the government "granting" freedoms and then not supporting you using them.
Many jurisdictions have the idea of "sleeping on your rights" or "statutes of repose" where by if you dont exercise a right within a given timeframe, you lose that right. This is the same sort of idea, only a cultural one, if someone doesn't occasionally exert their right to be profoundly offensive, people will soon forget that they have such a right. If someone isn't seriously offended from time to time they will assume they have a right to not be offended, and they dont.
In medieval times there was the concept of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_the_bounds, in which on an annual basis the inhabitants of a village visited all the boundaries of their land, to establish common knowledge of those bounds, and to prevent the encroachment of neighbours, some times those neighbours will have moved those boundary markers and they would need putting back.
It is important that we beat the boundaries of our rights and our culture regularly, or we will forget where they are, the neighbours will encroach and move the cultural markers, and soon we will find our cultural and legal real estate rather smaller than we remembered, and it will be too late to do anything about it.
But the Charlie Hebdo magazine did push the boundaries and wasn't prohibited from doing so... it is on sale again next week. Surely the best response to the terrorists is to show nothing has changed?
Perhaps the French have more balls that we do, we passed idiocy like the Race and Religious Hatred Act (2006) after this sort of thing happens to us. Anyway, you are sidestepping, the original premise was:
As so often I just can't understand the point you're making. You appear to be saying that it's essential to grievously insult all Muslims living in the UK just to show we can.
Yes, I agree it shouldn't be nationwide tourettes, but minority interest publications should have the right to be insulting if they want, and that right should be defended, they are the ones beating the bounds of our rights after all. But if you allow people to push you out of your culture, and make you abjure your rights with threats of violence, you might as well give up. Its not like freedom of speech is the only right under threat either.
The SNP are helped by being legally obliged to balance the books
Perhaps the troughers down south should take a leaf out of their book. Just shows you can do it and provide similar services as the spendthrifts down south.
Carnyx The way I see it Murphy will find it easier to win tactical Tory and LD votes v the SNP, than win back leftwing Labour voters now backing independence and the SNP or Greens
No matter how much Murphy appeals to Scottish Tories, by voting SLAB they are effectively voting for Milliband not Murphy. I think Murphy, despite his robin hood act of this week, will soon become an electoral liability for SLAB as the press start to highlight his and McTearnas right wing credentials.
There is precisely no point in having freedoms you dont use, at least from time to time, and there is even less point in the government "granting" freedoms and then not supporting you using them.
It is important that we beat the boundaries of our rights and our culture regularly, or we will forget where they are, the neighbours will encroach and move the cultural markers, and soon we will find our cultural and legal real estate rather smaller than we remembered, and it will be too late to do anything about it.
But the Charlie Hebdo magazine did push the boundaries and wasn't prohibited from doing so... it is on sale again next week. Surely the best response to the terrorists is to show nothing has changed?
Perhaps the French have more balls that we do, we passed idiocy like the Race and Religious Hatred Act (2006) after this sort of thing happens to us. Anyway, you are sidestepping, the original premise was:
As so often I just can't understand the point you're making. You appear to be saying that it's essential to grievously insult all Muslims living in the UK just to show we can.
Yes, I agree it shouldn't be nationwide tourettes, but minority interest publications should have the right to be insulting if they want, and that right should be defended, they are the ones beating the bounds of our rights after all. But if you allow people to push you out of your culture, and make you abjure your rights with threats of violence, you might as well give up. Its not like freedom of speech is the only right under threat either.
I agree that there should be no shying away from letting minority magazines publish whatever they like, and I have never said any different. I just think the best response is for Charlie Hebdo to publish the next edition of their magazine, and maybe for everyone to buy a copy, rather than every paper publish stuff that the kind of muslim who wouldn't dream of becoming a terrorist is offended by
I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
Carnyx The way I see it Murphy will find it easier to win tactical Tory and LD votes v the SNP, than win back leftwing Labour voters now backing independence and the SNP or Greens
No matter how much Murphy appeals to Scottish Tories, by voting SLAB they are effectively voting for Milliband not Murphy. I think Murphy, despite his robin hood act of this week, will soon become an electoral liability for SLAB as the press start to highlight his and McTearnas right wing credentials.
Still cannot believe he has McTernan as his top man , is he really that stupid.
15.55 The Telegraph's Paris bureau chief Henry Samuel says sources are suggesting that Hayat Boumeddiene is in Syria, having travelled there via Turkey. Believed to have flown to Turkey on January 2 via Madrid. Had a return ticket for January 9, the day of her partner's murderous rampage, which remains unused.
Carnyx The way I see it Murphy will find it easier to win tactical Tory and LD votes v the SNP, than win back leftwing Labour voters now backing independence and the SNP or Greens
No matter how much Murphy appeals to Scottish Tories, by voting SLAB they are effectively voting for Milliband not Murphy. I think Murphy, despite his robin hood act of this week, will soon become an electoral liability for SLAB as the press start to highlight his and McTearnas right wing credentials.
I can't see there is the faintest chance of Scottish Tories voting SLAB, voting SLAB makes it more likely its going to be a Miliband government with policies they are going to hate, and the likelihood is Miliband will do a deal with the SNP who will then require their pound of flesh in return, it's lose lose.
Carnyx The way I see it Murphy will find it easier to win tactical Tory and LD votes v the SNP, than win back leftwing Labour voters now backing independence and the SNP or Greens
No matter how much Murphy appeals to Scottish Tories, by voting SLAB they are effectively voting for Milliband not Murphy. I think Murphy, despite his robin hood act of this week, will soon become an electoral liability for SLAB as the press start to highlight his and McTearnas right wing credentials.
I can't see there is the faintest chance of Scottish Tories voting SLAB, voting SLAB makes it more likely its going to be a Miliband government with policies they are going to hate, and the likelihood is Miliband will do a deal with the SNP who will then require their pound of flesh in return, it's lose lose.
I agree 100%. Hopefully we will see an end to both of them in Scotland at least, maybe shock them into actually having real Scottish parties instead of sock puppets worked by London.
Off topic, but for those political betters looking to place early bets on the US Presidentials in 2016, the piece in today's Atlantic is very interesting reading. My take on it is that if Warren or O'Malley wins the Dem nod (very unlikely, in my book), or is on the bottom half of the ticket (quite possible), or has a sufficiently successful primary run that she/he is able to force some of her/his ideas onto the successful candidate's campaign (well within the realms of probability), then the odds of a GOP victory (always assuming they don't nominate an unelectable like Cruz) go up considerably. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/the-lefts-unpopular-populism-elizabeth-warren-democratic-party/384310/
There is precisely no point in having freedoms you dont use, at least from time to time, and there is even less point in the government "granting" freedoms and then not supporting you using them.
It is important that we beat the boundaries of our rights and our culture regularly, or we will forget where they are, the neighbours will encroach and move the cultural markers, and soon we will find our cultural and legal real estate rather smaller than we remembered, and it will be too late to do anything about it.
But the Charlie Hebdo magazine did push the boundaries and wasn't prohibited from doing so... it is on sale again next week. Surely the best response to the terrorists is to show nothing has changed?
Perhaps the French have more balls that we do, we passed idiocy like the Race and Religious Hatred Act (2006) after this sort of thing happens to us. Anyway, you are sidestepping, the original premise was:
As so often I just can't understand the point you're making. You appear to be saying that it's essential to grievously insult all Muslims living in the UK just to show we can.
Yes, I agree it shouldn't be nationwide tourettes, but minority interest publications should have the right to be insulting if they want, and that right should be defended, they are the ones beating the bounds of our rights after all. But if you allow people to push you out of your culture, and make you abjure your rights with threats of violence, you might as well give up. Its not like freedom of speech is the only right under threat either.
I agree that there should be no shying away from letting minority magazines publish whatever they like, and I have never said any different. I just think the best response is for Charlie Hebdo to publish the next edition of their magazine, and maybe for everyone to buy a copy, rather than every paper publish stuff that the kind of muslim who wouldn't dream of becoming a terrorist is offended by
I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
Well said.
The answer is not for everyone to be offensive, but for us to tolerate viewpoints and expressions of those that we find offensive, provided those viewpoints are not an incitement to violence.
But the Charlie Hebdo magazine did push the boundaries and wasn't prohibited from doing so... it is on sale again next week. Surely the best response to the terrorists is to show nothing has changed?
Perhaps the French have more balls that we do, we passed idiocy like the Race and Religious Hatred Act (2006) after this sort of thing happens to us. Anyway, you are sidestepping, the original premise was:
As so often I just can't understand the point you're making. You appear to be saying that it's essential to grievously insult all Muslims living in the UK just to show we can.
Yes, I agree it shouldn't be nationwide tourettes, but minority interest publications should have the right to be insulting if they want, and that right should be defended, they are the ones beating the bounds of our rights after all. But if you allow people to push you out of your culture, and make you abjure your rights with threats of violence, you might as well give up. Its not like freedom of speech is the only right under threat either.
I agree that there should be no shying away from letting minority magazines publish whatever they like, and I have never said any different. I just think the best response is for Charlie Hebdo to publish the next edition of their magazine, and maybe for everyone to buy a copy, rather than every paper publish stuff that the kind of muslim who wouldn't dream of becoming a terrorist is offended by
I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
Major newspapers and tv channels publish stuff all the time that is offensive to people of various faiths. I have never noticed people here saying they should not have done so because it is needlessly offensive except for when it is offending muslims. Can we now expect you to post decrying each of these as they happen? Somehow I doubt it because those other faiths don't by and large have a cadre within them that responds to that offence with a bullets and bombs.
It is either wrong to offend any religion or it is not wrong to offend any religion simple as that. Making exceptions for individual religions because some of its adherents may react with violence is nothing short of cowardice.
I am a man of faith and I don't want to live in a country where any faith including my own is exempt from questioning or mockery
I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
As you know I am broadly a Hannanite Conservative, for me its an issue of liberties rather than viewpoints, Charlie isn't my sort of publication at all, and there isn't the slightest chance I would have bought a copy if I saw it on the news stand. Events should not be allowed to evolve in such a way that people feel they have lost that liberty to write what they want, even if it is exercised only occasionally.
Yep. Amazing that enough people either don't see it or don't care about it that Labour could still end winning this thing, depending on how badly they do up north.
"In response to Zen Pagan (fpt): "if no paper was willing to do it the government should have done so. It sends the message we will not be intimidated, here we are and here are those cartoons you hate"."
As so often I just can't understand the point you're making. You appear to be saying that it's essential to grievously insult all Muslims living in the UK just to show we can.
What would you be hoping to achieve? In Beirut which is roughly divided 50% 50% Muslim and Christian the Muslim areas don't have naked women on their hoardings whereas in the Christan areas they do.
Whose interest would be served by either side gratuitously causing offense to the other by breaking this convention or do you see it as a collective punishment that should be meted out to all those who don't share your sensibilities?
We have a free society which allows controversial magazines to say what they want, doesn't mean EVERY newspaper & magazine has to be controversial
True enough. Though If a major publication were to make the decision in future, even only a single one, then it would be impossible to argue that the entire industry was just unwilling to ever tempt fate in that fashion. If none will, someone doing it, even to be gratuitous, does little harm as far as I can see. Why would the motivation matter, if we accept the others could choose to do so if they wanted? It would remove the need to mention the uncomfortable reality that publications don't want to take the risk, because the fact is there is a risk, which is what is happening at the moment.
Yes, it's akin to walking a public pathway once a year to guarantee the right of way for the future.
Unfortunately, the voters, when consulted, decided rather emphatically to keep the current electoral system. The Labour and conservative Parties don't have to pretend they are the only two who can lead the country: they ARE the only two, either on their own or in coalition with smaller groups.
Not so, Fernando. Th electors, when consulted, decided not to go for the Alternative Vote. They did not vote to keep FPTP. All my friends voted against AV, because they all want STV. Nobody wants FPTP.
On the second point, if none of the smaller parties offer them their support, neither the Labour Pary nor the Conservatives can lead the country (unless they get an overall majority, of course, which on present form they will not).
But the Charlie Hebdo magazine did push the boundaries and wasn't prohibited from doing so... it is on sale again next week. Surely the best response to the terrorists is to show nothing has changed?
Perhaps the French have more balls that we do, we passed idiocy like the Race and Religious Hatred Act (2006) after this sort of thing happens to us. Anyway, you are sidestepping, the original premise was:
As so often I just can't understand the point you're making. You appear to be saying that it's essential to grievously insult all Muslims living in the UK just to show we can.
Yes, I agree it shouldn't be nationwide tourettes, but minority interest publications should have the right to be insulting if they want, and that right should be defended, they are the ones beating the bounds of our rights after all. But if you allow people to push you out of your culture, and make you abjure your rights with threats of violence, you might as well give up. Its not like freedom of speech is the only right under threat either.
I agree that there should be no shying away from letting minority magazines publish whatever they like, and I have never said any different. I just think the best response is for Charlie Hebdo to publish the next edition of their magazine, and maybe for everyone to buy a copy, rather than every paper publish stuff that the kind of muslim who wouldn't dream of becoming a terrorist is offended by
I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
Major newspapers and tv channels publish stuff all the time that is offensive to people of various faiths. I have never noticed people here saying they should not have done so because it is needlessly offensive except for when it is offending muslims. Can we now expect you to post decrying each of these as they happen? Somehow I doubt it because those other faiths don't by and large have a cadre within them that responds to that offence with a bullets and bombs.
It is either wrong to offend any religion or it is not wrong to offend any religion simple as that. Making exceptions for individual religions because some of its adherents may react with violence is nothing short of cowardice.
I am a man of faith and I don't want to live in a country where any faith including my own is exempt from questioning or mockery
Well played to you, but you've missed the point by about 100 miles
I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
As you know I am broadly a Hannanite Conservative, for me its an issue of liberties rather than viewpoints, Charlie isn't my sort of publication at all, and there isn't the slightest chance I would have bought a copy if I saw it on the news stand. Events should not be allowed to evolve in such a way that people feel they have lost that liberty to write what they want, even if it is exercised only occasionally.
People can write what they want, who said any different?
I think some people have got the impression that OFCOM giving UKIP major party status means Farage is in all the debates. That's not the case - OFCOM has nothing to do with the debates - OFCOM's statement is re news coverage of the campaign - and it doesn't mean UKIP gets equal coverage - just that it must have due prominence.
Cameron is, obviously, only requesting that the Greens are in debate 1). Not 2) and 3).
Cameron, also obviously, would turn up for debates 2) and 3) even if he boycotted debate 1).
Perhaps the French have more balls that we do, we passed idiocy like the Race and Religious Hatred Act (2006) after this sort of thing happens to us. Anyway, you are sidestepping, the original premise was:
Yes, I agree it shouldn't be nationwide tourettes, but minority interest publications should have the right to be insulting if they want, and that right should be defended, they are the ones beating the bounds of our rights after all. But if you allow people to push you out of your culture, and make you abjure your rights with threats of violence, you might as well give up. Its not like freedom of speech is the only right under threat either.
I agree that there should be no shying away from letting minority magazines publish whatever they like, and I have never said any different. I just think the best response is for Charlie Hebdo to publish the next edition of their magazine, and maybe for everyone to buy a copy, rather than every paper publish stuff that the kind of muslim who wouldn't dream of becoming a terrorist is offended by
I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
Major newspapers and tv channels publish stuff all the time that is offensive to people of various faiths. I have never noticed people here saying they should not have done so because it is needlessly offensive except for when it is offending muslims. Can we now expect you to post decrying each of these as they happen? Somehow I doubt it because those other faiths don't by and large have a cadre within them that responds to that offence with a bullets and bombs.
It is either wrong to offend any religion or it is not wrong to offend any religion simple as that. Making exceptions for individual religions because some of its adherents may react with violence is nothing short of cowardice.
I am a man of faith and I don't want to live in a country where any faith including my own is exempt from questioning or mockery
Well played to you, but you've missed the point by about 100 miles
Your point is that we shouldn't publish because they would offend all muslims not just the terrorists, I haven't missed it I merely consider it wrong. You on the other hand wish to pander to muslim sensibilities in a way that you don't seem to feel necessary for christians, hindu's, sikhs, buddhists or pagans. Muslims have no more right to be exempt from being offended than those of other faiths whereas you seem to feel they do.
I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
As you know I am broadly a Hannanite Conservative, for me its an issue of liberties rather than viewpoints, Charlie isn't my sort of publication at all, and there isn't the slightest chance I would have bought a copy if I saw it on the news stand. Events should not be allowed to evolve in such a way that people feel they have lost that liberty to write what they want, even if it is exercised only occasionally.
People can write what they want, who said any different?
The Race and Religious Hatred Act (2006) for a start!
The answer is not for everyone to be offensive, but for us to tolerate viewpoints and expressions of those that we find offensive, provided those viewpoints are not an incitement to violence.
leave us when you have a minority, or to be fair a minority of a minority, who are determined to react violently to what in our cultural terms would be perfectly acceptable, or at least permissible. Almost anything is then, by definition, an incitement to violence.
I think some people have got the impression that OFCOM giving UKIP major party status means Farage is in all the debates. That's not the case - OFCOM has nothing to do with the debates - OFCOM's statement is re news coverage of the campaign - and it doesn't mean UKIP gets equal coverage - just that it must have due prominence.
Cameron is, obviously, only requesting that the Greens are in debate 1). Not 2) and 3).
Cameron, also obviously, would turn up for debates 2) and 3) even if he boycotted debate 1).
I'm sure he won't boycott debate 1) anyway.
Under those circumstances ie one fifth of one third of the debates then it hardly seems much to allow the Greens in. Those good with fractions will be able to work out how much that short changes a party yet to win a seat at a general election.
I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
As you know I am broadly a Hannanite Conservative, for me its an issue of liberties rather than viewpoints, Charlie isn't my sort of publication at all, and there isn't the slightest chance I would have bought a copy if I saw it on the news stand. Events should not be allowed to evolve in such a way that people feel they have lost that liberty to write what they want, even if it is exercised only occasionally.
People can write what they want, who said any different?
The Race and Religious Hatred Act (2006) for a start!
The answer is not for everyone to be offensive, but for us to tolerate viewpoints and expressions of those that we find offensive, provided those viewpoints are not an incitement to violence.
leave us when you have a minority, or to be fair a minority of a minority, who are determined to react violently to what in our cultural terms would be perfectly acceptable, or at least permissible. Almost anything is then, by definition, an incitement to violence.
A direct incitement to violence, such as "Kill Jews/apostates/gays/whatever". The definition of what is an incitement to violence should not be left to those who would do the violence.
Perhaps the French have more balls that we do, we passed idiocy like the Race and Religious Hatred Act (2006) after this sort of thing happens to us. Anyway, you are sidestepping, the original premise was:
Yes, I agree it shouldn't be nationwide tourettes, but minority interest publications should have the right to be insulting if they want, and that right should be defended, they are the ones beating the bounds of our rights after all. But if you allow people to push you out of your culture, and make you abjure your rights with threats of violence, you might as well give up. Its not like freedom of speech is the only right under threat either.
I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
Major newspapers and tv channels publish stuff all the time that is offensive to people of various faiths. I have never noticed people here saying they should not have done so because it is needlessly offensive except for when it is offending muslims. Can we now expect you to post decrying each of these as they happen? Somehow I doubt it because those other faiths don't by and large have a cadre within them that responds to that offence with a bullets and bombs.
It is either wrong to offend any religion or it is not wrong to offend any religion simple as that. Making exceptions for individual religions because some of its adherents may react with violence is nothing short of cowardice.
I am a man of faith and I don't want to live in a country where any faith including my own is exempt from questioning or mockery
Well played to you, but you've missed the point by about 100 miles
Your point is that we shouldn't publish because they would offend all muslims not just the terrorists, I haven't missed it I merely consider it wrong. You on the other hand wish to pander to muslim sensibilities in a way that you don't seem to feel necessary for christians, hindu's, sikhs, buddhists or pagans. Muslims have no more right to be exempt from being offended than those of other faiths whereas you seem to feel they do.
I am saying that the whole of the media shouldn't re publish the Charlie Hebdo front page as a sign of unity, not that no one should publish anything derogatory to muslims, or that Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have done so
An article yesterday pointed out that in America it's "jobs but no benefits" for immigrants, whereas in France it's "benefits but no jobs". We tend to be somewhere in the middle; I'm not sure whether that's a good or bad thing...
Cazeneuve reading the script of the Day of the Jackal on live TV....
Ironically I introduced my son to that film last weekend, its very good, and has lasted surprisingly well, remarkably little bad taste furniture or clothing for a film made in 1971.
Cazeneuve reading the script of the Day of the Jackal on live TV....
Ironically I introduced my son to that film last weekend, its very good, and has lasted surprisingly well, remarkably little bad taste furniture or clothing for a film made in 1971.
An article yesterday pointed out that in America it's "jobs but no benefits" for immigrants, whereas in France it's "benefits but no jobs". We tend to be somewhere in the middle; I'm not sure whether that's a good or bad thing...
I think some people have got the impression that OFCOM giving UKIP major party status means Farage is in all the debates. That's not the case - OFCOM has nothing to do with the debates - OFCOM's statement is re news coverage of the campaign - and it doesn't mean UKIP gets equal coverage - just that it must have due prominence.
Cameron is, obviously, only requesting that the Greens are in debate 1). Not 2) and 3).
Cameron, also obviously, would turn up for debates 2) and 3) even if he boycotted debate 1).
I'm sure he won't boycott debate 1) anyway.
Under those circumstances ie one fifth of one third of the debates then it hardly seems much to allow the Greens in. Those good with fractions will be able to work out how much that short changes a party yet to win a seat at a general election.
I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
Major newspapers and tv channels publish stuff all the time that is offensive to people of various faiths. I have never noticed people here saying they should not have done so because it is needlessly offensive except for when it is offending muslims. Can we now expect you to post decrying each of these as they happen? Somehow I doubt it because those other faiths don't by and large have a cadre within them that responds to that offence with a bullets and bombs.
It is either wrong to offend any religion or it is not wrong to offend any religion simple as that. Making exceptions for individual religions because some of its adherents may react with violence is nothing short of cowardice.
I am a man of faith and I don't want to live in a country where any faith including my own is exempt from questioning or mockery
Well played to you, but you've missed the point by about 100 miles
Your point is that we shouldn't publish because they would offend all muslims not just the terrorists, I haven't missed it I merely consider it wrong. You on the other hand wish to pander to muslim sensibilities in a way that you don't seem to feel necessary for christians, hindu's, sikhs, buddhists or pagans. Muslims have no more right to be exempt from being offended than those of other faiths whereas you seem to feel they do.
I am saying that the whole of the media shouldn't re publish the Charlie Hebdo front page as a sign of unity, not that no one should publish anything derogatory to muslims, or that Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have done so
The point of publishing is not unity. The point is to show the terrorists that we will not submit to their terror tactics. I have never argued it would be as a show of unity.
By not publishing we have sent an implicit message. "kill some people and we will fall into line"
I also firmly believe if the attack had been by christian fundamentalists due to some of the anti christian cartoons they published that those cartoons would have been on the front of every newspaper the next day
I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
As you know I am broadly a Hannanite Conservative, for me its an issue of liberties rather than viewpoints, Charlie isn't my sort of publication at all, and there isn't the slightest chance I would have bought a copy if I saw it on the news stand. Events should not be allowed to evolve in such a way that people feel they have lost that liberty to write what they want, even if it is exercised only occasionally.
People can write what they want, who said any different?
The Race and Religious Hatred Act (2006) for a start!
The answer is not for everyone to be offensive, but for us to tolerate viewpoints and expressions of those that we find offensive, provided those viewpoints are not an incitement to violence.
leave us when you have a minority, or to be fair a minority of a minority, who are determined to react violently to what in our cultural terms would be perfectly acceptable, or at least permissible. Almost anything is then, by definition, an incitement to violence.
A direct incitement to violence, such as "Kill Jews/apostates/gays/whatever". The definition of what is an incitement to violence should not be left to those who would do the violence.
Getting people to tolerate the bits of our culture that they find objectionable is the easy half of the puzzle of course, getting them to stop the parts of their culture that we find completely intolerable, particularly in the light of the pitch we have to make for the first half is going to be a nightmare. "Yes, I know you hate us drawing satirical pictures of the prophet, but its acceptable here so you are just going to have to live with it, oh and by the way you need to stop FGM because we hate it" is going to be a tough sell.
Cazeneuve reading the script of the Day of the Jackal on live TV....
Ironically I introduced my son to that film last weekend, its very good, and has lasted surprisingly well, remarkably little bad taste furniture or clothing for a film made in 1971.
16.25 150 plainclothes detectives will protect VIPs and mingle with the crowds. "A vast security perimiter will be in force," said M. Cazeneuve. A number of metro station, roads and roundabouts will be closed tomorrow. "24 mobile units will be deployed. Officers will be charged with protecting sensitive sites, embassies, religious sites and public buildings in particular."
I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
Major newspapers and tv channels publish stuff all the time that is offensive to people of various faiths. I have never noticed people here saying they should not have done so because it is needlessly offensive except for when it is offending muslims. Can we now expect you to post decrying each of these as they happen? Somehow I doubt it because those other faiths don't by and large have a cadre within them that responds to that offence with a bullets and bombs.
It is either wrong to offend any religion or it is not wrong to offend any religion simple as that. Making exceptions for individual religions because some of its adherents may react with violence is nothing short of cowardice.
I am a man of faith and I don't want to live in a country where any faith including my own is exempt from questioning or mockery
Well played to you, but you've missed the point by about 100 miles
Your point is that we shouldn't publish because they would offend all muslims not just the terrorists, I haven't missed it I merely consider it wrong. You on the other hand wish to pander to muslim sensibilities in a way that you don't seem to feel necessary for christians, hindu's, sikhs, buddhists or pagans. Muslims have no more right to be exempt from being offended than those of other faiths whereas you seem to feel they do.
I am saying that the whole of the media shouldn't re publish the Charlie Hebdo front page as a sign of unity, not that no one should publish anything derogatory to muslims, or that Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have done so
The point of publishing is not unity. The point is to show the terrorists that we will not submit to their terror tactics. I have never argued it would be as a show of unity.
By not publishing we have sent an implicit message. "kill some people and we will fall into line"
I also firmly believe if the attack had been by christian fundamentalists due to some of the anti christian cartoons they published that those cartoons would have been on the front of every newspaper the next day
No one is submitting to their terror tactics though are they? What has changed?
I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
Major newspapers and tv channels publish stuff all the time that is offensive to people of various faiths. I have never noticed people here saying they should not have done so because it is needlessly offensive except for when it is offending muslims. Can we now expect you to post decrying each of these as they happen? Somehow I doubt it because those other faiths don't by and large have a cadre within them that responds to that offence with a bullets and bombs.
It is either wrong to offend any religion or it is not wrong to offend any religion simple as that. Making exceptions for individual religions because some of its adherents may react with violence is nothing short of cowardice.
I am a man of faith and I don't want to live in a country where any faith including my own is exempt from questioning or mockery
Well played to you, but you've missed the point by about 100 miles
Your point is that we shouldn't publish because they would offend all muslims not just the terrorists, I haven't missed it I merely consider it wrong. You on the other hand wish to pander to muslim sensibilities in a way that you don't seem to feel necessary for christians, hindu's, sikhs, buddhists or pagans. Muslims have no more right to be exempt from being offended than those of other faiths whereas you seem to feel they do.
I am saying that the whole of the media shouldn't re publish the Charlie Hebdo front page as a sign of unity, not that no one should publish anything derogatory to muslims, or that Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have done so
The point of publishing is not unity. The point is to show the terrorists that we will not submit to their terror tactics. I have never argued it would be as a show of unity.
By not publishing we have sent an implicit message. "kill some people and we will fall into line"
I also firmly believe if the attack had been by christian fundamentalists due to some of the anti christian cartoons they published that those cartoons would have been on the front of every newspaper the next day
No one is submitting to their terror tactics though are they? What has changed?
How can you argue that when all of our newspapers refused to publish the cartoons which are an integral part of the news story? The fact they did not to me at least and I am sure to the terrorists tells them that they won
Cazeneuve reading the script of the Day of the Jackal on live TV....
Ironically I introduced my son to that film last weekend, its very good, and has lasted surprisingly well, remarkably little bad taste furniture or clothing for a film made in 1971.
1973, but yes, you're right...
I reread the book a couple of years ago, and it remains an excellent read.
Your point is that we shouldn't publish because they would offend all muslims not just the terrorists, I haven't missed it I merely consider it wrong. You on the other hand wish to pander to muslim sensibilities in a way that you don't seem to feel necessary for christians, hindu's, sikhs, buddhists or pagans. Muslims have no more right to be exempt from being offended than those of other faiths whereas you seem to feel they do.
I am saying that the whole of the media shouldn't re publish the Charlie Hebdo front page as a sign of unity, not that no one should publish anything derogatory to muslims, or that Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have done so
The point of publishing is not unity. The point is to show the terrorists that we will not submit to their terror tactics. I have never argued it would be as a show of unity.
By not publishing we have sent an implicit message. "kill some people and we will fall into line"
I also firmly believe if the attack had been by christian fundamentalists due to some of the anti christian cartoons they published that those cartoons would have been on the front of every newspaper the next day
No one is submitting to their terror tactics though are they? What has changed?
Let wait a bit and see, especially if we get a Labour government:
Wikipedia:
After the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the Government in Britain brought forward the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. Clause 38 of that Bill would have had the effect of amending Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 to extend the existing provisions on incitement to racial hatred to cover incitement to religious hatred.
16.35 Far-right Front National leader Marine Le Pen will hold rival rallies tomorrow.
Just... what they need now. Will they be protected by "rings of steel" also?
You exclude people representing a quarter of the country, what do you expect to happen ? It would be like UKIP having 150 seats in our parliament and not inviting them.
I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
Major newspapers and tv channels publish stuff all the time that is offensive to people of various faiths. I have never noticed people here saying they should not have done so because it is needlessly offensive except for when it is offending muslims. Can we now expect you to post decrying each of these as they happen? Somehow I doubt it because those other faiths don't by and large have a cadre within them that responds to that offence with a bullets and bombs.
It is either wrong to offend any religion or it is not wrong to offend any religion simple as that. Making exceptions for individual religions because some of its adherents may react with violence is nothing short of cowardice.
I am a man of faith and I don't want to live in a country where any faith including my own is exempt from questioning or mockery
Well played to you, but you've missed the point by about 100 miles
Your point is that we shouldn't publish because they would offend all muslims not just the terrorists, I haven't missed it I merely consider it wrong. You on the other hand wish to pander to muslim sensibilities in a way that you don't seem to feel necessary for christians, hindu's, sikhs, buddhists or pagans. Muslims have no more right to be exempt from being offended than those of other faiths whereas you seem to feel they do.
I am saying that the whole of the media shouldn't re publish the Charlie Hebdo front page as a sign of unity, not that no one should publish anything derogatory to muslims, or that Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have done so
No one is submitting to their terror tactics though are they? What has changed?
How can you argue that when all of our newspapers refused to publish the cartoons which are an integral part of the news story? The fact they did not to me at least and I am sure to the terrorists tells them that they won
Because no newspapers published that kind of cartoon before the attacks either, and magazines like Charlie Hebdo still will after, so nothing has changed
The terrorist will have won if more moderate muslims are inflamed by our reaction to it. They want an all out civil war, as I have said many times, but when a bully hits someone and says "hit me back" do you hit back?
Where can I get a price on Marine Le Pen as the next president of France?
These terrorist attacks combined with Michel Houellbecq's book are powerful advertising for her. And even before this week, the FN's victory in the 2014 EU elections meant a lot more than UKIP's.
I ask myself: “why don’t the LDs, Lab and UKIP want the Greens?” Could it be that the Green leader rather than Farage is likely to be the fresh face with the novelty value? Could it be that the Libdems in particular fear the haemorrhage of votes to the Greens by environmentalists? Could it be that the left-leaning Greens are going to undermine Labour’s credentials as the only anti-austerity option?
The reason the broadcasters are worried is fairly obvious - for all the talk of a Green surge, there's little concrete in the way of electoral achievement to back it up (unlike UKIP and the LDs). They've lost their deposit in every by-election they've contested, and although they appear to be level pegging with the LDs - that's within the context of record lows, and no one's saying the Lib Dems should be in the debates on the basis of poll ratings, but because they're in government with 60 odd MPs.
The Greens have an MP, based solely on the Green Party. UKIP have two MPs, who are basically rebadged Tories who won on incumbency and local name recognition. UKIP has never won a parliamentary election completely on its own merits.
If two Labour MPs were to resign and be immediately re-elected under another badge, does that give them the right to major party status?
If you want to dismiss the Green poll numbers, then let's dismiss UKIP poll numbers.
Okay, so UKIP got the highest share in the Euro elections, but that was a single issue election by what many see as a single issue party. We are not talking about a debate for the European elections, but the general election.
Cazeneuve reading the script of the Day of the Jackal on live TV....
Ironically I introduced my son to that film last weekend, its very good, and has lasted surprisingly well, remarkably little bad taste furniture or clothing for a film made in 1971.
Well played to you, but you've missed the point by about 100 miles
Your point is that we shouldn't publish because they would offend all muslims not just the terrorists, I haven't missed it I merely consider it wrong. You on the other hand wish to pander to muslim sensibilities in a way that you don't seem to feel necessary for christians, hindu's, sikhs, buddhists or pagans. Muslims have no more right to be exempt from being offended than those of other faiths whereas you seem to feel they do.
I am saying that the whole of the media shouldn't re publish the Charlie Hebdo front page as a sign of unity, not that no one should publish anything derogatory to muslims, or that Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have done so
No one is submitting to their terror tactics though are they? What has changed?
How can you argue that when all of our newspapers refused to publish the cartoons which are an integral part of the news story? The fact they did not to me at least and I am sure to the terrorists tells them that they won
Because no newspapers published that kind of cartoon before the attacks either, and magazines like Charlie Hebdo still will after, so nothing has changed
The terrorist will have won if more moderate muslims are inflamed by our reaction to it. They want an all out civil war, as I have said many times, but when a bully hits someone and says "hit me back" do you hit back?
The cartoon was an integral part of the news story there was every justification to publish it. If moderate muslims are "inflamed" to the point they become radicalised then frankly they were not particularly moderate in the first place.
We would not be hitting the bully back. The situation is more akin to someone did something the bully didn't like so he hit them and said don't do it again. If we obey then we give into bullying. If we refuse to obey and do it again then it is merely standing up to bullying.
Our press decided to give into the bullies in a shameful display of cowardice simple as that. Any muslim that couldn't get over the offence given by reporting a legitimate part of a legitimate news story (note not a case of giving offence for the sake of it) then they were not moderate muslims.
Because no newspapers published that kind of cartoon before the attacks either, and magazines like Charlie Hebdo still will after, so nothing has changed
The terrorist will have won if more moderate muslims are inflamed by our reaction to it. They want an all out civil war, as I have said many times, but when a bully hits someone and says "hit me back" do you hit back?
Where can I get a price on Marine Le Pen as the next president of France?
These terrorist attacks combined with Michel Houellbecq's book are powerful advertising for her. And even before this week, the FN's victory in the 2014 EU elections meant a lot more than UKIP's.
She won't get more than 40% in the final round but it might be worth betting on her if you can cash out before polling day.
10.50 BREAKING Former leader of France's far-right 'Front National' party Jean-Marie Le Pen has declared 'I am not Charlie' ... He said: "Today it's 'we are all Charlie, I am Charlie'. And frankly, I'm sorry, I am not Charlie. And while I am touched by the deaths of a dozen French compatriots with whom I did not share the same political identity, this I know well, they were enemies of the Front Nationale who had demanded the dissolution of the party not long ago."
Controversial....
An interesting thought experiment is to envisage the reaction if the gunmen had massacred 12 people at the FN headquarters, rather than at a left-wing magazine.
I suspect that among the authorities and opinion formers, the response would be a good deal more equivocal.
No it wouldn't.
That would be why the Front Nationals is being excluded from the day of unity.
Anyway we all remember the media reaction to the murder of Pim Fortuyn by a leftist.
Yes, the front page of 'The Mirror' practically gloated over it.
I APOLOGIZE TO MARKTHEOWL FOR MESSING UP MY QUOTING IN MY POST BELOW
This is my quote, not Mark's:
The Greens have an MP, based solely on the Green Party. UKIP have two MPs, who are basically rebadged Tories who won on incumbency and local name recognition. UKIP has never won a parliamentary election completely on its own merits.
If two Labour MPs were to resign and be immediately re-elected under another badge, does that give them the right to major party status?
If you want to dismiss the Green poll numbers, then let's dismiss UKIP poll numbers.
Okay, so UKIP got the highest share in the Euro elections, but that was a single issue election by what many see as a single issue party. We are not talking about a debate for the European elections, but the general election.
I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
As you know I am broadly a Hannanite Conservative, for me its an issue of liberties rather than viewpoints, Charlie isn't my sort of publication at all, and there isn't the slightest chance I would have bought a copy if I saw it on the news stand. Events should not be allowed to evolve in such a way that people feel they have lost that liberty to write what they want, even if it is exercised only occasionally.
People can write what they want, who said any different?
The Race and Religious Hatred Act (2006) for a start!
The answer is not for everyone to be offensive, but for us to tolerate viewpoints and expressions of those that we find offensive, provided those viewpoints are not an incitement to violence.
leave us when you have a minority, or to be fair a minority of a minority, who are determined to react violently to what in our cultural terms would be perfectly acceptable, or at least permissible. Almost anything is then, by definition, an incitement to violence.
A direct incitement to violence, such as "Kill Jews/apostates/gays/whatever". The definition of what is an incitement to violence should not be left to those who would do the violence.
Getting people to tolerate the bits of our culture that they find objectionable is the easy half of the puzzle of course, getting them to stop the parts of their culture that we find completely intolerable, particularly in the light of the pitch we have to make for the first half is going to be a nightmare. "Yes, I know you hate us drawing satirical pictures of the prophet, but its acceptable here so you are just going to have to live with it, oh and by the way you need to stop FGM because we hate it" is going to be a tough sell.
I think the FGM is a bit of a straw man. It is not integral to Islam, not even in Saudi Arabia where it is condemned, and it is not confined to Islam. We have no problems in limiting certain practices for everyone, even when they are a stated part of a religion. It is inconceivable that we would permit human sacrifice just because someone claimed it to be a religious tenet - in the US animal sacrifice is banned even though it is a part of Santeria, as is polygamy despite the beliefs of the AUB and FLDS factions of Mormonism.
Comments
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/trading-places-left-right-placement-in-scotland-by-professor-phil-cowley/#.VLE5xSusWjI
In the case of the Labour and Tory Parties, they have to pretend that they are the only two who can lead the next government. And so try to polarise the vote throughout the country.
Our electoral system is a mess, and we need to elect lots of MPs who will bring us into the 21st Century.
Do the debates have any point? Anyone who thought so must have been disabused by the last ones. I have a suspicion the debates will go ahead with Cameron but probably before the campaign proper starts.
' If Murphy gets slaughtered in GE2015 as looks likely'
Then game over, the SNP will get another majority in 2016 followed by another independence referendum within 5 years which they will win.
http://www.niconservatives.com
'Whose interest would be served by either side gratuitously causing offense to the other by breaking this convention or do you see it as a collective punishment that should be meted out to all those who don't share your sensibilities?'
Maybe people have had enough of the liberal establishment kowtowing to this minority which clearly isn't working,we're in a western democracy and you can either like it,lump it or find an Islamic country to live in in which you will be more comfortable in.
Time to cut the crap.
You take out the right wingers - on the principle that the rest are unlikely to vote for them, and including the LDs leaves a fudge factor for the flow each way. Then you get a score for the remaining 80% comprising "shall I vote SNP or SLAB or Green or perhaps even LD" of about 3.45, which is to the left of the SNP. Here's the arithmetic:
80% of 3.45 = 2.76
20% of 8.2 = 1.64
total 4.4
The other assumption, which is not a trivial one, is that SLAB actually espouses policies that their voters would consider to be Labour policies.
Always possible,but when separation is based on emotional arguments,much more difficult.
Four months ago one of the key SNP economic criteria was the price of oil would remain around $100,no notice was taken of the argument of price volatility,the price has since halved and the SNP is even more popular than before.
'As I have already pointed out, Scotland, Wales and NI can have their own debates, the UK have Cameron, Clegg, Farage, Bennett and Miliband in 1 UK-wide debate'
Agree, the TV companies should invite whichever parties they want.
In the case of the Labour and Tory Parties, they have to pretend that they are the only two who can lead the next government. And so try to polarise the vote throughout the country.
Our electoral system is a mess, and we need to elect lots of MPs who will bring us into the 21st Century."
Unfortunately, the voters, when consulted, decided rather emphatically to keep the current electoral system.
The Labour and conservative Parties don't have to pretend they are the only two who can lead the country: they ARE the only two, either on their own or in coalition with smaller groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993
Exactly. The debates will happen anyway and the Greens will be a lot stronger because of Cameron's position.
The fact is that the Greens have been steadily rising in the polls with minimal publicity and a softly spoken leader who isn't a showstopper in front of a camera.
Just a little extra publicity could push them into double digits in some polls in the next weeks. They are the only party that is surging right now and their impact as the margins could decide the outcome of the election.
Freedom of speech doesn't = Nationwide Tourettes
We have a free society which allows controversial magazines to say what they want, doesn't mean EVERY newspaper & magazine has to be controversial
As I said before, I think the terrorists would love the western media to start making moderate muslims angry by insulting their beliefs.. they'd be doing their recruiting work for them
Does your average - non-terrorist, law abiding - British Muslim see Socrates retweeting some of those cartoons as someone standing up for free speech? Or as someone mocking his religion?
But I do not see Scotland becoming Independent. If they do then it would be sad - mainly for them, but equally for all of us. But England can happily exist - we would all though be greatly diminished.
The oil price is not only on the way down - it is exposed for all to see as being volatile, plus it is running out in the North Sea if not in Saudi Arabia. The supply of hydrocarbons has increased dramatically with the advent of fracking and I venture to suggest it will put a floor under the price of oil at least as long as the North Sea price lasts. All of which throws the SNP economic argument into ruin. We have had a joint, Scottish, monarch for over 400 years and a united country for over 300. There is little to suggest why we should split.
The reason the broadcasters are worried is fairly obvious - for all the talk of a Green surge, there's little concrete in the way of electoral achievement to back it up (unlike UKIP and the LDs). They've lost their deposit in every by-election they've contested, and although they appear to be level pegging with the LDs - that's within the context of record lows, and no one's saying the Lib Dems should be in the debates on the basis of poll ratings, but because they're in government with 60 odd MPs. For the broadcasters letting in the Greens means legal carnage - if you allow the Greens in, why not Respect, who also have an MP? The SNP could be assured to make hay out of it and possibly 7 or 8 party debates. The knock on effect being that then UKIP get upset about effectively being demoted to the same level as those parties and demand inclusion
IMHO the best way out of it is for Ed, Nick and Farage to agree to the YouTube debate with the Greens - which isn't subject to broadcasting regulations and so avoids the mess of allowing them into the main TV ones, but also gives them a platform. Then proceed as normal with the other debates telling Cameron that he's got the Greens, now he has to front up.
Mind you, tactical voting will be important in some seats - both ways.
Many jurisdictions have the idea of "sleeping on your rights" or "statutes of repose" where by if you dont exercise a right within a given timeframe, you lose that right. This is the same sort of idea, only a cultural one, if someone doesn't occasionally exert their right to be profoundly offensive, people will soon forget that they have such a right. If someone isn't seriously offended from time to time they will assume they have a right to not be offended, and they dont.
In medieval times there was the concept of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_the_bounds, in which on an annual basis the inhabitants of a village visited all the boundaries of their land, to establish common knowledge of those bounds, and to prevent the encroachment of neighbours, some times those neighbours will have moved those boundary markers and they would need putting back.
It is important that we beat the boundaries of our rights and our culture regularly, or we will forget where they are, the neighbours will encroach and move the cultural markers, and soon we will find our cultural and legal real estate rather smaller than we remembered, and it will be too late to do anything about it.
https://twitter.com/STARBRIGHT164/status/553863365324722176/photo/1
Cllr Kenny Selbie
Michael Marra (brother of Jenny Marra MSP, former speechwriter for Iain Gray)
It's not that I have anything against spreading the cartoons, or any display of freedom of speech in the face of religious offense.,But doing it with the obvious motive of showing defiance in the face of terrorism implicitly buys into the idea that the attackers represented the much wider group of people who might find those images offensive or disturbing. It's helping the attackers to achieve what they wanted: making those cartoons be the dividing line which separates "us" from "them".
He says bomb disposal teams are at the scene.
I think to do so would be missing the point.. we aren't All Spartacus, or Charlie.. what we are are standing up for is the toleration of differences rather than explicitly backing the viewpoint of controversial magazines
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/the-lefts-unpopular-populism-elizabeth-warren-democratic-party/384310/
The answer is not for everyone to be offensive, but for us to tolerate viewpoints and expressions of those that we find offensive, provided those viewpoints are not an incitement to violence.
It is either wrong to offend any religion or it is not wrong to offend any religion simple as that. Making exceptions for individual religions because some of its adherents may react with violence is nothing short of cowardice.
I am a man of faith and I don't want to live in a country where any faith including my own is exempt from questioning or mockery
On the second point, if none of the smaller parties offer them their support, neither the Labour Pary nor the Conservatives can lead the country (unless they get an overall majority, of course, which on present form they will not).
1) Cameron, Miliband, Clegg, Farage - ITV
2) Cameron, Miliband, Clegg - BBC
3) Cameron, Miliband - C4 + Sky
I think some people have got the impression that OFCOM giving UKIP major party status means Farage is in all the debates. That's not the case - OFCOM has nothing to do with the debates - OFCOM's statement is re news coverage of the campaign - and it doesn't mean UKIP gets equal coverage - just that it must have due prominence.
Cameron is, obviously, only requesting that the Greens are in debate 1). Not 2) and 3).
Cameron, also obviously, would turn up for debates 2) and 3) even if he boycotted debate 1).
I'm sure he won't boycott debate 1) anyway.
Muslim savages boko haram strap a bomb to a 10 year old girl to show how peaceful islam is
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeria/11337456/Suicide-bombing-by-10-year-old-girl-in-Nigeria-kills-at-least-10.html …
but also, where does this leave us when you have a minority, or to be fair a minority of a minority, who are determined to react violently to what in our cultural terms would be perfectly acceptable, or at least permissible. Almost anything is then, by definition, an incitement to violence.
Andrew Neil stated yesterday that the Greens WILL be included in the Daily Politics debates re different subject areas during the GE campaign.
Again note - the OFCOM statement has no impact on this at all - OFCOM will not (and can not) prevent the Greens taking part.
By not publishing we have sent an implicit message. "kill some people and we will fall into line"
I also firmly believe if the attack had been by christian fundamentalists due to some of the anti christian cartoons they published that those cartoons would have been on the front of every newspaper the next day
A number of metro station, roads and roundabouts will be closed tomorrow.
"24 mobile units will be deployed. Officers will be charged with protecting sensitive sites, embassies, religious sites and public buildings in particular."
Wikipedia:
Just... what they need now. Will they be protected by "rings of steel" also?
The terrorist will have won if more moderate muslims are inflamed by our reaction to it. They want an all out civil war, as I have said many times, but when a bully hits someone and says "hit me back" do you hit back?
These terrorist attacks combined with Michel Houellbecq's book are powerful advertising for her. And even before this week, the FN's victory in the 2014 EU elections meant a lot more than UKIP's.
Sounds like she bailed a week ago...
We would not be hitting the bully back. The situation is more akin to someone did something the bully didn't like so he hit them and said don't do it again. If we obey then we give into bullying. If we refuse to obey and do it again then it is merely standing up to bullying.
Our press decided to give into the bullies in a shameful display of cowardice simple as that. Any muslim that couldn't get over the offence given by reporting a legitimate part of a legitimate news story (note not a case of giving offence for the sake of it) then they were not moderate muslims.
I APOLOGIZE TO MARKTHEOWL FOR MESSING UP MY QUOTING IN MY POST BELOW
This is my quote, not Mark's:
The Greens have an MP, based solely on the Green Party. UKIP have two MPs, who are basically rebadged Tories who won on incumbency and local name recognition. UKIP has never won a parliamentary election completely on its own merits.
If two Labour MPs were to resign and be immediately re-elected under another badge, does that give them the right to major party status?
If you want to dismiss the Green poll numbers, then let's dismiss UKIP poll numbers.
Okay, so UKIP got the highest share in the Euro elections, but that was a single issue election by what many see as a single issue party. We are not talking about a debate for the European elections, but the general election.