"Given that a lot of the comments here are expressions of regret of the existence of Muslims in the West..."
Islamophobia was used to denounce those seeking to expose criminality in Tower Hamlets. It's been used by apologists for the Charlie Hebdo murderers. The notion of it undoubtedly played a role in the Rotherham abuse [and abuse elsewhere] going on so long without action being taken.
Outlawing disliking a religion is ridiculous. An idea, a concept cannot be beyond criticism, insult, ridicule or parody.
Freedom has been used to justify the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children. It doesn't mean we retire the word freedom and deride it as a concept to be mocked and denied at every opportunity. Miliband wants to penalise violent thugs more when their crimes were committed to advance the hatred of a minority. I think that's a good idea.
"Given that a lot of the comments here are expressions of regret of the existence of Muslims in the West..."
Islamophobia was used to denounce those seeking to expose criminality in Tower Hamlets. It's been used by apologists for the Charlie Hebdo murderers. The notion of it undoubtedly played a role in the Rotherham abuse [and abuse elsewhere] going on so long without action being taken.
Outlawing disliking a religion is ridiculous. An idea, a concept cannot be beyond criticism, insult, ridicule or parody.
Quite right. Here already we are seeing the low level response of assuming criticism of this proposed law is rooted in 'regretting the existence of Muslims in the West' - even if some people do have that as their reason, given the very many other principled reasons people have given, it is wholly wrong to paint all or the majority putting the objection as sharing that particular view.
The poll is proper poll jointly for the radio station and Sunday broadsheet (Sunday Times or perhaps Scotland on Sunday) and shows further surge in SNP - that's all I have for now but I will try and coax out more.
However the source is legit.
I think there's a Panelbase for the ST due tonight. Fair to say the monthly Survation/DR is now overdue, I wonder why ?
"Given that a lot of the comments here are expressions of regret of the existence of Muslims in the West..."
Islamophobia was used to denounce those seeking to expose criminality in Tower Hamlets. It's been used by apologists for the Charlie Hebdo murderers. The notion of it undoubtedly played a role in the Rotherham abuse [and abuse elsewhere] going on so long without action being taken.
Outlawing disliking a religion is ridiculous. An idea, a concept cannot be beyond criticism, insult, ridicule or parody.
Quite right. Here already we are seeing the low level response of assuming criticism of this proposed law is rooted in 'regretting the existence of Muslims in the West' - even if some people do have that as their reason, given the very many other principled reasons people have given, it is wholly wrong to paint all or the majority putting the objection as sharing that particular view.
Sorry, but we've had the presence of Muslims in the West linked to the inevitable decline of freedom, presumably from the Islam-free golden age of the 1950s. It was compared to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Lots of people agreed with that and agreed that freedom is good, so the logical conclusion is that Muslims are at best a matter of regret, at worst a structural weakness to be sent elsewhere.
My reading of Miliband's Islamophobia proposal is that the only moment at which a person can lose out is when one is in the process of committing a crime against the person which is found to have been aggravated by one's hatred of the person's religion. Is this really comparable to the fall of the Roman Empire? Come on now.
"Islamophobia" as an accusation has been used by those who would cover up the mass racialised gang rape of white girls, and widespread political corruption - including rigged elections - in London and elsewhere.
It is clear that it is a boo word used by those, mainly on the Left, who seek to deconstruct the hardwon freedoms of westerners. Freedoms which took us many centuries to achieve.
Miliband would actually like to FURTHER this horrible process, with his stupid and pernicious law. So, yeah: Decline and Fall, Decline and Fall.
If Miliband proposes to criminalise the discussion of mass rape in Rotherham, I will join you on the barricades. As long as he is talking about getting tougher on crimes committed by hate criminals, I will refrain. This is in the context of our freedoms' being stronger than ever today. A few decades ago, you could have been sacked for being a Communist or imprisoned for being a homosexual.
Though it's funny how nobody here was up in arms about the child abuse ring that was revealed a few days ago. Is it cos they were white?
We discussed those child abusers on here, at the time, and I suggested they were a pretty good argument for the reintroduction of the death penalty.
Everything else you say is equally absurd, wrongheaded and foolish.
Will we be hearing about them from PB righties in a few years' time as the symbol of why white people are the cause of the West's decline and fall? We will not.
I am sure it will be popular, however badly thought out it is. It classic Miliband, identify a problem, check, talk about goodies vs badies, check, propose a solution that has been tried in the past and failed but sounds good to the casual listener, check....
"Given that a lot of the comments here are expressions of regret of the existence of Muslims in the West..."
Islamophobia was used to denounce those seeking to expose criminality in Tower Hamlets. It's been used by apologists for the Charlie Hebdo murderers. The notion of it undoubtedly played a role in the Rotherham abuse [and abuse elsewhere] going on so long without action being taken.
Outlawing disliking a religion is ridiculous. An idea, a concept cannot be beyond criticism, insult, ridicule or parody.
Quite right. Here already we are seeing the low level response of assuming criticism of this proposed law is rooted in 'regretting the existence of Muslims in the West' - even if some people do have that as their reason, given the very many other principled reasons people have given, it is wholly wrong to paint all or the majority putting the objection as sharing that particular view.
Sorry, but we've had the presence of Muslims in the West linked to the inevitable decline of freedom, presumably from the Islam-free golden age of the 1950s. It was compared to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Lots of people agreed with that and agreed that freedom is good, so the logical conclusion is that Muslims are at best a matter of regret, at worst a structural weakness to be sent elsewhere.
And that means one cannot object to the principle of this absurd proposed law unless one also shares that view? Ridiculous assertion. You appear to be saying the objection is invalid because you do not like other things some who object also believe. In other words, dismissing it, because you do not like the people putting the objection. I don't happen to share the view you describe and that others have put, but I still object to the law - may I humbly apply for a 'definitely not a racist badge' so that my view can be accepted as valid?
Oh, and it's not just righties who don't like the proposed law, and the reason I don't common on horrible gangs of criminals, white or otherwise, is because the subject is too goddamn depressing, I prefer to stick to considering the issues in abstract.
"Given that a lot of the comments here are expressions of regret of the existence of Muslims in the West..."
Islamophobia was used to denounce those seeking to expose criminality in Tower Hamlets. It's been used by apologists for the Charlie Hebdo murderers. The notion of it undoubtedly played a role in the Rotherham abuse [and abuse elsewhere] going on so long without action being taken.
Outlawing disliking a religion is ridiculous. An idea, a concept cannot be beyond criticism, insult, ridicule or parody.
Quite right. Here already we are seeing the low level response of assuming criticism of this proposed law is rooted in 'regretting the existence of Muslims in the West' - even if some people do have that as their reason, given the very many other principled reasons people have given, it is wholly wrong to paint all or the majority putting the objection as sharing that particular view.
Sorry, but we've had the presence of Muslims in the West linked to the inevitable decline of freedom, presumably from the Islam-free golden age of the 1950s. It was compared to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Lots of people agreed with that and agreed that freedom is good, so the logical conclusion is that Muslims are at best a matter of regret, at worst a structural weakness to be sent elsewhere.
If Britain became 50% Muslim, or 80% Muslim, and thus, essentially, a Muslim country, with all that entails, would you find that a cause for regret?
But you were talking about tiny minorities as a present threat to Western freedom and as a live direct cause of social decline, not some bizarre hypothetical situation. You can't just blame your Chicken Little warnings on a low-P scenario with an 80 per cent Muslim Britain (we can bet on the outcome of that if you like).
"Given that a lot of the comments here are expressions of regret of the existence of Muslims in the West..."
Islamophobia was used to denounce those seeking to expose criminality in Tower Hamlets. It's been used by apologists for the Charlie Hebdo murderers. The notion of it undoubtedly played a role in the Rotherham abuse [and abuse elsewhere] going on so long without action being taken.
Outlawing disliking a religion is ridiculous. An idea, a concept cannot be beyond criticism, insult, ridicule or parody.
Freedom has been used to justify the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children. It doesn't mean we retire the word freedom and deride it as a concept to be mocked and denied at every opportunity. Miliband wants to penalise violent thugs more when their crimes were committed to advance the hatred of a minority. I think that's a good idea.
Burning down a mosque is already illegal. Beating people up is already illegal. The severity of the offence should be related to the damage done. The sentence should be the same whether the offence was racially motivated or to steal the victim's wallet.
Mr. EPG, nobody's attacking the presence of Muslims, we're attacking putting a religion on a pedestal, seemingly making it illegal to mock or even question.
If Miliband's law does not do that, good, but then what's the point?
If it does, do you think it's acceptable to impose Islamic blasphemy rules upon atheists, to have the law of Islam written into the law of land?
"Given that a lot of the comments here are expressions of regret of the existence of Muslims in the West..."
Islamophobia was used to denounce those seeking to expose criminality in Tower Hamlets. It's been used by apologists for the Charlie Hebdo murderers. The notion of it undoubtedly played a role in the Rotherham abuse [and abuse elsewhere] going on so long without action being taken.
Outlawing disliking a religion is ridiculous. An idea, a concept cannot be beyond criticism, insult, ridicule or parody.
Quite right. Here already we are seeing the low level response of assuming criticism of this proposed law is rooted in 'regretting the existence of Muslims in the West' - even if some people do have that as their reason, given the very many other principled reasons people have given, it is wholly wrong to paint all or the majority putting the objection as sharing that particular view.
Sorry, but we've had the presence of Muslims in the West linked to the inevitable decline of freedom, presumably from the Islam-free golden age of the 1950s. It was compared to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Lots of people agreed with that and agreed that freedom is good, so the logical conclusion is that Muslims are at best a matter of regret, at worst a structural weakness to be sent elsewhere.
And that means one cannot object to the principle of this absurd proposed law unless one also shares that view? Ridiculous assertion. You appear to be saying the objection is invalid because you do not like other things some who object also believe. In other words, dismissing it, because you do not like the people putting the objection. I don't happen to share the view you describe and that others have put, but I still object to the law - may I humbly apply for a 'definitely not a racist badge' so that my view can be accepted as valid?
Oh, and it's not just righties who don't like the proposed law, and the reason I don't common on horrible gangs of criminals, white or otherwise, is because the subject is too goddamn depressing, I prefer to stick to considering the issues in abstract.
Fear not, I do not think you are racist. It does not mean you cannot object. It just means that lots of those who do object are doing so because they regret having Muslim compatriots who pose a clear and present perceived danger to their freedom. Consider all the commenters here who say lots of Muslims are sexist, racist, etc. They will tell you themselves that not all Muslims are like that. And it is similar in this case.
I am sure it will be popular, however badly thought out it is. It classic Miliband, identify a problem, check, talk about goodies vs badies, check, propose a solution that has been tried in the past and failed but sounds good to the casual listener, check....
EIC should not be underestimated. I wrote hear the other day that the manner Cameron is antagonising the Scots , treating them like pariah, I was told it was politics.
Now it's my turn. Whether it works in the long term, I do not know. I do not even know the details.
To be fair, after the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories after an election campaign full of nods and winks that they would never do such a thing, it would only be fitting if the opposite happened this time and they went in with Labour even after Clegg ruled it out.
15 Malcolm Tucker Quotes That Perfectly Explain The 2015 Election Let’s roll some tits up the flagpole and see if anyone gets wood. Contains some NSFW language, obviously.
Worth noting there was a kickback. The Danubian emperors (Gothic Claudius, Aurelian, Probus, Diocletian) actually reversed the rot to a significant extent. The Dark Ages, without Aurelian, would've started about two centuries earlier.
Sooner or later there'll be a kickback against capitulation and surrender of freedom of speech. The question is whether it'll be through the political mainstream, or not.
A few years ago no politician dared discuss immigration, after all.
I do not share your optimism. I think the west, especially Europe, is now in serious secular decline, political and psychological, and unable to defend its core values: just like Rome with its crumbling borders. European Muslim populations are expected to grow, which will only accelerate this process. When 20% of a country's population espouses basic hardcore medieval beliefs those beliefs will triumph over a feebly grasped liberalism.
If you have any evidence of resistance to this decline, I'd be happy to see it. As far as I can tell, there is none.
To be fair, after the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories after an election campaign full of nods and winks that they would never do such a thing, it would only be fitting if the opposite happened this time and they went in with Labour even after Clegg ruled it out.
The Liberals [ the Democrats have all gone] will not enter into another coalition for some time after what has happened to their party. If they do another coalition with the Tories, they would be perfectly entitled to be described as the Tories' bitch !
P.S. Mr Davey. If you read this, don't bother sending be more letters and glossies telling me how nasty the Tories are.
To be fair, after the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories after an election campaign full of nods and winks that they would never do such a thing, it would only be fitting if the opposite happened this time and they went in with Labour even after Clegg ruled it out.
No they didn't. Clegg clearly said that in the event if a hung Parliament he'd get into bed with which party did best. He didn't specify seats or votes, but in the end it didn't matter.
I am sure it will be popular, however badly thought out it is. It classic Miliband, identify a problem, check, talk about goodies vs badies, check, propose a solution that has been tried in the past and failed but sounds good to the casual listener, check....
Has anybody considered the possibility that Ed is in fact quite stupid?
To be fair, after the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories after an election campaign full of nods and winks that they would never do such a thing, it would only be fitting if the opposite happened this time and they went in with Labour even after Clegg ruled it out.
The midpoint of both Electionsetc and Election forecast are fascinating right now. Con + DUP + LD + UKIP + Hermon at 322, does that make a Gov't ?!
"Given that a lot of the comments here are expressions of regret of the existence of Muslims in the West..."
Islamophobia was used to denounce those seeking to expose criminality in Tower Hamlets. It's been used by apologists for the Charlie Hebdo murderers. The notion of it undoubtedly played a role in the Rotherham abuse [and abuse elsewhere] going on so long without action being taken.
Outlawing disliking a religion is ridiculous. An idea, a concept cannot be beyond criticism, insult, ridicule or parody.
Quite right. Here already we are seeing the low level response of assuming criticism of this proposed law is rooted in 'regretting the existence of Muslims in the West' - even if some people do have that as their reason, given the very many other principled reasons people have given, it is wholly wrong to paint all or the majority putting the objection as sharing that particular view.
Sorry, but we've had the presenchere.
And that means one cannot object to the principle of this absurd proposed law unless one also shares that view? Ridiculous assertion. You appear to be saying the objection is invalid because you do not like other things some who object also believe. In other words, dismissing it, because you do not like the people putting the objection. I don't happen to share the view you describe and that others have put, but I still object to the law - may I humbly apply for a 'definitely not a racist badge' so that my view can be accepted as valid?
Oh, and it's not just righties who don't like the proposed law, and the reason I don't common on horrible gangs of criminals, white or otherwise, is because the subject is too goddamn depressing, I prefer to stick to considering the issues in abstract.
Fear not, I do not think you are racist. It does not mean you cannot object. It just means that lots of those who do object are doing so because they regret having Muslim compatriots who pose a clear and present perceived danger to their freedom.
The danger, and the reason the law would be so problematic, is that people and the authorities now have a proven track record of ignoring serious problems because they do associate everyone who has an opinion with the very worst people who have that opinion. That is why harsher restrictions will only make the problem worse.
There's no surprise that the police took no action against voter intimidation and fraud in Tower Hamlets, for years. Most Labour and Conservative front benchers are petrified at being accused of "Islamophobia ". The police simply did the politicians' bidding. Neither party cares a fig for free speech.
The one decidedly amusing part of this sorry tale of authoritarianism has been the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the academics about the restrictions on free speech in the universities imposed by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Much as the restrictions are to be deplored, it was the same academics who spent the last few decades labelling anything they disagreed with as "hate speech" or "-phobia"etc.. Professor Michael Keith is a particularly disagreeable example discussed by the Commissioner in his report to the High Court. As Marcuse said, "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left". The universities can have no complaint that their own logic is now being remorselessly applied against them by the government.
Universities have a rotten record of defending free speech.
"Of course, we robustly defend the principle of free speech, but..."
"Free speech isn't free."
"We believe in free speech, but it must be used responsibly."
"Given that a lot of the comments here are expressions of regret of the existence of Muslims in the West..."
Islamophobia was used to denounce those seeking to expose criminality in Tower Hamlets. It's been used by apologists for the Charlie Hebdo murderers. The notion of it undoubtedly played a role in the Rotherham abuse [and abuse elsewhere] going on so long without action being taken.
Outlawing disliking a religion is ridiculous. An idea, a concept cannot be beyond criticism, insult, ridicule or parody.
Freedom has been used to justify the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children. It doesn't mean we retire the word freedom and deride it as a concept to be mocked and denied at every opportunity. Miliband wants to penalise violent thugs more when their crimes were committed to advance the hatred of a minority. I think that's a good idea.
Really? Personally I think the concept of "hate crime" is absurd. Is a man convicted of beating a Muslim any more deserving of extra punishment than someone convicted of the same GBH for attacking a supporter of a rival football club or for eyeing up his girlfriend?
The damage to the victim is the same and the punishment should be the same.
"Given that a lot of the comments here are expressions of regret of the existence of Muslims in the West..."
Islamophobia was used to denounce those seeking to expose criminality in Tower Hamlets. It's been used by apologists for the Charlie Hebdo murderers. The notion of it undoubtedly played a role in the Rotherham abuse [and abuse elsewhere] going on so long without action being taken.
Outlawing disliking a religion is ridiculous. An idea, a concept cannot be beyond criticism, insult, ridicule or parody.
Quite right. Here already we are seeing the low level response of assuming criticism of this proposed law is rooted in 'regretting the existence of Muslims in the West' - even if some people do have that as their reason, given the very many other principled reasons people have given, it is wholly wrong to paint all or the majority putting the objection as sharing that particular view.
Sorry, but we've had the presence of Muslims in the West linked to the inevitable decline of freedom, presumably from the Islam-free golden age of the 1950s. It was compared to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Lots of people agreed with that and agreed that freedom is good, so the logical conclusion is that Muslims are at best a matter of regret, at worst a structural weakness to be sent elsewhere.
If Britain became 50% Muslim, or 80% Muslim, and thus, essentially, a Muslim country, with all that entails, would you find that a cause for regret?
But you were talking about tiny minorities as a present threat to Western freedom and as a live direct cause of social decline, not some bizarre hypothetical situation. You can't just blame your Chicken Little warnings on a low-P scenario with an 80 per cent Muslim Britain (we can bet on the outcome of that if you like).
Answer my question.
Trying to change the topic because you know you're losing. But you're a good writer, so you know when to move on from a poor storyline and start again.
Mr. glw, I have posted at least twice today that Miliband is a damned fool.
He's a moron. Price freezes, rent caps, outlawing Islamophobia, the dead hand of the state clamping people's mouths shut and pretending it can buck the market. I suspect the market will tell Miliband to buck off.
I am sure it will be popular, however badly thought out it is. It classic Miliband, identify a problem, check, talk about goodies vs badies, check, propose a solution that has been tried in the past and failed but sounds good to the casual listener, check....
Has anybody considered the possibility that Ed is in fact quite stupid?
I am sure Ed, as the professional political animal that he is, would only propose something if he saw electoral advantage in it. I don't mind that as a quality in itself, and some of things he proposed do sound good, but not always.
@EricPickles: Rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city except for bombing http://t.co/RYjvDO2MhD Lindbeck
But apart from 7/7, Rotherham, Lee Rigby, Tower Hamlets, Charlie Hebdo medieval attitudes and 9/11, what harm has Islamic immigration ever done to us?'
To be fair, after the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories after an election campaign full of nods and winks that they would never do such a thing, it would only be fitting if the opposite happened this time and they went in with Labour even after Clegg ruled it out.
The midpoint of both Electionsetc and Election forecast are fascinating right now. Con + DUP + LD + UKIP + Hermon at 322, does that make a Gov't ?!
The DUP has already said that they will not enter a coalition.
Also, are we serious that having found peace in Northern Ireland after such a long time that we will take one side of the sectarian divide into a national coalition with all its attendant demands and claims. You might as well put hundreds of tons of TNT under the province !
Mr. glw, I have posted at least twice today that Miliband is a damned fool.
He's a moron. Price freezes, rent caps, outlawing Islamophobia, the dead hand of the state clamping people's mouths shut and pretending it can buck the market. I suspect the market will tell Miliband to buck off.
Don't forget: Rosamund Pike as the next James Bond.
I absolutely can't stand the man. He gets me shouting at the TV.
I wonder if in 50 years we will look back and realize that 1950-1980 was actually the golden age of free speech, from which the West inexorably declined.
The Romans must have thought they were destined to grow evermore advanced, until about 300AD, when they began to notice the cracks.
Actually the period between 1950-1980 was the golden age of the West when you look at it from economic and social development.
But look every civilization has it's Dark Ages , Europe has a Dark Age on average every 1000 years, there were many Dark Ages in the past and there will be many in the future.
In realistic terms Europe's decline started in 1914 and with the occasional rebound the decline never stopped, I do not believe it will recover for another 3 or 4 centuries. That means that over time Europe will resemble more an more the medieval times, with a core Holy Roman Empire surrounded by hostile and advancing Russians, Mongols and Muslims from the North, East and South.
However humanity has other civilizations, not just the european one. China had similar cycles of advance and decline but their phase is the opposite than the european one, when Europe was in the Dark Ages, China prospered. Since China reached it's nadir just back in the 1900-1949 period, historically that means that China has many centuries of development left before it enters another decline.
Has Al Murray been seen in Thanet - the whole thing looks like a vanity project to promote his book and his Pub Landlord tour - he is in Bristol on the 6th of May.
I am sure it will be popular, however badly thought out it is. It classic Miliband, identify a problem, check, talk about goodies vs badies, check, propose a solution that has been tried in the past and failed but sounds good to the casual listener, check....
Has anybody considered the possibility that Ed is in fact quite stupid?</blockquote
Sounds like he is becoming over confident and certainly has no idea on how markets work. He will be a nervous wreck within weeks if he attempts to form a government with fewer seats and propped up by the SNP. The country is rapidly becoming ungovernable and the effects on the markets will be dreadful. IMF looms at this rate
Really? Personally I think the concept of "hate crime" is absurd. Is a man convicted of beating a Muslim any more deserving of extra punishment than someone convicted of the same GBH for attacking a supporter of a rival football club or for eyeing up his girlfriend?
The damage to the victim is the same and the punishment should be the same.
There is a legitimate argument that motive can be relevant to sentence. For example, most would agree that an assault committed due to a premeditated racist or ideological motive is deserving of a graver punishment than a spur of the moment punch consequent on the offender's loss of control. What motive should never be relevant to is liability. Murder is murder, whether done for the sake of the workers' revolution, a superstition or simply because one is angry with one's wife.
Edited extra bit: and would the Jesus and Mo cartoons be suddenly rendered illegal?
If you publish on the internet, there is an argument that such cartoons are already contrary to the criminal law. By the Communications Act 2003, s. 127(1), it is an offence to publish via a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive. What does "grossly offensive" mean? The answer is that it is for the court, applying the standards of an open and just multiracial society and taking account of the context and all relevant circumstances, to determine as a question of fact whether a message is or not grossly offensive (DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 (HL)).
Surely if the "grossly offensive" material is political in nature and can be shown to be such then ECHR over-rules any ruling based on the Communcations Act ?
"Given that a lot of the comments here are expressions of regret of the existence of Muslims in the West..."
Islamophobia was used to denounce those seeking to expose criminality in Tower Hamlets. It's been used by apologists for the Charlie Hebdo murderers. The notion of it undoubtedly played a role in the Rotherham abuse [and abuse elsewhere] going on so long without action being taken.
Outlawing disliking a religion is ridiculous. An idea, a concept cannot be beyond criticism, insult, ridicule or parody.
Freedom has been used to justify the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children. It doesn't mean we retire the word freedom and deride it as a concept to be mocked and denied at every opportunity. Miliband wants to penalise violent thugs more when their crimes were committed to advance the hatred of a minority. I think that's a good idea.
Really? Personally I think the concept of "hate crime" is absurd. Is a man convicted of beating a Muslim any more deserving of extra punishment than someone convicted of the same GBH for attacking a supporter of a rival football club or for eyeing up his girlfriend?
The damage to the victim is the same and the punishment should be the same.
Agreed. A strong Conservative PM, for me, would be one who possessed strong moral courage. Someone who could lead the nation, and be able to argue from first principles, as to why these laws aren't appropriate and repeal them.
Of course, the seven hounds of hell would descend on him/her as they tried to do this. But they'd earn the respect of millions, and it would be the right thing to do.
Mr. glw, I have posted at least twice today that Miliband is a damned fool.
He's a moron. Price freezes, rent caps, outlawing Islamophobia, the dead hand of the state clamping people's mouths shut and pretending it can buck the market. I suspect the market will tell Miliband to buck off.
Don't forget: Rosamund Pike as the next James Bond.
I absolutely can't stand the man. He gets me shouting at the TV.
Remember to pace your shouting or avoid the TV should the expected occur in a few weeks. Five years would be sore on the throat.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 7m7 minutes ago Give his rent policy, if Ed Miliband's ahead in the polls this time next week a lot of people are going to start geting posession notices.
Hopefully mystic Dan will be in receipt of said notice!
Has Al Murray been seen in Thanet - the whole thing looks like a vanity project to promote his book and his Pub Landlord tour - he is in Bristol on the 6th of May.
Ok, so Murray has read the opinion polls that show him getting less than the Monster Raving Lonnies and decided to pack up and leave Thanet for sunnier places.
But apart from 7/7, Rotherham, Lee Rigby, Tower Hamlets, Charlie Hebdo and 9/11, what harm has Islamic immigration ever done to us?'
I suppose some apologists could say and I am sure they do say where it matters that apart from hundreds and thousands of women and children dying from "collateral damage" - that horrible expression - from bombs, missile attacks , drones, what harm has the West done ?
Each side has their own story to tell and both sides have eager listeners.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 7m7 minutes ago Give his rent policy, if Ed Miliband's ahead in the polls this time next week a lot of people are going to start geting posession notices.
Hopefully mystic Dan will be in receipt of said notice!
The Tory party will probably send him one, over false advice.
Mr. glw, I have posted at least twice today that Miliband is a damned fool.
He's a moron. Price freezes, rent caps, outlawing Islamophobia, the dead hand of the state clamping people's mouths shut and pretending it can buck the market. I suspect the market will tell Miliband to buck off.
Don't forget: Rosamund Pike as the next James Bond.
I absolutely can't stand the man. He gets me shouting at the TV.
Remember to pace your shouting or avoid the TV should the expected occur in a few weeks. Five years would be sore on the throat.
I have thought (on more than one occasion) of not posting on pb.com for a while. I am getting increasingly agitated by this election - as some may have noticed from my posts on here - and acting more erratically to suit.
I simply cannot understand how decent, well-meaning people (including several posters I respect on here) can vote for this colossal twit, and put him into power.
"Given that a lot of the comments here are expressions of regret of the existence of Muslims in the West..."
Islamophobia was used to denounce those seeking to expose criminality in Tower Hamlets. It's been used by apologists for the Charlie Hebdo murderers. The notion of it undoubtedly played a role in the Rotherham abuse [and abuse elsewhere] going on so long without action being taken.
Outlawing disliking a religion is ridiculous. An idea, a concept cannot be beyond criticism, insult, ridicule or parody.
Freedom has been used to justify the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children. It doesn't mean we retire the word freedom and deride it as a concept to be mocked and denied at every opportunity. Miliband wants to penalise violent thugs more when their crimes were committed to advance the hatred of a minority. I think that's a good idea.
Really? Personally I think the concept of "hate crime" is absurd. Is a man convicted of beating a Muslim any more deserving of extra punishment than someone convicted of the same GBH for attacking a supporter of a rival football club or for eyeing up his girlfriend?
The damage to the victim is the same and the punishment should be the same.
Well said. The problem is that what you've just said is logical. The whole notion of 'hate crime' is not.
Has Al Murray been seen in Thanet - the whole thing looks like a vanity project to promote his book and his Pub Landlord tour - he is in Bristol on the 6th of May.
It's token left-wing activism dressed up as 'aving a laugh.
Surely if the "grossly offensive" material is political in nature and can be shown to be such then ECHR over-rules any ruling based on the Communcations Act ?
Collins also decides that section 127 is compatible with article 10 ECHR. It is binding authority on all domestic courts. It would only be reconsidered if a contrary decision of the Strasbourg Court was promulgated.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 7m7 minutes ago Give his rent policy, if Ed Miliband's ahead in the polls this time next week a lot of people are going to start geting posession notices.
Hopefully mystic Dan will be in receipt of said notice!
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 7m7 minutes ago Give his rent policy, if Ed Miliband's ahead in the polls this time next week a lot of people are going to start geting posession notices.
Hopefully mystic Dan will be in receipt of said notice!
Dan Hodges hits the nail on the head - Ed Miliband needs several Oscar's for ill thought out policies
Really? Personally I think the concept of "hate crime" is absurd. Is a man convicted of beating a Muslim any more deserving of extra punishment than someone convicted of the same GBH for attacking a supporter of a rival football club or for eyeing up his girlfriend?
The damage to the victim is the same and the punishment should be the same.
There is a legitimate argument that motive can be relevant to sentence. For example, most would agree that an assault committed due to a premeditated racist or ideological motive is deserving of a graver punishment than a spur of the moment punch consequent on the offender's loss of control. What motive should never be relevant to is liability. Murder is murder, whether done for the sake of the workers' revolution, a superstition or simply because one is angry with one's wife.
You seem to be confusing motive with premeditation. I would say a premeditated mugging for theft is as serious as a premeditated mugging for racist reasons.
(Actually I am a Stoic and do not believe that provocation should be a mitigation for crime, but I realise I am in a minority there and wouldn't attempt to argue it).
I am pretty Islamophonic. If people want to practise their Moslem faith, that's fine. But they have to accept others will not share their views. Allah will sort it all out anyway, and me and many others will burn in hell. But in this life, I'll carry on believing my daughter is entitled to every freedom and opportunity my sons have, thank-you very much; and I'll be phobic about anyone or any religion that says otherwise, or whose followers do. Fuck 'em.
Ed should be steering well clear of this. That he isn't just tells me he is not up to leadership. We have enough laws already to deal with hate that leads to physical attack and discrimination. Verbal attack is not nice when suffered, but can be recovered from or, even better, ignored.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 7m7 minutes ago Give his rent policy, if Ed Miliband's ahead in the polls this time next week a lot of people are going to start geting posession notices.
Hopefully mystic Dan will be in receipt of said notice!
I always love how deliciously deluded Hodges and people like him show themselves to be when they make comments like this. It's as if they think landlords are giving people places to stay out of the goodness of their hearts, rather than because it makes them money. If they were to evict all their tenants, then they'd be losing out on a hell of a lot more money than if they had to submit to the greater regulation.
But apart from 7/7, Rotherham, Lee Rigby, Tower Hamlets, Charlie Hebdo and 9/11, what harm has Islamic immigration ever done to us?'
I suppose some apologists could say and I am sure they do say where it matters that apart from hundreds and thousands of women and children dying from "collateral damage" - that horrible expression - from bombs, missile attacks , drones, what harm has the West done ?
Each side has their own story to tell and both sides have eager listeners.
I agree I sure people do say that, and I make them right to say it. I don't make Blair, Bush or any of those who terrorised the Middle East any better than the scum doing the beheading, bombing and shooting in the west
That's why you have to be careful with immigration to and from places that think like that of each other
Really? Personally I think the concept of "hate crime" is absurd. Is a man convicted of beating a Muslim any more deserving of extra punishment than someone convicted of the same GBH for attacking a supporter of a rival football club or for eyeing up his girlfriend?
The damage to the victim is the same and the punishment should be the same.
There is a legitimate argument that motive can be relevant to sentence. For example, most would agree that an assault committed due to a premeditated racist or ideological motive is deserving of a graver punishment than a spur of the moment punch consequent on the offender's loss of control. What motive should never be relevant to is liability. Murder is murder, whether done for the sake of the workers' revolution, a superstition or simply because one is angry with one's wife.
IANAL but aren't you just saying what we already believe: that premeditated crimes are worse than crimes passionel? If you plot and perpetrate a murder because you hate someone (for whatever reason) you deserve a stiffer sentence than a spontaneous drunken puncher.
The motivation for that hatred and premeditation (race, sex, politics, stupid Lefty remarks on politicalbetting.com) is, or should be, irrelevant.
I agree. Motive need only be taken into consideration when sentencing in as far as it is an assessment of risk of re-offending. That may well be as high for a football thug or jealous boyfriend as it is for a racist. We should not be seperating out special protected classes of people by "hate laws".
I didn't know so many people were anti-Scottish bigots who wanted to deprive them of their right to be represented (as criticising the SNP being in power surely means).
charles hymas @charleshymas 1m1 minute ago #yougov #sundaytimes Peter Kellner forecasts election night Con 34, Lab 33, ukip 12, libdem 11, green 4, snp 5, others 1
To be fair, after the Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories after an election campaign full of nods and winks that they would never do such a thing, it would only be fitting if the opposite happened this time and they went in with Labour even after Clegg ruled it out.
The midpoint of both Electionsetc and Election forecast are fascinating right now. Con + DUP + LD + UKIP + Hermon at 322, does that make a Gov't ?!
The DUP has already said that they will not enter a coalition.
Also, are we serious that having found peace in Northern Ireland after such a long time that we will take one side of the sectarian divide into a national coalition with all its attendant demands and claims. You might as well put hundreds of tons of TNT under the province !
As I pointed out yonks ago, since SF are in coalition with the DUP in Northern Ireland, they would then - by extension - find themselves in coalition with the British government.
I didn't know so many people were anti-Scottish bigots who wanted to deprive them of their right to be represented (as criticising the SNP being in power surely means).
I didn't realise anyone could try to put up such an obvious straw man argument.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 7m7 minutes ago Give his rent policy, if Ed Miliband's ahead in the polls this time next week a lot of people are going to start geting posession notices.
Hopefully mystic Dan will be in receipt of said notice!
I always love how deliciously deluded Hodges and people like him show themselves to be when they make comments like this. It's as if they think landlords are giving people places to stay out of the goodness of their hearts, rather than because it makes them money. If they were to evict all their tenants, then they'd be losing out on a hell of a lot more money than if they had to submit to the greater regulation.
I am pretty Islamophonic. If people want to practise their Moslem faith, that's fine. But they have to accept others will not share their views. Allah will sort it all out anyway, and me and many others will burn in hell. But in this life, I'll carry on believing my daughter is entitled to every freedom and opportunity my sons have, thank-you very much; and I'll be phobic about anyone or any religion that says otherwise, or whose followers do. Fuck 'em.
Ed should be steering well clear of this. That he isn't just tells me he is not up to leadership. We have enough laws already to deal with hate that leads to physical attack and discrimination. Verbal attack is not nice when suffered, but can be recovered from or, even better, ignored.
I didn't know so many people were anti-Scottish bigots who wanted to deprive them of their right to be represented (as criticising the SNP being in power surely means).
If I was polled on that I would say "strongly disagree". But that's because I think that they could cause serious damage to the Labour Party - and in the medium to long term that might be in the UK's interest.
I didn't know so many people were anti-Scottish bigots who wanted to deprive them of their right to be represented (as criticising the SNP being in power surely means).
I didn't realise anyone could try to put up such an obvious straw man argument.
Well, I'm not practiced at it, as I usually strive for being entirely reasonable, so it lacked subtlety I admit.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 7m7 minutes ago Give his rent policy, if Ed Miliband's ahead in the polls this time next week a lot of people are going to start geting posession notices.
Hopefully mystic Dan will be in receipt of said notice!
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 7m7 minutes ago Give his rent policy, if Ed Miliband's ahead in the polls this time next week a lot of people are going to start geting posession notices.
Hopefully mystic Dan will be in receipt of said notice!
Dan Hodges hits the nail on the head - Ed Miliband needs several Oscar's for ill thought out policies
Policies that are going to give Miliband a plurality, according to the polls ten days before the GE. A plurality I have been predicting for a year.
Ed is not stupid. He's potentially a menace to the wellbeing of the nation, but he's not stupid.
Or not even a plurality, either in votes or seats, but still PM nonetheless.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 7m7 minutes ago Give his rent policy, if Ed Miliband's ahead in the polls this time next week a lot of people are going to start geting posession notices.
Hopefully mystic Dan will be in receipt of said notice!
I always love how deliciously deluded Hodges and people like him show themselves to be when they make comments like this. It's as if they think landlords are giving people places to stay out of the goodness of their hearts, rather than because it makes them money. If they were to evict all their tenants, then they'd be losing out on a hell of a lot more money than if they had to submit to the greater regulation.
Comments
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2012/11/a-campaign-memo-to-lynton-crosby/
Keith Vaz helped kill a 90s probe into the Greville Janner claims: why is he silent now?
The MP was among those whose support for Lord Janner stifled an investigation into child-abuse allegations. Vaz should admit his error
http://bit.ly/1GiMYjb
http://electionforecast.co.uk/
I'm not convinced they have !
Iain Martin @iainmartin1
“@labourpress: BREAKING: Ed Miliband will... cap rents to protect tenants http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-end-tax-breaks-5584072#ICID=sharebar_twitter …” Rent caps. What could possibly go wrong
We're going to turn into Belgium and have no government for nearly 600 days.
Oh, and it's not just righties who don't like the proposed law, and the reason I don't common on horrible gangs of criminals, white or otherwise, is because the subject is too goddamn depressing, I prefer to stick to considering the issues in abstract.
PR would have made for an even more interesting GE 2015
Midpoint for Lib Dems is 25 where they differ by 2.
DUP take as 8.5.
That's 319.5 - not quite enough.
Sheffield Hallam is by far and away the 'biggest' constituency of the election right now, quite convinced of that.
Just a pity they came up with the D'Hondt electoral system
If Miliband's law does not do that, good, but then what's the point?
If it does, do you think it's acceptable to impose Islamic blasphemy rules upon atheists, to have the law of Islam written into the law of land?
Mr. Eagles, well, quite.
Now it's my turn. Whether it works in the long term, I do not know. I do not even know the details.
But it is politics !!!
Let’s roll some tits up the flagpole and see if anyone gets wood. Contains some NSFW language, obviously.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/robinedds/you-sounded-like-a-nazi-julie-andrews
P.S. Mr Davey. If you read this, don't bother sending be more letters and glossies telling me how nasty the Tories are.
I have already voted - and voted LABOUR.
"Free speech isn't free."
"We believe in free speech, but it must be used responsibly."
The damage to the victim is the same and the punishment should be the same.
He's a moron. Price freezes, rent caps, outlawing Islamophobia, the dead hand of the state clamping people's mouths shut and pretending it can buck the market. I suspect the market will tell Miliband to buck off.
But apart from 7/7, Rotherham, Lee Rigby, Tower Hamlets, Charlie Hebdo medieval attitudes and 9/11, what harm has Islamic immigration ever done to us?'
Also, are we serious that having found peace in Northern Ireland after such a long time that we will take one side of the sectarian divide into a national coalition with all its attendant demands and claims. You might as well put hundreds of tons of TNT under the province !
I absolutely can't stand the man. He gets me shouting at the TV.
But look every civilization has it's Dark Ages , Europe has a Dark Age on average every 1000 years, there were many Dark Ages in the past and there will be many in the future.
In realistic terms Europe's decline started in 1914 and with the occasional rebound the decline never stopped, I do not believe it will recover for another 3 or 4 centuries.
That means that over time Europe will resemble more an more the medieval times, with a core Holy Roman Empire surrounded by hostile and advancing Russians, Mongols and Muslims from the North, East and South.
However humanity has other civilizations, not just the european one.
China had similar cycles of advance and decline but their phase is the opposite than the european one, when Europe was in the Dark Ages, China prospered.
Since China reached it's nadir just back in the 1900-1949 period, historically that means that China has many centuries of development left before it enters another decline.
Of course, the seven hounds of hell would descend on him/her as they tried to do this. But they'd earn the respect of millions, and it would be the right thing to do.
Give his rent policy, if Ed Miliband's ahead in the polls this time next week a lot of people are going to start geting posession notices.
Hopefully mystic Dan will be in receipt of said notice!
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
Each side has their own story to tell and both sides have eager listeners.
Cocky Ed Miliband declares he’s ‘going to win’ despite the polls
Ed is Cocky Is PM (EICIPM)!!
I simply cannot understand how decent, well-meaning people (including several posters I respect on here) can vote for this colossal twit, and put him into power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32468997
1) Poking the UKIP hornets' nest
2) An AV thread.
I might try and segue in another reference to Belgium into number 2
(Actually I am a Stoic and do not believe that provocation should be a mitigation for crime, but I realise I am in a minority there and wouldn't attempt to argue it).
Ed should be steering well clear of this. That he isn't just tells me he is not up to leadership. We have enough laws already to deal with hate that leads to physical attack and discrimination. Verbal attack is not nice when suffered, but can be recovered from or, even better, ignored.
@EricPickles
Rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city except for bombing
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie 8m8 minutes ago
Tim Montgomerie ن retweeted Eric Pickles
Tories react calmly to Labour's idea of rent controls
That's why you have to be careful with immigration to and from places that think like that of each other
Britain Elects @britainelects 38s38 seconds ago
Latest YouGov poll (24 - 25 Apr):
LAB - 34% (-1)
CON - 32% (-1)
UKIP - 14% (+1)
LDEM - 9% (+1)
GRN - 6% (-)
Latest YouGov poll (24 - 25 Apr):
LAB - 34% (-1)
CON - 32% (-1)
UKIP - 14% (+1)
LDEM - 9% (+1)
GRN - 6% (-)
#yougov #sundaytimes Peter Kellner forecasts election night Con 34, Lab 33, ukip 12, libdem 11, green 4, snp 5, others 1
You have to love career politicians.
Which they can never be (or seen to be)...
'The labour party under Ed miliband is really starting to worry me.
General election 2015: Labour will toughen hate crimes legislation surrounding Islamophobia'
Desperate stuff, a great vote loser.