She'd apparently committed other Facebook Like crimes and this was the final straw. Since she's a dinner lady, I can't see what business it is of her employer to *monitor* her social media at all.
Since we don't know what she'd posted previously, it's hard to make a valid judgement without the full facts. But that won't stop frothing from the usual suspects, with a cry of "but it's on the internet it must be true".
As for employers monitoring social media, why not, it's effectively a public space?
If you stood on Speaker's Corner and held forth about your views on this and that, without mentioning your employers or your exposition touching in anyway on their products or business practises, should they be able to discipline you for it ?
Legally, no. They can't. But, some would try to argue you've "brought them into disrepute."
How can you bring them into disrepute when no one knows you are connected with them ? Unless they are in effect saying "That idiot works for us, and now you know that, he is bringing us into disrepute!"
Who "shares" these values? Devout Muslims don't - they've been fighting Western culture for the whole time that Islam has existed as a devotional practice.
The vast majority of this country does. We believe in equality for women, human rights, the rule of law, freedom of expression and looking after the disadvantaged of the society. Those who do believe in these values need to stand up for them not just in the UK but elsewhere in the world and that means opposing those who treat so many of their fellow humans with contempt.
Well, you can't have freedom of expression only for those who themselves believe in freedom of expression. You can't wish away the problem of "tolerating the intolerant" with a single airy phrase. Indeed, I don't know how it can be dealt with - the devout Muslim is only an instance of a wider phenomenon.
It's not easy, I agree. But the answer must be that people do not have the right not to be offended, to be challenged, to have their beliefs questioned and even ridiculed. Unintended consequences have indeed played a major part here. By protecting minorities that the majority don't agree with we have not created tolerance but encouraged intolerance and allowed views that are incompatible with our values to flourish.
It is easy to describe this in the abstract and much more difficult to apply it in practice but the limitations on freedom of speech and expression over the last 20 years have had negative consequences for the cohesion and vigour of our society.
I am sorry to say that your answer merely elevates one cultural paradigm above others, without giving a justification for so doing that is not itself part of the same paradigm.
If I say that those who come here, whether fleeing persecution, seeking economic advantage or for any other reason, must buy into our values then must I not also accept their right to go elsewhither precisely because they think that price too high? And do they not then have the right to create a State for the purpose, inter alia of destroying our culture? (You can see where I'm going with this, of course...)
She'd apparently committed other Facebook Like crimes and this was the final straw. Since she's a dinner lady, I can't see what business it is of her employer to *monitor* her social media at all.
Since we don't know what she'd posted previously, it's hard to make a valid judgement without the full facts. But that won't stop frothing from the usual suspects, with a cry of "but it's on the internet it must be true".
As for employers monitoring social media, why not, it's effectively a public space?
I think it's legitimate for an employer to discipline an employee who, outside of the workplace, badmouths the employer, fellow employees, or their customers; or (if the employer is a campaigning organisation) campaigns against the values of that organisation; or who commits a serious criminal offence. Other than that, I don't think behaviour outside the workplace is any business of the employer.
If I was the employer I would fire the HR staff for wasting *my* time on Facebook to monitor staff.
Mr. F, the little Hitlers of the world (overly officious sorts) must love the internet, and the opportunities it brings for interfering in their staff's lives..
"The beauty of a well designed Fascism, is that it gives every piss-ant an ant hill to piss from"
Looks like they are almost exactly split on the issue.
Thanks for that, surprised to see 1 in 5 lib dens favour leaving.
Lib Dem "support base" is a strange lot. Immediately after the GE, half their voters do not support the party.
Begs the question: why did you vote for them just a few months back ?
Similar happened to ukip, they didn't win enough seats so people look elsewhere. I think it's to do with supporting a winning team and why parties pay money to pollsters.
Not exactly. For a small but, I would suggest, significant number of people voting UKIP was a way to put pressure on the Tories in the lead up to the referendum. It failed and, since that opportunity is now gone and Farage looks like he could do serious damage to the Leave campaign, there is not much reason to continue to support the current incarnation of UKIP.
Who "shares" these values? Devout Muslims don't - they've been fighting Western culture for the whole time that Islam has existed as a devotional practice.
Well, you can't have freedom of expression only for those who themselves believe in freedom of expression. You can't wish away the problem of "tolerating the intolerant" with a single airy phrase. Indeed, I don't know how it can be dealt with - the devout Muslim is only an instance of a wider phenomenon.
It's not easy, I agree. But the answer must be that people do not have the right not to be offended, to be challenged, to have their beliefs questioned and even ridiculed. Unintended consequences have indeed played a major part here. By protecting minorities that the majority don't agree with we have not created tolerance but encouraged intolerance and allowed views that are incompatible with our values to flourish.
It is easy to describe this in the abstract and much more difficult to apply it in practice but the limitations on freedom of speech and expression over the last 20 years have had negative consequences for the cohesion and vigour of our society.
I am sorry to say that your answer merely elevates one cultural paradigm above others, without giving a justification for so doing that is not itself part of the same paradigm.
If I say that those who come here, whether fleeing persecution, seeking economic advantage or for any other reason, must buy into our values then must I not also accept their right to go elsewhither precisely because they think that price too high? And do they not then have the right to create a State for the purpose, inter alia of destroying our culture? (You can see where I'm going with this, of course...)
Yes they have the right to seek sanctuary elsewhere if they find our society not to their liking. And I have no problem in putting our cultural paradigms above others. None whatsoever.
What the non partisan thread author doesn't point out is the front page of the Telegraph talking about splits in the Tory party over Heathrow.
This is how pb works, continually point out the failings of the opposition to cover up one's own party's failings. Cameron is in an awful mess on so many levels and the Tories are skilfully deflecting it towards Corbyn. Good for them, you could argue, it's called politics, but it leads to poor governance.
There was a toast to the man on whom so much of our hopes for future success depends at the Conservative Christmas lunch yesterday.
It was quite well done and funny but as I have made clear here several times I think Corbyn is not only very bad for Labour but bad for the country.
Yesterday, despite the appalling weather, we also had a Socialist Worker group campaigning with a loudspeaker in Dundee City centre. Listening to them gives an insight to both Corbyn and those who support him. They were campaigning against bombing in Syria. According to them there is no problem in the world that Britain can't make worse, no action that Britain can take that isn't shameful, nothing bad that happens which is not our fault and nothing in our history which is not a disgrace. Yes ISIS are evil but we are so soaked in hypocrisy and self serving imperialist arrogance that we are at least as bad and we should stay away.
It is a view of our country that has a certain resonance with a small but very motivated part of our society. Yesterday was no day for feint hearts. I don't think it is the view of the vast majority of us but it seemed to me to summarise the Corbyn mindset all too well. It is also miles from the traditional view of the Labour party. Are the majority of that party no longer proud of their country, convinced it can be a force for good in the world and willing to stand up for our shared values? I find that very hard to believe.
Who "shares" these values? Devout Muslims don't - they've been fighting Western culture for the whole time that Islam has existed as a devotional practice.
The vast majority of this country does. We believe in equality for women, human rights, the rule of law, freedom of expression and looking after the disadvantaged of the society. Those who do believe in these values need to stand up for them not just in the UK but elsewhere in the world and that means opposing those who treat so many of their fellow humans with contempt.
Yet the establishment from Cameron down to the local plod, via the whole alphabet's soup of 'three monkeys' official bodies, looks the other way about:
Industrial scale racist child rape Vote rigging Forced marriage Cousin marriage Honour killings FGM Attacks on Jews Attacks on homosexuals Threats against and murders of authors, film makers, cartoonists etc
So how do you DavidL 'stand up' against these things ?
What the non partisan thread author doesn't point out is the front page of the Telegraph talking about splits in the Tory party over Heathrow.
This is how pb works, continually point out the failings of the opposition to cover up one's own party's failings. Cameron is in an awful mess on so many levels and the Tories are skilfully deflecting it towards Corbyn. Good for them, you could argue, it's called politics, but it leads to poor governance.
A week or so ago I wrote a draft thread header for pb along exactly those lines. Ultimately, however, I asked for it not to be published because so many other articles had been written elsewhere after I wrote it making similar points. It's a hazard of writing on mainstream topics.
Good for you Mr Meeks, keep at it. Let's examine exactly what the GOVT has done since May rather than chuck buckets of shite over Corbyn every day.
He is a big distraction. The government has been surprisingly crappt in a short span of time, but he keeps doing things which not only invite attention, but grab it.
Putting in the effort just with Focus leaflets alone must get them some name recognition points for trying at the ballot box.
I find them curiously retro in appearance - sort of school produced on pocket money budget. I can't decide if it makes them look parsimonious or amateurish.
Who "shares" these values? Devout Muslims don't - they've been fighting Western culture for the whole time that Islam has existed as a devotional practice.
Well, you can't have freedom of expression only for those who themselves believe in freedom of expression. You can't wish away the problem of "tolerating the intolerant" with a single airy phrase. Indeed, I don't know how it can be dealt with - the devout Muslim is only an instance of a wider phenomenon.
It's not easy, I agree. But the answer must be that people do not have the right not to be offended, to be challenged, to have their beliefs questioned and even ridiculed. Unintended consequences have indeed played a major part here. By protecting minorities that the majority don't agree with we have not created tolerance but encouraged intolerance and allowed views that are incompatible with our values to flourish.
It is easy to describe this in the abstract and much more difficult to apply it in practice but the limitations on freedom of speech and expression over the last 20 years have had negative consequences for the cohesion and vigour of our society.
I am sorry to say that your answer merely elevates one cultural paradigm above others, without giving a justification for so doing that is not itself part of the same paradigm.
If I say that those who come here, whether fleeing persecution, seeking economic advantage or for any other reason, must buy into our values then must I not also accept their right to go elsewhither precisely because they think that price too high? And do they not then have the right to create a State for the purpose, inter alia of destroying our culture? (You can see where I'm going with this, of course...)
Yes they have the right to seek sanctuary elsewhere if they find our society not to their liking. And I have no problem in putting our cultural paradigms above others. None whatsoever.
Heaven forbid that anyone should ever call you a racist.
es they have the right to seek sanctuary elsewhere if they find our society not to their liking. And I have no problem in putting our cultural paradigms above others. None whatsoever.
There was a toast to the man on whom so much of our hopes for future success depends at the Conservative Christmas lunch yesterday.
It was quite well done and funny but as I have made clear here several times I think Corbyn is not only very bad for Labour but bad for the country.
Yesterday, despite the appalling weather, we also had a Socialist Worker group campaigning with a loudspeaker in Dundee City centre. Listening to them gives an insight to both Corbyn and those who support him. They were campaigning against bombing in Syria. According to them there is no problem in the world that Britain can't make worse, no action that Britain can take that isn't shameful, nothing bad that happens which is not our fault and nothing in our history which is not a disgrace. Yes ISIS are evil but we are so soaked in hypocrisy and self serving imperialist arrogance that we are at least as bad and we should stay away.
It is a view of our country that has a certain resonance with a small but very motivated part of our society. Yesterday was no day for feint hearts. I don't think it is the view of the vast majority of us but it seemed to me to summarise the Corbyn mindset all too well. It is also miles from the traditional view of the Labour party. Are the majority of that party no longer proud of their country, convinced it can be a force for good in the world and willing to stand up for our shared values? I find that very hard to believe.
Who "shares" these values? Devout Muslims don't - they've been fighting Western culture for the whole time that Islam has existed as a devotional practice.
The vast majority of this country does. We believe in equality for women, human rights, the rule of law, freedom of expression and looking after the disadvantaged of the society. Those who do believe in these values need to stand up for them not just in the UK but elsewhere in the world and that means opposing those who treat so many of their fellow humans with contempt.
Yet the establishment from Cameron down to the local plod, via the whole alphabet's soup of 'three monkeys' official bodies, looks the other way about:
Industrial scale racist child rape Vote rigging Forced marriage Cousin marriage Honour killings FGM Attacks on Jews Attacks on homosexuals Threats against and murders of authors, film makers, cartoonists etc
So how do you DavidL 'stand up' against these things ?
They are all on my to do list, honest.
More seriously I speak out against them when the opportunity arises, I support those who seek to end such practices and deprecate those who are against stopping them. What else can a single citizen do?
Who "shares" these values? Devout Muslims don't - they've been fighting Western culture for the whole time that Islam has existed as a devotional practice.
Well, you can't have freedom of expression only for those who themselves believe in freedom of expression. You can't wish away the problem of "tolerating the intolerant" with a single airy phrase. Indeed, I don't know how it can be dealt with - the devout Muslim is only an instance of a wider phenomenon.
It's not easy, I agree. But the answer must be that people do not have the right not to be offended, to be challenged, to have their beliefs questioned and even ridiculed. Unintended consequences have indeed played a major part here. By protecting minorities that the majority don't agree with we have not created tolerance but encouraged intolerance and allowed views that are incompatible with our values to flourish.
It is easy to describe this in the abstract and much more difficult to apply it in practice but the limitations on freedom of speech and expression over the last 20 years have had negative consequences for the cohesion and vigour of our society.
I am sorry to say that your answer merely elevates one cultural paradigm above others, without giving a justification for so doing that is not itself part of the same paradigm.
If I say that those who come here, whether fleeing persecution, seeking economic advantage or for any other reason, must buy into our values then must I not also accept their right to go elsewhither precisely because they think that price too high? And do they not then have the right to create a State for the purpose, inter alia of destroying our culture? (You can see where I'm going with this, of course...)
Yes they have the right to seek sanctuary elsewhere if they find our society not to their liking. And I have no problem in putting our cultural paradigms above others. None whatsoever.
Heaven forbid that anyone should ever call you a racist.
Good morning all. Well, I'm sure that's what you were feebly insinuating without having the testicular fortitude to do so overtly.
I think the events of recent years have shown the moral bankruptcy of cultural relativism. If we're so supine that we're not even prepared to rank cultures, then we deserve all we shall get.
Who "shares" these values? Devout Muslims don't - they've been fighting Western culture for the whole time that Islam has existed as a devotional practice.
Well, you can't have freedom of expression only for those who themselves believe in freedom of expression. You can't wish away the problem of "tolerating the intolerant" with a single airy phrase. Indeed, I don't know how it can be dealt with - the devout Muslim is only an instance of a wider phenomenon.
It's not easy, I agree. But the answer must be that people do not have the right not to be offended, to be challenged, to have their beliefs questioned and even ridiculed. Unintended consequences have indeed played a major part here. By protecting minorities that the majority don't agree with we have not created tolerance but encouraged intolerance and allowed views that are incompatible with our values to flourish.
It is easy to describe this in the abstract and much more difficult to apply it in practice but the limitations on freedom of speech and expression over the last 20 years have had negative consequences for the cohesion and vigour of our society.
I am sorry to say that your answer merely elevates one cultural paradigm above others, without giving a justification for so doing that is not itself part of the same paradigm.
If I say that those who come here, whether fleeing persecution, seeking economic advantage or for any other reason, must buy into our values then must I not also accept their right to go elsewhither precisely because they think that price too high? And do they not then have the right to create a State for the purpose, inter alia of destroying our culture? (You can see where I'm going with this, of course...)
Yes they have the right to seek sanctuary elsewhere if they find our society not to their liking. And I have no problem in putting our cultural paradigms above others. None whatsoever.
Who "shares" these values? Devout Muslims don't - they've been fighting Western culture for the whole time that Islam has existed as a devotional practice.
It's not easy, I agree. But the answer must be that people do not have the right not to be offended, to be challenged, to have their beliefs questioned and even ridiculed. Unintended consequences have indeed played a major part here. By protecting minorities that the majority don't agree with we have not created tolerance but encouraged intolerance and allowed views that are incompatible with our values to flourish.
It is easy to describe this in the abstract and much more difficult to apply it in practice but the limitations on freedom of speech and expression over the last 20 years have had negative consequences for the cohesion and vigour of our society.
I am sorry to say that your answer merely elevates one cultural paradigm above others, without giving a justification for so doing that is not itself part of the same paradigm.
If I say that those who come here, whether fleeing persecution, seeking economic advantage or for any other reason, must buy into our values then must I not also accept their right to go elsewhither precisely because they think that price too high? And do they not then have the right to create a State for the purpose, inter alia of destroying our culture? (You can see where I'm going with this, of course...)
Yes they have the right to seek sanctuary elsewhere if they find our society not to their liking. And I have no problem in putting our cultural paradigms above others. None whatsoever.
Heaven forbid that anyone should ever call you a racist.
Good morning all. Well, I'm sure that's what you were feebly insinuating without having the testicular fortitude to do so overtly.
I think the events of recent years have shown the moral bankruptcy of cultural relativism. If we're so supine that we're not even prepared to rank cultures, then we deserve all we shall get.
I will not be called gutless. For the avoidance of doubt, I think you are a racist and DL is another one. What do you want to do about it? Physical violence is so much more emotionally satisfying than anything else, don't you find?
Yes they have the right to seek sanctuary elsewhere if they find our society not to their liking. And I have no problem in putting our cultural paradigms above others. None whatsoever.
Heaven forbid that anyone should ever call you a racist.
Race is defined in section 9 of the Equality Act as a protected characteristic as follows: Race .(1) Race includes— (a) colour; (b) nationality; (c) ethnic or national origins..
(2) In relation to the protected characteristic of race—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group. (3) A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person's racial group is a reference to a racial group into which the person falls. (4) The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group.
I would deprecate anyone who was prejudiced against anyone on any of the bases in subsection (1). It is abhorrent to do so.
But that does not mean that those of whatever colour, creed, nationality or ethnic origins have the right to not comply with our cultural paradigms if they choose to live here and in particular they have no right to take away the rights given by our cultural paradigms to their daughters or their wives.
She'd apparently committed other Facebook Like crimes and this was the final straw. Since she's a dinner lady, I can't see what business it is of her employer to *monitor* her social media at all.
Since we don't know what she'd posted previously, it's hard to make a valid judgement without the full facts. But that won't stop frothing from the usual suspects, with a cry of "but it's on the internet it must be true".
As for employers monitoring social media, why not, it's effectively a public space?
I think it's legitimate for an employer to discipline an employee who, outside of the workplace, badmouths the employer, fellow employees, or their customers; or (if the employer is a campaigning organisation) campaigns against the values of that organisation; or who commits a serious criminal offence. Other than that, I don't think behaviour outside the workplace is any business of the employer.
If I was the employer I would fire the HR staff for wasting *my* time on Facebook to monitor staff.
I'd imagine there's a concerned parent somewhere with some time on their hands setting the wheels in motion.
Who "shares" these values? Devout Muslims don't - they've been fighting Western culture for the whole time that Islam has existed as a devotional practice.
It's not easy, I agree. But the answer must be that people do not have the right not to be offended, to be challenged, to have their beliefs questioned and even ridiculed. Unintended consequences have indeed played a major part here. By protecting minorities that the majority don't agree with we have not created tolerance but encouraged intolerance and allowed views that are incompatible with our values to flourish.
It is easy to describe this in the abstract and much more difficult to apply it in practice but the limitations on freedom of speech and expression over the last 20 years have had negative consequences for the cohesion and vigour of our society.
I am sorry to say that your answer merely elevates one cultural paradigm above others, without giving a justification for so doing that is not itself part of the same paradigm.
Yes they have the right to seek sanctuary elsewhere if they find our society not to their liking. And I have no problem in putting our cultural paradigms above others. None whatsoever.
Heaven forbid that anyone should ever call you a racist.
Good morning all. Well, I'm sure that's what you were feebly insinuating without having the testicular fortitude to do so overtly.
I think the events of recent years have shown the moral bankruptcy of cultural relativism. If we're so supine that we're not even prepared to rank cultures, then we deserve all we shall get.
I will not be called gutless. For the avoidance of doubt, I think you are a racist and DL is another one. What do you want to do about it? Physical violence is so much more emotionally satisfying than anything else, don't you find?
I think you're equal parts sad and unhinged. What you think about me matters nothing (not that my view is any better). However, do carry on being a keyboard warrior.
''But that does not mean that those of whatever colour, creed, nationality or ethnic origins have the right to not comply with our cultural paradigms if they choose to live here and in particular they have no right to take away the rights given by our cultural paradigms to their daughters or their wives.''
Mr David you have no need to defend yourself against that hothead. Just ignore.
Does anyone doubt that he does receive vicious messages on Twitter? I dislike the man more than Corbyn, but given the sorts of things that lead idiots to make threats against other people, I'd be very surprised if he doesn't receive threats.
Who "shares" these values? Devout Muslims don't - they've been fighting Western culture for the whole time that Islam has existed as a devotional practice.
It's not easy, I agree. But the answer must be that people do not have the right not to be offended, to be challenged, to have their beliefs questioned and even ridiculed. Unintended consequences have indeed played a major part here. By protecting minorities that the majority don't agree with we have not created tolerance but encouraged intolerance and allowed views that are incompatible with our values to flourish.
It is easy to describe this in the abstract and much more difficult to apply it in practice but the limitations on freedom of speech and expression over the last 20 years have had negative consequences for the cohesion and vigour of our society.
I am sorry to say that your answer merely elevates one cultural paradigm above others, without giving a justification for so doing that is not itself part of the same paradigm.
If I say that those who come here, whether fleeing persecution, seeking economic advantage or for any other reason, must buy into our values then must I not also accept their right to go elsewhither precisely because they think that price too high? And do they not then have the right to create a State for the purpose, inter alia of destroying our culture? (You can see where I'm going with this, of course...)
Yes they have the right to seek sanctuary elsewhere if they find our society not to their liking. And I have no problem in putting our cultural paradigms above others. None whatsoever.
Heaven forbid that anyone should ever call you a racist.
Good morning all. Well, I'm sure that's what you were feebly insinuating without having the testicular fortitude to do so overtly.
I think the events of recent years have shown the moral bankruptcy of cultural relativism. If we're so supine that we're not even prepared to rank cultures, then we deserve all we shall get.
I will not be called gutless. For the avoidance of doubt, I think you are a racist and DL is another one. What do you want to do about it? Physical violence is so much more emotionally satisfying than anything else, don't you find?
A fine example of the art. I would argue that the type of weed that might be watered is flourishing without watering, but as a cartoon it seems decent.
I will not be called gutless. For the avoidance of doubt, I think you are a racist and DL is another one. What do you want to do about it? Physical violence is so much more emotionally satisfying than anything else, don't you find?
You are gutless and apparently thick as well. The idea that all cultures are equally legitimate was the very idiocy that Andrew Neil was quite rightly railing against in the days after the Paris attacks. A culture that values individual human rights and freedoms irrespective of their gender, sexuality or race above a religious ideology is inherently superior to one that thinks God hates gays and that Childen should be executed for blasphemy.
Your cultural relativism is both cowardly and moronic. And if that is your definition of racism then I suspect probably 99% of people on here would accept the label.
Heaven forbid that anyone should ever call you a racist.
Good morning all. Well, I'm sure that's what you were feebly insinuating without having the testicular fortitude to do so overtly.
I think the events of recent years have shown the moral bankruptcy of cultural relativism. If we're so supine that we're not even prepared to rank cultures, then we deserve all we shall get.
I will not be called gutless. For the avoidance of doubt, I think you are a racist and DL is another one. What do you want to do about it? Physical violence is so much more emotionally satisfying than anything else, don't you find?
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. And I support the right of people to express their views, even if they give offence. Even people like you.
Doesn't mean I need to waste my time debating with you though.
Wikipedia states that: "The first RAF raid on Berlin took place on the night of 25 August 1940; 95 aircraft were dispatched to bomb Tempelhof Airport near the centre of Berlin and Siemensstadt, of which 81 dropped their bombs in and around Berlin, and while the damage was slight, the psychological effect on Hitler was greater. The bombing raids on Berlin prompted Hitler to order the shift of the Luftwaffe's target from British airfields and air defences to British cities."
However, it goes on: "At a time when the British air defences were critically close to collapse, it has been argued that this action may actually have saved Britain from defeat."
Oakeshott using the attack to point out how bad US gun law is.
However it has to be the very definition of an exercise in futility, it isn't going to change any time soon, and no one in America believes it will. It causes plenty of outrage in the cities, but in the flatlands and the mountains, people see their guns as a necessary part of their life, any politician that suggests otherwise, never mind campaigns otherwise, will have a very short career. All the noise from people like Obama at the moment is about the elections, not the shooting, its a free hit at the GPO whilst looking virtuous at the same time, what's not to like.
Yes they have the right to seek sanctuary elsewhere if they find our society not to their liking. And I have no problem in putting our cultural paradigms above others. None whatsoever.
Heaven forbid that anyone should ever call you a racist.
Race is defined in section 9 of the Equality Act as a protected characteristic as follows: Race .(1) Race includes— (a) colour; (b) nationality; (c) ethnic or national origins..
(2) In relation to the protected characteristic of race—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group. (3) A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person's racial group is a reference to a racial group into which the person falls. (4) The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group.
I would deprecate anyone who was prejudiced against anyone on any of the bases in subsection (1). It is abhorrent to do so.
But that does not mean that those of whatever colour, creed, nationality or ethnic origins have the right to not comply with our cultural paradigms if they choose to live here and in particular they have no right to take away the rights given by our cultural paradigms to their daughters or their wives.
In fact, by saying that you will apply laws depending on the beliefs of the individual, their family etc, that is racist.
Justice works both ways - punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Saying that members of group X should be given exemptions to laws is racial discrimination - just the same as if extra laws had been specially applied to them.
Yes they have the right to seek sanctuary elsewhere if they find our society not to their liking. And I have no problem in putting our cultural paradigms above others. None whatsoever.
Heaven forbid that anyone should ever call you a racist.
Race is defined in section 9 of the Equality Act as a protected characteristic as follows: Race .(1) Race includes— (a) colour; (b) nationality; (c) ethnic or national origins..
(2) In relation to the protected characteristic of race—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group. (3) A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person's racial group is a reference to a racial group into which the person falls. (4) The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group.
I would deprecate anyone who was prejudiced against anyone on any of the bases in subsection (1). It is abhorrent to do so.
But that does not mean that those of whatever colour, creed, nationality or ethnic origins have the right to not comply with our cultural paradigms if they choose to live here and in particular they have no right to take away the rights given by our cultural paradigms to their daughters or their wives.
In fact, by saying that you will apply laws depending on the beliefs of the individual, their family etc, that is racist.
Justice works both ways - punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Saying that members of group X should be given exemptions to laws is racial discrimination - just the same as if extra laws had been specially applied to them.
Justice for all - or justice for none.
Indeed. In failing to apply our laws we have shamefully failed to protect many of the most vulnerable in our society. We need to do better.
Who "shares" these values? Devout Muslims don't - they've been fighting Western culture for the whole time that Islam has existed as a devotional practice.
The vast majority of this country does. We believe in equality for women, human rights, the rule of law, freedom of expression and looking after the disadvantaged of the society. Those who do believe in these values need to stand up for them not just in the UK but elsewhere in the world and that means opposing those who treat so many of their fellow humans with contempt.
Yet the establishment from Cameron down to the local plod, via the whole alphabet's soup of 'three monkeys' official bodies, looks the other way about:
Industrial scale racist child rape Vote rigging Forced marriage Cousin marriage Honour killings FGM Attacks on Jews Attacks on homosexuals Threats against and murders of authors, film makers, cartoonists etc
So how do you DavidL 'stand up' against these things ?
They are all on my to do list, honest.
More seriously I speak out against them when the opportunity arises, I support those who seek to end such practices and deprecate those who are against stopping them. What else can a single citizen do?
Well here's your big opportunity - condemn Cameron, May and any other government minister you'd like to add for their tolerance of those crimes.
On topic, it is apparent that everyone in the Labour party is far more interested in settling internal scores than engaging with the government. Pity really.
No,it's an example of the Victim/Persecutor/Rescuer game being played out.It's time to stop the game.John is pointing out the game is being mirrored on all sides.
'On topic, it is apparent that everyone in the Labour party is far more interested in settling internal scores than engaging with the government. Pity really.'
The Mark Clarke story had the potential to very seriously damage the tories, and particularly the current leadership.
Osborn's budgetary travails will come back to haunt him.
There was a toast to the man on whom so much of our hopes for future success depends at the Conservative Christmas lunch yesterday.
It was quite well done and funny but as I have made clear here several times I think Corbyn is not only very bad for Labour but bad for the country.
Yesterday, despite the appalling weather, we also had a Socialist Worker group campaigning with a loudspeaker in Dundee City centre. Listening to them gives an insight to both Corbyn and those who support him. They were campaigning against bombing in Syria. According to them there is no problem in the world that Britain can't make worse, no action that Britain can take that isn't shameful, nothing bad that happens which is not our fault and nothing in our history which is not a disgrace. Yes ISIS are evil but we are so soaked in hypocrisy and self serving imperialist arrogance that we are at least as bad and we should stay away.
It is a view of our country that has a certain resonance with a small but very motivated part of our society. Yesterday was no day for feint hearts. I don't think it is the view of the vast majority of us but it seemed to me to summarise the Corbyn mindset all too well. It is also miles from the traditional view of the Labour party. Are the majority of that party no longer proud of their country, convinced it can be a force for good in the world and willing to stand up for our shared values? I find that very hard to believe.
Who "shares" these values? Devout Muslims don't - they've been fighting Western culture for the whole time that Islam has existed as a devotional practice.
The vast majority of this country does. We believe in equality for women, human rights, the rule of law, freedom of expression and looking after the disadvantaged of the society. Those who do believe in these values need to stand up for them not just in the UK but elsewhere in the world and that means opposing those who treat so many of their fellow humans with contempt.
Well, you can't have freedom of expression only for those who themselves believe in freedom of expression. You can't wish away the problem of "tolerating the intolerant" with a single airy phrase. Indeed, I don't know how it can be dealt with - the devout Muslim is only an instance of a wider phenomenon.
People can say what they like in my book. The problem is the doing. If you want to say my daughter or ay other woman should be treated as a second class citizen I will think you are a tit and ignore you. If you start to do anything about it I will fight you all the way and I will expect the state to do so too.
On topic, if Corbyn does get rid of all those in the shadow cabinet who oppose him, then the warm words we have had from Nick Palmer about respectful disagreement and so on will be shown to be so much bowlarks. Ditto when the deselections start. How will Nick and fellow members react? Will they go along with the broad church becoming a narrow sect?
At some stage Sane Labour will be pushed too far, I suspect. Those with nothing to lose can sometimes turn out to be pretty powerful. Corbyn really does not want to create a situation in which a good number of his MPs decide that is where they stand. I wonder if he has the brainpower to understand that.
No,it's an example of the Victim/Persecutor/Rescuer game being played out.It's time to stop the game.John is pointing out the game is being mirrored on all sides.
McDonnell could have easily said on the radio that he had reported the harasser to the police, and given a date. It still looks like grandstanding nonsense.
On topic, it is apparent that everyone in the Labour party is far more interested in settling internal scores than engaging with the government. Pity really.
On topic, it is apparent that everyone in the Labour party is far more interested in settling internal scores than engaging with the government. Pity really.
I disagree. I think a large number of Labour members are entirely oblivious to just how marginalised their party is becoming and think that everything is generally OK. They are carrying on as if nothing much is happening.
TBH, I was totally confused by his tweet - was he tweeting himself? Someone else who had an identical looking handle? Had he been hacked? I spent my time peering at the lettering to see if the 'l' was a capital 'i'.
No,it's an example of the Victim/Persecutor/Rescuer game being played out.It's time to stop the game.John is pointing out the game is being mirrored on all sides.
McDonnell could have easily said on the radio that he had reported the harasser to the police, and given a date. It still looks like grandstanding nonsense.
On topic, it is apparent that everyone in the Labour party is far more interested in settling internal scores than engaging with the government. Pity really.
I disagree. I think a large number of Labour members are entirely oblivious to just how marginalised their party is becoming and think that everything is generally OK. They are carrying on as if nothing much is happening.
But aren't almost half of Labour members based in London ? With doubtless much of the rest in other big cities.
From that perspective Labour aren't becoming marginalised.
Its rather the metropolitan cities becoming marginalised from the rest of the country.
And its the rest of the country where elections are decided.
'On topic, it is apparent that everyone in the Labour party is far more interested in settling internal scores than engaging with the government. Pity really.'
The Mark Clarke story had the potential to very seriously damage the tories, and particularly the current leadership.
Osborn's budgetary travails will come back to haunt him.
Only in terms of his leadership ambitions. There is literally nothing the Tories can say or so that will lead them to lose power to Corbyn Labour.
On November 17, I was with Robinson...as he travelled to the Czech Republic to meet representatives from Pegida and a similar Czech group called "Bloc Against Islam" (which grew out of the "Czech Defence League", modelled on its English equivalent) to get them to sign up to this idea. Robinson was due to speak at a rally partly organised by the Bloc, but did not because at the last moment a new speaker was announced: the country’s President Milos Zeman, who is an outspoken critic of Islam, immigration and the EU. Six thousand people turned out in Prague to listen...
Following a minute's silence for the victims of the Paris attacks, President Zeman launched a tirade against political correctness, against media manipulation, against the EU. "Brainwashing is harder now that it used to be, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist," he said, in steady tones. "We must not be silenced with insults like 'Islamophobic' or 'xenophobic' or 'fascist'. An insult isn't an argument! It just shows lack of thought!" ("Ha!" said Milan, the Prague leader of Bloc, while translating simultaneously for me. "This is our president!").
On topic, it is apparent that everyone in the Labour party is far more interested in settling internal scores than engaging with the government. Pity really.
I disagree. I think a large number of Labour members are entirely oblivious to just how marginalised their party is becoming and think that everything is generally OK. They are carrying on as if nothing much is happening.
But aren't almost half of Labour members based in London ? With doubtless much of the rest in other big cities.
From that perspective Labour aren't becoming marginalised.
Its rather the metropolitan cities becoming marginalised from the rest of the country.
And its the rest of the country where elections are decided.
Parts of London, I'd say. But, yes, most Labour members rarely travel outside their comfort zones, geographically, emotionally or politically. In that they are probably much like most people. If they were interested in governing, of course, they would take such journeys on a regular basis. But they're not, so they won't.
On topic, it is apparent that everyone in the Labour party is far more interested in settling internal scores than engaging with the government. Pity really.
And repaying favours? Diane Abbott for Shadow Foreign Secretary?
I've always been puzzled by the confidence of lefties in the acceptance of Joe Public of their delusional view of the world and their proposed cures for its ills. The politics of the Corbynistas always get corrupted by those who exploit them for personal power. The result is an autocracy not a democracy; e.g implementation of Labour whip - shadow cabinet says "it's our responsibility", Jihadi Jez says "oh no it's not, it's mine".
''I disagree. I think a large number of Labour members are entirely oblivious to just how marginalised their party is becoming and think that everything is generally OK. They are carrying on as if nothing much is happening. ''
The Oldham result would certainly seem to back you up there, Mr SO.
On topic, it is apparent that everyone in the Labour party is far more interested in settling internal scores than engaging with the government. Pity really.
I disagree. I think a large number of Labour members are entirely oblivious to just how marginalised their party is becoming and think that everything is generally OK. They are carrying on as if nothing much is happening.
After the events of this week, Mr. Observer, who is to say they are wrong. Their Labour Party seems to be doing OK but your Labour Party seems to be in trouble.
On topic, it is apparent that everyone in the Labour party is far more interested in settling internal scores than engaging with the government. Pity really.
I disagree. I think a large number of Labour members are entirely oblivious to just how marginalised their party is becoming and think that everything is generally OK. They are carrying on as if nothing much is happening.
After the events of this week, Mr. Observer, who is to say they are wrong. Their Labour Party seems to be doing OK but your Labour Party seems to be in trouble.
Both our Labour parties are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the national discourse. Mine actually does not exist.
Heaven forbid that anyone should ever call you a racist.
Heaven forbid that anyone should call you an idiot, what has culture got to do with skin colour ?
A great deal, usually.
Do you have any evidence to back that generalisation? My brown skinned children are as British culturally as I, a white anglosaxon male, am, probably more so, because I have worked over a long period in an Asian workplace and have adopted a number of the customs and habits which my children haven't
No,it's an example of the Victim/Persecutor/Rescuer game being played out.It's time to stop the game.John is pointing out the game is being mirrored on all sides.
McDonnell could have easily said on the radio that he had reported the harasser to the police, and given a date. It still looks like grandstanding nonsense.
Yes they have the right to seek sanctuary elsewhere if they find our society not to their liking. And I have no problem in putting our cultural paradigms above others. None whatsoever.
Heaven forbid that anyone should ever call you a racist.
....inst anyone on any of the bases in subsection (1). It is abhorrent to do so.
But that does not mean that those of whatever colour, creed, nationality or ethnic origins have the right to not comply with our cultural paradigms if they choose to live here and in particular they have no right to take away the rights given by our cultural paradigms to their daughters or their wives.
In fact, by saying that you will apply laws depending on the beliefs of the individual, their family etc, that is racist.
Justice works both ways - punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Saying that members of group X should be given exemptions to laws is racial discrimination - just the same as if extra laws had been specially applied to them.
Justice for all - or justice for none.
Indeed. In failing to apply our laws we have shamefully failed to protect many of the most vulnerable in our society. We need to do better.
What is interesting is that the new alliance is of the Old Left + SJW + Communitarian nutters.
The Old Left apply the "no ethnic extremist is to the er... left of us" - remember "no-one to the left of us"?
The SJW apply the new nostrum of "Equality is actually inequality - special rights for special groups"
The communitarians just giggle and then up their demands...
Heaven forbid that anyone should ever call you a racist.
Heaven forbid that anyone should call you an idiot, what has culture got to do with skin colour ?
A great deal, usually.
Do you have any evidence to back that generalisation? My brown skinned children are as British culturally as I, a white anglosaxon male, am, probably more so, because I have worked over a long period in an Asian workplace and have adopted a number of the customs and habits which my children haven't
Of course there are counter-examples. Hence "usually". Your children don't alter the reality that many other "brown-skinned" people would like to wake up in the morning and discover that all the white people, and their children of whatever colour, had died in the night.
I do not get the premise in the article that Labour are going to do very badly in next May's elections . There are assembly/parliament elections in Wales and Scotland and the London mayoral contest . I do not see Labour doing that badly in Wales and London . Scotland may well be a struggle but the starting point is fairly low anyway . The English local elections are relatively few next year and mostly in the Met boroughs . Labour did well in 2012 and may therefore lose a few seats net overall but not of great significance .
Yes they have the right to seek sanctuary elsewhere if they find our society not to their liking. And I have no problem in putting our cultural paradigms above others. None whatsoever.
Heaven forbid that anyone should ever call you a racist.
....inst anyone on any of the bases in subsection (1). It is abhorrent to do so.
But that does not mean that those of whatever colour, creed, nationality or ethnic origins have the right to not comply with our cultural paradigms if they choose to live here and in particular they have no right to take away the rights given by our cultural paradigms to their daughters or their wives.
In fact, by saying that you will apply laws depending on the beliefs of the individual, their family etc, that is racist.
Justice works both ways - punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Saying that members of group X should be given exemptions to laws is racial discrimination - just the same as if extra laws had been specially applied to them.
Justice for all - or justice for none.
Indeed. In failing to apply our laws we have shamefully failed to protect many of the most vulnerable in our society. We need to do better.
What is interesting is that the new alliance is of the Old Left + SJW + Communitarian nutters.
The Old Left apply the "no ethnic extremist is to the er... left of us" - remember "no-one to the left of us"?
The SJW apply the new nostrum of "Equality is actually inequality - special rights for special groups"
The communitarians just giggle and then up their demands...
It is a great pity that Yvette Cooper did not win the Labour leadership. Labour so need to confront this tolerance of patriarchal "community leader" type nonsense and I feel that only a woman will do it.
''Owen Smith makes Labour's case for limitless, welfare supported, reproduction. Targetting the Mick Philpott demographic, and the good people of East London and Birmingham.''
I think Oldham shows that voters are quite understandably not really watching labour at the moment. They are not in government and probably won't be for four years.
Heaven forbid that anyone should ever call you a racist.
Heaven forbid that anyone should call you an idiot, what has culture got to do with skin colour ?
A great deal, usually.
Do you have any evidence to back that generalisation? My brown skinned children are as British culturally as I, a white anglosaxon male, am, probably more so, because I have worked over a long period in an Asian workplace and have adopted a number of the customs and habits which my children haven't
Of course there are counter-examples. Hence "usually". Your children don't alter the reality that many other "brown-skinned" people would like to wake up in the morning and discover that all the white people, and their children of whatever colour, had died in the night.
Precisely, but do they think that because of the colour of their skin or their culture? To suggest the former would be racist, at least under the term of the law, the later would not be. Funnily enough I live in a country of 120m "brown-skinned" people, probably almost none of them wake up wishing for the demise of white people.
Heaven forbid that anyone should ever call you a racist.
Heaven forbid that anyone should call you an idiot, what has culture got to do with skin colour ?
A great deal, usually.
Do you have any evidence to back that generalisation? My brown skinned children are as British culturally as I, a white anglosaxon male, am, probably more so, because I have worked over a long period in an Asian workplace and have adopted a number of the customs and habits which my children haven't
Of course there are counter-examples. Hence "usually". Your children don't alter the reality that many other "brown-skinned" people would like to wake up in the morning and discover that all the white people, and their children of whatever colour, had died in the night.
''Owen Smith makes Labour's case for limitless, welfare supported, reproduction. Targetting the Mick Philpott demographic, and the good people of East London and Birmingham.''
I think Oldham shows that voters are quite understandably not really watching labour at the moment. They are not in government and probably won't be for four years.
Oldham is Labour's prime demographic.
The Tories sat home. If they'd participated with the same vigour as Labour and UKIP we would be wondering why Corbyn got the same vote share as "Miliband in May", which sounds like the title of some bathroom lavender product.
When can we expect the results of the French regional elections?
It is national ? To listen to BBC World you would think the election was only happening in a couple of notoriously liberal artisan areas of Paris, which it will come as no shock to anyone will not be swinging to FN.
Heaven forbid that anyone should ever call you a racist.
Heaven forbid that anyone should call you an idiot, what has culture got to do with skin colour ?
A great deal, usually.
Do you have any evidence to back that generalisation? My brown skinned children are as British culturally as I, a white anglosaxon male, am, probably more so, because I have worked over a long period in an Asian workplace and have adopted a number of the customs and habits which my children haven't
Of course there are counter-examples. Hence "usually". Your children don't alter the reality that many other "brown-skinned" people would like to wake up in the morning and discover that all the white people, and their children of whatever colour, had died in the night.
Precisely, but do they think that because of the colour of their skin or their culture? To suggest the former would be racist, at least under the term of the law, the later would not be. Funnily enough I live in a country of 120m "brown-skinned" people, probably almost none of them wake up wishing for the demise of white people.
Not forgetting that such people would also generally wish that quite a range of various colours of people would also have died.
I always enjoy the lefty idiots who think that japan was waging a war of liberation from colonial oppression in WWII. The look on their faces when you pull up some quotes from the Japanese military on the subject of the master race is generally quite entertaining. A couple of pictures of how they greeted their fellow East Asians is also good for a laugh.
What the non partisan thread author doesn't point out is the front page of the Telegraph talking about splits in the Tory party over Heathrow.
This is how pb works, continually point out the failings of the opposition to cover up one's own party's failings. Cameron is in an awful mess on so many levels and the Tories are skilfully deflecting it towards Corbyn. Good for them, you could argue, it's called politics, but it leads to poor governance.
What's your favoured solution to the problems of airport capacity in the SE?
If there's demand then build another runway, but that's not the point of my post.
I seldom see issues such as Heathrow discussed on here, I do see lots of nose thumbing and tub thumping over nothing.
Heathrow is a good topic to revisit. I will support the government on this.
I understand Sadiq Khan is against, wrongly. Zac will resign and get re-elected on this "proving" how principled he is. Unfortunately, McDonnell has a Heathrow seat.
Tories have a few problems like Putney. But Labour should see the jobs side of things. 40000 extra jobs ? I am not sure why McDonnell is against.
Please explain why a new runway at Heathrow creates more jobs than a new runway at Gatwick.
Heathrow is a more intricate job, I think. But according to the Howard Davies commission, the business case for Heathrow is overwhelming.
Gatwick, like Boris Island, can serve South and East London well and Sussex but Heathrow is better located for the rest of the country.
Heathrow is badly located as an airport in terms of fly path and noise but superb as a catchment area for travellers.
I have little sympathy regarding noise. Anyone buying a house in the fly path knew where Heathrow is situated since 1946 ! Plus planes are a lot quieter now and will be even more so in the future.
We also have double glazing today !
Perhaps we should build a new airport outside Milton Keynes - that would be an even better location on your theory.
When I ask a question about jobs and get an answer about noise I know that the respondent is clueless. Do you work for an airline - or, indeed, for Heathrow (I'd expect them to have put at least one stooge on here)?
Good morning everyone. Whilst we await the news from France and Venezuela, my reflections on postal voting.There surely must be a way of having speedy resolution of complaints of irregularities. We know from the judgements of Richard Mawrey QC that the system is wide open to abuse. In Oldham it made no difference to the result. Nevertheless the Returning Officer or his appointee needs to investigate and report publicly as a matter of urgency while memories are fresh. Otherwise confidence in our elections will erode. I think that Emmeline Pankhurst would turn in her grave if she knew that so called community organisers were harvesting postal votes from entire households. Political correctness must be put one side. Party advantage ignored. Personally I would favour returning to a system which allowed postal voting only for those unable to attend a polling station through disability, absence from home on work or holiday. The integrity of the system trumps all other considerations of convenience etc.
Good morning everyone. Whilst we await the news from France and Venezuela, my reflections on postal voting.There surely must be a way of having speedy resolution of complaints of irregularities. We know from the judgements of Richard Mawrey QC that the system is wide open to abuse. In Oldham it made no difference to the result. Nevertheless the Returning Officer or his appointee needs to investigate and report publicly as a matter of urgency while memories are fresh. Otherwise confidence in our elections will erode. I think that Emmeline Pankhurst would turn in her grave if she knew that so called community organisers were harvesting postal votes from entire households. Political correctness must be put one side. Party advantage ignored. Personally I would favour returning to a system which allowed postal voting only for those unable to attend a polling station through disability, absence from home on work or holiday. The integrity of the system trumps all other considerations of convenience etc.
I agree completely. My view, previously posted, is that if you can't be arsed to get yourself to a polling station (allowing for bona fide exceptions) then you don't deserve a vote.
as for when Corbyn will be challenged by the "moderates", the most likely time is next summer if last May's joiners fail to renew their subscriptions. Otherwise they are on a hiding to nothing. Personally I find Blairite politics no more acceptable than Corbynism. Blairism is all power before principles, whereas Corbynism makes the opposite mistake. You need to know how to find a balance between the two and when to compromise if you are going to succeed in politics.
Of course being a Lib Dem, having said that opens me up to all sorts of attacks....
I always enjoy the lefty idiots who think that japan was waging a war of liberation from colonial oppression in WWII. The look on their faces when you pull up some quotes from the Japanese military on the subject of the master race is generally quite entertaining. A couple of pictures of how they greeted their fellow East Asians is also good for a laugh.
The number of civilians killed by the Japanese in the Philippines, Burma, Korea and China during WW2, including infamously the order from Hirohito himself, directed Japanese forces to "Kill All, Burn All, and Loot All." is at least comparable to that carried out by the Nazis. They also carried out comparable levels of human experimentation to that done in the death camps, including hideous experiments of frostbite and biological warfare (include plague). Almost 600,000 people were killed by the Imperial Japanese Army purely from germ warfare experimentation.
I always enjoy the lefty idiots who think that japan was waging a war of liberation from colonial oppression in WWII. The look on their faces when you pull up some quotes from the Japanese military on the subject of the master race is generally quite entertaining. A couple of pictures of how they greeted their fellow East Asians is also good for a laugh.
The number of civilians killed by the Japanese in the Philippines, Burma, Korea and China during WW2, including infamously the order from Hirohito himself, directed Japanese forces to "Kill All, Burn All, and Loot All." is at least comparable to that carried out by the Nazis. They also carried out comparable levels of human experimentation to that done in the death camps, including hideous experiments of frostbite and biological warfare (include plague). Almost 600,000 people were killed by the Imperial Japanese Army purely from germ warfare experimentation.
Imagine the problem for a Japanese militarist who was a Bhuddist. There you are trying to create a genocidal slave empire and you're stuck with a moral system that teaches you that all life is sacred. What to do?
No problem really - The Japanese Bhuddist masters issued ruling that the Chinese (for example) were "lower than lice".
So back to the beheading competition with a clear conscience, eh?
as for when Corbyn will be challenged by the "moderates", the most likely time is next summer if last May's joiners fail to renew their subscriptions. Otherwise they are on a hiding to nothing. Personally I find Blairite politics no more acceptable than Corbynism. Blairism is all power before principles, whereas Corbynism makes the opposite mistake. You need to know how to find a balance between the two and when to compromise if you are going to succeed in politics.
Of course being a Lib Dem, having said that opens me up to all sorts of attacks....
I agree that the best opportunity for the Anti-Corbyn Labour, may well be after next may, when some of those to who joined up just to vote for him may not renew their membership. leaving the membership to more closely resemble that of years before e.g. when Ed M was elected. (and the results of the May elections will be known)
which is partly why I would like to know if there is anything in the comments made on the polling matters podcast a few day ago, when a commentator sead that 30,000 members have left the labour party already. If so I suspect that these members may be the more centrist people put of by the Stop the war coalition and Coybyn himself.
Blairism is all power before principles, whereas Corbynism makes the opposite mistake. You need to know how to find a balance between the two and when to compromise if you are going to succeed in politics.
You've got to know when to hold 'em Know when to fold 'em Know when to walk away And know when to run
as for when Corbyn will be challenged by the "moderates", the most likely time is next summer if last May's joiners fail to renew their subscriptions. Otherwise they are on a hiding to nothing. Personally I find Blairite politics no more acceptable than Corbynism. Blairism is all power before principles, whereas Corbynism makes the opposite mistake. You need to know how to find a balance between the two and when to compromise if you are going to succeed in politics.
Of course being a Lib Dem, having said that opens me up to all sorts of attacks....
Morning Mrs B – You do highlight one important aspect for next year and that is whether the wave of new Labour party members that signed up to support Jeremy Corbin bother to renew their subscriptions. If not, then that would certainly put a spanner in the works for Corbyn who believes members should dictate the PLP – However, if the infiltration of the far left continues apace, it might well be the moderates who sign off in droves.
es they have the right to seek sanctuary elsewhere if they find our society not to their liking. And I have no problem in putting our cultural paradigms above others. None whatsoever.
The most important factor in the outcome of the 2020 general election is summarised below.
"In March 2016 the four Boundary Commissions will commence their task of producing a new set of Parliamentary constituencies (600, replacing the current 650) which conform to the new rules for redistribution enacted in 2011 that require every constituency to have an electorate within +/-5% of the national average. Their recommendations have to be with Parliament by October 2018 so that the new seats can be used for the 2020 general election."
Many Labour (and SNP?) seats with low electorate numbers will disappear. Many boundary changes will mean sitting MPs competing for selection in a new constituency. Opportunity knocks for Momentum.
The most important factor in the outcome of the 2020 general election is summarised below.
"In March 2016 the four Boundary Commissions will commence their task of producing a new set of Parliamentary constituencies (600, replacing the current 650) which conform to the new rules for redistribution enacted in 2011 that require every constituency to have an electorate within +/-5% of the national average. Their recommendations have to be with Parliament by October 2018 so that the new seats can be used for the 2020 general election."
Many Labour (and SNP?) seats with low electorate numbers will disappear. Many boundary changes will mean sitting MPs competing for selection in a new constituency. Opportunity knocks for Momentum.
Labour next June is likely to be a very different party from Labour now, as it will shed members on the right who are appalled by Corbynism between now and May, and then members on the left who have failed to renew their subscrption.
Labour was not the only party that grew after May. The Lib Dems did too, huge number of new members - but they appear to be mainstream liberals, not bent on internal warfare. We have a smallish but dedicated band in the party for that already. However, being liberals the majority of us tend to go for the full half hour argument rather than the 10 minute version, but then vote on it and stick to the democratic outcome, even if it means gritting our teeth sometimes.
I believe the Tories are up as well.
Anyone have any news on how UKIP or Green membership is doing since May?
Labour next June is likely to be a very different party from Labour now, as it will shed members on the right who are appalled by Corbynism between now and May, and then members on the left who have failed to renew their subscrption.
Labour was not the only party that grew after May. The Lib Dems did too, huge number of new members - but they appear to be mainstream liberals, not bent on internal warfare. We have a smallish but dedicated band in the party for that already. However, being liberals the majority of us tend to go for the full half hour argument rather than the 10 minute version, but then vote on it and stick to the democratic outcome, even if it means gritting our teeth sometimes.
I believe the Tories are up as well.
Anyone have any news on how UKIP or Green membership is doing since May?
"Anyone have any news on how UKIP or Green membership is doing since May?"
Not sure about numbers, but all UKIP members are now required to wear flat caps.
Labour next June is likely to be a very different party from Labour now, as it will shed members on the right who are appalled by Corbynism between now and May, and then members on the left who have failed to renew their subscrption.
Labour was not the only party that grew after May. The Lib Dems did too, huge number of new members - but they appear to be mainstream liberals, not bent on internal warfare. We have a smallish but dedicated band in the party for that already. However, being liberals the majority of us tend to go for the full half hour argument rather than the 10 minute version, but then vote on it and stick to the democratic outcome, even if it means gritting our teeth sometimes.
I believe the Tories are up as well.
Anyone have any news on how UKIP or Green membership is doing since May?
"Anyone have any news on how UKIP or Green membership is doing since May?"
Not sure about numbers, but all UKIP members are now required to wear flat caps.
Possibly.
Surely only on the rare occasions they go north of Watford?
'On topic, it is apparent that everyone in the Labour party is far more interested in settling internal scores than engaging with the government. Pity really.'
The Mark Clarke story had the potential to very seriously damage the tories, and particularly the current leadership.
Osborn's budgetary travails will come back to haunt him.
Only in terms of his leadership ambitions. There is literally nothing the Tories can say or so that will lead them to lose power to Corbyn Labour.
The way Tories can lose to Labour is to take their membership and supporters for granted, or even worse, treat them like idiots.
Barring scandal, the result in Oldham has secured Corbyn in power until the elections in May. Given the failure of the polling companies before the last general election, Corbyn will not fall due to polling and so Corbyn will stand or fall on actual election results. We know from Oldham that Labour can hold up well in Labour heartlands. May will probably see stagnation in Scotland, but strong wins in London and Wales.
By 2017, we will have another round of English local elections, where Labour will face heavy losses from the Conservatives in the south and potentially UKIP in the midlands and the north east. It is also possible we have a number of by-elections losses that shake Labour confidence. What I think is most important is that it's the last point where Labour centrists can stitch-up the nominations without a left-winger being on the ballot before deselections start happening in 2018.
If it doesn't happen in 2017, then it is unlikely to happen in 2018. Either the centrists can not find a candidate to unite around, or the legal situation means Corbyn is automatically nominated and has enough strength to be re-elected with a renewed mandate. That would be a disaster for the centrists so they would not try. The same logic applies for 2019, with the added benefit for Corbyn of selection wins demonstrating his membership strength more clearly.
He would then be through to the general election, where he will lose badly and resign.
A few things I think UKIP should do now (they probably won't).
-Seek an amicable divorce from Douglas Carswell.
I would suggest a new parliamentary 'grouping' that subscribes to a 'constitution' on independence matters but not a wider UKIP platform. He would be free to join any party that he chose, or be independent. Most rotten, damaging elements of UKIP have come from the Conservative Party. There is really nothing to stop an endless stream of Conservative defectors joining UKIP, waiting a little while, then setting themselves off like time-bombs and leaving again accompanied by accusations of racism, control-freakery, or whatever the attack line of the day is. UKIP needs to find a way to stop this happening.
I'm not sure about Carswell. I can't decide if he's a well intentioned but slightly risky asset, or something more dangerous. I am reminded that both he and Hannan argued for the dissolution of BOO in favour of a cross-party campaign for a referendum. Very much a Cameron strategy. I have trusted neither of them since.
-Get in touch with Lord Ashcroft
Lord A has burned his bridges, UKIP needs more money and a greater breadth of donorship. They could also benefit greatly from his political experience.
-Change the party's 'face'.
I am not against Nigel's attempts to hang on to the leadership; I do believe he is the 'heart' of the party and we don't know from what he may have been protecting it. However it is obvious to everyone that UKIP needs a new public face. That should happen ASAP.
I have read reports that UKIP membership is down by 7,000.
Also read that whilst Lib Dem membership is up 20,000, Labour membership is up 50,000 since the election.
I don't know about Labour or the L/Dems, but probably true re UKIP. On a personal note, I'm still a card carrying member 'till May. Depending on how the party functions (including leadership), I will either rejoin for another year or let my membership slide away. I think quite a few members are of a similar disposition.
Comments
If I say that those who come here, whether fleeing persecution, seeking economic advantage or for any other reason, must buy into our values then must I not also accept their right to go elsewhither precisely because they think that price too high? And do they not then have the right to create a State for the purpose, inter alia of destroying our culture? (You can see where I'm going with this, of course...)
- PJ O'Rourke
Industrial scale racist child rape
Vote rigging
Forced marriage
Cousin marriage
Honour killings
FGM
Attacks on Jews
Attacks on homosexuals
Threats against and murders of authors, film makers, cartoonists etc
So how do you DavidL 'stand up' against these things ?
I find them curiously retro in appearance - sort of school produced on pocket money budget. I can't decide if it makes them look parsimonious or amateurish.
I think we could banish 'islamophobia' instantly if we had the guts to apply the secular rule of law to all communities properly and inconsistently.
People bitterly resent the notion that anybody is immune from certain prosecutions because of their faith or race.
We can see the disgusting quid pro quo writ large in Oldham. Give us your block vote and you can do whatever you want.
Very well said Mr DavidL. I agree.
Heaven forbid that anyone should ever accuse you of wanting to silence a perfectly legitimate debate when you are losing it.
More seriously I speak out against them when the opportunity arises, I support those who seek to end such practices and deprecate those who are against stopping them. What else can a single citizen do?
I think the events of recent years have shown the moral bankruptcy of cultural relativism. If we're so supine that we're not even prepared to rank cultures, then we deserve all we shall get.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/cultivating-terror/
I will not be called gutless. For the avoidance of doubt, I think you are a racist and DL is another one. What do you want to do about it? Physical violence is so much more emotionally satisfying than anything else, don't you find?
https://twitter.com/johnmcdonnellMP/status/673289350583607297
Has he been to the police about his threat?
Race
.(1)
Race includes—
(a) colour;
(b) nationality;
(c) ethnic or national origins..
(2) In relation to the protected characteristic of race—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group;
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group.
(3) A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person's racial group is a reference to a racial group into which the person falls.
(4) The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group.
I would deprecate anyone who was prejudiced against anyone on any of the bases in subsection (1). It is abhorrent to do so.
But that does not mean that those of whatever colour, creed, nationality or ethnic origins have the right to not comply with our cultural paradigms if they choose to live here and in particular they have no right to take away the rights given by our cultural paradigms to their daughters or their wives.
Comedy journalism from Al-Beeb to leave this unchallenged.
Mr David you have no need to defend yourself against that hothead. Just ignore.
Your cultural relativism is both cowardly and moronic. And if that is your definition of racism then I suspect probably 99% of people on here would accept the label.
Doesn't mean I need to waste my time debating with you though.
Wikipedia states that:
"The first RAF raid on Berlin took place on the night of 25 August 1940; 95 aircraft were dispatched to bomb Tempelhof Airport near the centre of Berlin and Siemensstadt, of which 81 dropped their bombs in and around Berlin, and while the damage was slight, the psychological effect on Hitler was greater. The bombing raids on Berlin prompted Hitler to order the shift of the Luftwaffe's target from British airfields and air defences to British cities."
However, it goes on:
"At a time when the British air defences were critically close to collapse, it has been argued that this action may actually have saved Britain from defeat."
Justice works both ways - punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Saying that members of group X should be given exemptions to laws is racial discrimination - just the same as if extra laws had been specially applied to them.
Justice for all - or justice for none.
As Mr DavidL pointed out earlier, the self hatred of the west runs deep.
Calm down. Politicians make the law, they cannot enforce it.
The Mark Clarke story had the potential to very seriously damage the tories, and particularly the current leadership.
Osborn's budgetary travails will come back to haunt him.
At some stage Sane Labour will be pushed too far, I suspect. Those with nothing to lose can sometimes turn out to be pretty powerful. Corbyn really does not want to create a situation in which a good number of his MPs decide that is where they stand. I wonder if he has the brainpower to understand that.
I didn't notice the contents much at all.
From that perspective Labour aren't becoming marginalised.
Its rather the metropolitan cities becoming marginalised from the rest of the country.
And its the rest of the country where elections are decided.
When they do want to do something things change.
I've always been puzzled by the confidence of lefties in the acceptance of Joe Public of their delusional view of the world and their proposed cures for its ills. The politics of the Corbynistas always get corrupted by those who exploit them for personal power. The result is an autocracy not a democracy; e.g implementation of Labour whip - shadow cabinet says "it's our responsibility", Jihadi Jez says "oh no it's not, it's mine".
The Oldham result would certainly seem to back you up there, Mr SO.
Targetting the Mick Philpott demographic, and the good people of East London and Birmingham.
The Old Left apply the "no ethnic extremist is to the er... left of us" - remember "no-one to the left of us"?
The SJW apply the new nostrum of "Equality is actually inequality - special rights for special groups"
The communitarians just giggle and then up their demands...
Targetting the Mick Philpott demographic, and the good people of East London and Birmingham.''
I think Oldham shows that voters are quite understandably not really watching labour at the moment. They are not in government and probably won't be for four years.
The Tories sat home. If they'd participated with the same vigour as Labour and UKIP we would be wondering why Corbyn got the same vote share as "Miliband in May", which sounds like the title of some bathroom lavender product.
I always enjoy the lefty idiots who think that japan was waging a war of liberation from colonial oppression in WWII. The look on their faces when you pull up some quotes from the Japanese military on the subject of the master race is generally quite entertaining. A couple of pictures of how they greeted their fellow East Asians is also good for a laugh.
I think that Emmeline Pankhurst would turn in her grave if she knew that so called community organisers were harvesting postal votes from entire households. Political correctness must be put one side. Party advantage ignored. Personally I would favour returning to a system which allowed postal voting only for those unable to attend a polling station through disability, absence from home on work or holiday. The integrity of the system trumps all other considerations of convenience etc.
Personally I find Blairite politics no more acceptable than Corbynism. Blairism is all power before principles, whereas Corbynism makes the opposite mistake. You need to know how to find a balance between the two and when to compromise if you are going to succeed in politics.
Of course being a Lib Dem, having said that opens me up to all sorts of attacks....
No problem really - The Japanese Bhuddist masters issued ruling that the Chinese (for example) were "lower than lice".
So back to the beheading competition with a clear conscience, eh?
which is partly why I would like to know if there is anything in the comments made on the polling matters podcast a few day ago, when a commentator sead that 30,000 members have left the labour party already. If so I suspect that these members may be the more centrist people put of by the Stop the war coalition and Coybyn himself.
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run
Next May he'll walk away.
Very much seconded.
"In March 2016 the four Boundary Commissions will commence their task of producing a new set of Parliamentary constituencies (600, replacing the current 650) which conform to the new rules for redistribution enacted in 2011 that require every constituency to have an electorate within +/-5% of the national average. Their recommendations have to be with Parliament by October 2018 so that the new seats can be used for the 2020 general election."
Many Labour (and SNP?) seats with low electorate numbers will disappear. Many boundary changes will mean sitting MPs competing for selection in a new constituency. Opportunity knocks for Momentum.
Labour was not the only party that grew after May. The Lib Dems did too, huge number of new members - but they appear to be mainstream liberals, not bent on internal warfare. We have a smallish but dedicated band in the party for that already. However, being liberals the majority of us tend to go for the full half hour argument rather than the 10 minute version, but then vote on it and stick to the democratic outcome, even if it means gritting our teeth sometimes.
I believe the Tories are up as well.
Anyone have any news on how UKIP or Green membership is doing since May?
Not sure about numbers, but all UKIP members are now required to wear flat caps.
Possibly.
I think the value bets here are 2017 and 2020.
Barring scandal, the result in Oldham has secured Corbyn in power until the elections in May. Given the failure of the polling companies before the last general election, Corbyn will not fall due to polling and so Corbyn will stand or fall on actual election results. We know from Oldham that Labour can hold up well in Labour heartlands. May will probably see stagnation in Scotland, but strong wins in London and Wales.
By 2017, we will have another round of English local elections, where Labour will face heavy losses from the Conservatives in the south and potentially UKIP in the midlands and the north east. It is also possible we have a number of by-elections losses that shake Labour confidence. What I think is most important is that it's the last point where Labour centrists can stitch-up the nominations without a left-winger being on the ballot before deselections start happening in 2018.
If it doesn't happen in 2017, then it is unlikely to happen in 2018. Either the centrists can not find a candidate to unite around, or the legal situation means Corbyn is automatically nominated and has enough strength to be re-elected with a renewed mandate. That would be a disaster for the centrists so they would not try. The same logic applies for 2019, with the added benefit for Corbyn of selection wins demonstrating his membership strength more clearly.
He would then be through to the general election, where he will lose badly and resign.
Also read that whilst Lib Dem membership is up 20,000, Labour membership is up 50,000 since the election.
-Seek an amicable divorce from Douglas Carswell.
I would suggest a new parliamentary 'grouping' that subscribes to a 'constitution' on independence matters but not a wider UKIP platform. He would be free to join any party that he chose, or be independent. Most rotten, damaging elements of UKIP have come from the Conservative Party. There is really nothing to stop an endless stream of Conservative defectors joining UKIP, waiting a little while, then setting themselves off like time-bombs and leaving again accompanied by accusations of racism, control-freakery, or whatever the attack line of the day is. UKIP needs to find a way to stop this happening.
I'm not sure about Carswell. I can't decide if he's a well intentioned but slightly risky asset, or something more dangerous. I am reminded that both he and Hannan argued for the dissolution of BOO in favour of a cross-party campaign for a referendum. Very much a Cameron strategy. I have trusted neither of them since.
-Get in touch with Lord Ashcroft
Lord A has burned his bridges, UKIP needs more money and a greater breadth of donorship. They could also benefit greatly from his political experience.
-Change the party's 'face'.
I am not against Nigel's attempts to hang on to the leadership; I do believe he is the 'heart' of the party and we don't know from what he may have been protecting it. However it is obvious to everyone that UKIP needs a new public face. That should happen ASAP.