Free speech means that people should put up with Fury's comments IMO, and we should instead concentrate on trying to stop gay people from being thrown off buildings in Syria and Iraq.
I don't see how 'Free Speech' means people should have to put up with comments, and not be able to criticise them. Freedom of Speech works both ways. You get to have your view, but I get to have mine as well. And you can criticise homophobic attitudes and try to help those in Iraq and Syria as well.
Free speech means that people should put up with Fury's comments IMO, and we should instead concentrate on trying to stop gay people from being thrown off buildings in Syria and Iraq.
I can put up with Tyson Fury's comments. He's a fairly dimwitted heavyweight boxer who if past examples are anything to go by will have blown his money and what remain of his braincells in a very few years, so deserves pity rather than hostility.
That doesn't mean that I want to see him voted sports personality of the year. We shouldn't be celebrating Neanderthal stupidity.
Experience tells me with that level of homophobia, he's buried so deeply in the closet, he's actually in Narnia.
"Max Hastings: Our politicians lie and treat us like idiots. No wonder Trump, Le Pen and the ugly Right are on the rise
Of course, our leaders are justified in saying that the answers to all these questions are complicated. But we, the voters, deserve better than responses founded on waffle, such as are deployed weekly to bamboozle us on the BBC’s Question Time and Any Questions, not to mention in the House of Commons. People hate being taken for fools. Their anger derives from the refusal of most mainstream politicians even to admit the magnitude of the challenges we face — not least from the great tide of migrants from the Middle East and Africa surging towards Europe. "
manufacturing having a torrid last quarter ( told you this in October ) and the EEF are on the verge of proclaiming the man a useless twat.
Bad press for him here in the Midlands.
He should be our ambassador to Raqqa bearing gifts of York ham, beer and a copy of the Satanic Verses.
Well hopefully John McDonnell can hold him to account.
Nah Osborne is simply implementing Brown's policies so there is no challenge from the Left. The challenge to Osborne will come from the Right since he's not up to the day job.
The current figure for England and Wales is 85,895 but there are also about 7,500 prisoners in Scotland and about 1,500 in Northern Ireland so the UK total is about 95,000.
I know that criticising Fury isn't closing down the argument. We were almost in agreement for a second.
However, I now object to your idea that society arrives on an issue and people should be criticised purely because they're outside of the norms. That smacks a little bit of the idea of thought crime.....
I don't believe people should be criticised purely because their outside norms, but because bigotry is a harmful discourse to many people within society. Criticising people because you believe their attitudes are 'wrong' and harmful is not a thought-crime - plenty of it goes on, on this very site after all.
You've missed the point, again.
Bigotry is a harmful discourse. But the solution is not to be bigoted against the bigots. It is to make the bigots' positions laughable.
Meanwhile the Trump petition is on 57,000 signatures - over +10,000 per hour.....
Do you feel proud to live in such a bastion of free speech...
As someone said yesterday, Francis Urqhart I think, rather ironic for people to howl for someone to be banned for entering our country for saying certain people should be banned from entering his country
The same left think that demands we be racist to tackle racism
Embarrassing fools
IIRC the legislation was supposed to ban preachers who deliberately incite messages of hate and call for action.
Interpretation of this now seems to have been broadened to anyone who has publicly uttered what those who shout the loudest consider to be an offensive opinion.
I wonder if the reason this madness has become de rigeur is the people who push for it are so relentlessly boring, it is more hassle than its worth for those in charge to argue... I know how they feel
PCism-by-boredom
An interesting argument...
You can imagine some bearded ILEA type in a knitted jumper and 2nd hand courdroy blazer from the 80s relentlessly pushing a pro "Yams at school dinner" agenda and calling anyone who questioned it racist, that the smart, sensible people thought "Sod this, anyone fancy a pint?" and leaving them to it... and now we have what we have
manufacturing having a torrid last quarter ( told you this in October ) and the EEF are on the verge of proclaiming the man a useless twat.
Bad press for him here in the Midlands.
He should be our ambassador to Raqqa bearing gifts of York ham, beer and a copy of the Satanic Verses.
Well hopefully John McDonnell can hold him to account.
Nah Osborne is simply implementing Brown's policies so there is no challenge from the Left. The challenge to Osborne will come from the Right since he's not up to the day job.
FYI - Looks like I'm going to spending far too much time in the West Midlands next year, that should boost the economy.
If Carmichael is let off the Lib Dems will rue the day. The local backlash could finish off their prospects there for decades. They will have lost the respect of the local communities.
That's interesting - very strong from someone with your perspective. My sense is more that the local establishment (which was heavily LD in the sense that Glasgow used to be heavily Labour) was losing control anyway (as the header shows) and that the Carmichael affair would be enough to shift the balance electorally, but that the LDs would remain strong for some time, much as Labour in Glasgow. It'll be the Scottish Parliament election which gives an indication, and especially (in 2017) the local authority one.
The 2017 Orkney and Shetland council elections will give no indication whatsoever both councils are 100% Independent councillors .
If Carmichael is let off the Lib Dems will rue the day. The local backlash could finish off their prospects there for decades. They will have lost the respect of the local communities.
That's interesting - very strong from someone with your perspective. My sense is more that the local establishment (which was heavily LD in the sense that Glasgow used to be heavily Labour) was losing control anyway (as the header shows) and that the Carmichael affair would be enough to shift the balance electorally, but that the LDs would remain strong for some time, much as Labour in Glasgow. It'll be the Scottish Parliament election which gives an indication, and especially (in 2017) the local authority one.
Rationale 1. A large group of voters will feel aggrieved and want to kick out. 2. The damage is not just to the image of Carmichael but to the brand image of the LDs. 3. The LDs rely on two factors to get elected, the image of their main local person and the image as a "nice trustworthy party".
Ah, thank you. The interim statement says
'[...] the judges were satisfied that it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the first respondent made the false statement of fact “for the purpose of affecting (positively) his own return at the election”.
Lady Paton said: “As the first respondent said in evidence, he wanted public attention to remain focused on that important political message, rather than becoming side-tracked by revelations that it had been he and his special adviser Mr Roddin who had leaked the memo to the Daily Telegraph. In his view, if public attention remained focused on that political message, voters who had anxieties about Scottish independence might find voting for the SNP a less attractive prospect…The inescapable inference, in our opinion, is that if the SNP became a less attractive prospect, the first respondent’s chances of a comfortable majority in what had become a ‘two-horse race’ in Orkney and Shetland would be enhanced.”
Furthermore, the judges considered that the evidence established that there was another purpose underlying the false statement, namely a desire not to be identified as being involved in the leak.
“Thus on the basis of all the evidence led before us we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that another purpose underlying the false statement was self-protection (a self-protection extending to Mr Roddin, provided that neither of them could be identified). Such self-protection would avoid attracting critical comment, losing esteem in the public eye, and being the subject of any disciplinary consequences, all at a very inconvenient time during the lead-up to the election. Such self-protection would avoid his presenting as a less attractive electoral candidate for the voters in Orkney and Shetland.” '
Ms. Apocalypse, I'd argue there's (usually) a substantive difference, though. The left, generally, has superior command of language both in a positive way (presenting their case) and a negative way (spin). This extends to trying to dictate vocabulary and determine the rules of the debate to their advantage (such as the Blair era playing the race card over questions relating to migration).
I agree Fury's a dickhead. I don't think that means he should be taken off a list for SPOTY. I agree people have the right to criticise him for his views.
I'm perplexed, (well, not really, but saddened) he's had more shit heaped on him than Lord Ahmed got for threatening to summon a horde of 10,000 angry Muslims if Geert Wilders was allowed to show his Fitna[sp] film in Parliament.
I don't think he should be taken off the list for SPOTY either. I have to say I was not aware of Lord Ahmed's behaviour, which should be also be condemned.
I think the Left may have had a superior command of language during the Blair era, but I don't think they do now, and nor I do think they did before the Blair era.
Meanwhile the Trump petition is on 57,000 signatures - over +10,000 per hour.....
Do you feel proud to live in such a bastion of free speech...
As someone said yesterday, Francis Urqhart I think, rather ironic for people to howl for someone to be banned for entering our country for saying certain people should be banned from entering his country
The same left think that demands we be racist to tackle racism
Embarrassing fools
IIRC the legislation was supposed to ban preachers who deliberately incite messages of hate and call for action.
Interpretation of this now seems to have been broadened to anyone who has publicly uttered what those who shout the loudest consider to be an offensive opinion.
I wonder if the reason this madness has become de rigeur is the people who push for it are so relentlessly boring, it is more hassle than its worth for those in charge to argue... I know how they feel
PCism-by-boredom
An interesting argument...
You can imagine some bearded ILEA type in a knitted jumper and 2nd hand courdroy blazer from the 80s relentlessly pushing a pro "Yams at school dinner" agenda and calling anyone who questioned it racist, that the smart, sensible people thought "Sod this, anyone fancy a pint?" and leaving them to it... and now we have what we have
Ms. Apocalypse, the Ahmed business is from a few years ago, and received scant coverage, so it's fair enough you don't recall it.
The left, or parts of it, is still seeking to dictate terms of language (cf triggering and suchlike), but you're right that Hoxha and Mao are not very slick.
I know that criticising Fury isn't closing down the argument. We were almost in agreement for a second.
However, I now object to your idea that society arrives on an issue and people should be criticised purely because they're outside of the norms. That smacks a little bit of the idea of thought crime.....
I don't believe people should be criticised purely because their outside norms, but because bigotry is a harmful discourse to many people within society. Criticising people because you believe their attitudes are 'wrong' and harmful is not a thought-crime - plenty of it goes on, on this very site after all.
You've missed the point, again.
Bigotry is a harmful discourse. But the solution is not to be bigoted against the bigots. It is to make the bigots' positions laughable.
pace the QT episode with just Nick Griffin
I've not missed the point. I don't see how being critical of Fury is being 'bigoted against the bigots'. Part of making the bigots position laughable will be undoubtedly constructing an argument critical of bigotry.
@Birdyword: Carmichael was clearly never going to go - he knows too much about the secret oil fields.
Curious, what secret oil fields? Please don't tell me I don't know because it is kept secret on the instructions of Westminster. If you mean the ones on the west coast, they are too deep and the weather too bad to drill safely for, and we do not yet have the cost effective technology to drill from the sea floor. Or the ones in the Clyde Basin that were stopped because to the Royal Navy use the area for submarines (Is that why the Nats want rid of Trident? Won't please your Greenies when they find out about the double dealing). Other than that, do tell.
Apart from which, there is easier access to shale oil and gas in the Central Belt, which is why Ineos is rebuilding facilities at Grangemouth to take advantage of the supplies when the SNP government gives the final go ahead.
Meanwhile the Trump petition is on 57,000 signatures - over +10,000 per hour.....
Do you feel proud to live in such a bastion of free speech...
As someone said yesterday, Francis Urqhart I think, rather ironic for people to howl for someone to be banned for entering our country for saying certain people should be banned from entering his country
The same left think that demands we be racist to tackle racism
Embarrassing fools
IIRC the legislation was supposed to ban preachers who deliberately incite messages of hate and call for action.
Interpretation of this now seems to have been broadened to anyone who has publicly uttered what those who shout the loudest consider to be an offensive opinion.
I wonder if the reason this madness has become de rigeur is the people who push for it are so relentlessly boring, it is more hassle than its worth for those in charge to argue... I know how they feel
PCism-by-boredom
An interesting argument...
You can imagine some bearded ILEA type in a knitted jumper and 2nd hand courdroy blazer from the 80s relentlessly pushing a pro "Yams at school dinner" agenda and calling anyone who questioned it racist, that the smart, sensible people thought "Sod this, anyone fancy a pint?" and leaving them to it... and now we have what we have
Sounds like a modern day Tom Sharpe plot! I can quite imagine!
Ms. Apocalypse, the Ahmed business is from a few years ago, and received scant coverage, so it's fair enough you don't recall it.
The left, or parts of it, is still seeking to dictate terms of language (cf triggering and suchlike), but you're right that Hoxha and Mao are not very slick.
I don't see triggering as dictating language. Some take it too far, but mostly it's about being considerate of those who have experienced trauma (such as sexual abuse, for example). It's something more about actions, than words.
Mr. Mark, there on business, or a festive holiday?
Festive fun and frolics. The Good Lady Wifi thought some light Viennese food would be a great idea before the serious eating of Christmas really kicks in....
I think I will have to pay excess baggage on my myself to get on the plane.
Done the first of the museums/galleries onslaught - the Albertina. Superb main exhibitions (Monet, Picasso) and some excellent pictures by artists who had previously passed me by.
I know that criticising Fury isn't closing down the argument. We were almost in agreement for a second.
However, I now object to your idea that society arrives on an issue and people should be criticised purely because they're outside of the norms. That smacks a little bit of the idea of thought crime.....
I don't believe people should be criticised purely because their outside norms, but because bigotry is a harmful discourse to many people within society. Criticising people because you believe their attitudes are 'wrong' and harmful is not a thought-crime - plenty of it goes on, on this very site after all.
You've missed the point, again.
Bigotry is a harmful discourse. But the solution is not to be bigoted against the bigots. It is to make the bigots' positions laughable.
pace the QT episode with just Nick Griffin
I've not missed the point. I don't see how being critical of Fury is being 'bigoted against the bigots'. Part of making the bigots position laughable will be undoubtedly constructing an argument critical of bigotry.
I'm not getting into it, but if you read the comments and then your conclusion (no doubt jumped to) about 'thought crime' you'll see how you've missed the point.
You're right about constructing an argument - but constructing an argument needs to be better, if it is to be effective, than saying that society has accepted something so disagreeing makes you a bigot.
Because the logical conclusion would be that society is always right and everyone disagreeing with it is wrong, and on some issues a bigot.
The current figure for England and Wales is 85,895 but there are also about 7,500 prisoners in Scotland and about 1,500 in Northern Ireland so the UK total is about 95,000.
BREAKING: Derek MacKay admits on GMS that the work cancelled in 2010 *would* have replaced the section of #Forthroadbridge that failed.
Whoops! Why did they cancel the work? Were they hoping to get the new bridge open before it was needed, or was it that with the removal of the tolls there wasn't the money?
Its classic, classic - cut back on the replacement, repair or upgrade of infrastructure because it's about to go out of service - of all the attitudes you meet, this is the single one that has caused me the most pain in my professional (IT) career and I never tire of saying so to the continuous stream of managers who propose 'just leave that for the moment'.
In this case, the new bridge has been built at fair speed for the UK, precisely because they already knew the old bridge would become untenable within another 10 years, so not maintaining was just asking for trouble.
Let's hope the new bridge opens on time and doesn't have any teething issues - the other issue is often that the old infrastructure that was not being maintained to full standard is still around some time after you expected it gone.
On this one the SNP deserve whatever kicking are coming their way.
Surely that's not the case, because the new bridge was not meant to be a replacement, but to provide extra capacity.
Although it might well end up being a replacement if the old bridge does not substantially reopen. Which would make the SNP government's penny-pinching on the new bridge even more ridiculous.
I need to read up a little more on the new bridge - it had big problems a couple of years back with the caissons, but it looks as though they've pulled back the delays and extra costs
Unsurprisingly, at least to me, Carmichael gets away with disreputable lying on what I regard as technical grounds.
I do not think that he will dare to stand for re-election at the next General Election, which gives the Lib Dems hope that they may retain the seat then with a new candidate.
If Carmichael is let off the Lib Dems will rue the day. The local backlash could finish off their prospects there for decades. They will have lost the respect of the local communities.
That's interesting - very strong from someone with your perspective. My sense is more that the local establishment (which was heavily LD in the sense that Glasgow used to be heavily Labour) was losing control anyway (as the header shows) and that the Carmichael affair would be enough to shift the balance electorally, but that the LDs would remain strong for some time, much as Labour in Glasgow. It'll be the Scottish Parliament election which gives an indication, and especially (in 2017) the local authority one.
The 2017 Orkney and Shetland council elections will give no indication whatsoever both councils are 100% Independent councillors .
I know that criticising Fury isn't closing down the argument. We were almost in agreement for a second.
However, I now object to your idea that society arrives on an issue and people should be criticised purely because they're outside of the norms. That smacks a little bit of the idea of thought crime.....
I don't believe people should be criticised purely because their outside norms, but because bigotry is a harmful discourse to many people within society. Criticising people because you believe their attitudes are 'wrong' and harmful is not a thought-crime - plenty of it goes on, on this very site after all.
You've missed the point, again.
Bigotry is a harmful discourse. But the solution is not to be bigoted against the bigots. It is to make the bigots' positions laughable.
pace the QT episode with just Nick Griffin
I've not missed the point. I don't see how being critical of Fury is being 'bigoted against the bigots'. Part of making the bigots position laughable will be undoubtedly constructing an argument critical of bigotry.
I'm not getting into it, but if you read the comments and then your conclusion (no doubt jumped to) about 'thought crime' you'll see how you've missed the point.
You're right about constructing an argument - but constructing an argument needs to be better, if it is to be effective, than saying that society has accepted something so disagreeing makes you a bigot.
What I'm saying is that the argument has already been effective; that's the point. If the argument had not, there would not be a consensus within society surrounding issues like homophobia. As for the BIB, I have already responded to that point in a previous post to you.
P.S (I've just seen your edit) I'm talking about 'society' within this context, not society on every single issue, I thought that was clear.
I was looking at the Dutch numbers again, the election is going to be in 15 months and the refugee crisis shows no signs of abating, surely that makes Geert Wilders favourite to be PM. You have to imagine that helps us in our negotiation with the EU, they would want our referendum done and for us to vote "in" before Wilders becomes PM of one of the major net-contributor nations.
I have to think that Carmicheal being booted out would have been an opportunity to cleanse politics somewhat. Joe McPublic will look at this outcome and have all their prejudices about politics and politicians reconfirmed.
But now it's sanctioned by the courts to be a lying sack of shit and a politician.
Unsurprisingly, at least to me, Carmichael gets away with disreputable lying on what I regard as technical grounds.
I do not think that he will dare to stand for re-election at the next General Election, which gives the Lib Dems hope that they may retain the seat then with a new candidate.
Unsurprisingly, at least to me, Carmichael gets away with disreputable lying
On Tuesday night, to mark the festive season and the forthcoming holidays, the Labour Party held its annual Unity and Struggle Party. This was once known as the Christmas Party, but has been renamed in honour of Enver Hoxha, who was the presiding spirit at last night's entertainment. And as we all know the Hoxhaist movement is united globally by the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (Unity and Struggle.)
I know that criticising Fury isn't closing down the argument. We were almost in agreement for a second.
However, I now object to your idea that society arrives on an issue and people should be criticised purely because they're outside of the norms. That smacks a little bit of the idea of thought crime.....
I don't believe people should be criticised purely because their outside norms, but because bigotry is a harmful discourse to many people within society. Criticising people because you believe their attitudes are 'wrong' and harmful is not a thought-crime - plenty of it goes on, on this very site after all.
You've missed the point, again.
Bigotry is a harmful discourse. But the solution is not to be bigoted against the bigots. It is to make the bigots' positions laughable.
pace the QT episode with just Nick Griffin
I've not missed the point. I don't see how being critical of Fury is being 'bigoted against the bigots'. Part of making the bigots position laughable will be undoubtedly constructing an argument critical of bigotry.
I'm not getting into it, but if you read the comments and then your conclusion (no doubt jumped to) about 'thought crime' you'll see how you've missed the point.
You're right about constructing an argument - but constructing an argument needs to be better, if it is to be effective, than saying that society has accepted something so disagreeing makes you a bigot.
What I'm saying is that the argument has already been effective; that's the point. If the argument had not, there would not be a consensus within society surrounding issues like homophobia. As for the BIB, I have already responded to that point in a previous post to you.
I don't want to be labelled a bore (anymore than I doubtless already am), so will close the discussion there.
I know that criticising Fury isn't closing down the argument. We were almost in agreement for a second.
However, I now object to your idea that society arrives on an issue and people should be criticised purely because they're outside of the norms. That smacks a little bit of the idea of thought crime.....
I don't believe people should be criticised purely because their outside norms, but because bigotry is a harmful discourse to many people within society. Criticising people because you believe their attitudes are 'wrong' and harmful is not a thought-crime - plenty of it goes on, on this very site after all.
You've missed the point, again.
Bigotry is a harmful discourse. But the solution is not to be bigoted against the bigots. It is to make the bigots' positions laughable.
pace the QT episode with just Nick Griffin
I've not missed the point. I don't see how being critical of Fury is being 'bigoted against the bigots'. Part of making the bigots position laughable will be undoubtedly constructing an argument critical of bigotry.
I'm not getting into it, but if you read the comments and then your conclusion (no doubt jumped to) about 'thought crime' you'll see how you've missed the point.
You're right about constructing an argument - but constructing an argument needs to be better, if it is to be effective, than saying that society has accepted something so disagreeing makes you a bigot.
What I'm saying is that the argument has already been effective; that's the point. If the argument had not, there would not be a consensus within society surrounding issues like homophobia. As for the BIB, I have already responded to that point in a previous post to you.
I don't want to be labelled a bore (anymore than I doubtless already am), so will close the discussion there.
Tyson Fury is not dimwitted. To beat one of the greats- Klitschko- he needed a sense of cunning, strategy and intelligence. He also speaks eloquently and I am sure most of the stuff he spouts out is just plain mischief.
Considering his background- his mother had 14 pregnancies, only four of which survived, his father a philanderer with other children elsewhere as well as serving a stretch for gouging a man's eye out, whilst being shifted around between caravans- Fury has done remarkably well. I'm sure it'll make a remarkable film.
I would like to see him SPOTY because he is intelligent enough to use it as a platform to become the role model that he has within him.
Free speech means that people should put up with Fury's comments IMO, and we should instead concentrate on trying to stop gay people from being thrown off buildings in Syria and Iraq.
I can put up with Tyson Fury's comments. He's a fairly dimwitted heavyweight boxer who if past examples are anything to go by will have blown his money and what remain of his braincells in a very few years, so deserves pity rather than hostility.
That doesn't mean that I want to see him voted sports personality of the year. We shouldn't be celebrating Neanderthal stupidity.
SLAB is dying and their senior folk are filling up their pension funds. loyalty?
Er! According to the media, Brown will be donating all, repeat all, monies received to his and Sarah's charity, not themselves.
Be quite honest, don't know about Darling.
Which begs the question, has Salmond donated any of the excess earned money he said he would to his designated charity? According to the records so far, Nope! Or you could show me proof, I would be glad to be proven wrong.
What I'm saying is that the argument has already been effective; that's the point. If the argument had not, there would not be a consensus within society surrounding issues like homophobia. As for the BIB, I have already responded to that point in a previous post to you.
What was the 'consensus' around immigration and multiculturalism ten years ago?
Has that consensus collapsed?
Did that 'consensus' every really exist or was it imposed by the influential (academia, media, politics) minority on the silenced majority, often by making the conversation taboo by chucking around words like racism?
manufacturing having a torrid last quarter ( told you this in October ) and the EEF are on the verge of proclaiming the man a useless twat.
Bad press for him here in the Midlands.
He should be our ambassador to Raqqa bearing gifts of York ham, beer and a copy of the Satanic Verses.
In your corner of the Midlands maybe. But you do give new colour to one-eyed on the subject of Osborne.
Manufacturing fell whilst still signalling solid growth. Telegraph 1 Dec. Flagging global trade curbs manufacturing growth. FT 1 Dec. Manufacturing surges to its higher level since April 14. Reuters 6 Nov.
I don't understand what those photos are supposed to be showing. There isn't much change in deflection between the two, and no obvious sign of extra loading (gritters).
In fact, as a non-expert I'd be concerned about that amount of deflection on a truss structure ...
Edit: obligatory photos of a bridge being test-loaded with 50 steam locomotives:
Meanwhile the Trump petition is on 57,000 signatures - over +10,000 per hour.....
Do you feel proud to live in such a bastion of free speech...
As someone said yesterday, Francis Urqhart I think, rather ironic for people to howl for someone to be banned for entering our country for saying certain people should be banned from entering his country
The same left think that demands we be racist to tackle racism
Embarrassing fools
IIRC the legislation was supposed to ban preachers who deliberately incite messages of hate and call for action.
Interpretation of this now seems to have been broadened to anyone who has publicly uttered what those who shout the loudest consider to be an offensive opinion.
I wonder if the reason this madness has become de rigeur is the people who push for it are so relentlessly boring, it is more hassle than its worth for those in charge to argue... I know how they feel
It's much easier to shout it down, and win plaudits amongst their peers for doing so, rather than have to think and engage in debate on complex issues.
These petitions are usually narcissistic and about the petitioner/s concerned, and not a serious attempt to solve the underlying issue.
There's a rather good discussion about this type of thing on the Vote UK Forum "Free Speech at British Universities."
People in authority don't yet appreciate how unrepresentative of public opinion social media is. In terms of public opinion, a topic that's trending on twitter, or an online petition, mean the square root of f**k all, as we saw at the general election. But, university administrators, and others, can be intimidated into thinking that there's a huge groundswell of public opinion in favour of banning speakers, safe spaces, speechcodes etc.
In my view, it ties in with Yougov's post mortem into the polling failure at the general election. Yougov were getting relatively few responses from young people. So, they had to weight them up heavily for their polls. And, the young people who were responding to them were very politicised, and generally left wing. Thus, the responses they were getting were unrepresentative both of young people generally, and the wider population.
Tyson Fury is not dimwitted. To beat one of the greats- Klitschko- he needed a sense of cunning, strategy and intelligence. He also speaks eloquently and I am sure most of the stuff he spouts out is just plain mischief.
Considering his background- his mother had 14 pregnancies, only four of which survived, his father a philanderer with other children elsewhere as well as serving a stretch for gouging a man's eye out, whilst being shifted around between caravans- Fury has done remarkably well. I'm sure it'll make a remarkable film.
I would like to see him SPOTY because he is intelligent enough to use it as a platform to become the role model that he has within him.
Free speech means that people should put up with Fury's comments IMO, and we should instead concentrate on trying to stop gay people from being thrown off buildings in Syria and Iraq.
I can put up with Tyson Fury's comments. He's a fairly dimwitted heavyweight boxer who if past examples are anything to go by will have blown his money and what remain of his braincells in a very few years, so deserves pity rather than hostility.
That doesn't mean that I want to see him voted sports personality of the year. We shouldn't be celebrating Neanderthal stupidity.
The views of some minority groups are more equal than others
Previous reply somehow did not appear correctly so I hope for better luck now:
Alanbrooke
"Unsurprisingly, at least to me, Carmichael gets away with disreputable lying
could be a Nat then ? "
Given that the 99% unionist media seem to be toiling day and night to discredit SNP MPs, MSPs, and even ordinary members, with remarkably little to show for it, I tend to disagree with you yet again :-)
What I'm saying is that the argument has already been effective; that's the point. If the argument had not, there would not be a consensus within society surrounding issues like homophobia. As for the BIB, I have already responded to that point in a previous post to you.
What was the 'consensus' around immigration and multiculturalism ten years ago?
Has that consensus collapsed?
Did that 'consensus' every really exist or was it imposed by the influential (academia, media, politics) minority on the silenced majority, often by making the conversation taboo by chucking around words like racism?
Is there, perhaps, a parallel to this issue?
Ideas of what is the consensus, and what is political correctness, obviously change over time.
What I'm saying is that the argument has already been effective; that's the point. If the argument had not, there would not be a consensus within society surrounding issues like homophobia. As for the BIB, I have already responded to that point in a previous post to you.
What was the 'consensus' around immigration and multiculturalism ten years ago?
Has that consensus collapsed?
Did that 'consensus' every really exist or was it imposed by the influential (academia, media, politics) minority on the silenced majority, often by making the conversation taboo by chucking around words like racism?
Is there, perhaps, a parallel to this issue?
Given that the Conservative party rallying call to show 'look how socially liberal and modern we are' was passing Gay Marriage, I'd suggest there isn't a parallel to this particular issue. Especially given that while polls show 70% of people are concerned about immigration, most support gay marriage, and most are not homophobic. Given that, I think most people reject homophobia these days because they feel it's the right thing to do, as opposed to attempt by the 'establishment' to force an opinion on them.
Meanwhile the Trump petition is on 57,000 signatures - over +10,000 per hour.....
Do you feel proud to live in such a bastion of free speech...
As someone said yesterday, Francis Urqhart I think, rather ironic for people to howl for someone to be banned for entering our country for saying certain people should be banned from entering his country
The same left think that demands we be racist to tackle racism
Embarrassing fools
IIRC the legislation was supposed to ban preachers who deliberately incite messages of hate and call for action.
Interpretation of this now seems to have been broadened to anyone who has publicly uttered what those who shout the loudest consider to be an offensive opinion.
I wonder if the reason this madness has become de rigeur is the people who push for it are so relentlessly boring, it is more hassle than its worth for those in charge to argue... I know how they feel
It's much easier to shout it down, and win plaudits amongst their peers for doing so, rather than have to think and engage in debate on complex issues.
These petitions are usually narcissistic and about the petitioner/s concerned, and not a serious attempt to solve the underlying issue.
There's a rather good discussion about this type of thing on the Vote UK Forum "Free Speech at British Universities."
People in authority don't yet appreciate how unrepresentative of public opinion social media is. In terms of public opinion, a topic that's trending on twitter, or an online petition, mean the square root of f**k all, as we saw at the general election. But, university administrators, and others, can be intimidated into thinking that there's a huge groundswell of public opinion in favour of banning speakers, safe spaces, speechcodes etc.
In my view, it ties in with Yougov's post mortem into the polling failure at the general election. Yougov were getting relatively few responses from young people. So, they had to weight them up heavily for their polls. And, the young people who were responding to them were very politicised, and generally left wing. Thus, the responses they were getting were unrepresentative both of young people generally, and the wider population.
There cant be many people who have worked in the City/Trading Rooms for 15 years then studied Humanities at Brighton Uni.... I can tell you it is a different world, and the people on both sides would struggle to believe the other really existed
The stereotype of Brighton is far more realistic than that of the City though
SLAB is dying and their senior folk are filling up their pension funds. loyalty?
Er! According to the media, Brown will be donating all, repeat all, monies received to his and Sarah's charity, not themselves.
Be quite honest, don't know about Darling.
Which begs the question, has Salmond donated any of the excess earned money he said he would to his designated charity? According to the records so far, Nope! Or you could show me proof, I would be glad to be proven wrong.
What's wrong with donating his income to the future well-being and security of his family? If he his not earning any money or saving for a pension how does he live or expect to live in the future. How can he afford to work for nothing?
Oh, and greetings from a cool and misty Vienna. Very Christmassy....
Big meat, steaming dumplings, beer and schnapps on a cold, damp day in Vienna. Walk outside and it's been snowing. A fine memory - or a partial one, to be more accurate. Great place.
This is not the living, breathing spirit of Enver Hoxha. It is, in a way, something worse. It is a moral failure – loving the spectacle of violence, celebrating those who use it politically it parading as a man of peace. Corbyn is the living embodiment of the profound contradiction that is the Stop The War Coalition. They, like him, do not oppose war, just – in some strange British Rail kind of way – the wrong kind of war.
They, like him, hate the West and particularly America. The common thread between those who Corbyn quotes and praises as friends is not a golden one but a bloody one – anti-Western, anti-American, anti-democratic violence.
Previous reply somehow did not appear correctly so I hope for better luck now:
Alanbrooke
"Unsurprisingly, at least to me, Carmichael gets away with disreputable lying
could be a Nat then ? "
Given that the 99% unionist media seem to be toiling day and night to discredit SNP MPs, MSPs, and even ordinary members, with remarkably little to show for it, I tend to disagree with you yet again :-)
Countdown: 56, 55, 54, 53, No Time - jump straight to 1 - Loud implosion!
Social media is unrepresentative, however so are Newspaper comments' sections too. I've seen the Daily Mail used as an example of what the public think online, for instance.
Previous reply somehow did not appear correctly so I hope for better luck now:
Alanbrooke
"Unsurprisingly, at least to me, Carmichael gets away with disreputable lying
could be a Nat then ? "
Given that the 99% unionist media seem to be toiling day and night to discredit SNP MPs, MSPs, and even ordinary members, with remarkably little to show for it, I tend to disagree with you yet again :-)
Strange (not really) to consider that there's been not one word of criticism of Carmichael from the other Yoon parties. I read somewhere that at some point the Yoons have called for the resignation for all but three of past & present SNP cabinet members, & yet none of them felt the need to speak up about a self-confessed liar representing another party. Cosy.
Two thirds of British people say Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims entering the US is an inappropriate policy for America – but a quarter approve, including a majority of UKIP voters
Meanwhile the Trump petition is on 57,000 signatures - over +10,000 per hour.....
Do you feel proud to live in such a bastion of free speech...
As someone said yesterday, Francis Urqhart I think, rather ironic for people to howl for someone to be banned for entering our country for saying certain people should be banned from entering his country
The same left think that demands we be racist to tackle racism
Embarrassing fools
IIRC the legislation was supposed to ban preachers who deliberately incite messages of hate and call for action.
Interpretation of this now seems to have been broadened to anyone who has publicly uttered what those who shout the loudest consider to be an offensive opinion.
I wonder if the reason this madness has become de rigeur is the people who push for it are so relentlessly boring, it is more hassle than its worth for those in charge to argue... I know how they feel
.
There's a rather good discussion about this type of thing on the Vote UK Forum "Free Speech at British Universities."
People in authority don't yet appreciate how unrepresentative of public opinion social media is. In terms of public opinion, a topic that's trending on twitter, or an online petition, mean the square root of f**k all, as we saw at the general election. But, university administrators, and others, can be intimidated into thinking that there's a huge groundswell of public opinion in favour of banning speakers, safe spaces, speechcodes etc.
In my view, it ties in with Yougov's post mortem into the polling failure at the general election. Yougov were getting relatively few responses from young people. So, they had to weight them up heavily for their polls. And, the young people who were responding to them were very politicised, and generally left wing. Thus, the responses they were getting were unrepresentative both of young people generally, and the wider population.
I agree with all of that. Most conservative friends of mine just don't engage in this - it's the online equivalent of the traditional ground activism of the Left that used to occur in the 80s and 90s, but back then you had to put on a coat and turn out on a march or flypost a bus shelter to be noticed. And they were easily shrugged off.
Twitter and Facebook IMHO are still poorly understood (even by a few of us, if we're honest) but it's the equivalent of real-time loudhailer for the organised into the faces of those in charge, and is very well suited to the need for constant news of 24hr TV.
Ms. Apocalypse, I'd argue there's (usually) a substantive difference, though. The left, generally, has superior command of language both in a positive way (presenting their case) and a negative way (spin). This extends to trying to dictate vocabulary and determine the rules of the debate to their advantage (such as the Blair era playing the race card over questions relating to migration).
I agree Fury's a dickhead. I don't think that means he should be taken off a list for SPOTY. I agree people have the right to criticise him for his views.
I'm perplexed, (well, not really, but saddened) he's had more shit heaped on him than Lord Ahmed got for threatening to summon a horde of 10,000 angry Muslims if Geert Wilders was allowed to show his Fitna[sp] film in Parliament.
I think the left are generally more successful than their opponents in enlisting the support of State institutions to silence their opponents. I think that will turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory, as ideas obviously just don't disappear because you prevent people from expressing them.
Two thirds of British people say Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims entering the US is an inappropriate policy for America – but a quarter approve, including a majority of UKIP voters
Ms. Apocalypse, I'd argue there's (usually) a substantive difference, though. The left, generally, has superior command of language both in a positive way (presenting their case) and a negative way (spin). This extends to trying to dictate vocabulary and determine the rules of the debate to their advantage (such as the Blair era playing the race card over questions relating to migration).
I agree Fury's a dickhead. I don't think that means he should be taken off a list for SPOTY. I agree people have the right to criticise him for his views.
I'm perplexed, (well, not really, but saddened) he's had more shit heaped on him than Lord Ahmed got for threatening to summon a horde of 10,000 angry Muslims if Geert Wilders was allowed to show his Fitna[sp] film in Parliament.
I think the left are generally more successful than their opponents in enlisting the support of State institutions to silence their opponents. I think that will turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory, as ideas obviously just don't disappear because you prevent people from expressing them.
Yes. It means people will turn to Le Pen, Trump, Farage and Wilders rather than the established centre-right political parties.
Not that they will ever realise or admit this.
Without falling foul of Godwin's law, it's similar to the disillusionment with mainstream parties in European countries (and to a lesser extent the US) that occurred in the 1920s and 1930s.
Comments
Of course, our leaders are justified in saying that the answers to all these questions are complicated. But we, the voters, deserve better than responses founded on waffle, such as are deployed weekly to bamboozle us on the BBC’s Question Time and Any Questions, not to mention in the House of Commons.
People hate being taken for fools. Their anger derives from the refusal of most mainstream politicians even to admit the magnitude of the challenges we face — not least from the great tide of migrants from the Middle East and Africa surging towards Europe. "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3352070/MAX-HASTINGS-politicians-lie-treat-like-idiots-No-wonder-Trump-Le-Pen-ugly-Right-rise.html
Bigotry is a harmful discourse. But the solution is not to be bigoted against the bigots. It is to make the bigots' positions laughable.
pace the QT episode with just Nick Griffin
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-people-versus-carmichael#/
BAH, curse your nimble fingers TSE.
'[...] the judges were satisfied that it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the first respondent made the false statement of fact “for the purpose of affecting (positively) his own return at the election”.
Lady Paton said: “As the first respondent said in evidence, he wanted public attention to remain focused on that important political message, rather than becoming side-tracked by revelations that it had been he and his special adviser Mr Roddin who had leaked the memo to the Daily Telegraph. In his view, if public attention remained focused on that political message, voters who had anxieties about Scottish independence might find voting for the SNP a less attractive prospect…The inescapable inference, in our opinion, is that if the SNP became a less attractive prospect, the first respondent’s chances of a comfortable majority in what had become a ‘two-horse race’ in Orkney and Shetland would be enhanced.”
Furthermore, the judges considered that the evidence established that there was another purpose underlying the false statement, namely a desire not to be identified as being involved in the leak.
“Thus on the basis of all the evidence led before us we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that another purpose underlying the false statement was self-protection (a self-protection extending to Mr Roddin, provided that neither of them could be identified). Such self-protection would avoid attracting critical comment, losing esteem in the public eye, and being the subject of any disciplinary consequences, all at a very inconvenient time during the lead-up to the election. Such self-protection would avoid his presenting as a less attractive electoral candidate for the voters in Orkney and Shetland.” '
@paulhutcheon: Wings isn't taking the #carmichael news well https://t.co/9amnQqE6zP
I think the Left may have had a superior command of language during the Blair era, but I don't think they do now, and nor I do think they did before the Blair era.
We've seen it mentioned here multiple times by the Sensible Left who have better things to do/and then they lose control.
The left, or parts of it, is still seeking to dictate terms of language (cf triggering and suchlike), but you're right that Hoxha and Mao are not very slick.
Best #carmichael conspiracy theory gets a free night's stay at #IndyCampLive Offer ends today.
Apart from which, there is easier access to shale oil and gas in the Central Belt, which is why Ineos is rebuilding facilities at Grangemouth to take advantage of the supplies when the SNP government gives the final go ahead.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12040972/Jeremy-Corbyn-hero-worships-murderous-thugs-like-Hoxha-because-hes-a-cowardly-wimp.html
Who said it: Jeremy Corbyn or Enver Hoxha?
| via @Telegraph https://t.co/R8bEusngNk
I think I will have to pay excess baggage on my myself to get on the plane.
Done the first of the museums/galleries onslaught - the Albertina. Superb main exhibitions (Monet, Picasso) and some excellent pictures by artists who had previously passed me by.
You're right about constructing an argument - but constructing an argument needs to be better, if it is to be effective, than saying that society has accepted something so disagreeing makes you a bigot.
Because the logical conclusion would be that society is always right and everyone disagreeing with it is wrong, and on some issues a bigot.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12041036/Who-said-it-Jeremy-Corbyn-or-Enver-Hoxha.html
Although it might well end up being a replacement if the old bridge does not substantially reopen. Which would make the SNP government's penny-pinching on the new bridge even more ridiculous.
I need to read up a little more on the new bridge - it had big problems a couple of years back with the caissons, but it looks as though they've pulled back the delays and extra costs
I do not think that he will dare to stand for re-election at the next General Election, which gives the Lib Dems hope that they may retain the seat then with a new candidate.
P.S (I've just seen your edit) I'm talking about 'society' within this context, not society on every single issue, I thought that was clear.
however I'm with you on this, it needs to become a regular featire like EIC threads.
But now it's sanctioned by the courts to be a lying sack of shit and a politician.
could be a Nat then ?
Incidentally, what is BIB?
Considering his background- his mother had 14 pregnancies, only four of which survived, his father a philanderer with other children elsewhere as well as serving a stretch for gouging a man's eye out, whilst being shifted around between caravans- Fury has done remarkably well. I'm sure it'll make a remarkable film.
I would like to see him SPOTY because he is intelligent enough to use it as a platform to become the role model that he has within him.
For example:
'Nicola Sturgeon is a tart' - a lie - would not get you into trouble, but
'Nicola Sturgeon is a tart and I never use tarts' would - if you used tarts, because you had referred to your own conduct.
http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/1534/Timothy-Morrison-and-others-v-Alistair-Carmichael-MP-and-Alistair-Buchan
Be quite honest, don't know about Darling.
Which begs the question, has Salmond donated any of the excess earned money he said he would to his designated charity? According to the records so far, Nope! Or you could show me proof, I would be glad to be proven wrong.
"Unsurprisingly, at least to me, Carmichael gets away with disreputable lying
could be a Nat then ? "
Given that the 99% unionist media, and even ordinary members, with remarkably little to show for it, I tend to disagree with you yet again :-)
Has that consensus collapsed?
Did that 'consensus' every really exist or was it imposed by the influential (academia, media, politics) minority on the silenced majority, often by making the conversation taboo by chucking around words like racism?
Is there, perhaps, a parallel to this issue?
Flagging global trade curbs manufacturing growth. FT 1 Dec.
Manufacturing surges to its higher level since April 14. Reuters 6 Nov.
There's also the upcoming defection by-election in June.
In fact, as a non-expert I'd be concerned about that amount of deflection on a truss structure ...
Edit: obligatory photos of a bridge being test-loaded with 50 steam locomotives:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/statelibraryofnsw/5938124129
http://sydney-harbour-bridge.bos.nsw.edu.au/images_content/bridging-sydney-pg224.jpg
People in authority don't yet appreciate how unrepresentative of public opinion social media is. In terms of public opinion, a topic that's trending on twitter, or an online petition, mean the square root of f**k all, as we saw at the general election. But, university administrators, and others, can be intimidated into thinking that there's a huge groundswell of public opinion in favour of banning speakers, safe spaces, speechcodes etc.
In my view, it ties in with Yougov's post mortem into the polling failure at the general election. Yougov were getting relatively few responses from young people. So, they had to weight them up heavily for their polls. And, the young people who were responding to them were very politicised, and generally left wing. Thus, the responses they were getting were unrepresentative both of young people generally, and the wider population.
Alanbrooke
"Unsurprisingly, at least to me, Carmichael gets away with disreputable lying
could be a Nat then ? "
Given that the 99% unionist media seem to be toiling day and night to discredit SNP MPs, MSPs, and even ordinary members, with remarkably little to show for it, I tend to disagree with you yet again :-)
The stereotype of Brighton is far more realistic than that of the City though
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35047872
Digging up an age-old case in order to justify not voting for something that they would vote to support if only someone said 'sorry Mr Trade Unionist'
Is that really the way to do politics?
Apparently so in Burnham-land where making sense is no longer important.
Cosy.
Two thirds of British people say Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims entering the US is an inappropriate policy for America – but a quarter approve, including a majority of UKIP voters
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/09/brits-oppose-muslim-policy-pockets-approval/
Twitter and Facebook IMHO are still poorly understood (even by a few of us, if we're honest) but it's the equivalent of real-time loudhailer for the organised into the faces of those in charge, and is very well suited to the need for constant news of 24hr TV.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/09/brits-oppose-muslim-policy-pockets-approval/
New Thread New Thread
Not that they will ever realise or admit this.
Without falling foul of Godwin's law, it's similar to the disillusionment with mainstream parties in European countries (and to a lesser extent the US) that occurred in the 1920s and 1930s.