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
US Republican Party presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States, including Muslims seeking immigration visas as well as tourists. Do you think this is an appropriate or inappropriate policy for the US?
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.
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?
I think most British politicians talk about integration and British values now rather than multiculturalism, but at the same time identity politics have got worse IMHO.
The public are way ahead of the politicians on immigration. I don't think this will go away and could be the defining issue of the next 15-20 years, possibly longer:
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?
That is not what you were implying, and well you know that. As to money, he is definitely not as thick as most people believe, and one more thing, I suspect that he already thinks he has enough money from his PM pension, his MP's pension and whatever to do as he wants to. Surprisingly, personal wealth, riches and fame is not something he seemingly attains to, so long as he has something interesting to do. This is from someone who doesn't personally know him, but has followed his story for many years and disagrees with him on many things
PS: Where is the proof of Salmond donating to the charity as he said he would?
If 'disreputable lying' is now a disqualification from office, how many MPs would still be sitting? 5?
Well certainly not Alex (Mr $110) Salmond.
'£200bn oil boom if Scots vote no, says PM'
Because the wider UK could afford investment in fields to increase production and capacity and extend life. But not when the oil price is at 40. Cameron was pointing out precisely why the wider UK was better suited to sustain investment t in the north sea when revenues were declining.
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
I think there is a hope for running both bridges for a while, maximising the lifespan of the current bridge by limiting the classes of traffic that can use it. But make no mistake, the new bridge is effectively a replacement before there is too much loss of strength in the suspension cables on the old bridge.
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?
That is not what you were implying, and well you know that. As to money, he is definitely not as thick as most people believe, and one more thing, I suspect that he already thinks he has enough money from his PM pension, his MP's pension and whatever to do as he wants to. Surprisingly, personal wealth, riches and fame is not something he seemingly attains to, so long as he has something interesting to do. This is from someone who doesn't personally know him, but has followed his story for many years and disagrees with him on many things
PS: Where is the proof of Salmond donating to the charity as he said he would?
Oops, sorry, Thought I was replying to someone else.
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.
I would suggest that people say what they feel they ought to say when a subject is made taboo, and when any form of publicly aired dissent from the acceptable line is jumped upon. It is virtue signalling.
I have a family friend who is intensely freaked out by the fact her son has come out as gay, and he says things she really does not want to hear.
She would describe herself as free of homophobia in all polite and professional circles.
That's because of the grounds of the case. Carmichael was being charged with lying about himself. The case wasn't about the contents of the leaked memo, but that, when questioned, he (candidate Alistair Carmichael) claimed that he (the aforementioned candidate) hadn't leaked it. Therefore a candidate was lying about a candidate in the election in a matter to do with his/her personal conduct.
So the first lie wouldn't get you in trouble in that election, because it's not about another candidate in the election (and this election court has, by hearing the case, extended the reach from "another candidate" to "oneself as well").
I think the real 'absurd' thing is not an opinion on police-community relations that PB happens to disagree with (one which that known 'Leftie' Theresa May agrees with), but calling Fury's opinions as merely 'not PC'. Quite frankly, if a Muslim had said any of these opinions PBers would be opining about how Islam is incompatible with the Western culture, how abhorrent their attitudes are etc. And why the Left is to blame for immigration xyz, and so on. Tyson Fury essentially is blatantly homophobic. I don't think he should be removed from BBCSPTY. On the contrary, I think it'll be interesting to see how many people are preoccupied with sticking it to the 'Political Correct Lot' or whatever, rather than actually voting for who they think is the Best Sports 'Personality' of the Year. This is essentially what this is about, basically - telling some randoms on the internet to go and do one.
And as for him losing his IBF Title - I had to laugh. Can't say I feel too sorry for him.
I'm not going to restart this debate - it was boring enough last night.
As with Trump, Fury - silly things to say, but people are allowed to say (most) silly things at will. Anything else would be dangerous and just as narrow minded.
Fury can say what he likes, but his right to freedom speech doesn't mean others don't have a right to criticise him. Trump was also being blatantly racist yesterday, and displayed some incredibly worrying attitudes. These are more that just 'odd' opinions, but ones' which express bigotry.
That is sort of the point of freedom of speech. Criticism is fine as long as it is 'you are not allowed to say those things'.
The way to counter bigotry is not through closing down the argument, it is through winning the argument on merit.
I know that's the point of freedom of speech. That's why I said it in my response to you.
Criticising Fury is not 'closing down the argument', although I'm not sure what argument there is left to be had. I would have thought we'd reached a point as a society, collectively that Homophobia was wrong, and that most of us had been 'persuaded on this', and over twenty years or so, this is an argument which has been won on merit. That's why many have been critical of Fury's comments.
To return to the fray, I think Mr Fury is an obnoxious bigot - essentially he's unreconstructed '70s man. He's also a very talented boxer. If I worked myself up into a lather every time someone like him said something stupid or offensive, I'd spend my day huffing into a paper bag. I think we are at the point where people just look at him and go...'idiot'...and move on with their lives.
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.
I would suggest that people say what they feel they ought to say when a subject is made taboo, and when any form of publicly aired dissent from the acceptable line is jumped upon. It is virtue signalling.
I have a family friend who is intensely freaked out by the fact her son has come out as gay, and he says things she really does not want to hear.
She would describe herself as free of homophobia in all polite and professional circles.
Yes, but then there are people that describe themselves as having 'black friends', but still are racist. You'll always get these kinds of people, it doesn't mean they are representative of the general population. I have friends who are bisexual and gay, who have been accepted and supported by their parents. I would say that the subject of homosexuality is becoming less taboo. I don't buy that the entire population of Great Britain are simply virtue signalling, and are all secretly anti-gay. Immigration is a highly taboo, controversial subject and people have no qualms about expressing their opinions on that.
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.
I would suggest that people say what they feel they ought to say when a subject is made taboo, and when any form of publicly aired dissent from the acceptable line is jumped upon. It is virtue signalling.
I have a family friend who is intensely freaked out by the fact her son has come out as gay, and he says things she really does not want to hear.
She would describe herself as free of homophobia in all polite and professional circles.
Yes, but then there are people that describe themselves as having 'black friends', but still are racist. You'll always get these kinds of people, it doesn't mean they are representative of the general population. I have friends who are bisexual and gay, who have been accepted and supported by their parents. I would say that the subject of homosexuality is becoming less taboo. I don't buy that the entire population of Great Britain are simply virtue signalling, and are all secretly anti-gay. Immigration is a highly taboo, controversial subject and people have no qualms about expressing their opinions on that.
My Mum was an out and out homophobe until my youngest nephew came out (he's one of the nicest people any of us know). She's had an epiphany in her 80s. I genuinely think attitudes have changed.
That said, in my more cynical moments, I wonder if it's genuine tolerance rather than indifference due to a more self-centred and narcissistic populace. But that's just my inner Grinch.
I believe that there are some engineers on here, possibly some structural engineers. Could someone answer the question on how long it would take the crack on the Forth Road Bridge to start and then to break as disastrously as it did? Our present FM has said it took 1 week between inspections. From what little personal experience I have in these matters, I suspect something rather different.
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
That was great. People were really worried millions of people would support him if only they heard him. Well it didn't work out that way.
Of course Highgate is nothing like Tottenham but the religious diversity in Highgate is vast. The point I made at the time is I have close family in Highgate and as a Spurs fan walking to the car after evening fixtures can be interesting. For making that observation I was called a racist.
Tottenham is absolute bandit country. On a non-matchday evening it is a genuinely scary place - even walking down the High Road. Highgate isn't. But I don't think it has much to do with religion. It's more about wealth.
Exactly my point, but somebody else preferred to call me a racist.
Comments
Mr. Smithson, this is in danger of becoming an inquisition series like a family of Russian dolls. Just when you think it's over, there's another.
Anyway, a great day for the Lib Dems. They've just retained 100% of their Scottish seats.
As for persons telling fibs not being allowed in power: it worked bloody well for Septimius Severus.
US Republican Party presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States, including Muslims seeking immigration visas as well as tourists. Do you think this is an appropriate or inappropriate policy for the US?
OA: -39
Lab: -47
Con: -31
LibD: -62
SNP: -63
UKIP: +29
https://www.pinnaclesports.com/en/odds/specials/politics/2016-presidential-election-usa
It does seem to be having a few problems with bullying.
The public are way ahead of the politicians on immigration. I don't think this will go away and could be the defining issue of the next 15-20 years, possibly longer:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11986994/The-migrant-crisis-is-a-mere-gust-of-the-hurricane-that-will-soon-engulf-Europe.html
PS: Where is the proof of Salmond donating to the charity as he said he would?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forth_Road_Bridge
I have a family friend who is intensely freaked out by the fact her son has come out as gay, and he says things she really does not want to hear.
She would describe herself as free of homophobia in all polite and professional circles.
So the first lie wouldn't get you in trouble in that election, because it's not about another candidate in the election (and this election court has, by hearing the case, extended the reach from "another candidate" to "oneself as well").
That said, in my more cynical moments, I wonder if it's genuine tolerance rather than indifference due to a more self-centred and narcissistic populace. But that's just my inner Grinch.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/pictures-2cm-crack-shut-forth-6956428