Brind - "The Crosby strategy failed in Canada when playing the Islamaphobia card back-fired on the then Premier Stephen Harper."
Lynton Crosby - "The 'niquab issue' was something I learnt about when I read the media like most people," - "I have watched with bemusement suggestions I was running the campaign or somehow on the campaign team. I wasn't".
There's some dancing-on-pinheads wording issues here, I think. Read Crosby's denial carefully - he wasn't running the campaign, but he's not denying offering advice:
The more fundamental point is that the Canadian Tories tried the anti-Islamist stuff, and it didn't work at all, even in heavily white and non-Islamic Canada.
Lynton Crosby - "I wasn't engaged on the Canadian election and wasn't there during the election campaign. It follows that the strategy wasn't 'mine',"
I was listening to a leading UK Imam on radio 4 yesterday. His line was that Muslims should integrate but that is not the same as assimilate. Integration for him meant they live apart according to Islamic law but in Bradford not Islamabad! We have a very long way to go.
You might want to take a closer look at the Labour party
"They refer to a strategy based on playing the man not the ball; issuing innuendos and smears rather than fighting on the issues" Ring any bells? It really should unless you don't care what Labour did and do.
" intrusive, patronising and divisive tactics”" - mhhh - I suggest you could look again at your own party.
While you are at it can you can get Labour to sort out it's problem with anti semites - that might be a bit of a task though.
Since both main parties have recently had Jewish leaders -- Ed Miliband as recently as last year, and Michael Howard -- I can't help wonder if the recent obsession about the very real problem of anti-semitism does not have other motives.
On playing the man, this has been the recent Tory MO. Even right wing commentators wrote about the campaign of personal abuse against Gordon Brown, and the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, was reported as being unhappy when forced to mount the "dead cat" abuse of Miliband.
Nephila Capital is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nephila Holdings Limited and is a Bermuda domiciled company. As the BBC lines up pundits to jump on the outrage bus about Dave’s £30,000 in a Panamanian unit trust, they stashed £84 million with investors based in Bermuda. There is lots more of this…
Zac Goldsmith's tax return is going to be interesting.
Will he also reveal his assets held overseas eg offshore.
I seem to recall Boris and other London candidates published their tax returns at a previous election.
Immediate result
Multimillionaire Conservative Zac Goldsmith has made his personal tax return public after Labour urged the City Hall hopeful to "come clean" over his financial affairs.
The document showed the Tory had paid more than £4.5m ($6.3m) in tax on his income and capital gains since he became an MP for Richmond Park in 2010 – an average income tax rate over the five years of 46%.
The return also revealed that Goldsmith's total income amounted to more than £6m over the period, with £5.6m coming from his trust, £323,892 for his work as an MP, and £17,605 from property. In addition, his capital gains earnings were more than £4.2m between 2010 and 2015.
Son of financier and billionaire Sir James Goldsmith, Zac inherited a 'non-dom' tax status from his father but he relinquished it seven years ago.
Ezekiel "Kell" Brook is a British professional boxer. As the current IBF welterweight champion, Brook is the highest-ranked welterweight in the world, according to The Ring magazine.
Welterweight is one of the strongest divisions.
Since Sheffield has opted out of competing in football, I suppose they had to busy themselves with minor sports.
Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.
On the face of it, it doesn't seem especially islamophobic, though you do wonder why relatively few similar concerns are raised about the integration of evangelical Christians and some sections of the Jewish community
I am fascinated by the idea that empirical evidence measured at source can be "racist". It is what it is, the expressed views of the sample group with no value judgement attached. In the same way as it is supposedly "sexist" to point out objective (often biologically determined) differences between men and women. Can facts be racist/sexist ? Or only the way they are used and abused to imply non-empirical attributes. It's a funny old world.
I wouldn't even bother trying to analyse this. Some people simply refuse to believe anything other than what they want to be true. "Racist" or "Islamophobia" are just ways of refusing to deal with uncomfortable facts or arguments. There are none so deaf as those that don't want to hear.
People can use facts selectively to sustain an argument and can do so because they have an agenda. The way to deal with this is to point out the missing facts and show how weak/spurious/inadequate the argument is*. But that would take a bit of work and engagement. So those who cannot be bothered to defeat a poor argument with a better one resort to ad hominem insults to bypass the whole concept of argument and debate. These are the tactics of the babyish, the scared, the inadequates and the bullies - of which there are far too many around in positions of influence.
* One of the best examples of this was Deborah Lipstadt's demolition of David Irving in a libel trial. It took a lot of time and effort and money but his claim to be an academic historian (albeit one with horrible views) was utterly destroyed as a result.
The people in question start with the default assumption that only white people can be racists or bigots.
They start and end there.
I'm afraid that the word "racist" has been so overused that is devalued. A pity because it means that real racism, with real effects on real people, does not get called out and dealt with in the way that it should be.
Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.
Trevor Philips that well known racist....FFS....it doesn't matter who points out there might be some issues, be it Douglas Murray, Trevor Phillips or Maajid Nawaz, somehow they are all racist Islamophobes / not proper Muslims.
A "proper" Muslin is a Wahhabi (in their own eyes). Wahhabism isn't that old. It's a response to Western colonialism, and inter alia demands the abolition of Western culture & the enslavement of its adherents.
People can use facts selectively to sustain an argument and can do so because they have an agenda. The way to deal with this is to point out the missing facts and show how weak/spurious/inadequate the argument is*. But that would take a bit of work and engagement. So those who cannot be bothered to defeat a poor argument with a better one resort to ad hominem insults to bypass the whole concept of argument and debate. These are the tactics of the babyish, the scared, the inadequates and the bullies - of which there are far too many around in positions of influence.
* One of the best examples of this was Deborah Lipstadt's demolition of David Irving in a libel trial. It took a lot of time and effort and money but his claim to be an academic historian (albeit one with horrible views) was utterly destroyed as a result.
That's very true. Unfortunately dissecting arguments and claims and showing them to be false can be very time-consuming. Also, for the person doing the work it's in one sense a waste of time since it probably distracts them from their own more productive activities. But it is the only way.
I was listening to a leading UK Imam on radio 4 yesterday. His line was that Muslims should integrate but that is not the same as assimilate. Integration for him meant they live apart according to Islamic law but in Bradford not Islamabad! We have a very long way to go.
Nephila Capital is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nephila Holdings Limited and is a Bermuda domiciled company. As the BBC lines up pundits to jump on the outrage bus about Dave’s £30,000 in a Panamanian unit trust, they stashed £84 million with investors based in Bermuda. There is lots more of this…
Zac Goldsmith's tax return is going to be interesting.
Will he also reveal his assets held overseas eg offshore.
I seem to recall Boris and other London candidates published their tax returns at a previous election.
Immediate result
Multimillionaire Conservative Zac Goldsmith has made his personal tax return public after Labour urged the City Hall hopeful to "come clean" over his financial affairs.
The document showed the Tory had paid more than £4.5m ($6.3m) in tax on his income and capital gains since he became an MP for Richmond Park in 2010 – an average income tax rate over the five years of 46%.
The return also revealed that Goldsmith's total income amounted to more than £6m over the period, with £5.6m coming from his trust, £323,892 for his work as an MP, and £17,605 from property. In addition, his capital gains earnings were more than £4.2m between 2010 and 2015.
Son of financier and billionaire Sir James Goldsmith, Zac inherited a 'non-dom' tax status from his father but he relinquished it seven years ago.
Labour mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan followed in the footsteps of Zac Goldsmith today by publishing his own tax return.
The Tooting MP disclosed that he earned almost £63,000 last year from his MPs salary and paid more than £20,000 in tax and National Insurance.
His campaign said his Tory rival would have “a cloud hanging over his head” until he fully answered questions on his former non-dom status.
A letter from Mr Khan’s accountant show the only income he earned over the past ten years were his MP’s salary, a ministerial salary from 2008 to 2010 and an allowance for his final year as a Wandsworth councillor.
He took home just over £3,000 for appearances on the BBC’s Have I Got News For You and as presenter of BBC Radio 4’s “White House” series which explored the history of the early Asian Members of Parliament.
Couldn't disagree more with the author. Sorry, Donald.
Khan is a bigot, who refuses to meet with many a religious group in his area because they are not his type, including I may say, some Muslims. He is generally hated by Labour politicians. Take a look at his photos on Twitter over the weekend in Merton and Wandsworth. No known locals...they wouldn't been seen dead with this evil, divisive character.
Crosby's not involved in the campaign. The message corresponds with the views of the people of London who are scared stiff of Khan and the incompetent Corbyn running London. If Zac has 8% chance of winning according to the betting...well, I don't agree. Turn Out will decide, and it will be about 33%, unless something dramatic happens. I agree, Khan is favourite but a 92% chance of victory usually is akin to a landslide: 57: 43%. I could be wrong but, on the doorsteps don't say that and I am not focusing on Tories, genral public. The Labour-ites I am talking to are not all going to vote for Khan. There is more than 8% chance. Not as high as 50%, but not 8%.
Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.
Trevor Philips that well known racist....FFS....it doesn't matter who points out there might be some issues, be it Douglas Murray, Trevor Phillips or Maajid Nawaz, somehow they are all racist Islamophobes / not proper Muslims.
A "proper" Muslin is a Wahhabi (in their own eyes). Wahhabism isn't that old. It's a response to Western colonialism, and inter alia demands the abolition of Western culture & the enslavement of its adherents.
A case of "be done by as you did" methinks.
Another example of blowback. IMF-imposed cuts on Pakistan led to an influx of Saudi-bankrolled madrassas.
Nephila Capital is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nephila Holdings Limited and is a Bermuda domiciled company. As the BBC lines up pundits to jump on the outrage bus about Dave’s £30,000 in a Panamanian unit trust, they stashed £84 million with investors based in Bermuda. There is lots more of this…
Its going to be so funny when more of this sticky to leftie totems than Tory Prime Ministers.
Matthew 26:52
It wasn't that long ago that Panorama did a special hosted by a Guardian reporter about UK companies stashing money in Cayman Islands. In the episode he read off a massive list of companies who have registered companies there, except one name was missing...GMG Hazel Acquisition 1 Limited
Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.
On the face of it, it doesn't seem especially islamophobic, though you do wonder why relatively few similar concerns are raised about the integration of evangelical Christians and some sections of the Jewish community
I am fascinated by the idea that empirical evidence measured at source can be "racist". It is what it is, the expressed views of the sample group with no value judgement attached. In the same way as it is supposedly "sexist" to point out objective (often biologically determined) differences between men and women. Can facts be racist/sexist ? Or only the way they are used and abused to imply non-empirical attributes. It's a funny old world.
I wouldn't even bother trying to analyse this. Some people simply refuse to believe anything other than what they want to be true. "Racist" or "Islamophobia" are just ways of refusing to deal with uncomfortable facts or arguments. There are none so deaf as those that don't want to hear.
(Snip)
They can be, but your argument itself can be used to hide true and real racism or islamaphobia when it occurs.
The cries of "You cannot say racist!" or "You cannot say Islamaphobic!" from people who pretend to be in favour of free speech can be quite hilarious.
Yes, people use the terms to hide inconvenient facts or opinions. But that does not mean that everyone who uses the terms are doing so, and that there is not real racism and islamaphobia out there that needs addressing. And by Islamaphobia, I mean the dictionary definition.
Couldn't disagree more with the author. Sorry, Donald.
Khan is a bigot, who refuses to meet with many a religious group in his area because they are not his type, including I may say, some Muslims. He is generally hated by Labour politicians. Take a look at his photos on Twitter over the weekend in Merton and Wandsworth. No known locals...they wouldn't been seen dead with this evil, divisive character.
Crosby's not involved in the campaign. The message corresponds with the views of the people of London who are scared stiff of Khan and the incompetent Corbyn running London. If Zac has 8% chance of winning according to the betting...well, I don't agree. Turn Out will decide, and it will be about 33%, unless something dramatic happens. I agree, Khan is favourite but a 92% chance of victory usually is akin to a landslide: 57: 43%. I could be wrong but, on the doorsteps don't say that and I am not focusing on Tories, genral public. The Labour-ites I am talking to are not all going to vote for Khan. There is more than 8% chance. Not as high as 50%, but not 8%.
Nephila Capital is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nephila Holdings Limited and is a Bermuda domiciled company. As the BBC lines up pundits to jump on the outrage bus about Dave’s £30,000 in a Panamanian unit trust, they stashed £84 million with investors based in Bermuda. There is lots more of this…
I'm struggling to keep up with this. Every couple of hours the pendulum swings between "private tax affairs are private" and "look over there at those other nasty tax dodgers".
On the one hand, the strong social conservatism and attitudes to homosexuality are now clearly out of step with the British mainstream, although it should be said not dissimilar to UK attitudes in the 1950s. However, on the other hand 86% saying they have a strong loyalty to Britain and only 4% would sympathise with a suicide bomber is positive.
It suggest to me that a hardcore of 5-15% are seriously disengaged, and a good number of the rest are very socially conservative and largely live their own lives in their own communities, perhaps feeling unfairly victimised or targeted by the State.
The real concern for me in that is the fact only 34% would report their suspected terrorism concerns to the police.
I was listening to a leading UK Imam on radio 4 yesterday. His line was that Muslims should integrate but that is not the same as assimilate. Integration for him meant they live apart according to Islamic law but in Bradford not Islamabad! We have a very long way to go.
This to my mind should be wholly unacceptable.
Indeed. It'd be good to hear the segment, and to hear how he was challenged.
I was listening to a leading UK Imam on radio 4 yesterday. His line was that Muslims should integrate but that is not the same as assimilate. Integration for him meant they live apart according to Islamic law but in Bradford not Islamabad! We have a very long way to go.
This to my mind should be wholly unacceptable.
That's your mind. Doubtless the Imam would wish Western culture to be abolished as unIslamic. That's his.
Muslims who kill westerners are at least taking their religion - and our lack of it - seriously.
Nephila Capital is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nephila Holdings Limited and is a Bermuda domiciled company. As the BBC lines up pundits to jump on the outrage bus about Dave’s £30,000 in a Panamanian unit trust, they stashed £84 million with investors based in Bermuda. There is lots more of this…
I'm struggling to keep up with this. Every couple of hours the pendulum swings between "private tax affairs are private" and "look over there at those other nasty tax dodgers".
I think my line has been very consistent on this....I said from the outset that a huge percentage of people will have their pension funds invested in Unit Trusts and alike registered overseas. Just more evidence that is true.
I was listening to a leading UK Imam on radio 4 yesterday. His line was that Muslims should integrate but that is not the same as assimilate. Integration for him meant they live apart according to Islamic law but in Bradford not Islamabad! We have a very long way to go.
This to my mind should be wholly unacceptable.
That's your mind. Doubtless the Imam would wish Western culture to be abolished as unIslamic. That's his.
Muslims who kill westerners are at least taking their religion - and our lack of it - seriously.
If he doesn't want Western culture, he's free to reject it. But in that case he can go and live in Islamabad and not in a Western country. What he can't do is demand and get the fruits of Western culture without any of the obligations that go with it.
This is a gigantic F*** Y** to the rest of us and we have tolerated it for far too long, to our shame and to our detriment.
What we could do with are some numbers on the London mayor election. Since the 2012 election there have been important changes to the electoral roll. These will reduce the potential voter numbers for Khan far more than Zac. Easily worth a drop of 100,000 in Khan's support, but many of these people think they have a vote and give opinions to pollsters! There is also the virtual abandonment of the jewish vote (I would guess circa 150,000+ in London). True Livingstone lost much of that vote but recent events in Labour will have shifted more jewish votes away.
Suggests London lost 2.11% of voters in 2013-14 and 1.24% the following year.
Boris v Ken was almost exactly 2m voter, so what would be 67,000 voters lost if that was it, or more like double that if the average was extrapolated over the electoral period.
Yes. Add in those of different religions that Khan despises, perhaps another 100,000. Perhaps worth 4% of vote. If Khan is 53/47 on opinion polls, Zac has a chance. If it is 52/48, Zac will win. IF
I was listening to a leading UK Imam on radio 4 yesterday. His line was that Muslims should integrate but that is not the same as assimilate. Integration for him meant they live apart according to Islamic law but in Bradford not Islamabad! We have a very long way to go.
This to my mind should be wholly unacceptable.
That's your mind. Doubtless the Imam would wish Western culture to be abolished as unIslamic. That's his.
Muslims who kill westerners are at least taking their religion - and our lack of it - seriously.
"After a recent review by our trading team, it has been decided that this account requires tighter liability management. Unfortunately this means the account will no longer be eligible for any of our free bet promotions (including Sky Bet Club and Money Back refunds).
In addition, from this point forward any bets placed will no longer apply for Best Odds Guaranteed and will be settled at the price option taken upon placement."
I suppose I should be grateful that they haven't banned me completely.
A question for those more knowledgeable on tax than myself: if someone had been working for a US company whilst in a third country, and had been paid in US dollars into an account held at an American bank, and they have not transferred the funds to the UK, are those funds immoral because they are held offshore?
I was listening to a leading UK Imam on radio 4 yesterday. His line was that Muslims should integrate but that is not the same as assimilate. Integration for him meant they live apart according to Islamic law but in Bradford not Islamabad! We have a very long way to go.
This to my mind should be wholly unacceptable.
That's your mind. Doubtless the Imam would wish Western culture to be abolished as unIslamic. That's his.
Muslims who kill westerners are at least taking their religion - and our lack of it - seriously.
What an interesting and curious view.
If taking your religion seriously means slaughtering hundreds of innocents, Its clearly a religion that should be banned.
I was listening to a leading UK Imam on radio 4 yesterday. His line was that Muslims should integrate but that is not the same as assimilate. Integration for him meant they live apart according to Islamic law but in Bradford not Islamabad! We have a very long way to go.
This to my mind should be wholly unacceptable.
That's your mind. Doubtless the Imam would wish Western culture to be abolished as unIslamic. That's his.
Muslims who kill westerners are at least taking their religion - and our lack of it - seriously.
This is a gigantic F*** Y** to the rest of us and we have tolerated it for far too long, to our shame and to our detriment.
On the one hand, the strong social conservatism and attitudes to homosexuality are now clearly out of step with the British mainstream, although it should be said not dissimilar to UK attitudes in the 1950s. However, on the other hand 86% saying they have a strong loyalty to Britain and only 4% would sympathise with a suicide bomber is positive.
It suggest to me that a hardcore of 5-15% are seriously disengaged, and a good number of the rest are very socially conservative and largely live their own lives in their own communities, perhaps feeling unfairly victimised or targeted by the State.
The real concern for me in that is the fact only 34% would report their suspected terrorism concerns to the police.
Still some way to go on integration.
There is a similarity with British attitudes of the 50s. However, I think the 50s are now very far away from modern Britain. The distance in time is the same as that between the 60s (when I was born) and Edwardian times and I think the cultural distance is about as great.
I was listening to a leading UK Imam on radio 4 yesterday. His line was that Muslims should integrate but that is not the same as assimilate. Integration for him meant they live apart according to Islamic law but in Bradford not Islamabad! We have a very long way to go.
This to my mind should be wholly unacceptable.
That's your mind. Doubtless the Imam would wish Western culture to be abolished as unIslamic. That's his.
Muslims who kill westerners are at least taking their religion - and our lack of it - seriously.
This is a gigantic F*** Y** to the rest of us and we have tolerated it for far too long, to our shame and to our detriment.
1 Zac will lose because he's the weaker candidate 2 The Tories need a very strong candidate to overcome London's inherent Labour skew 3 Good to see our friends on the left still respect Sir Lynton - do they respect Lord Livermore? 4 Also good to see our friends on the left writing off Sir Lynton as a failing has been... 5 If Zac hadn't done leaflets targeting specific ethnic groups he'd be accused of ignoring them. 6 The main focus should be going after 'Jeremy Corbyn's candidate Sadiq Khan' - which it appears the leaflet does.....
Point 6 is interesting because whatever the result it will be used by both supporters and opponents of Jeremy. In places like PB we're all perfectly aware that Jeremy and Sadiq are on polite terms but not particularly close politically, so objectively the "Jeremy's man bent on Marxist experiments in London" line is pretty silly, and it appears to be ineffective. But if Sadiq wins, will it be seen as a success for Jeremy, or a success for Labour centrism?
In the short term, a bit of both - losing London would be a blow for Labour morale which would add to the pressure on Jeremy. In the longer term, though, it will establish Sadiq as the currently most successful Labour politician, which may well be important if Jeremy at some point calls it a day. Not being an MP is in practice something which is easily corrected, as Boris has demonstrated. Those who would like to see a credible centrist alternative may want to keep that in mind (and those who don't may see it as a cause for concern).
What we could do with are some numbers on the London mayor election. Since the 2012 election there have been important changes to the electoral roll. These will reduce the potential voter numbers for Khan far more than Zac. Easily worth a drop of 100,000 in Khan's support, but many of these people think they have a vote and give opinions to pollsters! There is also the virtual abandonment of the jewish vote (I would guess circa 150,000+ in London). True Livingstone lost much of that vote but recent events in Labour will have shifted more jewish votes away.
Suggests London lost 2.11% of voters in 2013-14 and 1.24% the following year.
Boris v Ken was almost exactly 2m voter, so what would be 67,000 voters lost if that was it, or more like double that if the average was extrapolated over the electoral period.
Yes. Add in those of different religions that Khan despises, perhaps another 100,000. Perhaps worth 4% of vote. If Khan is 53/47 on opinion polls, Zac has a chance. If it is 52/48, Zac will win. IF
Which religions does Khan despise ? I haven't heard anything of this.
I was listening to a leading UK Imam on radio 4 yesterday. His line was that Muslims should integrate but that is not the same as assimilate. Integration for him meant they live apart according to Islamic law but in Bradford not Islamabad! We have a very long way to go.
This to my mind should be wholly unacceptable.
That's your mind. Doubtless the Imam would wish Western culture to be abolished as unIslamic. That's his.
Muslims who kill westerners are at least taking their religion - and our lack of it - seriously.
I was listening to a leading UK Imam on radio 4 yesterday. His line was that Muslims should integrate but that is not the same as assimilate. Integration for him meant they live apart according to Islamic law but in Bradford not Islamabad! We have a very long way to go.
This to my mind should be wholly unacceptable.
That's your mind. Doubtless the Imam would wish Western culture to be abolished as unIslamic. That's his.
Muslims who kill westerners are at least taking their religion - and our lack of it - seriously.
This is a gigantic F*** Y** to the rest of us and we have tolerated it for far too long, to our shame and to our detriment.
I think I want to kiss Cyclefree.
Hey. Get in line
The more I read this site the more I sympathise with radicalised Wahhabis.
All white people are racists and all racists should be put to death. Yesterday.
Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.
On the face of it, it doesn't seem especially islamophobic, though you do wonder why relatively few similar concerns are raised about the integration of evangelical Christians and some sections of the Jewish community
I am fascinated by the idea that empirical evidence measured at source can be "racist". It is what it is, the expressed views of the sample group with no value judgement attached. In the same way as it is supposedly "sexist" to point out objective (often biologically determined) differences between men and women. Can facts be racist/sexist ? Or only the way they are used and abused to imply non-empirical attributes. It's a funny old world.
I wouldn't even bother trying to analyse this. Some people simply refuse to believe anything other than what they want to be true. "Racist" or "Islamophobia" are just ways of refusing to deal with uncomfortable facts or arguments. There are none so deaf as those that don't want to hear.
(Snip)
They can be, but your argument itself can be used to hide true and real racism or islamaphobia when it occurs.
The cries of "You cannot say racist!" or "You cannot say Islamaphobic!" from people who pretend to be in favour of free speech can be quite hilarious.
Yes, people use the terms to hide inconvenient facts or opinions. But that does not mean that everyone who uses the terms are doing so, and that there is not real racism and islamaphobia out there that needs addressing. And by Islamaphobia, I mean the dictionary definition.
Indeed - and why I said below that devaluing the concept of "racism" can make it harder to deal with real racism. There is too much crying wolf about which makes the real wolves harder to deal with.
I will continue to criticise Islam as freely as I want, regardless of whether anyone wants to call it Islamophobia or not. I simply refuse to confuse criticism of a belief system (essential) with criticism of an individual or a group (which may or may not be justified, depending on what that individual or group does).
I'm really irritated by Cameron's crap handling of his own PR problem dragging in everyone else. He's changed the whole privacy game to cover his arse.
I'm really irritated by Cameron's crap handling of his own PR problem dragging in everyone else. He's changed the whole privacy game to cover his arse.
Not impressed at all.
He must have been such a loss to the world of Public Relations when he decided to go into politics.
An MP is preparing to name the “celebrity threesome” couple in the House of Commons , the Telegraph can disclose, as a Scottish newspaper published the identities of the mystery couple behind the injunction.
Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.
On the face of it, it doesn't seem especially islamophobic, though you do wonder why relatively few similar concerns are raised about the integration of evangelical Christians and some sections of the Jewish community
I am fascinated by the idea that empirical evidence measured at source can be "racist". It is what it is, the expressed views of the sample group with no value judgement attached. In the same way as it is supposedly "sexist" to point out objective (often biologically determined) differences between men and women. Can facts be racist/sexist ? Or only the way they are used and abused to imply non-empirical attributes. It's a funny old world.
There's a difference between the context and content of a proposition, obviously. So let's say 60pc of Christians want to slaughter kittens, but the proportion for Muslims is 45pc. To state the empirical fact about Muslims in isolation because you want to demonise them (cf Taffys' comment below) could be seen as deliberately misleading and motivated by an intent to denigrate than the statement "Christians more into kitten-killing than Muslims".
Of course, but a survey which sets out the explore the views of one section of the population in contrast to the general population, and publishes a set of figures which show in which way those views differ and in which they are the same might be controversial, but is hardly "racist". It should be no more of an issue that comparing the views about offshore financial vehicles of Tory and Labour voters.
Leaving aside the minor detail is how credible is it that Trevor Phillips, until reasonably recently the Chair of the Campaign for Racial Equality is a racist ?
I'm not expressing a view on whether he's a racist and to my mind at least there was nothing wrong with his comments. I think the same comments could be deployed with a less pleasant agenda, but don't see anything divisive in his.
Where it gets difficult is the desire to suppress inconvenient facts because of the tendency of those with a racist agenda to seize on those facts and use them to fuel hatred. I can't see how it can be right to hide data that could be abused, but one can see why those who are responsible for managing tensions in hostile communities might consider that some "truths" aren't in the public interest.
It's so much easier if one is a celebrity threesome participant, really.
I'm really irritated by Cameron's crap handling of his own PR problem dragging in everyone else. He's changed the whole privacy game to cover his arse.
Not impressed at all.
He must have been such a loss to the world of Public Relations when he decided to go into politics.
Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.
On the face of it, it doesn't seem especially islamophobic, though you do wonder why relatively few similar concerns are raised about the integration of evangelical Christians and some sections of the Jewish community
I am fascinated by the idea that empirical evidence measured at source can be "racist". It is what it is, the expressed views of the sample group with no value judgement attached. In the same way as it is supposedly "sexist" to point out objective (often biologically determined) differences between men and women. Can facts be racist/sexist ? Or only the way they are used and abused to imply non-empirical attributes. It's a funny old world.
There's a difference between the context and content of a proposition, obviously. So let's say 60pc of Christians want to slaughter kittens, but the proportion for Muslims is 45pc. To state the empirical fact about Muslims in isolation because you want to demonise them (cf Taffys' comment below) could be seen as deliberately misleading and motivated by an intent to denigrate than the statement "Christians more into kitten-killing than Muslims".
Of course, but a survey which sets out the explore the views of one section of the population in contrast to the general population, and publishes a set of figures which show in which way those views differ and in which they are the same might be controversial, but is hardly "racist". It should be no more of an issue that comparing the views about offshore financial vehicles of Tory and Labour voters.
Leaving aside the minor detail is how credible is it that Trevor Phillips, until reasonably recently the Chair of the Campaign for Racial Equality is a racist ?
It's so much easier if one is a celebrity threesome participant, really.
It almost always makes things worse in the long run to suppress unwelcome information - for fear that ill-intentioned people will make use of it maliciously.
WRT Muslim attitudes, even if 52% want to recriminalize homosexuality, I expect the proportion who think it's a live issue is far smaller.
I think it's good that very large majorities of Muslims are committed to this country, and feel that they can freely practise their religion here (in contrast to the endless whinging by the Islamic Human Rights Commission) . It's not good that only 34% would report someone who went to fight for ISIS.
On the one hand, the strong social conservatism and attitudes to homosexuality are now clearly out of step with the British mainstream, although it should be said not dissimilar to UK attitudes in the 1950s. However, on the other hand 86% saying they have a strong loyalty to Britain and only 4% would sympathise with a suicide bomber is positive.
It suggest to me that a hardcore of 5-15% are seriously disengaged, and a good number of the rest are very socially conservative and largely live their own lives in their own communities, perhaps feeling unfairly victimised or targeted by the State.
The real concern for me in that is the fact only 34% would report their suspected terrorism concerns to the police.
Still some way to go on integration.
There is a similarity with British attitudes of the 50s. However, I think the 50s are now very far away from modern Britain. The distance in time is the same as that between the 60s (when I was born) and Edwardian times and I think the cultural distance is about as great.
The poll findings are not that surprising, and indeed there is plenty of evidence of integration. More Muslims than controls think Britain is a moral society for example.
A surprising % of the controls support making homosexuality illegal, stoning adulterers and sympathise with terrorist acts. Bearing in mind that Non muslims outnumber muslims more than 12/1 there are actually more non muslims supporting stoning or ISIS than muslims!
'Brind - "The Crosby strategy failed in Canada when playing the Islamaphobia card back-fired on the then Premier Stephen Harper."
Lynton Crosby - "The 'niquab issue' was something I learnt about when I read the media like most people," - "I have watched with bemusement suggestions I was running the campaign or somehow on the campaign team. I wasn't".
One of the key Brind points shot down in flames,what a surprise.
I'm really irritated by Cameron's crap handling of his own PR problem dragging in everyone else. He's changed the whole privacy game to cover his arse.
Not impressed at all.
He must have been such a loss to the world of Public Relations when he decided to go into politics.
I'm not expressing a view on whether he's a racist and to my mind at least there was nothing wrong with his comments. I think the same comments could be deployed with a less pleasant agenda, but don't see anything divisive in his.
Where it gets difficult is the desire to suppress inconvenient facts because of the tendency of those with a racist agenda to seize on those facts and use them to fuel hatred. I can't see how it can be right to hide data that could be abused, but one can see why those who are responsible for managing tensions in hostile communities might consider that some "truths" aren't in the public interest.
I wasn't implying any slight to you, I was referring to the muppets on Twitter.
I have a problem with the whole idea of "some 'truths' aren't in the public interest. " although I can see why the idea might be attractive to people doing a difficult job, but let's be honest that is a fraction of a percent of the assorted SJWs and virtue signallers on social media for which that is even approaching a valid excuse. It is much more the case that a group of rather protected people have formed a nice cosy view of the world in which everyone is friends and all are working for the common good, and don't want to have to face facts which demonstrate this is rather far from being the case.
Personally I feel we are in dire need of a copper bottomed, first amendment strength guarantee on freedom of speech and expression which would simultaneously cut through all this superinjunction crap, and protect people that the mob tries to shout down because they don't like their facts. Nothing in this prevents someone else using their freedom of speech and expression to denounce views they don't like, but society is not going to move forward by brushing difficult issues under the carpet until they explode.
Just received the Government's propaganda information booklet on the EU referendum. I must say it looks very nice and glossy but then I'd expect something that looked quite good for £9.3 million. I'm a bit disappointed that the Government didn't cite their sources for the figures on jobs and exports.
SO I see that the rebranding on the Conservative in Scotland as the Ruth Davidson Party is being taken to the total extreme. Conservative Leaflets in Glasgow are saying to vote for Ruth Davidson. She's standing on the Edinburgh list.
A question for those more knowledgeable on tax than myself: if someone had been working for a US company whilst in a third country, and had been paid in US dollars into an account held at an American bank, and they have not transferred the funds to the UK, are those funds immoral because they are held offshore?
Depends what you mean by "in a third country". If not tax resident in the UK, and deriving income from a non-UK employment, there is no UK tax due so there's neither evasion nor avoidance (in the sense established in UK case law) going on here. If UK resident it would need to be declared to HMRC but the tax due would probably be reduced on account of tax paid overseas.
Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.
On the face of it, it doesn't seem especially islamophobic, though you do wonder why relatively few similar concerns are raised about the integration of evangelical Christians and some sections of the Jewish community
I am fascinated by the idea that empirical evidence measured at source can be "racist". It is what it is, the expressed views of the sample group with no value judgement attached. In the same way as it is supposedly "sexist" to point out objective (often biologically determined) differences between men and women. Can facts be racist/sexist ? Or only the way they are used and abused to imply non-empirical attributes. It's a funny old world.
I wouldn't even bother trying to analyse this. Some people simply refuse to believe anything other than what they want to be true. "Racist" or "Islamophobia" are just ways of refusing to deal with uncomfortable facts or arguments. There are none so deaf as those that don't want to hear.
(Snip)
They can be, but your argument itself can be used to hide true and real racism or islamaphobia when it occurs.
The cries of "You cannot say racist!" or "You cannot say Islamaphobic!" from people who pretend to be in favour of free speech can be quite hilarious.
Yes, people use the terms to hide inconvenient facts or opinions. But that does not mean that everyone who uses the terms are doing so, and that there is not real racism and islamaphobia out there that needs addressing. And by Islamaphobia, I mean the dictionary definition.
Indeed - and why I said below that devaluing the concept of "racism" can make it harder to deal with real racism. There is too much crying wolf about which makes the real wolves harder to deal with.
I will continue to criticise Islam as freely as I want, regardless of whether anyone wants to call it Islamophobia or not. I simply refuse to confuse criticism of a belief system (essential) with criticism of an individual or a group (which may or may not be justified, depending on what that individual or group does).
AIUI, you are saying you refuse to recognise the definition of a word because you disagree with that definition? The definition includes both the belief system (Islam) and individuals or groups.
I'm really irritated by Cameron's crap handling of his own PR problem dragging in everyone else. He's changed the whole privacy game to cover his arse.
Not impressed at all.
He must have been such a loss to the world of Public Relations when he decided to go into politics.
You don't normally need PR for acting legally.
Rather my point. If you are so bad at PR that you manage to get completely legal behaviour to blow up in your face and stay on the front of the papers for almost a week, it's probably better not to make it your career! Campbell would have killed the story stone dead on the first day.
On the one hand, the strong social conservatism and attitudes to homosexuality are now clearly out of step with the British mainstream, although it should be said not dissimilar to UK attitudes in the 1950s. However, on the other hand 86% saying they have a strong loyalty to Britain and only 4% would sympathise with a suicide bomber is positive.
It suggest to me that a hardcore of 5-15% are seriously disengaged, and a good number of the rest are very socially conservative and largely live their own lives in their own communities, perhaps feeling unfairly victimised or targeted by the State.
The real concern for me in that is the fact only 34% would report their suspected terrorism concerns to the police.
Still some way to go on integration.
There is a similarity with British attitudes of the 50s. However, I think the 50s are now very far away from modern Britain. The distance in time is the same as that between the 60s (when I was born) and Edwardian times and I think the cultural distance is about as great.
The poll findings are not that surprising, and indeed there is plenty of evidence of integration. More Muslims than controls think Britain is a moral society for example.
A surprising % of the controls support making homosexuality illegal, stoning adulterers and sympathise with terrorist acts. Bearing in mind that Non muslims outnumber muslims more than 12/1 there are actually more non muslims supporting stoning or ISIS than muslims!
As the polling was face to face, and by telephone, it's possible that hardline opinions (among both Muslims and non-Muslims) are more widespread than the headline figures.
A question for those more knowledgeable on tax than myself: if someone had been working for a US company whilst in a third country, and had been paid in US dollars into an account held at an American bank, and they have not transferred the funds to the UK, are those funds immoral because they are held offshore?
Depends what you mean by "in a third country". If not tax resident in the UK, and deriving income from a non-UK employment, there is no UK tax due so there's neither evasion nor avoidance (in the sense established in UK case law) going on here. If UK resident it would need to be declared to HMRC but the tax due would probably be reduced on account of tax paid overseas.
Just received the Government's propaganda information booklet on the EU referendum. I must say it looks very nice and glossy but then I'd expect something that looked quite good for £9.3 million. I'm a bit disappointed that the Government didn't cite their sources for the figures on jobs and exports.
"We saw it from some bloke on Twitter" doesn't have that ring of authenticity about it
Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.
On the face of it, it doesn't seem especially islamophobic, though you do wonder why relatively few similar concerns are raised about the integration of evangelical Christians and some sections of the Jewish community
I am fascinated... . Can facts be racist/sexist ? Or only the way they are used and abused to imply non-empirical attributes. It's a funny old world.
I wouldn't even bother trying to analyse this. Some people simply refuse to believe anything other than what they want to be true. "Racist" or "Islamophobia" are just ways of refusing to deal with uncomfortable facts or arguments. There are none so deaf as those that don't want to hear.
(Snip)
They can be, but your argument itself can be used to hide true and real racism or islamaphobia when it occurs.
The cries of "You cannot say racist!" or "You cannot say Islamaphobic!" from people who pretend to be in favour of free speech can be quite hilarious.
Yes, people use the terms to hide inconvenient facts or opinions. But that does not mean that everyone who uses the terms are doing so, and that there is not real racism and islamaphobia out there that needs addressing. And by Islamaphobia, I mean the dictionary definition.
Indeed - and why I said below that devaluing the concept of "racism" can make it harder to deal with real racism. There is too much crying wolf about which makes the real wolves harder to deal with.
I will continue to criticise Islam as freely as I want, regardless of whether anyone wants to call it Islamophobia or not. I simply refuse to confuse criticism of a belief system (essential) with criticism of an individual or a group (which may or may not be justified, depending on what that individual or group does).
AIUI, you are saying you refuse to recognise the definition of a word because you disagree with that definition? The definition includes both the belief system (Islam) and individuals or groups.
The chap who promoted the word Islamophobia has now announced that he was wrong in believing that muslims could integrate successfully into the UK.
Just received the Government's propaganda information booklet on the EU referendum. I must say it looks very nice and glossy but then I'd expect something that looked quite good for £9.3 million. I'm a bit disappointed that the Government didn't cite their sources for the figures on jobs and exports.
Gosh, I went to bed with Spieth 5 clear in the Masters: how on earth did Danny Willett win?
Spieth went into a complete meltdown in the final three, while Willet kept his cool.
Not so! In fact Spieth played the final three holes quite well, thereby recovering to finish in joint 2nd place. His meltdown took place on holes 10,11 and especially 12.
That may well be the case, and he may have a point. Although I know some Muslims who have integrated very successfully, I am perfectly willing to accept they might be in a minority. Or not.
I was listening to a leading UK Imam on radio 4 yesterday. His line was that Muslims should integrate but that is not the same as assimilate. Integration for him meant they live apart according to Islamic law but in Bradford not Islamabad! We have a very long way to go.
This to my mind should be wholly unacceptable.
That's your mind. Doubtless the Imam would wish Western culture to be abolished as unIslamic. That's his.
Muslims who kill westerners are at least taking their religion - and our lack of it - seriously.
This is a gigantic F*** Y** to the rest of us and we have tolerated it for far too long, to our shame and to our detriment.
I think I want to kiss Cyclefree.
Hey. Get in line
The more I read this site the more I sympathise with radicalised Wahhabis.
All white people are racists and all racists should be put to death. Yesterday.
Racism is not the crime for which radicalised Wahhabis would execute you.
It's so much easier if one is a celebrity threesome participant, really.
It almost always makes things worse in the long run to suppress unwelcome information - for fear that ill-intentioned people will make use of it maliciously.
WRT Muslim attitudes, even if 52% want to recriminalize homosexuality, I expect the proportion who think it's a live issue is far smaller.
I think it's good that very large majorities of Muslims are committed to this country, and feel that they can freely practise their religion here (in contrast to the endless whinging by the Islamic Human Rights Commission) . It's not good that only 34% would report someone who went to fight for ISIS.
I think you need to dig a little deeper. Recriminalisation of homosexuality may well be off the agenda, whatever some Muslims may think. But a worryingly large number would not want a gay person teaching their children, according to that survey. So if you're a gay teacher, how would you feel about your prospects in a school where a significant proportion of the children were Muslim. Or how about if you're in some other occupation and had a Muslim boss? How confident could you feel about his/her attitude to you and diversity if he/she thought you ought to be criminalised? Ditto re the attitude to women.
The article I read commented that the issue about practising religion freely was qualified in that it also meant that people felt that they could live virtually apart from the rest of society. That is a very bad thing. That apartness is not good for a cohesive society. And it also means that the religion does not get challenged and is not forced to adapt in the way that other religions have had to.
And it's not just the attitude to the rest of us non-Muslims. We are now also getting intra-Muslim problems e.g. the murder of the Ahmadi Muslim shopkeeper and the Muslim Council of Britain's recent statement that Ahmadi Muslims are not "proper" Muslims. Indeed, one of the recent criticisms of Khan has been has that he is a bit too close to his local imam in Tooting who has said some pretty inflammatory things about Ahmadis and called for boycotts of their shops. If "freely practising your religion" means this, is it such a good thing?
A question for those more knowledgeable on tax than myself: if someone had been working for a US company whilst in a third country, and had been paid in US dollars into an account held at an American bank, and they have not transferred the funds to the UK, are those funds immoral because they are held offshore?
Depends what you mean by "in a third country". If not tax resident in the UK, and deriving income from a non-UK employment, there is no UK tax due so there's neither evasion nor avoidance (in the sense established in UK case law) going on here. If UK resident it would need to be declared to HMRC but the tax due would probably be reduced on account of tax paid overseas.
Isnt there some nonsense now about "period of temporary non-residence" with respect to income and gains taxes ?
I'm not expressing a view on whether he's a racist and to my mind at least there was nothing wrong with his comments. I think the same comments could be deployed with a less pleasant agenda, but don't see anything divisive in his.
Where it gets difficult is the desire to suppress inconvenient facts because of the tendency of those with a racist agenda to seize on those facts and use them to fuel hatred. I can't see how it can be right to hide data that could be abused, but one can see why those who are responsible for managing tensions in hostile communities might consider that some "truths" aren't in the public interest.
I wasn't implying any slight to you, I was referring to the muppets on Twitter.
I have a problem with the whole idea of "some 'truths' aren't in the public interest. " although I can see why the idea might be attractive to people doing a difficult job, but let's be honest that is a fraction of a percent of the assorted SJWs and virtue signallers on social media for which that is even approaching a valid excuse. It is much more the case that a group of rather protected people have formed a nice cosy view of the world in which everyone is friends and all are working for the common good, and don't want to have to face facts which demonstrate this is rather far from being the case.
Personally I feel we are in dire need of a copper bottomed, first amendment strength guarantee on freedom of speech and expression which would simultaneously cut through all this superinjunction crap, and protect people that the mob tries to shout down because they don't like their facts. Nothing in this prevents someone else using their freedom of speech and expression to denounce views they don't like, but society is not going to move forward by brushing difficult issues under the carpet until they explode.
It's ok, no feeling of slightedness here.... I'm typing on a phone so perhaps a little more concise (even terse) than usual.
I'm still unsure on the freedom speech thing. I like the idea but the freedom to whip up hatred against the vulnerable is a dangerous thing. The issue seems to be where the boundaries of the necessary protection fall, as you often see when the same individual adopts contrasting views to the restriction of free speech in relation to Judaism and Islam.
If we aren't all friends working for the common good, how do we deal with free speech designed to harm?
Brind - "The Crosby strategy failed in Canada when playing the Islamaphobia card back-fired on the then Premier Stephen Harper."
Lynton Crosby - "The 'niquab issue' was something I learnt about when I read the media like most people," - "I have watched with bemusement suggestions I was running the campaign or somehow on the campaign team. I wasn't".
There's some dancing-on-pinheads wording issues here, I think. Read Crosby's denial carefully - he wasn't running the campaign, but he's not denying offering advice:
The more fundamental point is that the Canadian Tories tried the anti-Islamist stuff, and it didn't work at all, even in heavily white and non-Islamic Canada.
Lynton Crosby - "I wasn't engaged on the Canadian election and wasn't there during the election campaign. It follows that the strategy wasn't 'mine',"
No dancing on pin heads.
Dancing on pinheads should not be ruled out. The Harper campaign said Crosby was helping but Crosby said not. Perhaps it depends on the definition of engagement, help or "the campaign". https://thinkpol.ca/2015/10/15/lynton-crosby-abandons-harper/
Just received the Government's propaganda information booklet on the EU referendum. I must say it looks very nice and glossy but then I'd expect something that looked quite good for £9.3 million. I'm a bit disappointed that the Government didn't cite their sources for the figures on jobs and exports.
I've already returned my copy - postage unpaid.
I have sent mine to my local Tory MP (Remain) with appropriate annotations and a less-than-flattering cover note.
"After a recent review by our trading team, it has been decided that this account requires tighter liability management. Unfortunately this means the account will no longer be eligible for any of our free bet promotions (including Sky Bet Club and Money Back refunds).
In addition, from this point forward any bets placed will no longer apply for Best Odds Guaranteed and will be settled at the price option taken upon placement."
I suppose I should be grateful that they haven't banned me completely.
Welcome to the club, although in my case at least I thought it rather strange, given I've never used any free bet promotions and almost never bet on the horses.
I was listening to a leading UK Imam on radio 4 yesterday. His line was that Muslims should integrate but that is not the same as assimilate. Integration for him meant they live apart according to Islamic law but in Bradford not Islamabad! We have a very long way to go.
This to my mind should be wholly unacceptable.
That's your mind. Doubtless the Imam would wish Western culture to be abolished as unIslamic. That's his.
Muslims who kill westerners are at least taking their religion - and our lack of it - seriously.
This is a gigantic F*** Y** to the rest of us and we have tolerated it for far too long, to our shame and to our detriment.
I think I want to kiss Cyclefree.
Hey. Get in line
The more I read this site the more I sympathise with radicalised Wahhabis.
All white people are racists and all racists should be put to death. Yesterday.
Racism is not the crime for which radicalised Wahhabis would execute you.
Brave of you to dignify that astonishingly nasty and offensive post with an answer.
Gosh, I went to bed with Spieth 5 clear in the Masters: how on earth did Danny Willett win?
Jordan turned into Jay the 28 handicap hacker from the local municipal for 3 holes. It was quite extraordinary.
In my view Spieth was never playing well enough to win that title. He kept going through his titanic will and concentration.
In the end, the course caught up with him.
I think it's a little unfair on Willett that the 2016 Masters will be remembered for Spieth blowing up rather than him winning with a 67 in the final round. I think the same is true of 96 but Faldo had enough fame and fortune by then. If this ends up being Willett's only major it shouldn't be thought that it was gifted to him.
It's so much easier if one is a celebrity threesome participant, really.
It almost always makes things worse in the long run to suppress unwelcome information - for fear that ill-intentioned people will make use of it maliciously.
WRT Muslim attitudes, even if 52% want to recriminalize homosexuality, I expect the proportion who think it's a live issue is far smaller.
I think it's good that very large majorities of Muslims are committed to this country, and feel that they can freely practise their religion here (in contrast to the endless whinging by the Islamic Human Rights Commission) . It's not good that only 34% would report someone who went to fight for ISIS.
I think you need to dig a little deeper. Recriminalisation of homosexuality may well be off the agenda, whatever some Muslims may think. But a worryingly large number would not want a gay person teaching their children, according to that survey. So if you're a gay teacher, how would you feel about your prospects in a school where a significant proportion of the children were Muslim. Or how about if you're in some other occupation and had a Muslim boss? How confident could you feel about his/her attitude to you and diversity if he/she thought you ought to be criminalised? Ditto re the attitude to women.
The article I read commented that the issue about practising religion freely was qualified in that it also meant that people felt that they could live virtually apart from the rest of society. That is a very bad thing. That apartness is not good for a cohesive society. And it also means that the religion does not get challenged and is not forced to adapt in the way that other religions have had to.
And it's not just the attitude to the rest of us non-Muslims. We are now also getting intra-Muslim problems e.g. the murder of the Ahmadi Muslim shopkeeper and the Muslim Council of Britain's recent statement that Ahmadi Muslims are not "proper" Muslims. Indeed, one of the recent criticisms of Khan has been has that he is a bit too close to his local imam in Tooting who has said some pretty inflammatory things about Ahmadis and called for boycotts of their shops. If "freely practising your religion" means this, is it such a good thing?
It's a case of "should we tolerate the intolerant"? AFAIK philosophy has no credible answer one way or the other. We're wrong whatever we do.
I was listening to a leading UK Imam on radio 4 yesterday. His line was that Muslims should integrate but that is not the same as assimilate. Integration for him meant they live apart according to Islamic law but in Bradford not Islamabad! We have a very long way to go.
This to my mind should be wholly unacceptable.
That's your mind. Doubtless the Imam would wish Western culture to be abolished as unIslamic. That's his.
Muslims who kill westerners are at least taking their religion - and our lack of it - seriously.
This is a gigantic F*** Y** to the rest of us and we have tolerated it for far too long, to our shame and to our detriment.
I think I want to kiss Cyclefree.
Hey. Get in line
The more I read this site the more I sympathise with radicalised Wahhabis.
All white people are racists and all racists should be put to death. Yesterday.
Racism is not the crime for which radicalised Wahhabis would execute you.
Brave of you to dignify that astonishingly nasty and offensive post with an answer.
If we aren't all friends working for the common good, how do we deal with free speech designed to harm?
Reply to it robustly with counter arguments and new information. Stopping people from saying things doesn't stop them from thinking them, and means you don't know who has the objectionable views. Much better to get it out in the open where the idiots can be challenged and educated.
Gosh, I went to bed with Spieth 5 clear in the Masters: how on earth did Danny Willett win?
Jordan turned into Jay the 28 handicap hacker from the local municipal for 3 holes. It was quite extraordinary.
In my view Spieth was never playing well enough to win that title. He kept going through his titanic will and concentration.
In the end, the course caught up with him.
I think it's a little unfair on Willett that the 2016 Masters will be remembered for Spieth blowing up rather than him winning with a 67 in the final round. I think the same is true of 96 but Faldo had enough fame and fortune by then. If this ends up being Willett's only major it shouldn't be thought that it was gifted to him.
One difference between the Willett and Faldo victories, Faldo was playing with Norman and he caused the meltdown by putting constant pressure on Norman. That final round really played out like a "matchplay" event.
Just received the Government's propaganda information booklet on the EU referendum. I must say it looks very nice and glossy but then I'd expect something that looked quite good for £9.3 million. I'm a bit disappointed that the Government didn't cite their sources for the figures on jobs and exports.
I've already returned my copy - postage unpaid.
I have sent mine to my local Tory MP (Remain) with appropriate annotations and a less-than-flattering cover note.
In green ink, presumably.
The sources for the figures are on the government's website:
'Brind - "The Crosby strategy failed in Canada when playing the Islamaphobia card back-fired on the then Premier Stephen Harper."
Lynton Crosby - "The 'niquab issue' was something I learnt about when I read the media like most people," - "I have watched with bemusement suggestions I was running the campaign or somehow on the campaign team. I wasn't".
One of the key Brind points shot down in flames,what a surprise.
It's so much easier if one is a celebrity threesome participant, really.
It almost always makes things worse in the long run to suppress unwelcome information - for fear that ill-intentioned people will make use of it maliciously.
WRT Muslim attitudes, even if 52% want to recriminalize homosexuality, I expect the proportion who think it's a live issue is far smaller.
I think it's good that very large majorities of Muslims are committed to this country, and feel that they can freely practise their religion here (in contrast to the endless whinging by the Islamic Human Rights Commission) . It's not good that only 34% would report someone who went to fight for ISIS.
I think you need to dig a little deeper. Recriminalisation of homosexuality may well be off the agenda, whatever some Muslims may think. But a worryingly large number would not want a gay person teaching their children, according to that survey. So if you're a gay teacher, how would you feel about your prospects in a school where a significant proportion of the children were Muslim. Or how about if you're in some other occupation and had a Muslim boss? How confident could you feel about his/her attitude to you and diversity if he/she thought you ought to be criminalised? Ditto re the attitude to women.
The article I read commented that the issue about practising religion freely was qualified in that it also meant that people felt that they could live virtually apart from the rest of society. That is a very bad thing. That apartness is not good for a cohesive society. And it also means that the religion does not get challenged and is not forced to adapt in the way that other religions have had to.
And it's not just the attitude to the rest of us non-Muslims. We are now also getting intra-Muslim problems e.g. the murder of the Ahmadi Muslim shopkeeper and the Muslim Council of Britain's recent statement that Ahmadi Muslims are not "proper" Muslims. Indeed, one of the recent criticisms of Khan has been has that he is a bit too close to his local imam in Tooting who has said some pretty inflammatory things about Ahmadis and called for boycotts of their shops. If "freely practising your religion" means this, is it such a good thing?
I imagine that a gay teacher at a majority-Muslim school would feel much the same way as I would if I were working for a very left-wing local authority or university. I would expect my employer to obey the law, but I wouldn't expect the employer to like me.
They can be, but your argument itself can be used to hide true and real racism or islamaphobia when it occurs.
The cries of "You cannot say racist!" or "You cannot say Islamaphobic!" from people who pretend to be in favour of free speech can be quite hilarious.
Yes, people use the terms to hide inconvenient facts or opinions. But that does not mean that everyone who uses the terms are doing so, and that there is not real racism and islamaphobia out there that needs addressing. And by Islamaphobia, I mean the dictionary definition.
Indeed - and why I said below that devaluing the concept of "racism" can make it harder to deal with real racism. There is too much crying wolf about which makes the real wolves harder to deal with.
I will continue to criticise Islam as freely as I want, regardless of whether anyone wants to call it Islamophobia or not. I simply refuse to confuse criticism of a belief system (essential) with criticism of an individual or a group (which may or may not be justified, depending on what that individual or group does).
AIUI, you are saying you refuse to recognise the definition of a word because you disagree with that definition? The definition includes both the belief system (Islam) and individuals or groups.
I know it does. It is therefore unclear and unhelpful in a debate where clarity is needed. So I use my own words rather than made up ones.
And one of the reasons I do this is because I suspect - on the basis of various articles that I have read - that there was a clear agenda behind how the word came about and was used by some, an agenda to prevent or limit exactly the sort of civilised debate you and I and others are having and have had about in the past about Islam and, specifically, Islam in the West.
So I will try and say what I mean in my own words.
I was listening to a leading UK Imam on radio 4 yesterday. His line was that Muslims should integrate but that is not the same as assimilate. Integration for him meant they live apart according to Islamic law but in Bradford not Islamabad! We have a very long way to go.
This to my mind should be wholly unacceptable.
That's your mind. Doubtless the Imam would wish Western culture to be abolished as unIslamic. That's his.
Muslims who kill westerners are at least taking their religion - and our lack of it - seriously.
This is a gigantic F*** Y** to the rest of us and we have tolerated it for far too long, to our shame and to our detriment.
I think I want to kiss Cyclefree.
Hey. Get in line
The more I read this site the more I sympathise with radicalised Wahhabis.
All white people are racists and all racists should be put to death. Yesterday.
You can just catch the 1.45 flight to Riyadh from Heathrow if you hurry.
A question for those more knowledgeable on tax than myself: if someone had been working for a US company whilst in a third country, and had been paid in US dollars into an account held at an American bank, and they have not transferred the funds to the UK, are those funds immoral because they are held offshore?
I don't know about immoral, but if we are talking about a UK citizen then, depending on their residency status, those earnings are subject to UK income tax. Failing to properly declare them on one's tax return would be illegal.
For a spell, when I was working abroad a lot, this was my position. E.g. When I was in Oman I was paid locally into a local bank account, but I made sure that every last Rial was declared on my UK tax return and not just the dosh that I sent back to the UK. I like to sleep at night.
Gosh, I went to bed with Spieth 5 clear in the Masters: how on earth did Danny Willett win?
Spieth went into a complete meltdown in the final three, while Willet kept his cool.
Not so! In fact Spieth played the final three holes quite well, thereby recovering to finish in joint 2nd place. His meltdown took place on holes 10,11 and especially 12.
Well Bogie, Bogie, Quadruple Bogey isn't the best. I wonder how many people put money on him at 1/8 - and how many would admit it? (Didn't he bogie 17?)
IIRC didn't the commentator also note that he had double-bogied several holes during the tournament.
On the one hand, the strong social conservatism and attitudes to homosexuality are now clearly out of step with the British mainstream, although it should be said not dissimilar to UK attitudes in the 1950s. However, on the other hand 86% saying they have a strong loyalty to Britain and only 4% would sympathise with a suicide bomber is positive.
It suggest to me that a hardcore of 5-15% are seriously disengaged, and a good number of the rest are very socially conservative and largely live their own lives in their own communities, perhaps feeling unfairly victimised or targeted by the State.
The real concern for me in that is the fact only 34% would report their suspected terrorism concerns to the police.
Still some way to go on integration.
There is a similarity with British attitudes of the 50s. However, I think the 50s are now very far away from modern Britain. The distance in time is the same as that between the 60s (when I was born) and Edwardian times and I think the cultural distance is about as great.
The poll findings are not that surprising, and indeed there is plenty of evidence of integration. More Muslims than controls think Britain is a moral society for example.
A surprising % of the controls support making homosexuality illegal, stoning adulterers and sympathise with terrorist acts. Bearing in mind that Non muslims outnumber muslims more than 12/1 there are actually more non muslims supporting stoning or ISIS than muslims!
As the polling was face to face, and by telephone, it's possible that hardline opinions (among both Muslims and non-Muslims) are more widespread than the headline figures.
BBC - Tata Steel has confirmed a deal to sell its Long Products Europe business, including its Scunthorpe plant, to UK-based investment firm Greybull Capital. - The move will safeguard more than 4,000 jobs, but workers are being asked to accept a pay cut and less generous pension arrangements.
Just received the Government's propaganda information booklet on the EU referendum. I must say it looks very nice and glossy but then I'd expect something that looked quite good for £9.3 million. I'm a bit disappointed that the Government didn't cite their sources for the figures on jobs and exports.
I've already returned my copy - postage unpaid.
I have sent mine to my local Tory MP (Remain) with appropriate annotations and a less-than-flattering cover note.
In green ink, presumably.
The sources for the figures are on the government's website:
What the hell does "3.3 million jobs are linked to trade with the EU" mean though, it's disingenuous nonsense, it is left hanging there with the clear implication that a significant proportion of them will disappear if we leave the EU, for which there is no evidence. The French and the Germans won't suddenly stop wanting to buy our products.
SO I see that the rebranding on the Conservative in Scotland as the Ruth Davidson Party is being taken to the total extreme. Conservative Leaflets in Glasgow are saying to vote for Ruth Davidson. She's standing on the Edinburgh list.
I don't know about immoral, but if we are talking about a UK citizen then, depending on their residency status, those earnings are subject to UK income tax. Failing to properly declare them on one's tax return would be illegal.
They wouldn't be subject to UK income tax for someone not resident in the UK:
Comments
No dancing on pin heads.
On playing the man, this has been the recent Tory MO. Even right wing commentators wrote about the campaign of personal abuse against Gordon Brown, and the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, was reported as being unhappy when forced to mount the "dead cat" abuse of Miliband.
http://order-order.com/2016/04/11/bbcs-84-million-in-bermuda/
Immediate result
Multimillionaire Conservative Zac Goldsmith has made his personal tax return public after Labour urged the City Hall hopeful to "come clean" over his financial affairs.
The document showed the Tory had paid more than £4.5m ($6.3m) in tax on his income and capital gains since he became an MP for Richmond Park in 2010 – an average income tax rate over the five years of 46%.
The return also revealed that Goldsmith's total income amounted to more than £6m over the period, with £5.6m coming from his trust, £323,892 for his work as an MP, and £17,605 from property. In addition, his capital gains earnings were more than £4.2m between 2010 and 2015.
Son of financier and billionaire Sir James Goldsmith, Zac inherited a 'non-dom' tax status from his father but he relinquished it seven years ago.
(Okay, I'm a Gooner, but closet Owl too).
http://order-order.com/2016/04/11/bbcs-84-million-in-bermuda/
I'm afraid that the word "racist" has been so overused that is devalued. A pity because it means that real racism, with real effects on real people, does not get called out and dealt with in the way that it should be.
A case of "be done by as you did" methinks.
Matthew 26:52
The Tooting MP disclosed that he earned almost £63,000 last year from his MPs salary and paid more than £20,000 in tax and National Insurance.
His campaign said his Tory rival would have “a cloud hanging over his head” until he fully answered questions on his former non-dom status.
A letter from Mr Khan’s accountant show the only income he earned over the past ten years were his MP’s salary, a ministerial salary from 2008 to 2010 and an allowance for his final year as a Wandsworth councillor.
He took home just over £3,000 for appearances on the BBC’s Have I Got News For You and as presenter of BBC Radio 4’s “White House” series which explored the history of the early Asian Members of Parliament.
Khan is a bigot, who refuses to meet with many a religious group in his area because they are not his type, including I may say, some Muslims. He is generally hated by Labour politicians. Take a look at his photos on Twitter over the weekend in Merton and Wandsworth. No known locals...they wouldn't been seen dead with this evil, divisive character.
Crosby's not involved in the campaign. The message corresponds with the views of the people of London who are scared stiff of Khan and the incompetent Corbyn running London. If Zac has 8% chance of winning according to the betting...well, I don't agree. Turn Out will decide, and it will be about 33%, unless something dramatic happens. I agree, Khan is favourite but a 92% chance of victory usually is akin to a landslide: 57: 43%. I could be wrong but, on the doorsteps don't say that and I am not focusing on Tories, genral public. The Labour-ites I am talking to are not all going to vote for Khan. There is more than 8% chance. Not as high as 50%, but not 8%.
The cries of "You cannot say racist!" or "You cannot say Islamaphobic!" from people who pretend to be in favour of free speech can be quite hilarious.
Yes, people use the terms to hide inconvenient facts or opinions. But that does not mean that everyone who uses the terms are doing so, and that there is not real racism and islamaphobia out there that needs addressing. And by Islamaphobia, I mean the dictionary definition.
On the one hand, the strong social conservatism and attitudes to homosexuality are now clearly out of step with the British mainstream, although it should be said not dissimilar to UK attitudes in the 1950s. However, on the other hand 86% saying they have a strong loyalty to Britain and only 4% would sympathise with a suicide bomber is positive.
It suggest to me that a hardcore of 5-15% are seriously disengaged, and a good number of the rest are very socially conservative and largely live their own lives in their own communities, perhaps feeling unfairly victimised or targeted by the State.
The real concern for me in that is the fact only 34% would report their suspected terrorism concerns to the police.
Still some way to go on integration.
Muslims who kill westerners are at least taking their religion - and our lack of it - seriously.
This is a gigantic F*** Y** to the rest of us and we have tolerated it for far too long, to our shame and to our detriment.
"After a recent review by our trading team, it has been decided that this account requires tighter liability management. Unfortunately this means the account will no longer be eligible for any of our free bet promotions (including Sky Bet Club and Money Back refunds).
In addition, from this point forward any bets placed will no longer apply for Best Odds Guaranteed and will be settled at the price option taken upon placement."
I suppose I should be grateful that they haven't banned me completely.
In the short term, a bit of both - losing London would be a blow for Labour morale which would add to the pressure on Jeremy. In the longer term, though, it will establish Sadiq as the currently most successful Labour politician, which may well be important if Jeremy at some point calls it a day. Not being an MP is in practice something which is easily corrected, as Boris has demonstrated. Those who would like to see a credible centrist alternative may want to keep that in mind (and those who don't may see it as a cause for concern).
All white people are racists and all racists should be put to death. Yesterday.
I will continue to criticise Islam as freely as I want, regardless of whether anyone wants to call it Islamophobia or not. I simply refuse to confuse criticism of a belief system (essential) with criticism of an individual or a group (which may or may not be justified, depending on what that individual or group does).
Not impressed at all.
Really ? We hadn't noticed Don...
Where it gets difficult is the desire to suppress inconvenient facts because of the tendency of those with a racist agenda to seize on those facts and use them to fuel hatred. I can't see how it can be right to hide data that could be abused, but one can see why those who are responsible for managing tensions in hostile communities might consider that some "truths" aren't in the public interest.
It's so much easier if one is a celebrity threesome participant, really.
WRT Muslim attitudes, even if 52% want to recriminalize homosexuality, I expect the proportion who think it's a live issue is far smaller.
I think it's good that very large majorities of Muslims are committed to this country, and feel that they can freely practise their religion here (in contrast to the endless whinging by the Islamic Human Rights Commission) . It's not good that only 34% would report someone who went to fight for ISIS.
A surprising % of the controls support making homosexuality illegal, stoning adulterers and sympathise with terrorist acts. Bearing in mind that Non muslims outnumber muslims more than 12/1 there are actually more non muslims supporting stoning or ISIS than muslims!
'Brind - "The Crosby strategy failed in Canada when playing the Islamaphobia card back-fired on the then Premier Stephen Harper."
Lynton Crosby - "The 'niquab issue' was something I learnt about when I read the media like most people," - "I have watched with bemusement suggestions I was running the campaign or somehow on the campaign team. I wasn't".
One of the key Brind points shot down in flames,what a surprise.
In the end, the course caught up with him.
I have a problem with the whole idea of "some 'truths' aren't in the public interest. " although I can see why the idea might be attractive to people doing a difficult job, but let's be honest that is a fraction of a percent of the assorted SJWs and virtue signallers on social media for which that is even approaching a valid excuse. It is much more the case that a group of rather protected people have formed a nice cosy view of the world in which everyone is friends and all are working for the common good, and don't want to have to face facts which demonstrate this is rather far from being the case.
Personally I feel we are in dire need of a copper bottomed, first amendment strength guarantee on freedom of speech and expression which would simultaneously cut through all this superinjunction crap, and protect people that the mob tries to shout down because they don't like their facts. Nothing in this prevents someone else using their freedom of speech and expression to denounce views they don't like, but society is not going to move forward by brushing difficult issues under the carpet until they explode.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/10/thought-europes-muslims-gradually-blend-britains-diverse-landscape-known-better/
But that's irrelevant to my post.
The article I read commented that the issue about practising religion freely was qualified in that it also meant that people felt that they could live virtually apart from the rest of society. That is a very bad thing. That apartness is not good for a cohesive society. And it also means that the religion does not get challenged and is not forced to adapt in the way that other religions have had to.
And it's not just the attitude to the rest of us non-Muslims. We are now also getting intra-Muslim problems e.g. the murder of the Ahmadi Muslim shopkeeper and the Muslim Council of Britain's recent statement that Ahmadi Muslims are not "proper" Muslims. Indeed, one of the recent criticisms of Khan has been has that he is a bit too close to his local imam in Tooting who has said some pretty inflammatory things about Ahmadis and called for boycotts of their shops. If "freely practising your religion" means this, is it such a good thing?
I'm still unsure on the freedom speech thing. I like the idea but the freedom to whip up hatred against the vulnerable is a dangerous thing. The issue seems to be where the boundaries of the necessary protection fall, as you often see when the same individual adopts contrasting views to the restriction of free speech in relation to Judaism and Islam.
If we aren't all friends working for the common good, how do we deal with free speech designed to harm?
https://thinkpol.ca/2015/10/15/lynton-crosby-abandons-harper/
The sources for the figures are on the government's website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk
(so much so that they put it in the URL twice!)
And one of the reasons I do this is because I suspect - on the basis of various articles that I have read - that there was a clear agenda behind how the word came about and was used by some, an agenda to prevent or limit exactly the sort of civilised debate you and I and others are having and have had about in the past about Islam and, specifically, Islam in the West.
So I will try and say what I mean in my own words.
For a spell, when I was working abroad a lot, this was my position. E.g. When I was in Oman I was paid locally into a local bank account, but I made sure that every last Rial was declared on my UK tax return and not just the dosh that I sent back to the UK. I like to sleep at night.
IIRC didn't the commentator also note that he had double-bogied several holes during the tournament.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36015797
Apologies if already posted.
https://www.gov.uk/tax-foreign-income/residence