politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polling’s not all good for UKIP: See this worrying data

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

antifrank said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

antifrank said:

UKIP are presently 5/2 to take Castle Point with Ladbrokes. BBC London on Breakfast News led with the story that the Canvey Island Independent Party are going to back UKIP at the general election. UKIP should now be closer to evens in this seat, given its strong history in the seat, its continuing strength in the national polls and the backing of this grouping (who hold 16 out of 17 councillors on the island). I'm on!

Cheers.

Should I read too much into last night's result in Thurrock though ?

Others - eg isam - would know better than me. Personally, I generally read little into council by-elections (only the civically obsessed vote in them), but I know others pore over them.

I have same approach as you but Labour going up in Thurrock seems interesting.

I will probably be accused of making excuses, but please remember that I said this before the result last night in Thurrock

I spoke to the Thurrock candidate last week and said "it's almost a certainty isn't it?" Regarding next years GE result

He said it was going well but a lot if hard work to go etc

Then he said "if we win the by election in west Thurrock next week then it would be a certainty because it's the strongest labour ward and we never do well there"

So my rational analysis would be its nothing to worry about. The labour councillor who died was popular etc

But if you think it is bad for ukip, labour are now odds against I think in a place, they're definitely evens., so if you have backed ukip at fancy prices and have concerns on the back of last nights result, you can get out for a nice green

Socrates said:

@JosiasJessop

1. I agree that "indigenous" does mean the second meaning, but sometimes people want a quick word for the "born and brought up here Britons" that doesn't exist, so they use terms like "indigenous" or "native" incorrectly.

2. So if someone points out abuses by Israeli extremist settlers, without then mentioning that other militaries cause abuses, or that there are a lot of decent and kind-hearted Jews, then you're being anti-Semitic? This is an absurd position. Nobody should have to state their entire views nuanced and moderated views on an ethnic group every time they criticise poor behaviour by members of that ethnic group.

Oh, and for the record, I have regularly criticised intolerance from other groups. I post a fair amount about Russian extremism and authoritarianism from our own government, in case you haven't noticed. And I also point out that there are many decent and integrated Muslims ALL THE DAMN TIME. It's just people like you refuse to hear those bits. You've got your existing mindset that UKIP supporters are bigots, and you pick and choose evidence to back up your belief. That's far more prejudice than I display.

3. How the hell is it Islamophobic to believe that the most widespread cases of uninvestigated child abuse in this country is carried out by Muslim-background gangs? We have a case of 1400 kids being raped in one northern town, "hundreds" of child rapists walking free in one of our northern cities, about 20 cases of this model of abuse happening in other towns, and a chief investigator saying what has happened in Rotherham is likely to have happened elsewhere. What evidence is there of anything similar happening by perpetrators of other groups? To avoid the "Islamophobic" slur from politically correct muppets you have to not mention crimes by Muslims. It's ridiculous.

Oh, and I note you just toss out the Islamophobe charge without justifying it. People like you aren't actually interested in the facts. You're just interested in delegitimising uncomfortable facts.

4. Once again, a joke without any argument or evidence to back it up. Your case is weak so you don't even try to make it.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Socrates said:

@JosiasJessop


3. How the hell is it Islamophobic to believe that the most widespread cases of uninvestigated child abuse in this country is carried out by Muslim-background gangs? We have a case of 1400 kids being raped in one northern town, "hundreds" of child rapists walking free in one of our northern cities, about 20 cases of this model of abuse happening in other towns, and a chief investigator saying what has happened in Rotherham is likely to have happened elsewhere. What evidence is there of anything similar happening by perpetrators of other groups? To avoid the "Islamophobic" slur from politically correct muppets you have to not mention crimes by Muslims. It's ridiculous.

Did you see this?

However Bailey warned that the media was in danger of becoming fixated by “one model of child sexual exploitation” involving Asian gangs. “There has been an unhealthy focus on that particular model of abuse and we cannot afford to take our eye off the fact that it is but one model and we have to look at the bigger picture.”

The concern of the police is that it is not gangs that are the biggest problem when it comes to sexual abuse, but the home.

Bailey said: “[This fixation] is rather overshadowing a far, far, bigger picture, and that bigger picture is that 90% of child sexual abuse takes place in the home where crimes are being perpetrated upon victims by people they know already. It is really important that we get some context around this.”

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/15/rotherham-child-sexual-abuse-scandal-tip-iceberg-police-chief

antifrank said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Hey, Antifrank, we've got the Castlepoint price down to 7/4.

Shall we keep backing it, just to frighten Shadsy? ;-)

This is precisely why we should use the "back door" for this sort of thing, I'm fairly convinced there are a fair few lurkers here sniping our tips.

Yes, I agree, Pulpstar, although this time I suspect it was just the sheer weight of our money.

I got fifty on, which is quite big for a constituency market. Antifrank, as we all know, is loaded and probably had ten times that amount. ;-)

shadsy apparently limits me to c£100 of winnings on any constituency, so I was allowed £40.40 on this constituency. I suppose it's a compliment of sorts.

antifrank said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Pulpstar said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Hey, Antifrank, we've got the Castlepoint price down to 7/4.

Shall we keep backing it, just to frighten Shadsy? ;-)

This is precisely why we should use the "back door" for this sort of thing, I'm fairly convinced there are a fair few lurkers here sniping our tips.

Yes, I agree, Pulpstar, although this time I suspect it was just the sheer weight of our money.

I got fifty on, which is quite big for a constituency market. Antifrank, as we all know, is loaded and probably had ten times that amount. ;-)

shadsy apparently limits me to c£100 of winnings on any constituency, so I was allowed £40.40 on this constituency. I suppose it's a compliment of sorts.

Richard_Nabavi said:

@MSmithsonPB

No surge for UKIP from Populus. Today's poll LAB 35 (-1), Con 33 (-2), LD 10 (+1), UKIP 14 (+1), GRN 4

JosiasJessop said:

CopperSulphate said:

JosiasJessop said:

Chortle. You don't read this blog very often ...

How is your fear of the ideology of UKIP any different to other people having fear of the ideology of Islam?

Saying one is absolutely disgusting whilst the other cannot be criticised seems a little inconsistent.

It's very different. Firstly, most adherents do not choose to become Muslim, or Christian, or Hindu, or Jewish: they just are. People choose to be UKIPpers (as opposed to UKIP voters, which are a separate matter).

Secondly, your comment 'fear of the ideology of Islam' shows your problem all too well.

anotherDave said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Socrates said:

@JosiasJessop


3. How the hell is it Islamophobic to believe that the most widespread cases of uninvestigated child abuse in this country is carried out by Muslim-background gangs? We have a case of 1400 kids being raped in one northern town, "hundreds" of child rapists walking free in one of our northern cities, about 20 cases of this model of abuse happening in other towns, and a chief investigator saying what has happened in Rotherham is likely to have happened elsewhere. What evidence is there of anything similar happening by perpetrators of other groups? To avoid the "Islamophobic" slur from politically correct muppets you have to not mention crimes by Muslims. It's ridiculous.

Did you see this?

However Bailey warned that the media was in danger of becoming fixated by “one model of child sexual exploitation” involving Asian gangs. “There has been an unhealthy focus on that particular model of abuse and we cannot afford to take our eye off the fact that it is but one model and we have to look at the bigger picture.”

The concern of the police is that it is not gangs that are the biggest problem when it comes to sexual abuse, but the home.

Bailey said: “[This fixation] is rather overshadowing a far, far, bigger picture, and that bigger picture is that 90% of child sexual abuse takes place in the home where crimes are being perpetrated upon victims by people they know already. It is really important that we get some context around this.”

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/15/rotherham-child-sexual-abuse-scandal-tip-iceberg-police-chief

The point about the current scandals, is that the Police, and social services, ignored reports from the victims.

isam said:

CarlottaVance said:

isam said:

CarlottaVance said:

isam said:

CarlottaVance said:

isam said:

CarlottaVance said:

isam said:

All those polls were done before the game changers of Clacton and Heywood & Middleton

You think both will rank highly in the ITN news index poll at the end of the month?

Your posts are of such bad quality I actually feel sorry for you that Ukip are doing so well

So that's a "no" then.

So much for "game changer"

And like the NATS your modus operandi is to play the player, not the ball......

I haven't given one thought to the itn news index poll !!!

Evidently not.

Otherwise you wouldn't be making ludicrous claims about "game changers"!

So let me get this straight... You are saying that Ukip winning a seat and pushing labour a close 2nd in their heartlands, is not a game changer.

This is despite every respected political journalist saying it is, Ukip hitting record highs in almost every poll

And your justification is that you don't reckon it will be in the itn news index poll at the end of the month?

Can you confirm that is what you really think

As we are interested in politics we tend to grossly over estimate the general public's interest.

The ITN news index poll is a useful antidote to that.

Britain being forced out of the ERM was a "game changer".

I doubt Carsell holding his seat is remotely in the same league.

Do you still think that 35 % of labour and Tories thinking Ukip aren't a wasted vote is bad for Ukip? Or us this nonsense a deflection from that ricket?

SouthamObserver said:

What both the left and the right hate is each other's versions of what they think Britain should be. But that's very different.

Pulpstar said:

Oil watch:

Brent Crude at $85.84 right now... I think medium term support will be found for WTI at $80 or so and thus Brent should find support around $82 given the normal difference

1.6112 USD-GBP

Pound seems to have strengthened slightly against the USD too which yields a GBP price of £53.77, the £50 floor is $80.56 right now.

Which means that pump prices should continue to fall I think, and thus inflation will stay very low.

Sean_F said:

CopperSulphate said:

Socrates said:

Oh, and let's just requote the post this morning that JosiasJessop said was "Islamophobic":

Socrates said:

Jihadists train openly in a French park:

http://www.thelocal.fr/20141015/jihadists-found-training-in-a-park-in-france

A link to a news story with an entirely neutral description of the story. JosiasJessop is as nutty on this issue as the NUS refusing to condemn ISIS because it would be Islamophobic.

I think he is suffering from Islamophobia-phobia. An absolutely vile affliction that causes him to judge people negatively purely from their Islamophobia.

Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers. What's next? Labourophobia, socialistophobia, greenophobia? Only a matter of time I imagine.

Protecting certain ideologies above others and trying to demonise anyone who criticises them is a sure fire way of showing that you don't have a logical argument. Therefore I expect the left to ramp up this particular way of debating even further.

Here and elsewhere, I've read pretty harsh things expressed about Christianity and it's adherents. But, there seems to be widespread point of view that Christians can take such criticism, while Muslims deserve special sensitivity.

Peter_the_Punter said:

anotherDave said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Socrates said:

@JosiasJessop


3. How the hell is it Islamophobic to believe that the most widespread cases of uninvestigated child abuse in this country is carried out by Muslim-background gangs? We have a case of 1400 kids being raped in one northern town, "hundreds" of child rapists walking free in one of our northern cities, about 20 cases of this model of abuse happening in other towns, and a chief investigator saying what has happened in Rotherham is likely to have happened elsewhere. What evidence is there of anything similar happening by perpetrators of other groups? To avoid the "Islamophobic" slur from politically correct muppets you have to not mention crimes by Muslims. It's ridiculous.

Did you see this?

However Bailey warned that the media was in danger of becoming fixated by “one model of child sexual exploitation” involving Asian gangs. “There has been an unhealthy focus on that particular model of abuse and we cannot afford to take our eye off the fact that it is but one model and we have to look at the bigger picture.”

The concern of the police is that it is not gangs that are the biggest problem when it comes to sexual abuse, but the home.

Bailey said: “[This fixation] is rather overshadowing a far, far, bigger picture, and that bigger picture is that 90% of child sexual abuse takes place in the home where crimes are being perpetrated upon victims by people they know already. It is really important that we get some context around this.”

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/15/rotherham-child-sexual-abuse-scandal-tip-iceberg-police-chief

The point about the current scandals, is that the Police, and social services, ignored reports from the victims.

There has to be a suspicion that protection money was being paid.

Sean_F said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Sean_F said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

CarlottaVance said:

Ninoinoz said:

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

alex said:

The relevance is what it says about the crazy suggestions of any sort of Con-UKIP pact/deal.

If there is a Con/UKIP pact there'll be one fewer Con vote here.....

Make that 2. I am already concerned about the tendency of the Tories to bend in the wind to accommodate potential UKIP voters.

Enjoy your time in opposition, then.

And I'm sure you'll enjoy a Miliband government and further integration into the EU.....

You do rather prove his point. UKIP get accused here of splitting the right-wing vote, and letting in Labour. But then you, and others here, say you'd refuse to vote Conservative if they made a pact with UKIP. Which does rather suggest that for all the talk of the horrors of a Milliband government, it's not in reality a prospect that bothers you much.

The threat to me and my family from a UKIP majority or minority government, especially given the views of many UKIP supporters on here, is far greater than it would be from a Labour government.

And that's saying something. Therefore, if it comes to play in my constituency, my vote will be an anti-UKIP vote. This was not the case a year (or possibly even six months) ago.

How on earth would UKIP threaten you?

The most bizarre accusations get hurled at UKIP on this forum.

As a cyclist, UKIPs manifesto in 2010 contained many threatening policies directed at me. I've started assuming that the drivers who overtake me most dangerously are more likely to be UKIP supporters, especially the ones who like to shout abuse at me for daring to be on the road at all.

Perhaps UKIPs next manifesto will move away from some of these stereotypical angry middle-aged white man sort of policies. You'd expect that a party that moves from 3% national support to around five times that level would change in some ways.

Matthew Parris once proposed stringing piano wire across country lanes to strangle cyclists.

CopperSulphate said:

Socrates said:

Oh, and let's just requote the post this morning that JosiasJessop said was "Islamophobic":

Socrates said:

Jihadists train openly in a French park:

http://www.thelocal.fr/20141015/jihadists-found-training-in-a-park-in-france

A link to a news story with an entirely neutral description of the story. JosiasJessop is as nutty on this issue as the NUS refusing to condemn ISIS because it would be Islamophobic.

I think he is suffering from Islamophobia-phobia. An absolutely vile affliction that causes him to judge people negatively purely from their Islamophobia.

Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers. What's next? Labourophobia, socialistophobia, greenophobia? Only a matter of time I imagine.

Protecting certain ideologies above others and trying to demonise anyone who criticises them is a sure fire way of showing that you don't have a logical argument. Therefore I expect the left to ramp up this particular way of debating even further.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sulphate, point of order: that's not universally true. Can't comment on precise figures, but certainly in some parts of the world apostasy from Islam is considered something punishable by death.

Mr. Flashman (deceased), Texas never gave the world Constantine the Great, made emperor in the city of York.

JosiasJessop said:

CopperSulphate said:

Socrates said:

Oh, and let's just requote the post this morning that JosiasJessop said was "Islamophobic":

Socrates said:

Jihadists train openly in a French park:

http://www.thelocal.fr/20141015/jihadists-found-training-in-a-park-in-france

A link to a news story with an entirely neutral description of the story. JosiasJessop is as nutty on this issue as the NUS refusing to condemn ISIS because it would be Islamophobic.

I think he is suffering from Islamophobia-phobia. An absolutely vile affliction that causes him to judge people negatively purely from their Islamophobia.

Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers. What's next? Labourophobia, socialistophobia, greenophobia? Only a matter of time I imagine.

Protecting certain ideologies above others and trying to demonise anyone who criticises them is a sure fire way of showing that you don't have a logical argument. Therefore I expect the left to ramp up this particular way of debating even further.

I'm suffering from no such thing. I don't want to 'protect' any ideology. And I'm not particularly off the left: in fact, most lefties on here call me a PB Tory.

"Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers."

Thereby showing your problem.

Socrates said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

alex said:

I think the relevance of this poll is perhaps not in the effect on UKIP's chances of winning seats (which i think should fall apart under scrutiny in the course of a GE campaign as long as the Conservatives keep their heads). The relevance is what it says about the crazy suggestions of any sort of Con-UKIP pact/deal. For the sake of avoiding a few Conservative MPs in safe seats actually having to do some proper election campaigning, a deal/pact would throw away huge number of moderate Conservative or potential Conservative voters in more marginal seats.

The LibDems must be praying for such an eventuality, as they will become the natural home for those voters, considering their participation in the coalition government.

I've been saying this for some time: too many people assume that, by shifting towards UKIP's position to capture UKIP voters, the Conservatives will end up with more voters in total.

Whereas they would probably lose more voters from the centre, who are actively repelled by UKIP. And who can blame them?

If we assume that there is a Labour government after GE 2015, led by Ed Miliband, then it is probable that Labour will move slightly further to the left. It's also very possible that the Lib Dems, once Clegg resigns or is defenestrated, will also move to the left to differentiate themselves from the coalition.

If this transpires, the centre ground will be more open. That is where parties need to be, and not at the ground that UKIP currently holds.

Having said all that, UKIP shows the need for all parties to understand and cater for all segments of society. That has to be the lesson for, and of, GE2015.

No. The whole point of a Party is to prefer one part of society over another. Activists often suffer from the delusion that their Party of choice in some magical way eludes this point, bit that's what they suffer from - a delusion...

Only if you take a class-based view of politics, rather than a principle-based one.

peter_from_putney said:

Professor Fisher's updated GE 2015 seats projection this morning, based on polling averages of Con 31%, Lab 34%, LD 9%, Others 26% is as follows (showing changes over the past week):

Con .......... 291 (-8 seats)
Lab .......... 298 (+5 seats)
LibDem....... 31 (+3 seats)
Others ....... 30 (unchanged)

Total ........ 650 seats

TheWatcher said:

anotherDave said:

Plato said:

No. It's the culture of the people who write VOTE UKIP! after almost every post that's a UKIP PROBLEM.

Blaming the DT for it is missing the point entirely. They've offered up a free commenting platform - what these Kipper online activists are doing with it is another matter. As @SouthamObserver‌ noted, having a free-for-all attitude is great for adding to the gaiety of the nation, not so much when we're wondering what reality would look like.

anotherDave said:

Plato said:

You know I love you, but that's hand-waving. The DT is a huge newspaper and the behaviour of the Kippers commenting there is doing your Party no favours.

Socrates said:

Plato said:

TBH, I don't read the comments in the DT anymore because they're filled with anti-Muslim comments irrespective of the topic under discussion. And when they run out of those, it reverts to the EU. It's hobby-horse stuff writ large, and reminds me of the ugly online Yestapo.

I'm sure all these posters are quite delightful in person, but they give UKIP a very unattractive face to a soft-right Tory like me. It's the volume and the tone that's so off-putting.

Socrates said:

felix said:

You may be right but for many moderate right-wingers like myself UKIP do precious little to re-assure us that they are something more than an organised version of the 'grumpy old men'. Much fun yes and we all like to indulge from time to time but in the real world we need real practical policies that go beyond the sloganizing which conflates the evil immigrant with the evil EU bureaucrat. I doubt if I'd vote Labour to keep UKIP out but I'd certainly consider most of the others.

When have UKIP ever "conflated the evil immigrant with the evil EU bureaucrat"?

In fact, they don't even say immigrants are evil. They say the main problem is with the overall scale of immigration. Of course opposing parties' views seem simplistic and stupid when you simplify them into stupid statements.

I find those comments off-putting, but I simply don't find them representative of UKIP supporters at all.

The problem there is the culture the Telegraph have allowed to grow around their website comments, not UKIP.

The culture of a website is something the publisher can and should control. UKIP/UKIP voters don't have any control over what is published on the Telegraph's website.

You appear to be suggesting that The Telegraph curtail free speech, where it might offend UKIP. Strange.

john_zims said:

@CopperSulphate

'Actually I was thinking about the Greens the other day. I think the protest lefty vote is going to go to them'

The Greens are the old left with a vegan diet.

Bond_James_Bond said:

Socrates said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

alex said:

I think the relevance of this poll is perhaps not in the effect on UKIP's chances of winning seats (which i think should fall apart under scrutiny in the course of a GE campaign as long as the Conservatives keep their heads). The relevance is what it says about the crazy suggestions of any sort of Con-UKIP pact/deal. For the sake of avoiding a few Conservative MPs in safe seats actually having to do some proper election campaigning, a deal/pact would throw away huge number of moderate Conservative or potential Conservative voters in more marginal seats.
participation in the coalition government.

If we assume that there is a Labour government after GE 2015, led by Ed Miliband, then it is probable that Labour will move slightly further to the left. It's also very possible that the Lib Dems, once Clegg resigns or is defenestrated, will also move to the left to differentiate themselves from the coalition.

If this transpires, the centre ground will be more open. That is where parties need to be, and not at the ground that UKIP currently holds.

Having said all that, UKIP shows the need for all parties to understand and cater for all segments of society. That has to be the lesson for, and of, GE2015.

No. The whole point of a Party is to prefer one part of society over another. Activists often suffer from the delusion that their Party of choice in some magical way eludes this point, bit that's what they suffer from - a delusion...

Only if you take a class-based view of politics, rather than a principle-based one.

This is what I find baffling about Labour. As a party, it seems to hate almost everyone.

It hates the WWC, it hates the middle class, it hates the affluent and it hates what it quaintly still calls "toffs". It hates men, it hates the police, it hates business, it hates the countryside, it hates England, it hates the well-educated. It hates car drivers, it hates savers, it hates privately-held pensions, it hates the press, it hates the armed forces.

It likes immigrants and poor people, especially where they are the same, but only as electorally useful i.e. not enough to do anything about poverty other than perpetuate it for electoral advantage. It likes envious people.

It doesn't seem like much of a coalition.

CopperSulphate said:

JosiasJessop said:

CopperSulphate said:

Socrates said:

Oh, and let's just requote the post this morning that JosiasJessop said was "Islamophobic":

Socrates said:

Jihadists train openly in a French park:

http://www.thelocal.fr/20141015/jihadists-found-training-in-a-park-in-france

A link to a news story with an entirely neutral description of the story. JosiasJessop is as nutty on this issue as the NUS refusing to condemn ISIS because it would be Islamophobic.

I think he is suffering from Islamophobia-phobia. An absolutely vile affliction that causes him to judge people negatively purely from their Islamophobia.

Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers. What's next? Labourophobia, socialistophobia, greenophobia? Only a matter of time I imagine.

Protecting certain ideologies above others and trying to demonise anyone who criticises them is a sure fire way of showing that you don't have a logical argument. Therefore I expect the left to ramp up this particular way of debating even further.

I'm suffering from no such thing. I don't want to 'protect' any ideology. And I'm not particularly off the left: in fact, most lefties on here call me a PB Tory.

"Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers."

Thereby showing your problem.

I think my main problem appears to be that you refuse to engage me on the logic on my argument.

Demonising people for criticising an ideology, which branding people as Islamophobes is no doubt doing is the very definition of protecting an ideology.

Please try to refute the above statement without resorting to the "and that shows your problem" nonsense.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Socrates said:

@JosiasJessop


3. How the hell is it Islamophobic to believe that the most widespread cases of uninvestigated child abuse in this country is carried out by Muslim-background gangs? We have a case of 1400 kids being raped in one northern town, "hundreds" of child rapists walking free in one of our northern cities, about 20 cases of this model of abuse happening in other towns, and a chief investigator saying what has happened in Rotherham is likely to have happened elsewhere. What evidence is there of anything similar happening by perpetrators of other groups? To avoid the "Islamophobic" slur from politically correct muppets you have to not mention crimes by Muslims. It's ridiculous.

Did you see this?

However Bailey warned that the media was in danger of becoming fixated by “one model of child sexual exploitation” involving Asian gangs. “There has been an unhealthy focus on that particular model of abuse and we cannot afford to take our eye off the fact that it is but one model and we have to look at the bigger picture.”

The concern of the police is that it is not gangs that are the biggest problem when it comes to sexual abuse, but the home.

Bailey said: “[This fixation] is rather overshadowing a far, far, bigger picture, and that bigger picture is that 90% of child sexual abuse takes place in the home where crimes are being perpetrated upon victims by people they know already. It is really important that we get some context around this.”

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/15/rotherham-child-sexual-abuse-scandal-tip-iceberg-police-chief

Peter_the_Punter said:

Socrates said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

@Felix

I'd be wary of overstating the PC line.

If you were a bent copper, taking money to protect local gangs, and you were questioned as to why you had not taken the obvious action to protect an underage victim, you might well argue that you were afraid of appearing racist.

The defence is untenable, of course. Even in a PC culture, people should do their jobs regardless, and there is plenty of evidence that too many haven't, but I suspect the PC excuse is in many cases a subterfuge for something very different, and nastier.

Laziness is another vice that the PC line can be used to obscure, and that of course is universal.

Don't you think the theory is a bit unlikely that such corruption just happened to occur on a mass scale with overwhelmingly Pakistani gangs in the two towns with big investigations so far, and possibly another 20 places?

I don't know, Socrates, and neither do you.

There are doubtless many people trying to establish the facts right now but it won't be easy. If corruption is a major factor, that will be very difficult to expose and eliminate. There are likely to be other factors too. Personally I suspect that PC will prove to be part of it, if not in the sense of a genuine fear of taking the appropriate action because of political repercussions then at least in the sense that it creates a smokes a smokescreen behind which corruption, laziness and incompetence can hide.

The numerous other probable factors - such as poverty, poor education, cultural attitudes etc - have all been sufficiently aired on here and elsewhere for me to feel I don't want to add my two pennyworth.

isam said:

Seems to me little evidence on here of people criticising Muslims for the Rotherham scandal. I certainly never have. The failure is on the part of those that turned a blind eye because of the race or religion of the perpetrators, the people who sent a lady on a diversity course and told her never to say such things again when she said the gangs were Asian.

I can imagine people who inferred jimmy saville was at it got a similar reaction from bbc officials.

I've little doubt it's the same forces at work that saw celebrities and politicians able to get away with it in the 70s and 80s. An atmosphere is allowed to build where certain people are not allowed to be challenged, and that failure has been criticised on those occasions without anyone being accused of being anti 70s celebrity although some did say others were being partisan in their criticism of politicians accused of noncery

OblitusSumMe said:

state_go_away said:

whats more UKIP don't like parkrun either (see youtube and type in 'downfall and parkrun') .They just want everyone to buy a dog and walk it by getting in the way of cyclists and runners -SO THERE

Runners with dogs are allowed at many parkruns. I really love parkrun. Fantastic example of the Big Society at work. [NB parkrun started in 2004, before Cameron became Conservative party leader]

SouthamObserver said:

If only the world could be as unfilled with hate as Copper Sulphate and Mr Bond of this parish it would be a much better place. Their entirely non-hateful summaries of the Labour party certainly add to the gaiety of the nation.

Plato said:

@HurstLlama‌

What I don't recognise is that I and people like me are racist loons who want to live in the 1950s and attempts to cast me as such are counter productive.

SouthamObserver said:

If only the world could be as unfilled with hate as Copper Sulphate and Mr Bond of this parish it would be a much better place. Their entirely non-hateful summaries of the Labour party certainly add to the gaiety of the nation.

Socrates said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Your trying to belittle that judgement of mine by saying that I have accused UKIP of "anti-cycling bigotry" demeans you. Some criticism of UKIP might possibly be valid, you know. I don't agree with every single Green Party policy.

Your first line is fair criticism - I was being excessive to make a joke. Your second line is inaccurate, however. I have regularly criticised UKIP on foreign policy and gay marriage.

antifrank said:

UKIP now 6/4 in Castle Point!

OblitusSumMe said:

Socrates said:

OblitusSumMe said:

A cyclist in Exeter was seriously injured last winter after someone did something like that across a cycle bridge over the river. Parris is a dangerous twat.

However, there do seem to be quite a decent number of Tory politicians who are supportive of cycling, and there's been some promising progress from the Coalition, so taking things in the balance I don't think that the Conservative party is a threat to cyclist's.

I just don't see anything positive about cycling from UKIP, or UKIP politicians to counter all the negative things that I have heard.

UKIP are probably too busy countering the constant media exaggeration of racism to deal with their supposed anti-cycling bigotry.

They had time to craft a whole bunch of anti-cycling policies for the 2010 election. They have had time to put together an overview of policies for 2015, which as yet say nothing about cycling.

Maybe they will change their position for the 2015GE, but how else am I supposed to judge their cycling policy?

And given the reactions I have had from a small minority of drivers to my presence on the roads, I think I am perfectly right to fear what would happen if they were encouraged in their views by an anti-cycling [UKIP] government.

Your trying to belittle that judgement of mine by saying that I have accused UKIP of "anti-cycling bigotry" demeans you. Some criticism of UKIP might possibly be valid, you know. I don't agree with every single Green Party policy.

Bond_James_Bond said:

SouthamObserver said:

If only the world could be as unfilled with hate as Copper Sulphate and Mr Bond of this parish it would be a much better place. Their entirely non-hateful summaries of the Labour party certainly add to the gaiety of the nation.

Touche, Mr. O, but like that radio bloke who invited a UKIP caller to say what UKIP was in favour of (and who couldn't hink of anything), am I / are we wrong about any of those?

Are you suggesting for example that Labour does not hate well educated people? That it does not hate the police? Really?

anotherDave said:

SouthamObserver said:

Plato said:

@HurstLlama‌

What I don't recognise is that I and people like me are racist loons who want to live in the 1950s and attempts to cast me as such are counter productive.

So sharing a roasted black baby with me is off the cards then? I was hoping that if I came dressed in a gym slip this would be appropriate attire too. Damnit.

I feel rather sorry for Kipper voters in many respects - it must be hard to be hated more than a common or garden Tory. Funny ole world. I hope @MrJones‌ returns to posting myself - IIRC he was a Kipper of ex-Labour stock.

No, MrJones was a supporter of the BNP. He may have switched to UKIP though. He never made that clear.