Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How long will May’s honeymoon period can go on?

245

Comments

  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.

    The spate of instant psychiatric diagnoses whilst tasering men trying to behead other people last year doesn't fill one with confidence in the authorities to be quite as honest as they should be about such matters.

    The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?
    Rotherham social services, plus Council members, plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?

    It was not unreasonable to ignore unsubstantiated claims made by white supremacists with a long track record of lying. The disgrace was to ignore and/or underplay the Times investigation and the testimony of victims and whistleblowers.

    It turned out to be unreasonable.

    If you put all those with long track records of lying on ignore, we will be short of action on the words of politicians, police and man utd supporters to name a few.

    It turned out to be wrong, not unreasonable. In a world of finite resources it's hard to justify following up on claims made by avowed white supremacists and holocaust deniers. It was wrong, though, not to follow up on what was said by far more credible sources.

    OK

    You only follow up on things put forward by people who share your views.

    While I don't endorse BNP etc, I think the logic of your statement leads to a nasty dictatorial intolerant outcome.

    No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.

    Oh, I get it.

    You follow up on accusations of child abuse from 'Nick'

    That went well.

    You are putting a filter on that has a political element where it does not belong.

    I'm off. Moving house on Monday, stuff to do.

    Nope - I just believe it is reasonable to treat racially-charged claims made by avowed white supremacists and holicaust deniers with a degree of scepticism. You clearly don't. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

    And your silly hyperbole adds no credibility to your position.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.

    The spate of instant psychiatric diagnoses whilst tasering men trying to behead other people last year doesn't fill one with confidence in the authorities to be quite as honest as they should be about such matters.

    The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?
    Rotherham social services, plus Council members, plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?

    It was not unreasonable to ignore unsubstantiated claims made by white supremacists with a long track record of lying. The disgrace was to ignore and/or underplay the Times investigation and the testimony of victims and whistleblowers.

    It turned out to be unreasonable.

    If you put all those with long track records of lying on ignore, we will be short of action on the words of politicians, police and man utd supporters to name a few.

    It turned out to be wrong, not unreasonable. In a world of finite resources it's hard to justify following up on claims made by avowed white supremacists and holocaust deniers. It was wrong, though, not to follow up on what was said by far more credible sources.

    OK

    You only follow up on things put forward by people who share your views.

    While I don't endorse BNP etc, I think the logic of your statement leads to a nasty dictatorial intolerant outcome.

    No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.

    So what you are telling us is if Griffin and his cronies were the only source on Rotherham then no follow up should have been required and the raping could have continued without any uncomfortable and social decisive questions being asked ? Its a view I suppose.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,722

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.

    The spate o diagnoses whilst tasering men trying to behead other people last year doesn't fill one with confidence in the authorities to be quite as honest as they should be about such matters.

    The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?
    Rotherham social services, plus Council members, plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?

    It was not unreasonable to ignore unsubstantiated claims made by white supremacists with a long track record of lying. The disgrace was to ignore and/or underplay the Times investigation and the testimony of victims and whistleblowers.

    It turned out to be unreasonable.

    If you put all those with long track records of lying on ignore, we will be short of action on the words of politicians, police and man utd supporters to name a few.

    It turned out to be wrong, not unreasonable. In a world of finite resources it's hard to justify following up on claims made by avowed white supremacists and holocaust deniers. It was wrong, though, not to follow up on what was said by far more credible sources.

    OK

    You only follow up on things put forward by people who share your views.

    While I don't endorse BNP etc, I think the logic of your statement leads to a nasty dictatorial intolerant outcome.

    No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.

    Oh, I get it.

    You follow up on accusations of child abuse from 'Nick'

    That went well.

    You are putting a filter on that has a political element where it does not belong.

    I'm off. Moving house on Monday, stuff to do.

    Nope - I just believe it is reasonable to treat racially-charged claims made by avowed white supremacists and holicaust deniers with a degree of scepticism. You clearly don't. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

    It's probably worth a look on a risk/reward basis, especially when they turn out to be correct to the power of 1,4000
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    edited January 2017
    @Black_Rock - In percentage terms Corbyn is least popular among London Labour members, most popular among those in the North-West.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    MaxPB said:

    On topic, we're in a holding pattern until we find out what Brexit means Brexit means.

    Methinks uncivil war within the Tory party is about to break out again. Brexit has shifted the tectonic plates and is going to reform all parties.
    Unlikely. I tell you this as a party member and as a voter. Almost all of the party is reconciled to leaving whatever they voted for. Look on here as an example, it isn't the Tory remainers who are bitching about it on a daily basis. Almost all of them now believe we must leave the EU. Don't forget before the referendum it was the Tory supporters on here who were split down the middle, now there is a sense of unity in leaving, even if some are less enthusiastic than others. A vote to remain would have been cause for the party to split or a caused a new civil war, but not leave.

    The party has been sceptical of the EU for as long as I can remember, leaving is the natural position of most members and voters. Even though some decided that remain was worth it for short term economic gain, two thirds of the party members lined up against the leadership at the referendum and the other third, well from what I could see, they didn't have their hearts in the campaign. I was invited to a remain campaign event in the heart of remainer West London and it was like walking into a funeral. The Tories there that I knew were extremely downbeat. In contrast the leave campaign had boundless energy, even when we were getting 60/40 returns against us, everyone kept going. The Tories in that group were especially motivated as well.

    Anyway, take it from those of us in the party, the idea of a split post-leave is one for the birds. The likes of TSE are not anywhere near a majority of members or even voters. The Cameroons are barely a large minority in terms of members.
    I think the Tory split will be between hard and soft Brexiteers, not between Leavers and Remainers.
    Which presupposes there will be a choice.

    It all seems a trifle premature to get all exercised about what particular flavour of BrExit every one prefers until we see what is on the table. It might be a take-it-or-leave it sort of affair.
  • PlatoSaid said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.

    The spate of instant psychiatric diagnoses whilst tasering men trying to behead other people last year doesn't fill one with confidence in the authorities to be quite as honest as they should be about such matters.

    The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?
    Rotherham social services, plus Council members, plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?

    It was notnd/or underplay the Times investigation and the testimony of victims and whistleblowers.

    It turned out to be unreasonable.

    If you put all those with long track records of lying on ignore, we will be short of action on the words of politicians, police and man utd supporters to name a few.

    It turned out to be wrong, not unreasonable. In a world of finite resources it's hard to justify following up on claims made by avowed white supremacists and holocaust deniers. It was wrong, though, not to follow up on what was said by far more credible sources.

    OK

    You only follow up on things put forward by people who share your views.

    While I don't endorse BNP etc, I think the logic of your statement leads to a nasty dictatorial intolerant outcome.

    No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.

    Oh, I get it.

    You follow up on accusations of child abuse from 'Nick'

    That went well.

    You are putting a filter on that has a political element where it does not belong.

    I'm off. Moving house on Monday, stuff to do.

    Nope - I just believe it is reasonable to treat racially-charged claims made by avowed white supremacists and holicaust deniers with a degree of scepticism. You clearly don't. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

    And your silly hyperbole adds no credibility to your position.

    It's a fact that Nick Griffin has a history of holocaust denial and advocating white supremacy.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    "Labour's plight is part of the general malaise in social democracy seen on the continent?"

    Yes, quite right. Corbyn is concealing a wider problem. What does 21st century social democracy offer?

    In my more hopeful moments I imagine that Jarvis, Chukka, Reeves, Tristam, the sensible end of the unions and so on are spending their evenings coming up with stuff.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    isam said:

    @MikeK is not banned

    His status is 'Roles Applicant' which means he is unable to post. Moses TCPoliticalBetting and GeoffM are in the same boat. People that can post are 'Roles Member'.

    Happened to me many times...
    This may be of interest:
    https://blog.vanillaforums.com/news/vanillas-roles-permissions-and-ranks/
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    I think I probably got a little too sidetracked by Labour in the previous post! What I also meant to say was that the other two significant opposition forces in England - the Lib Dems and Ukip - are so weak, marginal and far from power that, when you ask people about their general election voting choices, of course the two potential governing parties are going to be at the forefront of people's thoughts - and if one of those two, in turn, looks unviable, then it should be no surprise that most of the floating voters aggregate around the one that seems to be at least halfway sane, granting it a large and sustained lead. If, as I suspect to be the case, Labour is unable to install a leadership that will appeal to floating voters in key marginal seats without splitting first, then it's hard to see how the Conservatives can be seriously challenged for their position as first party at a general election held in the short-to-medium term.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    MaxPB said:

    On topic, we're in a holding pattern until we find out what Brexit means Brexit means.

    Methinks uncivil war within the Tory party is about to break out again. Brexit has shifted the tectonic plates and is going to reform all parties.
    Unlikely. I tell you this as a party member and as a voter. Almost all of the party is reconciled to leaving whatever they voted for. Look on here as an example, it isn't the Tory remainers who are bitching about it on a daily basis. Almost all of them now believe we must leave the EU. Don't forget before the referendum it was the Tory supporters on here who were split down the middle, now there is a sense of unity in leaving, even if some are less enthusiastic than others. A vote to remain would have been cause for the party to split or a caused a new civil war, but not leave.

    The party has been sceptical of the EU for as long as I can remember, leaving is the natural position of most members and voters. Even though some decided that remain was worth it for short term economic gain, two thirds of the party members lined up against the leadership at the referendum and the other third, well from what I could see, they didn't have their hearts in the campaign. I was invited to a remain campaign event in the heart of remainer West London and it was like walking into a funeral. The Tories there that I knew were extremely downbeat. In contrast the leave campaign had boundless energy, even when we were getting 60/40 returns against us, everyone kept going. The Tories in that group were especially motivated as well.

    Anyway, take it from those of us in the party, the idea of a split post-leave is one for the birds. The likes of TSE are not anywhere near a majority of members or even voters. The Cameroons are barely a large minority in terms of members.
    I think the Tory split will be between hard and soft Brexiteers, not between Leavers and Remainers.
    Which presupposes there will be a choice.

    It all seems a trifle premature to get all exercised about what particular flavour of BrExit every one prefers until we see what is on the table. It might be a take-it-or-leave it sort of affair.
    I think it will be take it or leave it. It is at that point the rancour will happen. For example the Sleaford Tory MP who resigned.
  • isam said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.

    The spate o diagnoses whilst tasering men trying to behead other people last year doesn't fill one with confidence in the authorities to be quite as honest as they should be about such matters.

    The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?
    Rotherham social services, plus Council members, plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?

    It was not unreasonable to ignore unsubstantiated claims made by white supremacists with a long track record of lying. The disgrace was to ignore and/or underplay the Times investigation and the testimony of victims and whistleblowers.

    It turned out to be unreasonable.

    If you put all those with long track records of lying on ignore, we will be short of action on the words of politicians, police and man utd supporters to name a few.

    It turned out sources.

    OK

    You only follow up on things put forward by people who share your views.

    While I don't endorse BNP etc, I think the logic of your statement leads to a nasty dictatorial intolerant outcome.

    No, you follow up ony. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.

    Oh, I get it.

    You follow up on accusations of child abuse from 'Nick'

    That went well.

    You are putting a filter on that has a political element where it does not belong.

    I'm off. Moving house on Monday, stuff to do.

    Nope - I just believe it is reasonable to treat racially-charged claims made by avowed white supremacists and holicaust deniers with a degree of scepticism. You clearly don't. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

    It's probably worth a look on a risk/reward basis, especially when they turn out to be correct to the power of 1,4000

    A stopped clock is right a couple of times a day. The shame of Rotherham is not that a white supremacist holocaust denier was ignored, but that far more credible sources were. Indeed, Griffin's involvement gave wicked people cover.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670
    Sandpit said:

    philiph said:

    " That May election must be looking attractive at No 10."

    Maybe ..... but only if she has good cause for calling it. The great British won't thank her, in fact will punish her, for simply calling a GE which is simply seen as being opportunistic, all the more so bearing in mind that this would be barely 10 months after they were previously called to the polling booths to cast their votes in the EU referendum. Potentially dangerous territory and based on the old boundaries to boot.

    I agree. The Great British Public has been asked two big questions in short order, given their answers and now look to the political class to sort it out - "tuning out" may be one factor in May's ratings robustness.

    etc
    I'm not sure the Red Cross enhances it's reputation with announcements of a humanitarian crisis in NHS.
    Quite. A bit like the 'poverty' charities, who define that term as only being able to afford an iPhone 6 when your neighbour has as iPhone 7. Charity sector ripe for some serious reform.

    Trick question for you : For how many people did the charity Shelter provide shelter this Christmas?
    ZERO I expect
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    philiph said:

    Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.

    The spate of instant psychiatric diagnoses whilst tasering men trying to behead other people last year doesn't fill one with confidence in the authorities to be quite as honest as they should be about such matters.

    The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?
    Generally the answer to that question is yes and no. In this case it seems reasonable to go with the official version.

    In general first hand opinions, those who were there know. Others know what they were told. If they were told a lie by a trusted source, the lie will be propagated. The rank of the individual is no guarantee of the veracity of the words spouted.

    Example comical Ali (was that his name?) saying there are no American tanks here. There are numerous examples of official statements deviating from the actuality, and not just in pariah States.
    Yes, I certainly wouldn't suggest that we should always believe official statements. Generally it's wise to look for information supported by more than one source with no obvious bias (e.g. the local paper in this case). Eye-witnesses are usually useful but can also interpret things wrongly, cf. UFO sightings (probably!).

    Breitbart, however, does seem to seize on reports that assist its agenda and sometimes to magnify them beyond what the evidence will bear. A problem about that is that it makes people sceptical even when it's true.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    PlatoSaid said:

    Mr. Observer, who's disappointed?

    Of course nobody wants attacks in Germany, or anywhere else, but it'd also be nice if we felt we could trust the authorities to be honest, without spinning stories or taking 'cultural sensitivities' into account.

    Air Canada were most upset to be included in the latest shooting - he wasn't their passenger and didn't enter from Canada. This 'fact' was all over CNN and others.
    But unlike the "news" you and your chums post, when the error was clear they corrected and retracted it.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    Its also a fact that even had they reacted to the Times investigation (2012), that ignoring Griffin in 2004 would have resulted in another 8 years of child abuse. Perhaps that is a price worth paying to ignore people with unsavory views, you tell me ?
  • philiph said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.

    The spate of instant psychiatric diagnoses whilst tasering men trying to behead other people last year doesn't fill one with confidence in the authorities to be quite as honest as they should be about such matters.

    The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?
    Rotherham social services, plus Council members, plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?

    It was not unreasonable to ignore unsubstantiated claims made by white supremacists with a long track record of lying. The disgrace was to ignore and/or underplay the Times investigation and the testimony of victims and whistleblowers.

    It turned out to be unreasonable.

    If you put all those with long track records of lying on ignore, we will be short of action on the words of politicians, police and man utd supporters to name a few.

    It turned out to be wrong, not unreasonable. In a world of finite resources it's hard to justify following up on claims made by avowed white supremacists and holocaust deniers. It was wrong, though, not to follow up on what was said by far more credible sources.

    OK

    You only follow up on things put forward by people who share your views.

    While I don't endorse BNP etc, I think the logic of your statement leads to a nasty dictatorial intolerant outcome.

    No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.

    So what you are telling us is if Griffin and his cronies were the only source on Rotherham then no follow up should have been required and the raping could have continued without any uncomfortable and social decisive questions being asked ? Its a view I suppose.

    Nope.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I would agree that the Red Cross is being rather hyperbolic, but it did sound bad in Worcester over the holidays. Leicester was heavily stressed, but better than this description.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/06/nhs-faces-humanitarian-crisis-rising-demand-british-red-cross?CMP=share_btn_fb
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670
    edited January 2017

    Given the recent problems with Vanilla, I wonder if these 'bans' are just problems with the system?

    I could not post for several weeks recently due to quote button missing on both versions of site.

    PS: Perhaps I was on the naughty step again mind you and it was just co-incidence.
  • Its also a fact that even had they reacted to the Times investigation (2012), that ignoring Griffin in 2004 would have resulted in another 8 years of child abuse. Perhaps that is a price worth paying to ignore people with unsavory views, you tell me ?

    Griffin was not the only source in 2004.

  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956

    MaxPB said:

    On topic, we're in a holding pattern until we find out what Brexit means Brexit means.

    Methinks uncivil war within the Tory party is about to break out again. Brexit has shifted the tectonic plates and is going to reform all parties.
    Unlikely. I tell you this as a party member and as a voter. Almost all of the party is reconciled to leaving whatever they voted for. Look on here as an example, it isn't the Tory remainers who are bitching about it on a daily basis. Almost all of them now believe we must leave the EU. Don't forget before the referendum it was the Tory supporters on here who were split down the middle, now there is a sense of unity in leaving, even if some are less enthusiastic than others. A vote to remain would have been cause for the party to split or a caused a new civil war, but not leave.

    The party has been sceptical of the EU for as long as I can remember, leaving is the natural position of most members and voters. Even though some decided that remain was worth it for short term economic gain, two thirds of the party members lined up against the leadership at the referendum and the other third, well from what I could see, they didn't have their hearts in the campaign. I was invited to a remain campaign event in the heart of remainer West London and it was like walking into a funeral. The Tories there that I knew were extremely downbeat. In contrast the leave campaign had boundless energy, even when we were getting 60/40 returns against us, everyone kept going. The Tories in that group were especially motivated as well.

    Anyway, take it from those of us in the party, the idea of a split post-leave is one for the birds. The likes of TSE are not anywhere near a majority of members or even voters. The Cameroons are barely a large minority in terms of members.
    According to Newstatesman, when Osborne was sacked May told him to go out and learn about the real Tory party in the country.
    Wasn't it 'learn some emotional intelligence'? Either way, good on her.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    Its also a fact that even had they reacted to the Times investigation (2012), that ignoring Griffin in 2004 would have resulted in another 8 years of child abuse. Perhaps that is a price worth paying to ignore people with unsavory views, you tell me ?

    Griffin was not the only source in 2004.

    In your view were any of them "credible" ?
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    Its also a fact that even had they reacted to the Times investigation (2012), that ignoring Griffin in 2004 would have resulted in another 8 years of child abuse. Perhaps that is a price worth paying to ignore people with unsavory views, you tell me ?

    Griffin was not the only source in 2004.

    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,722

    isam said:

    @MikeK is not banned

    His status is 'Roles Applicant' which means he is unable to post. Moses TCPoliticalBetting and GeoffM are in the same boat. People that can post are 'Roles Member'.

    Happened to me many times...
    This may be of interest:
    https://blog.vanillaforums.com/news/vanillas-roles-permissions-and-ranks/
    Yes, thanks. I know its frowned upon to discuss this, so I wont go on, but in my experience, whenever I argued with a certain person, I found myself a "Roles Applicant' ie not ostensibly banned, but unable to post, the next day.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    edited January 2017
    PlatoSaid said:

    Its also a fact that even had they reacted to the Times investigation (2012), that ignoring Griffin in 2004 would have resulted in another 8 years of child abuse. Perhaps that is a price worth paying to ignore people with unsavory views, you tell me ?

    Griffin was not the only source in 2004.

    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.
    People on the left seem to be giving it a bit of a trial run because no one takes them seriously screaming about "racist" any more. Nativist seemed to be taken out for a canter over BrExit but not many people seemed to care.
  • Its also a fact that even had they reacted to the Times investigation (2012), that ignoring Griffin in 2004 would have resulted in another 8 years of child abuse. Perhaps that is a price worth paying to ignore people with unsavory views, you tell me ?

    Griffin was not the only source in 2004.

    In your view were any of them "credible" ?

    Absolutely. As I say down below, it was an absolute disgrace they were ignored. Sadly, this country has a long and shameful record of dismissing children and young adults when they say they have been sexually abused.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    malcolmg said:

    Given the recent problems with Vanilla, I wonder if these 'bans' are just problems with the system?

    I could not post for several weeks recently due to quote button missing on both versions of site.

    PS: Perhaps I was on the naughty step again mind you and it was just co-incidence.
    We were all quoteless for a time. Thankfully we had a bit of a (late) Christmas miracle!
  • PlatoSaid said:

    Its also a fact that even had they reacted to the Times investigation (2012), that ignoring Griffin in 2004 would have resulted in another 8 years of child abuse. Perhaps that is a price worth paying to ignore people with unsavory views, you tell me ?

    Griffin was not the only source in 2004.

    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.

    Nope - I have said he has no problem in associating with white supremacists, appointing them to positions of responsibility and in courting their votes.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    @Black_Rock - In percentage terms Corbyn is least popular among London Labour members, most popular among those in the North-West.

    Which is odd given that such evidence as there is suggests that amongst the electorate it is the other way around.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    PlatoSaid said:

    Its also a fact that even had they reacted to the Times investigation (2012), that ignoring Griffin in 2004 would have resulted in another 8 years of child abuse. Perhaps that is a price worth paying to ignore people with unsavory views, you tell me ?

    Griffin was not the only source in 2004.

    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.

    Nope - I have said he has no problem in associating with white supremacists, appointing them to positions of responsibility and in courting their votes.

    Trump is a Trump supremacist. I guess that makes him possibly an orange supremacist.
  • Jonathan said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Its also a fact that even had they reacted to the Times investigation (2012), that ignoring Griffin in 2004 would have resulted in another 8 years of child abuse. Perhaps that is a price worth paying to ignore people with unsavory views, you tell me ?

    Griffin was not the only source in 2004.

    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.

    Nope - I have said he has no problem in associating with white supremacists, appointing them to positions of responsibility and in courting their votes.

    Trump is a Trump supremacist. I guess that makes him possibly an orange supremacist.

    Yep, Trump is interested in Trump and nothing else.

  • isamisam Posts: 40,722

    isam said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.

    .

    The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?
    Rotherham social services, plus Council members, plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?

    It was not unreasonable to ignore unsubstantiated claims made by white supremacists with a long track record of lying. The disgrace was to ignore and/or underplay the Times investigation and the testimony of victims and whistleblowers.

    It turned out to be unreasonable.

    If you put all those with long track records of lying on ignore, we will be short of action on the words of politicians, police and man utd supporters to name a few.

    It turned out sources.




    It's probably worth a look on a risk/reward basis, especially when they turn out to be correct to the power of 1,4000

    A stopped clock is right a couple of times a day. The shame of Rotherham is not that a white supremacist holocaust denier was ignored, but that far more credible sources were. Indeed, Griffin's involvement gave wicked people cover.

    No, the shame of it is that people put political correctness in front of children's lives, and ignoring Nick Griffin was part of that.

    Sorry, you seem reasonable, but it cant be forgotten how enthusiastic you were to believe the Sun "blacked up" Gina Miller. It is obvious your prejudices sometimes come before investigation of the facts. Fair enough on here, it doesn't matter, but the Police shouldn't be like that.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    F1: incidentally, sounds like most F1 cars will be revealed in the last week of February. I wonder if there are 2 or 3 pre-season tests, or if they've even finished wrangling over where to hold them.
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.

    .

    The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?
    Rotherham social services, plus Council members, plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?

    It was not unreasonable to ignore unsubstantiated claims made by white supremacists with a long track record of lying. The disgrace was to ignore and/or underplay the Times investigation and the testimony of victims and whistleblowers.

    It turned out to be unreasonable.

    If you put all those with long track records of lying on ignore, we will be short of action on the words of politicians, police and man utd supporters to name a few.

    It turned out sources.




    It's probably worth a look on a risk/reward basis, especially when they turn out to be correct to the power of 1,4000

    A stopped clock is right a couple of times a day. The shame of Rotherham is not that a white supremacist holocaust denier was ignored, but that far more credible sources were. Indeed, Griffin's involvement gave wicked people cover.

    No, the shame of it is that people put political correctness in front of children's lives, and ignoring Nick Griffin was part of that.

    Sorry, you seem reasonable, but it cant be forgotten how enthusiastic you were to believe the Sun "blacked up" Gina Miller. It is obvious your prejudices sometimes come before investigation of the facts. Fair enough on here, it doesn't matter, but the Police shouldn't be like that.

    Yep, I agree: political correctness was used as an excuse not to investigate. "Look," wicked people said, "it's just white supremacist, holocaust-denier Nick Griffin stirring again, we can ignore all the evidence and the witness testimony." And because Nick Griffin is a white supremacist and a holocaust denier these wicked people got their way.

    You see it on here all the time: story reported that is inconvenient to a certain view and dismissed because it was in the Guardian, the Mail and so on.

  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122
    CD13 said:

    Forgetting Brexit and Remain and all the complaints about the other side being thick, I'd like to know people's views on basic democracy.

    The EU is a political concept - a potentially noble one. We join together in unity to stop internecine squabbling and stand stronger together. But many of the trade functions could be done without a formal union. Non-tariff trade, standardisation certainly. Scientific research too. The big difference is control of borders to allow free movement and that is where it becomes overtly political.

    From the view of a Lincolnshire peasant with a low-skill base, what are the advantages of the EU's determination to open borders? He can head to Rumania or Poland to pick potatoes and compete with the locals for a job paying pennies. The disadvantages? Thousands of Poles, Lithuanians and Rumanians can compete for a job with the UK locals for what seems a fortune to the newcomers. Of course, the peasant will vote Leave - it's in his own interests

    From the view of a highly paid London lawyer with a holiday home in Hungary (just an example), he has even more employment options in Europe. He has access to cheap labour in the UK - plumbers, hairdressers etc. Of course, he will vote Remain - it's in his own interests.

    Yet only one section are criticised for being stupid and voting in their own interests.

    Isn't it a fact of life that in a democracy, that is what most people do?

    Racism and Sovereignty merely muddy the waters.


    Lol. Very funny - loving the example of the luvvie you plucked out of the air.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    What is the Labour alternative on Brexit, on nuclear power, on defence, on education, on the NHS (other than spend more money)? I follow these things quite closely and I have no real idea. In most of these areas Corbyn seems to have one view and the official party line is something else.

    At the moment there is no alternative government on offer. I find May somewhat underwhelming but there is no choice. You can either indulge in meaningless protest or you can support the only government on offer. This is not healthy or even democratic. I very much hope events in 2017 bring this unsatisfactory state of affairs an end.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    edited January 2017
  • isamisam Posts: 40,722

    isam said:

    isam said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.

    .

    The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?


    It turned out sources.




    It's probably worth a look on a risk/reward basis, especially when they turn out to be correct to the power of 1,4000

    No, the shame of it is that people put political correctness in front of children's lives, and ignoring Nick Griffin was part of that.

    Sorry, you seem reasonable, but it cant be forgotten how enthusiastic you were to believe the Sun "blacked up" Gina Miller. It is obvious your prejudices sometimes come before investigation of the facts. Fair enough on here, it doesn't matter, but the Police shouldn't be like that.

    Yep, I agree: political correctness was used as an excuse not to investigate. "Look," wicked people said, "it's just white supremacist, holocaust-denier Nick Griffin stirring again, we can ignore all the evidence and the witness testimony." And because Nick Griffin is a white supremacist and a holocaust denier these wicked people got their way.

    You see it on here all the time: story reported that is inconvenient to a certain view and dismissed because it was in the Guardian, the Mail and so on.

    One of the defining moments for me at Brighton Uni, was a lecturer bringing in The Guardian and basing a lesson on an article, then calling me a "Daily Mail" reader when I disagreed!

    Although another thing I learned there, which I try to adhere to, was to try and attack your opponents strongest argument rather than the cheap shot of beating their weakest.
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.

    .

    The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?


    It turned out sources.




    It's probably worth a look on a risk/reward basis, especially when they turn out to be correct to the power of 1,4000

    No, the shame of it is that people put political correctness in front of children's lives, and ignoring Nick Griffin was part of that.

    Sorry, you seem reasonable, but it cant be forgotten how enthusiastic you were to believe the Sun "blacked up" Gina Miller. It is obvious your prejudices sometimes come before investigation of the facts. Fair enough on here, it doesn't matter, but the Police shouldn't be like that.

    Yep, I agree: political correctness was used as an excuse not to investigate. "Look," wicked people said, "it's just white supremacist, holocaust-denier Nick Griffin stirring again, we can ignore all the evidence and the witness testimony." And because Nick Griffin is a white supremacist and a holocaust denier these wicked people got their way.

    You see it on here all the time: story reported that is inconvenient to a certain view and dismissed because it was in the Guardian, the Mail and so on.

    One of the defining moments for me at Brighton Uni, was a lecturer bringing in The Guardian and basing a lesson on an article, then calling me a "Daily Mail" reader when I disagreed!

    Although another thing I learned there, which I try to adhere to, was to try and attack your opponents strongest argument rather than the cheap shot of beating their weakest.

    That lecturer was a prick!

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    PlatoSaid said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.

    The spate of instant psychiatric diagnoses whilst tasering men trying to behead other people last year doesn't fill one with confidence in the authorities to be quite as honest as they should be about such matters.

    The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?
    Rotherham social services, plus Council members, plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?

    It was not unreasonable to ignore unsubstantiated claims made by white supremacists with a long track record of lying. The disgrace was to ignore and/or underplay the Times investigation and the testimony of victims and whistleblowers.

    It turned out to be unreasonable.



    It turned out to be wrong, not unreasonable. In a world of finite resources it's hard to justify following up on claims made by avowed white supremacists and holocaust deniers. It was wrong, though, not to follow up on what was said by far more credible sources.

    OK

    You only follow up on things put forward by people who share your views.

    While I don't endorse BNP etc, I think the logic of your statement leads to a nasty dictatorial intolerant outcome.

    No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.

    Oh, I get it.

    You follow up on accusations of child abuse from 'Nick'

    That went well.

    You are putting a filter on that has a political element where it does not belong.

    I'm off. Moving house on Monday, stuff to do.

    Nope - I just believe it is reasonable to treat racially-charged claims made by avowed white supremacists and holicaust deniers with a degree of scepticism. You clearly don't. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

    And your silly hyperbole adds no credibility to your position.
    There’s an old story about 'crying wolf' that seems apposite.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,722
    @SouthamObserver

    A similar case caused Trevor Phillips to reassess his entire worldview

    "Phillips and a Muslim former senior Met officer agreed that the police’s reluctance to use racial profiling arose from an attitude which was basically: “OK, maybe you’d catch more criminals, but they might think we’re a bit racist.”

    Tragically and unforgivably, that same attitude led to the death of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie. Multiple explanations were offered by experts for the child’s 128 separate injuries. Any explanation would do, except the real one, which is that her Ivory Coast guardians were cruel, superstitious brutes. As Phillips admits, pretty much everyone who could have saved Victoria “was walking on eggshells”. Thus, the creed of multiculturalism, which was designed to promote racial equality, caused a little girl to be murdered because white people were too embarrassed to accuse her black torturers. Marvellous, eh?

    Like many people faced with inconvenient truths, I thought if I sat on them long enough they’d go away,” says Phillips"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11479761/We-must-listen-to-Trevor-Phillips-and-his-inconvenient-truths-about-race.html

    This is a good listen

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b078hlsz
  • isamisam Posts: 40,722
    @nigel4england is also banned and would like to come back.. any chance @MikeSmithson
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    edited January 2017

    PlatoSaid said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.

    The spate of instant psychiatric diagnoses whilst tasering men trying to behead other people last year doesn't fill one with confidence in the authorities to be quite as honest as they should be about such matters.

    The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?
    Rotherham social services, plus Council members, plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?

    It was not unreasonable to ignore unsubstantiated claims made by white supremacists with a long track record of lying. The disgrace was to ignore and/or underplay the Times investigation and the testimony of victims and whistleblowers.

    It turned out to be unreasonable.



    It turned out to be wrong, not unreasonable. In a world of finite resources it's hard to justify following up on claims made by avowed white supremacists and holocaust deniers. It was wrong, though, not to follow up on what was said by far more credible sources.

    OK

    You only follow up on things put forward by people who share your views.

    While I don't endorse BNP etc, I think the logic of your statement leads to a nasty dictatorial intolerant outcome.

    No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and youemerged.

    Oh, I get it.

    You follow up on accusations of child abuse from 'Nick'

    That went well.

    You are putting a filter on that has a political element where it does not belong.

    I'm off. Moving house on Monday, stuff to do.

    Nope - I just believe it is reasonable to treat racially-charged claims made by avowed white supremacists and holicaust deniers with a degree of scepticism. You clearly don't. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

    And your silly hyperbole adds no credibility to your position.
    There’s an old story about 'crying wolf' that seems apposite.

    Nick Griffin and Rotherham is the perfect example.

  • DavidL said:

    What is the Labour alternative on Brexit, on nuclear power, on defence, on education, on the NHS (other than spend more money)? I follow these things quite closely and I have no real idea. In most of these areas Corbyn seems to have one view and the official party line is something else.

    At the moment there is no alternative government on offer. I find May somewhat underwhelming but there is no choice. You can either indulge in meaningless protest or you can support the only government on offer. This is not healthy or even democratic. I very much hope events in 2017 bring this unsatisfactory state of affairs an end.

    Labour's activists have always been oppositionists - Corbyn's uniqueness consists in recognising this.

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited January 2017
    CD13 said:

    Forgetting Brexit and Remain and all the complaints about the other side being thick, I'd like to know people's views on basic democracy.

    The EU is a political concept - a potentially noble one. We join together in unity to stop internecine squabbling and stand stronger together. But many of the trade functions could be done without a formal union. Non-tariff trade, standardisation certainly. Scientific research too. The big difference is control of borders to allow free movement and that is where it becomes overtly political.

    From the view of a Lincolnshire peasant with a low-skill base, what are the advantages of the EU's determination to open borders? He can head to Rumania or Poland to pick potatoes and compete with the locals for a job paying pennies. The disadvantages? Thousands of Poles, Lithuanians and Rumanians can compete for a job with the UK locals for what seems a fortune to the newcomers. Of course, the peasant will vote Leave - it's in his own interests

    From the view of a highly paid London lawyer with a holiday home in Hungary (just an example), he has even more employment options in Europe. He has access to cheap labour in the UK - plumbers, hairdressers etc. Of course, he will vote Remain - it's in his own interests.

    Yet only one section are criticised for being stupid and voting in their own interests.

    Isn't it a fact of life that in a democracy, that is what most people do?

    Racism and Sovereignty merely muddy the waters.


    What is certainly true is the EU produced many more losers than winners in the UK -- hence the LEAVE vote.

    Big, big winners were the top universities -- hence Cambridge, Oxford, London, Edinburgh were hugely for REMAIN.

  • isam said:

    @SouthamObserver

    A similar case caused Trevor Phillips to reassess his entire worldview

    "Phillips and a Muslim former senior Met officer agreed that the police’s reluctance to use racial profiling arose from an attitude which was basically: “OK, maybe you’d catch more criminals, but they might think we’re a bit racist.”

    Tragically and unforgivably, that same attitude led to the death of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie. Multiple explanations were offered by experts for the child’s 128 separate injuries. Any explanation would do, except the real one, which is that her Ivory Coast guardians were cruel, superstitious brutes. As Phillips admits, pretty much everyone who could have saved Victoria “was walking on eggshells”. Thus, the creed of multiculturalism, which was designed to promote racial equality, caused a little girl to be murdered because white people were too embarrassed to accuse her black torturers. Marvellous, eh?

    Like many people faced with inconvenient truths, I thought if I sat on them long enough they’d go away,” says Phillips"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11479761/We-must-listen-to-Trevor-Phillips-and-his-inconvenient-truths-about-race.html

    This is a good listen

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b078hlsz

    I think that's entirely fair. As I have said on here before PC had a big role in the failures in Rotherham and elsewhere, and the left has to take that on the chin. It gave wicked people a shield to hide behind and lazy people who wanted a quiet life an excuse to do nothing. This was the problem, not ignoring Nick Griffin.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715

    PlatoSaid said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.

    The spate of instant psychiatric diagnoses whilst tasering men trying to behead other people last year doesn't fill one with confidence in the authorities to be quite as honest as they should be about such matters.

    The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?
    Rotherham social services, plus Council members, plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?

    It was not unreasonable to ignore unsubstantiated claims made by white supremacists with a long track record of lying. The disgrace was to ignore and/or underplay the Times investigation and the testimony of victims and whistleblowers.

    It turned out to be unreasonable.



    It turned out to be wrong, not unreasonable. In a world of finite resources it's hard to justify following up on claims made by avowed white supremacists and holocaust deniers. It was wrong, though, not to follow up on what was said by far more credible sources.

    OK

    You only follow up on things put forward by people who share your views.

    While I don't endorse BNP etc, I think the logic of your statement leads to a nasty dictatorial intolerant outcome.

    No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and youemerged.

    Oh, I get it.

    You follow up on accusations of child abuse from 'Nick'

    That went well.

    You are putting a filter on that has a political element where it does not belong.

    I'm off. Moving house on Monday, stuff to do.

    Nope - I just believe it is reasonable to treat racially-charged claims made by avowed white supremacists and holicaust deniers with a degree of scepticism. You clearly don't. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

    And your silly hyperbole adds no credibility to your position.
    There’s an old story about 'crying wolf' that seems apposite.

    Nick Griffin and Rotherham is the perfect example.

    To be fair, too, crooks and cruel people don’t have to be white. Or any other skin colour.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited January 2017
    isam said:

    isam said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.

    .

    Rotherham social services, plus Council members, plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?

    It was not unreasonable to ignore unsubstantiated claims made by white supremacists with a long track record of lying. The disgrace was to ignore and/or underplay the Times investigation and the testimony of victims and whistleblowers.

    It turned out to be unreasonable.

    If you put all those with long track records of lying on ignore, we will be short of action on the words of politicians, police and man utd supporters to name a few.

    It turned out sources.




    It's probably worth a look on a risk/reward basis, especially when they turn out to be correct to the power of 1,4000

    A stopped clock is right a couple of times a day. The shame of Rotherham is not that a white supremacist holocaust denier was ignored, but that far more credible sources were. Indeed, Griffin's involvement gave wicked people cover.

    No, the shame of it is that people put political correctness in front of children's lives, and ignoring Nick Griffin was part of that.

    Sorry, you seem reasonable, but it cant be forgotten how enthusiastic you were to believe the Sun "blacked up" Gina Miller. It is obvious your prejudices sometimes come before investigation of the facts. Fair enough on here, it doesn't matter, but the Police shouldn't be like that.
    Eh? Political correctness? Well, maybe to a point, but that's hardly the full tale.

    It's about credibility, as SO has stated several times. If David Icke popped up and said there was a conspiracy at the home office (say) to protect MPs from police scrutiny, you'd give it much, much less credibility than if Michael Crick said the same thing. In fact, you'd just ignore it.

    Repeated attacks by the PB alt-right* on SO don't change the fact that he;s pretty much bang on the money in this case (and has been far more polite about it than I would have been).

    *I don't actually believe you qualify, isam, as you are far too reasonable and nuanced for that.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr Observer,

    "How many peasants are there in Lincolnshire?"

    Depends on your definition. Many years ago, I worked for a few months in a fertilizer factory (long gone) in Boston. One of the blokes was always called "Wet Day Bob". I asked why?

    It seems he lived in Kirton Holme (near Boston) and his wife was a little old-fashioned even then. He had a 'fancy woman' in Boston. so his wage packet was often down a little. He used to tell his wife that he'd had a wet day.

    She never realised that factories don't stop for rain.

    It's a vibrant, modern place now of course, even Kirton Holme.
  • PlatoSaid said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.

    The spate of instant psychiatric diagnoses whilst tasering men trying to behead other people last year doesn't fill one with confidence in the authorities to be quite as honest as they should be about such matters.

    The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?

    It was not unreasonable to ignore unsubstantiated claims made by white supremacists with a long track record of lying. The disgrace was to ignore and/or underplay the Times investigation and the testimony of victims and whistleblowers.

    It turned out to be unreasonable.



    It turned out to be wrong, not unreasonable. In a world of finite resources it's hard to justify following up on claims made by avowed white supremacists and holocaust deniers. It was wrong, though, not to follow up on what was said by far more credible sources.

    OK

    You only follow up on things put forward by people who share your views.

    While I don't endorse BNP etc, I think the logic of your statement leads to a nasty dictatorial intolerant outcome.

    No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and youemerged.

    Oh, I get it.

    You follow up on accusations of child abuse from 'Nick'

    That went well.

    You are putting a filter on that has a political element where it does not belong.

    I'm off. Moving house on Monday, stuff to do.

    Nope - I just believe it is reasonable to treat racially-charged claims made by avowed white supremacists and holicaust deniers with a degree of scepticism. You clearly don't. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

    And your silly hyperbole adds no credibility to your position.
    There’s an old story about 'crying wolf' that seems apposite.

    Nick Griffin and Rotherham is the perfect example.

    To be fair, too, crooks and cruel people don’t have to be white. Or any other skin colour.

    They do have to have a skin colour ;-)

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    CD13 said:

    Mr Observer,

    "How many peasants are there in Lincolnshire?"

    Depends on your definition. Many years ago, I worked for a few months in a fertilizer factory (long gone) in Boston. One of the blokes was always called "Wet Day Bob". I asked why?

    It seems he lived in Kirton Holme (near Boston) and his wife was a little old-fashioned even then. He had a 'fancy woman' in Boston. so his wage packet was often down a little. He used to tell his wife that he'd had a wet day.

    She never realised that factories don't stop for rain.

    It's a vibrant, modern place now of course, even Kirton Holme.

    Not sure about the vibrant, modern. Know someone in that area who supplements his income with rough shooting .....pigeons and such ..... and roadkill.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042

    CD13 said:

    Mr Observer,

    "How many peasants are there in Lincolnshire?"

    Depends on your definition. Many years ago, I worked for a few months in a fertilizer factory (long gone) in Boston. One of the blokes was always called "Wet Day Bob". I asked why?

    It seems he lived in Kirton Holme (near Boston) and his wife was a little old-fashioned even then. He had a 'fancy woman' in Boston. so his wage packet was often down a little. He used to tell his wife that he'd had a wet day.

    She never realised that factories don't stop for rain.

    It's a vibrant, modern place now of course, even Kirton Holme.

    Not sure about the vibrant, modern. Know someone in that area who supplements his income with rough shooting .....pigeons and such ..... and roadkill.
    Shooting road-kill seems excessive.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    edited January 2017
    PlatoSaid said:



    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.

    I think being a white supremacist requires a level of political and intellectual coherence that is simply beyond Trumputin. He's a nauseating self-publicist with the IQ of a child who may occasionally say racist things to get attention but he's not really adhered to the political and philosophical program behind white supremacy.
  • Trump just has to put a tax on cash remitted to Mexico by Mexicans working in the USA to collect money for the wall.
  • You think Mexico is going to win in a game of hardball with Trump ?
  • The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.

    I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.
  • isam said:

    @nigel4england is also banned and would like to come back.. any chance @MikeSmithson

    Liberals favour as much free speech as possible, accepting that there are boundaries though.

    Liberals also believe in redemption.
  • You think Mexico is going to win in a game of hardball with Trump ?

    The wall will not be hardball.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,957
    I guess the guys who got jobs in the Ford plant in Michigan - in the plant now not going to Mexico - will be happy for their taxes to go to build that wall. Taxes the US wouldn't otherwise have had.

    That is how Mexico is going to pay for "that fucken wall", former President Quesada.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Dura_Ace said:

    PlatoSaid said:



    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.

    I think being a white supremacist requires a level of political and intellectual coherence that is simply beyond Trumputin. He's a nauseating self-publicist with the IQ of a child who may occasionally say racist things to get attention but he's not really adhered to the political and philosophical program behind white supremacy.
    And it's silly posts like this that add nothing to your credibility either.

    He's outsmarted all the GOP, beat Hillary, and about to be POTUS.

    He's also married to a trophy wife, has unimaginable wealth and a family that many others wish they had.

    If that's a role model for stupidity - bring it on.
  • UK productivity continues to stagnate:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/labourproductivity/timeseries/lzvb/prdy

    It has increased by a grand total of 1.8% during the last six years ie during the time of the 'near perfect Chancellor'.

    There was a time when an annual 1.8% increase would have been on the low side but the UK hasn't had productivity growth of over 2% in any year since 2003.

    I wonder was there any changes to the UK workforce from 2004 onwards which might have had a negative effect on productivity ?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Jonathan said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Its also a fact that even had they reacted to the Times investigation (2012), that ignoring Griffin in 2004 would have resulted in another 8 years of child abuse. Perhaps that is a price worth paying to ignore people with unsavory views, you tell me ?

    Griffin was not the only source in 2004.

    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.

    Nope - I have said he has no problem in associating with white supremacists, appointing them to positions of responsibility and in courting their votes.

    Trump is a Trump supremacist. I guess that makes him possibly an orange supremacist.

    Yep, Trump is interested in Trump and nothing else.

    you could say the same about Tony Blair
  • Just how did a man born into extreme wealth get the finance to build a large property portfolio? And what on earth makes him attractive to much younger women?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670
    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    Given the recent problems with Vanilla, I wonder if these 'bans' are just problems with the system?

    I could not post for several weeks recently due to quote button missing on both versions of site.

    PS: Perhaps I was on the naughty step again mind you and it was just co-incidence.
    We were all quoteless for a time. Thankfully we had a bit of a (late) Christmas miracle!
    Must have been random as well Rob , as I was viewing for at least two weeks where plenty others were managing to post but I could not.
  • Jonathan said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Its also a fact that even had they reacted to the Times investigation (2012), that ignoring Griffin in 2004 would have resulted in another 8 years of child abuse. Perhaps that is a price worth paying to ignore people with unsavory views, you tell me ?

    Griffin was not the only source in 2004.

    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.

    Nope - I have said he has no problem in associating with white supremacists, appointing them to positions of responsibility and in courting their votes.

    Trump is a Trump supremacist. I guess that makes him possibly an orange supremacist.

    Yep, Trump is interested in Trump and nothing else.

    you could say the same about Tony Blair

    Maybe now, but getting involved in the Labour party in the 1980s was not the act of someone only interested in himself, believe me!

  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.

    I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.

    Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,957
    Dura_Ace said:

    PlatoSaid said:



    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.

    I think being a white supremacist requires a level of political and intellectual coherence that is simply beyond Trumputin. He's a nauseating self-publicist with the IQ of a child who may occasionally say racist things to get attention but he's not really adhered to the political and philosophical program behind white supremacy.
    Really? "Trumputin"??

    Ra, ra.....
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Jonathan said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Its also a fact that even had they reacted to the Times investigation (2012), that ignoring Griffin in 2004 would have resulted in another 8 years of child abuse. Perhaps that is a price worth paying to ignore people with unsavory views, you tell me ?

    Griffin was not the only source in 2004.

    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.

    Nope - I have said he has no problem in associating with white supremacists, appointing them to positions of responsibility and in courting their votes.

    Trump is a Trump supremacist. I guess that makes him possibly an orange supremacist.

    Yep, Trump is interested in Trump and nothing else.

    you could say the same about Tony Blair

    Maybe now, but getting involved in the Labour party in the 1980s was not the act of someone only interested in himself, believe me!

    Blair has always been abour Blair

    it's just taken longer for people to realise it than Trump who's gifted with less guile
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,876
    edited January 2017
    PlatoSaid said:

    The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.

    I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.

    Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.

    Could not agree more. But alt-righters do it all the time.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670

    Jonathan said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Its also a fact that even had they reacted to the Times investigation (2012), that ignoring Griffin in 2004 would have resulted in another 8 years of child abuse. Perhaps that is a price worth paying to ignore people with unsavory views, you tell me ?

    Griffin was not the only source in 2004.

    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.

    Nope - I have said he has no problem in associating with white supremacists, appointing them to positions of responsibility and in courting their votes.

    Trump is a Trump supremacist. I guess that makes him possibly an orange supremacist.

    Yep, Trump is interested in Trump and nothing else.

    you could say the same about Tony Blair

    Maybe now, but getting involved in the Labour party in the 1980s was not the act of someone only interested in himself, believe me!

    Blair has always been abour Blair

    it's just taken longer for people to realise it than Trump who's gifted with less guile
    Alan, maybe he is just less fake than Blair and happy to show his true self. Just confident.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited January 2017
    May took over 6 years after the Tory government came to power so that is really the equivalent of Major taking over in 1985 or Brown taking over in 2003 as Cameron's referendum defeat forced him out much earlier than he would like, as a result voters are less tired of the government than they were in 1990/1991 or 2007/2008 so her bounce could last for longer. I doubt she will call an election though after March, once she has triggered Article 50 she will want to be absolutely focused on the Brexit negotiations and not distracted by an election which could put her majority at risk
  • Jonathan said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Its also a fact that even had they reacted to the Times investigation (2012), that ignoring Griffin in 2004 would have resulted in another 8 years of child abuse. Perhaps that is a price worth paying to ignore people with unsavory views, you tell me ?

    Griffin was not the only source in 2004.

    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.

    Nope - I have said he has no problem in associating with white supremacists, appointing them to positions of responsibility and in courting their votes.

    Trump is a Trump supremacist. I guess that makes him possibly an orange supremacist.

    Yep, Trump is interested in Trump and nothing else.

    you could say the same about Tony Blair

    Maybe now, but getting involved in the Labour party in the 1980s was not the act of someone only interested in himself, believe me!

    Blair has always been abour Blair

    it's just taken longer for people to realise it than Trump who's gifted with less guile

    Maybe - not sure I see the evidence for it.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761
    edited January 2017

    Dura_Ace said:

    PlatoSaid said:



    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.

    I think being a white supremacist requires a level of political and intellectual coherence that is simply beyond Trumputin. He's a nauseating self-publicist with the IQ of a child who may occasionally say racist things to get attention but he's not really adhered to the political and philosophical program behind white supremacy.
    Really? "Trumputin"??

    Ra, ra.....
    The irony of someone accusing Trump of having the IQ of a child and using "Trumputin" in the same post.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    malcolmg said:

    Jonathan said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Its also a fact that even had they reacted to the Times investigation (2012), that ignoring Griffin in 2004 would have resulted in another 8 years of child abuse. Perhaps that is a price worth paying to ignore people with unsavory views, you tell me ?

    Griffin was not the only source in 2004.

    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.

    Nope - I have said he has no problem in associating with white supremacists, appointing them to positions of responsibility and in courting their votes.

    Trump is a Trump supremacist. I guess that makes him possibly an orange supremacist.

    Yep, Trump is interested in Trump and nothing else.

    you could say the same about Tony Blair

    Maybe now, but getting involved in the Labour party in the 1980s was not the act of someone only interested in himself, believe me!

    Blair has always been abour Blair

    it's just taken longer for people to realise it than Trump who's gifted with less guile
    Alan, maybe he is just less fake than Blair and happy to show his true self. Just confident.
    Quite so. He has the pile of dosh behind him while taking office whereas Blair went in to office to get the pile of dosh
  • Its a measure of how bad the state Labour is in that I often have to google to find out who their shadow ministers are.

    I suspect Kate Osamor (unsurprisingly a London MP) will find herself on the wrong side of public opinion in opposing the removal of overseas aid payments to the Ethiopian 'Spice Girls'.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38538631
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    Protectionism - let's call it what is - seems to be working out very well for Trump and is definitely bad for Mexico. Whether it's good or bad for America is a genuinely open question. It depends on whether the US gets more from having an international system or more from leveraging its top dog weight.

    Protectionism is bad for the UK, however, but relatively less bad than for Mexico, reflecting the relative amounts of clout we have compared with the US and Mexico and how we can exercise the clout we do have. For that reason, the EU is good for the UK and leaving it is bad.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    PlatoSaid said:



    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.

    I think being a white supremacist requires a level of political and intellectual coherence that is simply beyond Trumputin. He's a nauseating self-publicist with the IQ of a child who may occasionally say racist things to get attention but he's not really adhered to the political and philosophical program behind white supremacy.
    Really? "Trumputin"??

    Ra, ra.....
    The irony of someone accusing Trump of having the IQ of a child and using "Trumputin" in the same post.
    On that basis New York =Trumpton :-)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,761

    Just how did a man born into extreme wealth get the finance to build a large property portfolio? And what on earth makes him attractive to much younger women?

    Deep and meaningful questions from you this morning Southam.
  • DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    PlatoSaid said:



    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.

    I think being a white supremacist requires a level of political and intellectual coherence that is simply beyond Trumputin. He's a nauseating self-publicist with the IQ of a child who may occasionally say racist things to get attention but he's not really adhered to the political and philosophical program behind white supremacy.
    Really? "Trumputin"??

    Ra, ra.....
    The irony of someone accusing Trump of having the IQ of a child and using "Trumputin" in the same post.
    Especially as IQ is a measure of intelligence and so a child can have as high a score as they do as an adult.
  • UK productivity continues to stagnate:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/labourproductivity/timeseries/lzvb/prdy

    It has increased by a grand total of 1.8% during the last six years ie during the time of the 'near perfect Chancellor'.

    There was a time when an annual 1.8% increase would have been on the low side but the UK hasn't had productivity growth of over 2% in any year since 2003.

    I wonder was there any changes to the UK workforce from 2004 onwards which might have had a negative effect on productivity ?

    Ten years of no growth in UK productivity means ten years of no growth in UK wealth.

    Neither companies or the public sector can afford much of an increase in wages without growth in productivity.

    My own theory in that since the banking and oil industries jave historically added most value per employee, the relative decline in banking and the fall in the oil price have led to much of the failure of productivity figures to grow. A fall in banking and oil productivity will have offset improved productivity elsewhere.

    Many of the easy gains in productivity from using the internet will have been achieved by 2006 but we shouild be seeeing a second wave of improvements by now.

    Note that immigration has not increased GDP per head and the easy availability of labour may have held back investment in automation.

    I am predicting productivity will start to grow again as oil prices recover, as banking recovers and as immigration reduces.
  • Its a measure of how bad the state Labour is in that I often have to google to find out who their shadow ministers are.

    I suspect Kate Osamor (unsurprisingly a London MP) will find herself on the wrong side of public opinion in opposing the removal of overseas aid payments to the Ethiopian 'Spice Girls'.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38538631

    The only form of Overseas Aid that public opinion supports is disaster relief. This has been true ever since OA started in the 1960s.

  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    PlatoSaid said:



    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.

    I think being a white supremacist requires a level of political and intellectual coherence that is simply beyond Trumputin. He's a nauseating self-publicist with the IQ of a child who may occasionally say racist things to get attention but he's not really adhered to the political and philosophical program behind white supremacy.
    Really? "Trumputin"??

    Ra, ra.....
    The irony of someone accusing Trump of having the IQ of a child and using "Trumputin" in the same post.
    Especially as IQ is a measure of intelligence and so a child can have as high a score as they do as an adult.
    I find the rubbishing of Trump for things that are patently incorrect beyond silly. Knock him for reasons that make some sense - not he's the wrong sort of billionaire/isn't one really, or stupid, white supremacist/Hitler or whatever.

    It's pathetic prejudice/uber confirmation bias, not an argument. He's 70 FFS - he's leaving it very late to use the office of POTUS to enrich himself, or become Adolf or unsuccessful in life. He's kept his trophy wife//built a loyal family for a reason. Denying this is true is lying to oneself - because some want it to be true.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    As I've said before, at some point Brexit has to mean something more that Brexit, and that will mean someone is disappointed.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    PlatoSaid said:

    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    PlatoSaid said:



    You've repeatedly called Trump a white supremacist - it's just silly.

    I think being a white supremacist requires a level of political and intellectual coherence that is simply beyond Trumputin. He's a nauseating self-publicist with the IQ of a child who may occasionally say racist things to get attention but he's not really adhered to the political and philosophical program behind white supremacy.
    Really? "Trumputin"??

    Ra, ra.....
    The irony of someone accusing Trump of having the IQ of a child and using "Trumputin" in the same post.
    Especially as IQ is a measure of intelligence and so a child can have as high a score as they do as an adult.
    I find the rubbishing of Trump for things that are patently incorrect beyond silly. Knock him for reasons that make some sense - not he's the wrong sort of billionaire/isn't one really, or stupid, white supremacist/Hitler or whatever.

    It's pathetic prejudice/uber confirmation bias, not an argument. He's 70 FFS - he's leaving it very late to use the office of POTUS to enrich himself, or become Adolf or unsuccessful in life. He's kept his trophy wife//built a loyal family for a reason. Denying this is true is lying to oneself - because some want it to be true.
    He's not a white nationalist, but he's #1 among white nationalists.... :lol:

    https://youtu.be/1o6-bi3jlxk
  • UK productivity continues to stagnate:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/labourproductivity/timeseries/lzvb/prdy

    It has increased by a grand total of 1.8% during the last six years ie during the time of the 'near perfect Chancellor'.

    There was a time when an annual 1.8% increase would have been on the low side but the UK hasn't had productivity growth of over 2% in any year since 2003.

    I wonder was there any changes to the UK workforce from 2004 onwards which might have had a negative effect on productivity ?

    Ten years of no growth in UK productivity means ten years of no growth in UK wealth.

    Neither companies or the public sector can afford much of an increase in wages without growth in productivity.

    My own theory in that since the banking and oil industries jave historically added most value per employee, the relative decline in banking and the fall in the oil price have led to much of the failure of productivity figures to grow. A fall in banking and oil productivity will have offset improved productivity elsewhere.

    Many of the easy gains in productivity from using the internet will have been achieved by 2006 but we shouild be seeeing a second wave of improvements by now.

    Note that immigration has not increased GDP per head and the easy availability of labour may have held back investment in automation.

    I am predicting productivity will start to grow again as oil prices recover, as banking recovers and as immigration reduces.
    I do wonder if increasing inequality also has a negative effect on productivity.

    Traditionally productivity improvements have led to higher pay but if the gains from productivity improvements are concentrated among the '1%' then what incentive does the average person have to increase their own productivity.

    A trillion pounds of government borrowing pumped into the economy will also have had a negative effect on productivity by reducing the need for continuous improvement.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    PlatoSaid said:

    The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.

    I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.

    Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
    The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.

    We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.

    *maybe we should call them the alt-right-on ;)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    HYUFD said:

    May took over 6 years after the Tory government came to power so that is really the equivalent of Major taking over in 1985 or Brown taking over in 2003 as Cameron's referendum defeat forced him out much earlier than he would like, as a result voters are less tired of the government than they were in 1990/1991 or 2007/2008 so her bounce could last for longer. I doubt she will call an election though after March, once she has triggered Article 50 she will want to be absolutely focused on the Brexit negotiations and not distracted by an election which could put her majority at risk

    The first 5 years were a coalition and that had a significant impact so this is not 6 years into government in the same way. She took over because one of Cameron's flagship policies failed just a year after taking over with a majority. In your analogies it's more like Thatcher being forced out over the 1980 recession or Blair over one of the Mandelson resignations.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,543
    edited January 2017

    UK productivity continues to stagnate:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/labourproductivity/timeseries/lzvb/prdy

    It has increased by a grand total of 1.8% during the last six years ie during the time of the 'near perfect Chancellor'.

    There was a time when an annual 1.8% increase would have been on the low side but the UK hasn't had productivity growth of over 2% in any year since 2003.

    I wonder was there any changes to the UK workforce from 2004 onwards which might have had a negative effect on productivity ?

    To some extent lower productivity in the UK compared with our peers is the other side of the coin from the higher employment levels we enjoy. The major trend since 2000 is the displacement of relatively highly paid specialist trades by low margin service industries, helped by easy going employment rules. I don't think immigration of itself makes much difference. Academic studies show a very marginal depression on wages *, but equally immigration might make those industries possible.

    Brexit is already seeing a cut back in investment in the UK, and that is the main way to boost productivity. Increasing minimum wages will force productivity increases but at the probable cost of higher unemployment.

    * Edit: more precisely the studies show immigrants are underpaid for their skill levels, balancing out a higher wages than would otherwise be for native born. ie immigrants are the productive ones.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,957

    HYUFD said:

    May took over 6 years after the Tory government came to power so that is really the equivalent of Major taking over in 1985 or Brown taking over in 2003 as Cameron's referendum defeat forced him out much earlier than he would like, as a result voters are less tired of the government than they were in 1990/1991 or 2007/2008 so her bounce could last for longer. I doubt she will call an election though after March, once she has triggered Article 50 she will want to be absolutely focused on the Brexit negotiations and not distracted by an election which could put her majority at risk

    The first 5 years were a coalition and that had a significant impact so this is not 6 years into government in the same way. She took over because one of Cameron's flagship policies failed just a year after taking over with a majority. In your analogies it's more like Thatcher being forced out over the 1980 recession or Blair over one of the Mandelson resignations.
    Or Bernie's million.....which should have seen off Blair in his first few months, if our press didn't think they had their very own Camelot.

    One of the great counter-factuals - Brown takes over from a disgraced Blair in late 1997. How different would the world have looked? No 13 years of Labour? No Iraq war?
  • Off Topic

    The good thing about betting with Betfair is that they're sometimes so incredibly slow in settling their markets (in sharp contrast to their sister company Paddy Power) that one occasionally gets a nice surprise. Like yesterday, when they finally got around to settling bets on the U.S. election turnout winning band of 58% - 62%. So against the odds, there's food on the PfP table this weekend.
  • UK productivity continues to stagnate:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/labourproductivity/timeseries/lzvb/prdy

    It has increased by a grand total of 1.8% during the last six years ie during the time of the 'near perfect Chancellor'.

    There was a time when an annual 1.8% increase would have been on the low side but the UK hasn't had productivity growth of over 2% in any year since 2003.

    I wonder was there any changes to the UK workforce from 2004 onwards which might have had a negative effect on productivity ?

    I think productivity has been a rather meaningless in recent years due to the very disruptive labour market. In recent years for instance there has been a big increase in the participation rate. Those who are most productive should already have been working so ceteris paribus the productivity rate could go down. The fact it's marginally gone up isn't entirely bad news.

    However there should be swings and roundabouts. Using that logic there could and perhaps should have been times when productivity has artificially gone up when really it hasn't. That's not happened. It's like a decade of busts without ever getting the boom.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    edited January 2017
  • PlatoSaid said:

    The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.

    I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.

    Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
    The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.

    We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.

    *maybe we should call them the alt-right-on ;)
    We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    May took over 6 years after the Tory government came to power so that is really the equivalent of Major taking over in 1985 or Brown taking over in 2003 as Cameron's referendum defeat forced him out much earlier than he would like, as a result voters are less tired of the government than they were in 1990/1991 or 2007/2008 so her bounce could last for longer. I doubt she will call an election though after March, once she has triggered Article 50 she will want to be absolutely focused on the Brexit negotiations and not distracted by an election which could put her majority at risk

    The first 5 years were a coalition and that had a significant impact so this is not 6 years into government in the same way. She took over because one of Cameron's flagship policies failed just a year after taking over with a majority. In your analogies it's more like Thatcher being forced out over the 1980 recession or Blair over one of the Mandelson resignations.
    To the average voter it was a Tory-led Government with a Tory PM so the analogy holds, as evidenced by the trouncing of the LDs in 2015 with the mass defection of their centre-left supporters. Losing a referendum on a key constitutional matter is not the same as a recession, see also Renzi's resignation in Italy. The comparison of Blair resigning over the Mandelson resignations does not really hold either, a better comparison would be Blair losing the vote on the Iraq War in 2003 and resigning to be replaced by Brown, on such a scenario Brown would likely have beaten Howard in the 2005 general election and had 7 years at No10 rather than just 3
  • PlatoSaid said:

    The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.

    I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.

    Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
    The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.

    We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.

    *maybe we should call them the alt-right-on ;)
    We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
    "Certain people" is too easy. Name names or shut up.
  • philiph said:

    philiph said:

    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Palmer, assuming the German police are telling the truth.

    The spate of instant psychiatric diagnoses whilst tasering men trying to behead other people last year doesn't fill one with confidence in the authorities to be quite as honest as they should be about such matters.

    The local newspaper plus the police plus the Justice Minister plus the right-wing tabloid Bild-Zeitung on one side, Breitbart on the other. Tough choice?
    Rotherham social services, plus Council members, plus SY Police on one side, Nick Griffin and the BNP on the other. Tough choice?

    It was not unreasonable to ignore unsubstantiated claims made by white supremacists with a long track record of lying. The disgrace was to ignore and/or underplay the Times investigation and the testimony of victims and whistleblowers.

    It turned out to be unreasonable.

    If you put all those with long track records of lying on ignore, we will be short of action on the words of politicians, police and man utd supporters to name a few.

    It turned out to be wrong, not unreasonable. In a world of finite resources it's hard to justify following up on claims made by avowed white supremacists and holocaust deniers. It was wrong, though, not to follow up on what was said by far more credible sources.

    OK

    You only follow up on things put forward by people who share your views.

    While I don't endorse BNP etc, I think the logic of your statement leads to a nasty dictatorial intolerant outcome.

    No, you follow up on stories from credible sources and you make a judgement on what is credible or not. White supremacists with long track records of spreading lies on issues such as holocaust denial are inevitably going to struggle to be taken seriously. What was outrageous was how the story was downplayed when far more credible sources emerged.

    So what you are telling us is if Griffin and his cronies were the only source on Rotherham then no follow up should have been required and the raping could have continued without any uncomfortable and social decisive questions being asked ? Its a view I suppose.
    Ann Cryer Labour MP for Keighley brought the subject up around the same time as Nick Griffin and still nothing was done.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,722

    PlatoSaid said:

    The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.

    I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.

    Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
    The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.

    We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.

    *maybe we should call them the alt-right-on ;)
    We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
    We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be used
  • PlatoSaid said:

    The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.

    I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.

    Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
    The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.

    We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.

    *maybe we should call them the alt-right-on ;)
    We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
    "Certain people" is too easy. Name names or shut up.
    I didn't want to be rude by naming names especially if they're not here to defend themselves. I can do if you really want, I think many people will read that and think of a name but I don't personally like the idea of "name and shame" do you REALLY want names to be named?
  • isam said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    The tragedy of Rotherham is that the evidence was there, the victims were there, witnesses were there. All came forward and got ignored.

    I couldn't give less of a s##t that Nick Griffin got ignored too. The victims, the witnesses and the evidence should not have been. If people had done their damned jobs and listened to the victims then Griffin would be irrelevant as he should have been.

    Well said, bringing up Griffin is pathetic - it just underlines the horror.
    The point isn't about Griffin per se, the point is that having publicly associated himself with the story the right-on* brigade then had a blind spot because they didnt want to bring themselves to agree with him about something.

    We see it happen here all the time, as soon as someone seen as beyond the pale (possibly for very valid reasons) associates themselves with something, a fear of guilt-by-association takes over and everyone runs in the other direction, or unaccountably becomes very interested in squirrels.

    *maybe we should call them the alt-right-on ;)
    We saw that in the referendum with certain people still arguing that anyone who voted Leave is guilty for associating with Farage etc despite Farage etc not even being on the actual Leave campaign. Merely reaching the same decision in a binary choice is enough to make you guilty in their eyes.
    We also see people trying to pin the £350m for the NHS thing on Farage, when I think he was the only one saying it shouldn't be used
    Indeed he was because it was the official leave campaign that used that figure not his leave campaign. That's very true.
This discussion has been closed.