The UK Politics Thread [Wot did Jez do now...]

[ItalAussie]

He moans about social liberalism and laments the decline of Christianity as the centre of national life. His ex-Marxism just marks (arf) him out as somebody prone to believing crap.

It's interesting to see his fan club to be honest, because he would argue that his Christianity is the very center of his personal philosophy, which is pivotal to the rationale of every aspect of his worldview and political stances.

[phonics]

Absolutely drowning in opinion on this speech but can't find anywhere to actually read it.

[Henry]

I'd like to know what centre ground Cameron has claimed. A lot of self-congratulatory noise and not much substance to that claim.

[Lewis]

That's the centre ground isn't it?

[Toby]

I was very much making the argument suggested in my very first post. Unless you were unable to deduce that my initial inference was that more immigration = more rape. I didn't make it that hard for even you to understand. But now that is crystal clear, perhaps you can address the uncomfortable truth? Or are you going to repeat your disingenuous self again?

And as I've said already, my initial post was never specifically to disagree with that premise, but to put forward the other factors for what are on the face of it some shocking numbers.

You were sparring for an argument and clearly leaped in to it before checking you'd actually understood what was happening, as you so often do.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I'd like to know what centre ground Cameron has claimed. A lot of self-congratulatory noise and not much substance to that claim.

He spent most of it talking about equality. He also SNUBBED Theresa May.

[phonics]

651710605334827008

He's just a load of hot air.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Whereas the left...

[Henry]

He spent most of it talking about equality.

No he didn't.

[phonics]

Whereas the left...

It was a joke about a man saying the word fart. Don't be too precious. The Ukipper in you is showing.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Apologies, my phone isn't showing whatever link there presumably is. You're normally the king of dfs in this thread.

[Boydy]

The king of dfs?

[QE Harold Flair]

He moans about social liberalism and laments the decline of Christianity as the centre of national life. His ex-Marxism just marks (arf) him out as somebody prone to believing crap.

You say 'moan', I say legitimately criticises. In his early years he would agree with you. I agree with him that most people tend to believe all manner of wrong things in their youth which most grow out of. What it does show is a willingness to change one's mind.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's interesting to see his fan club to be honest, because he would argue that his Christianity is the very center of his personal philosophy, which is pivotal to the rationale of every aspect of his worldview and political stances.

Yes, and one I disagree with him on. He's not right about everything, but he's right that modern Christian values are a damn sight better than the mongoloid ones we have incoming. Of course Christianity has been forced to adapt to secular reasoning over a long period.

[phonics]

Apologies, my phone isn't showing whatever link there presumably is.

Are you on the Metro mobile skin? It should show now.

[QE Harold Flair]

And as I've said already, my initial post was never specifically to disagree with that premise, but to put forward the other factors for what are on the face of it some shocking numbers.

You were sparring for an argument and clearly leaped in to it before checking you'd actually understood what was happening, as you so often do.

By pointing out that there may have been other factors too you were trying to water it down at the very least. Otherwise why bother responding to it? But okay if your only point was that there may have been other factors which also made the rape cases rise, great! You can leave now. The main factor is pretty clear, which is backed up by swathes of other evidence both from within Sweden and elsewhere.

[Lewis]

You say 'moan', I say legitimately criticises. In his early years he would agree with you. I agree with him that most people tend to believe all manner of wrong things in their youth which most grow out of. What it does show is a willingness to change one's mind.

I say moans because in The Abolition of Britain he argues that we've hit the skids because the Church of England is no longer over-bearing and repressive and because we had the sexual revolution. Which bits of that 'conservatism' would you like to see return?

It's actually not changing his mind. It's the same morally certain collectivism. He's just found a slightly less stupid version of it. Christopher Hitchens was the same, but his Trotskyism (or rather anti-Stalinism as far as I understand it) was defined by its opposition to totalitarianism, which is how he seamlessly turned against religion.

[QE Harold Flair]

I say moans because in The Abolition of Britain he argues that we've hit the skids because the Church of England is no longer over-bearing and repressive and because we had the sexual revolution. Which bits of that 'conservatism' would you like to see return?

It's actually not changing his mind. It's the same morally certain collectivism. He's just found a slightly less stupid version of it. Christopher Hitchens was the same, but his Trotskyism (or rather anti-Stalinism as far as I understand it) was defined by its opposition to totalitarianism, which is how he seamlessly turned against religion.

Ah well that's your interpretation since I'm fairly sure he didn't ask for the church to repress or be overbearing upon anyone. He argues that the death penalty should be re-introduced and that drug use is punished instead of endlessly trying to 'rehabilitate' people who choose to do wrong things. Just look at the Conservatives today - rattling on about equality, sexism and racism. Not bad in itself, but not what one might expect a traditional Conservative party to be focusing on.

And yes, it is him changing his mind - something I've seen him say himself more than once.

[Toby]

By pointing out that there may have been other factors too you were trying to water it down at the very least. Otherwise why bother responding to it? But okay if your only point was that there may have been other factors which also made the rape cases rise, great! You can leave now. The main factor is pretty clear, which is backed up by swathes of other evidence both from within Sweden and elsewhere.

As I've said, I pointed out purely because anybody reading it would have thought, "Christ, that's a sharp rise" and may have been interested to also read about some factors behind it. That you're an overly defensive pleb with a victim complex about this sort of thing is the only reason it has been dragged out further than that.

[Lewis]

He thinks the Church of England has become pointless because, by embracing social liberalism, it doesn't act how it used to when it used to (according to its followers at least) sit at the centre of a stifling collective morality. If I was having a pop at the other Hitchens you would be claiming that the Church of England is repressive in its very existence and its expected adherence to the 'celestial dictator'.

The modern Conservative Party rattles on about those things as a means of talking about the shifting nature of self-advancement; the thing they've defined themselves by for about eighty years now. Which 'traditional' things would you like to return? No abortion? No gayness? The old restrictions on selling alcohol? Less television (another thing Hitchens slags off)? No easy access to divorce?

[QE Harold Flair]

He thinks the Church of England has become pointless because, by embracing social liberalism, it doesn't act how it used to when it used to (according to its followers at least) sit at the centre of a stifling collective morality. If I was having a pop at the other Hitchens you would be claiming that the Church of England is repressive in its very existence and its expected adherence to the 'celestial dictator'.

I don't think either brother is right about everything, you know. The Church of England is the opposite of repressive, it's a nothingness. The only part of it I dislike a lot is that is has representatives in the Lords. Otherwise, who cares.


The modern Conservative Party rattles on about those things as a means of talking about the shifting nature of self-advancement; the thing they've defined themselves by for about eighty years now. Which 'traditional' things would you like to return? No abortion? No gayness? The old restrictions on selling alcohol? Less television (another thing Hitchens slags off)? No easy access to divorce?

lol at that tenuous link. You could say that about just about anything they say or do.

[QE Harold Flair]

As I've said, I pointed out purely because anybody reading it would have thought, "Christ, that's a sharp rise" and may have been interested to also read about some factors behind it. That you're an overly defensive pleb with a victim complex about this sort of thing is the only reason it has been dragged out further than that.

Yes, it is a sharp rise, mostly explained by immigration and multiculturalism, as I keep pointing out. But you don't want that argument, because you know you can't explain away such obvious truths.

[Lewis]

I don't think either brother is right about everything, you know. The Church of England is the opposite of repressive, it's a nothingness. The only part of it I dislike a lot is that is has representatives in the Lords. Otherwise, who cares.

Its 'nothingness' is why he doesn't like it. He wants it to be substantial, and to have a significant presence in people's lives; that is to say be repressive. I expect you would care then.


lol at that tenuous link. You could say that about just about anything they say or do.

Not really. Equality of opportunity (tied in to sexism/racism) is pretty central to self-advancement. But whatever. Which bits of 'traditional' conservatism do you want to return?

[QE Harold Flair]

Its 'nothingness' is why he doesn't like it. He wants it to be substantial, and to have a significant presence in people's lives; that is to say be repressive. I expect you would care then.

I think you're making tenuous links again. It doesn't follow that it being a more substantial factor in the lives of believers would make it more repressive.



Not really. Equality of opportunity (tied in to sexism/racism) is pretty central to self-advancement. But whatever. Which bits of 'traditional' conservatism do you want to return?[/QUOTE]

[QE Harold Flair]

Not really. Equality of opportunity (tied in to sexism/racism) is pretty central to self-advancement. But whatever. Which bits of 'traditional' conservatism do you want to return?

Who would be against equality of opportunity? I'm not a Conservative and I don't want Conservatism.

[Toby]

Yes, it is a sharp rise, mostly explained by immigration and multiculturalism, as I keep pointing out. But you don't want that argument, because you know you can't explain away such obvious truths.

It isn't mostly explained by that, it is mostly explained by legislation changes in the mid-2000s and a attitude shift of revealing the scale of the problem.

It may be that there is an actual rise, rather than an apparent one due to this change, and it may be that that is caused by immigrants, but that isn't what your numbers show.

[QE Harold Flair]

It isn't mostly explained by that, it is mostly explained by legislation changes in the mid-2000s and a attitude shift of revealing the scale of the problem.

It may be that there is an actual rise, rather than an apparent one due to this change, and it may be that that is caused by immigrants, but that isn't what your numbers show.

Well I've backed up my claim with further evidence, you haven't.

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbJp8zxduWk

Nige letting rip today :thbup:

[Henry]

Has Harold actually read The Abolition of Britain, I wonder.

[Lewis]

I think you're making tenuous links again. It doesn't follow that it being a more substantial factor in the lives of believers would make it more repressive.

If the Church of England reverts back to having more and stricter rules for its followers to live by... Why is it you're against religion again?


Who would be against equality of opportunity? I'm not a Conservative and I don't want Conservatism.

What are you then? Because you're always quoting his pronouncements on conservatism (and the Conservatives not being right-wing) approvingly, and you were agreeing with his balls about the sexual revolution a few weeks ago.

[Toby]

Well I've backed up my claim with further evidence, you haven't.

Are you so unspeakably stupid that you think immigrants being up to "23 times more likely" to commit rape has by itself led to an almost fifteen times increase in the overall number of rapes? How many immigrants do you think Sweden has?

[QE Harold Flair]

Are you so unspeakably stupid that you think immigrants being up to "23 times more likely" to commit rape has by itself led to an almost fifteen times increase in the overall number of rapes? How many immigrants do you think Sweden has?

I never said 'itself', you'll find.


Sweden: 77.6% of all rapes are committed by Muslim males, who total only 2% of population – Gov report

You don't have to be an immigrant to be a Muslim, of course. But I'm fairly sure facts such as these point in a very clear direction. If you aren't scared of the truth, that is.

[QE Harold Flair]

If the Church of England reverts back to having more and stricter rules for its followers to live by... Why is it you're against religion again?

I'm against it being obviously false and people being stupid enough to believe it. I have on many occasions stated that some are worse/more dangerous than others, and the COE is never going to be on that list.




What are you then? Because you're always quoting his pronouncements on conservatism (and the Conservatives not being right-wing) approvingly, and you were agreeing with his balls about the sexual revolution a few weeks ago.

I posted approvingly because he is correct about those things. I also said it's god that Labour have become more left wing, even though I think it's bollocks. I voted UKIP last time, but no party has my undying love since there will never be a party which speaks to me completely.

[Yevrah]

You don't have to be an immigrant to be a Muslim, of course. But I'm fairly sure facts such as these point in a very clear direction. If you aren't scared of the truth, that is.

Maybe they were all wrongly convicted, like Ched Evans.

[Toby]

I never said 'itself', you'll find.



You don't have to be an immigrant to be a Muslim, of course. But I'm fairly sure facts such as these point in a very clear direction. If you aren't scared of the truth, that is.

You mocked me for saying it wasn't the key factor. You're being incredibly dense if you can't recognise that the change in the statistical method is the key reason for the "1457%" increase. I'll repeat again, since you're too stupid to take it as implied, that that doesn't mean it is the sole factor.

[QE Harold Flair]

You mocked me for saying it wasn't the key factor. You're being incredibly dense if you can't recognise that the change in the statistical method is the key reason for the "1457%" increase. I'll repeat again, since you're too stupid to take it as implied, that that doesn't mean it is the sole factor.

I will continue to mock you. Even were I to agree with you, it wouldn't change my overall point, which you are singularly unwilling to confront. And I know why that is.

[Toby]

I have no reason to dispute it - I'm not sure why you think I would - I just wanted to point out the insignificance of your numbers and, since you chose to be a dick upon me doing so, subsequently mock your complete lack of logic.

[QE Harold Flair]

Even if you were right, the number are not insignificant and immigration, particularly from Muslims, is a key reason. To deny this is to be burying your head in the sand and ignoring reality.

[Toby]

They are completely insignificant, because there are too many other, bigger factors for them to mean anything. If you'd led with the other stuff, fine, but you didn't and subsequently tried to argue when I pointed out the limitations of those figures. I've never once claimed that increased incidents of rape by immigrant men is not a factor. What it comes down to is you yet again not understanding what you're talking about.

[QE Harold Flair]

So the evidence that Muslim immigrants causing sharp rises in rapes in other countries means nothing to you? You see, those of us without agendas can see clear evidence for what it is.

[Lewis]

I'm against it being obviously false and people being stupid enough to believe it. I have on many occasions stated that some are worse/more dangerous than others, and the COE is never going to be on that list.

But something being false/stupid is only a problem if it convinces people to repress themselves and others. The Church of England won't do that, because it has embraced social liberalism; but Hitchens doesn't support the Church of England in its current state. He wants it to be 'worse' (as you put it).


I posted approvingly because he is correct about those things. I also said it's god that Labour have become more left wing, even though I think it's bollocks. I voted UKIP last time, but no party has my undying love since there will never be a party which speaks to me completely.

If he's correct about the sexual revolution and other ills of liberalism (which makes him more of a reactionary than a conservative), which bits would you like to reverse?

[Toby]

So the evidence that Muslim immigrants causing sharp rises in rapes in other countries means nothing to you? You see, those of us without agendas can see clear evidence for what it is.

What are you even talking about you fucking thicko? Can you seriously not read what I am writing?

[QE Harold Flair]

But something being false/stupid is only a problem if it convinces people to repress themselves and others. The Church of England won't do that, because it has embraced social liberalism; but Hitchens doesn't support the Church of England in its current state. He wants it to be 'worse' (as you put it).

Err, not correct. It can result in laws I disagree with which aren't repressive. It can result in unelected people sitting in the House Of Lords. That's not repressing me but I disagree with it on principle. You don't have to keep telling me what Hitchens thins, I know.


If he's correct about the sexual revolution and other ills of liberalism (which makes him more of a reactionary than a conservative), which bits would you like to reverse?

You're making lots of assumptions here. I dislike modern feminism (of the type you brought up earlier) which was spawned from the sexual revolution. And it's pointless talking about reversing anything, it can't be done. Most things about 'rights' start out with good intentions and get taken too far.

[QE Harold Flair]

What are you even talking about you fucking thicko? Can you seriously not read what I am writing?

Yes I can, thicko. You keep saying that immigration is irrelevant to the figures even though it's clear from Sweden and elsewhere that immigration, particularly Muslim immigration, is a major factor in those figures.

[Toby]

Yes I can, thicko. You keep saying that immigration is irrelevant to the figures even though it's clear from Sweden and elsewhere that immigration, particularly Muslim immigration, is a major factor in those figures.

No, I haven't. I have never claimed that immigration is not a factor. You are an insufferably stupid man if you genuinely don't understand that by this point.

[Lewis]

Err, not correct. It can result in laws I disagree with which aren't repressive. It can result in unelected people sitting in the House Of Lords. That's not repressing me but I disagree with it on principle. You don't have to keep telling me what Hitchens thins, I know.

It's not just about laws. It's about how the Church of England recommends people live their lives, which, if Peter Hitchens had his way, would repress them by denying them the ability and/or right to think for themselves by prescribing certain behaviours. This was the entire basis of Christopher Hitchens' opposition to religion.


You're making lots of assumptions here. I dislike modern feminism (of the type you brought up earlier) which was spawned from the sexual revolution. And it's pointless talking about reversing anything, it can't be done. Most things about 'rights' start out with good intentions and get taken too far.

Not reversing it then. Just opposing it. You can't oppose the move towards a permissive society (as Hitchens does) because of 'modern feminism'. I don't think you oppose legalised gayness, abortion, easier divorces, and so on; so overall you must agree with it.

[QE Harold Flair]

No, I haven't. I have never claimed that immigration is not a factor. You are an insufferably stupid man if you genuinely don't understand that by this point.

You said it was completely insignificant. So I can deduce from that, that you don't think they're a factor.

[Toby]

You said it was completely insignificant. So I can deduce from that, that you don't think they're a factor.

I said the numbers used in claiming a 1457% rise were insignificant, and I've explicitly accepted that disproportionate incidences of rape by immigrant men could be a factor...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=adult+literacy+classes+hatfield

[QE Harold Flair]

It's not just about laws. It's about how the Church of England recommends people live their lives, which, if Peter Hitchens had his way, would repress them by denying them the ability and/or right to think for themselves by prescribing certain behaviours. This was the entire basis of Christopher Hitchens' opposition to religion.

You keep bringing them both up as if I am bound to agree with them about everything they both say. I'm perfectly happy that the Church Of England is as meek as it is, but I don't think it being a bit stronger would necessarily repress anyone. Of course those who want it stronger would argue their views are being repressed.


Not reversing it then. Just opposing it. You can't oppose the move towards a permissive society (as Hitchens does) because of 'modern feminism'. I don't think you oppose legalised gayness, abortion, easier divorces, and so on; so overall you must agree with it.

I oppose certain aspects yes, such as all 'insert here' quotas of any kind. I didn't oppose legalised gayness and neither did Peter Hitchens. Abortion is a lot more tricky but I still just favour it. You need to stop asserting what I must agree with.

[QE Harold Flair]

I said the numbers used in claiming a 1457% rise were insignificant...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=adult+literacy+classes+hatfield

That figure was only part of a much larger bunch of statistics. And at what figure would they become 'significant' to you? I just want to know what your line in the sand is here.

[John Arne]

How is Cameron still getting away with saying that Corbyn thought that OBL's death was a "tragedy". It's clearly taken out of context and to keep repeating the statement is pretty disgraceful.

[Toby]

That figure was only part of a much larger bunch of statistics.

Well, great? At the time I responded it was the only figure you had posted and I was pointing out why it was seriously limited. All of my posts since have remained on that same topic, but you keep trying to shift to another argument because you don't want to admit you've ballsed this one up.

[Lewis]

You keep bringing them both up as if I am bound to agree with them about everything they both say. I'm perfectly happy that the Church Of England is as meek as it is, but I don't think it being a bit stronger would necessarily repress anyone. Of course those who want it stronger would argue their views are being repressed.

You don't have to agree with them both on 'everything', but it's difficult to sit between them on this one. Those who want it stronger are also being repressed. That is the very nature of religion as repression. It strives to tell you what you should think.


I oppose certain aspects yes, such as all 'insert here' quotas of any kind. I didn't oppose legalised gayness and neither did Peter Hitchens. Abortion is a lot more tricky but I still just favour it. You need to stop asserting what I must agree with.

Then you don't oppose social liberalism, and all your moaning about liberals and/or liberalism is mis-directed (see: blaming it for quotas).

[QE Harold Flair]

Well, great? At the time I responded it was the only figure you had posted and I was pointing out why it was seriously limited. All of my posts since have remained on that same topic, but you keep trying to shift to another argument because you don't want to admit you've ballsed this one up.

I'm afraid that is non correct. Your first response on this was simply to the link I posted, which goes into great detail about numerous stats from Sweden and other places:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

[QE Harold Flair]

You don't have to agree with them both on 'everything', but it's difficult to sit between them on this one. Those who want it stronger are also being repressed. That is the very nature of religion as repression. It strives to tell you what you should think.

On what one? 'Religion' and the 'Church of England' are completely different things. I don't believe Peter Hitchens, himself, thinks he is told what to think.




Then you don't oppose social liberalism, and all your moaning about liberals and/or liberalism is mis-directed (see: blaming it for quotas).

As if social liberalism is one or two issues as defined by you. My issues with 'liberals' is most often aimed at those who call themselves such and attribute liberal values to themselves. If you want to agree with me that they're not really liberals at all that's fine with me.

[Toby]

I'm afraid that is non correct. Your first response on this was simply to the link I posted, which goes into great detail about numerous stats from Sweden and other places:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

No, it wasn't, it was to your quoted section, which referred to the number I have repeatedly referenced.

[QE Harold Flair]

I just checked it. Your very first post which claimed it was because of the changed laws was, I'm afraid, in response to exactly what I said it was.

[Toby]

I just checked it. Your very first post which claimed it was because of the changed laws was, I'm afraid, in response to exactly what I said it was.

If you're finally going to just stoop to outright lies I'll take my e-victory and be off to bed.

[QE Harold Flair]

http://i61.tinypic.com/ok7t74.jpg

[Toby]

If you're going to all that effort to demonstrate just how wrong you are, you might as well include your original post while you're at it.

[QE Harold Flair]

No, I'm correct. That was the first time you brought up rape being reported in a different way. Why even bother to deny it when there's a big picture of it?

[Toby]

:harold:

I guess you've wriggled enough to at least convince yourself.

[QE Harold Flair]

There's nothing else needed, there's a big picture of it.


I'm not putting any "blinkers" on, stop getting so defensive. I'm merely pointing out for anybody who finds those stats startling that there are additional factors beyond societal changes.

Above is your second post in response to the same article. Basically reaffirming the same point.

[Toby]

That second post where I say, "additional factors beyond societal changes", therefore recognising that societal changes are a factor. You're not even smart enough to lie properly.

[QE Harold Flair]

If they're a factor then they're not 'insignificant'.

:happycry:

[Toby]

So I guess we're back to your inability to read.

:happycry:

[QE Harold Flair]

So did you say the numbers of immigrants was insignificant or not? Keep in mind that I can and will screenshot again to prove you wrong (again)

[Toby]

I did not. If you'd like to post another screenshot demonstrating your incomprehension, be my guest. :happycry:

[Lewis]

On what one? 'Religion' and the 'Church of England' are completely different things. I don't believe Peter Hitchens, himself, thinks he is told what to think.

The Church of England still has doctrine, even if it's not as potent as Peter Hitchens would like. Do they let you into Heaven if you're an atheist or a Muslim? I wouldn't have thought so. Therefore, they're telling you what to think. Whether Hitchens believes he's told what to think is irrelevant. If he chooses to follow the doctrine (even with reservations) then he is, like every other religious person that you would happily laugh at for not being a 'free thinker'.


As if social liberalism is one or two issues as defined by you. My issues with 'liberals' is most often aimed at those who call themselves such and attribute liberal values to themselves. If you want to agree with me that they're not really liberals at all that's fine with me.

Then (returning to the other day) you're using the wrong word. It's not 'one or two' issues. It's an entire movement that Hitchens opposes, and you selectively oppose until you don't.

[SvN]

Toby, I have to ask - why do you bother?

[QE Harold Flair]

I did not. If you'd like to post another screenshot demonstrating your incomprehension, be my guest. :happycry:

http://i57.tinypic.com/21keaf5.jpg

http://i60.tinypic.com/2j5kt1v.jpghttp://i60.tinypic.com/2j5kt1v.jpghttp://i60.tinypic.com/2j5kt1v.jpg

[Toby]

Toby, I have to ask - why do you bother?

In this sort of case it's amusing to watch him squirm and dig an ever more spectacular hole for himself.

I fear based on the post above that he's actually just too stupid to know what's going on though, which puts a bit of a dampener on laughing at him.

[SvN]

In this sort of case it's amusing to watch him squirm and dig an ever more spectacular hole for himself.

I fear he's actually just too stupid to know what's going on though, which puts a bit of a dampener on laughing at him.

As an outsider, it's like watching an adult beat a down syndromed lad at connect four. Just utterly pointless for everyone involved.

[QE Harold Flair]

The Church of England still has doctrine, even if it's not as potent as Peter Hitchens would like. Do they let you into Heaven if you're an atheist or a Muslim? I wouldn't have thought so. Therefore, they're telling you what to think. Whether Hitchens believes he's told what to think is irrelevant. If he chooses to follow the doctrine (even with reservations) then he is, like every other religious person that you would happily laugh at for not being a 'free thinker'.

I'm not sure if the COE believe in hell. The fact Peter can believe in such nonsense just goes to show how powerful religion can be. But I don't laugh at anyone religious by any means. That's more exaggeration on your part, I fear.




Then (returning to the other day) you're using the wrong word. It's not 'one or two' issues. It's an entire movement that Hitchens opposes, and you selectively oppose until you don't.

Yes, I do selectively oppose. That's because I am not a left/right person and I take things on their own merits.

[QE Harold Flair]

As an outsider, it's like watching an adult beat a down syndromed lad at connect four. Just utterly pointless for everyone involved.

You haven't even bothered reading. I am factually correct on this and backed it up with clear evidence. Not that it would make a difference to someone like you.

[QE Harold Flair]

In this sort of case it's amusing to watch him squirm and dig an ever more spectacular hole for himself.

I fear based on the post above that he's actually just too stupid to know what's going on though, which puts a bit of a dampener on laughing at him.

The difference between you and I is that I back up everything I'm saying, while you repeatedly resort to name-calling and providing no evidence at all and, in fact, still claim to be right in the face of clear evidence.

[Lewis]

I'm not sure if the COE believe in hell. The fact Peter can believe in such nonsense just goes to show how powerful religion can be. But I don't laugh at anyone religious by any means. That's more exaggeration on your part, I fear.

They believe in heaven. If you don't accept their core bullshit you don't get in (whatever form that takes). That is totalitarian, even if they spend increasing amounts of their time bumming up to gays and Muslims to Peter Hitchens' annoyance, which is why his brother opposed religion.


Yes, I do selectively oppose. That's because I am not a left/right person and I take things on their own merits.

It's not a left/right issue. It's a liberalism/authoritarianism issue, and you can't 'selectively oppose' the wider trend on the misguided belief that it has led to quotas and 'modern feminism'.

[QE Harold Flair]

They believe in heaven. If you don't accept their core bullshit you don't get in (whatever form that takes). That is totalitarian, even if they spend increasing amounts of their time bumming up to gays and Muslims to Peter Hitchens' annoyance, which is why his brother opposed religion.

What's your point? I know full well what they both believe and don't believe in. This is getting a bit boring.


It's not a left/right issue. It's a liberalism/authoritarianism issue, and you can't 'selectively oppose' the wider trend on the misguided belief that it has led to quotas and 'modern feminism'.

And what happens if I believe in one thing which is seen as 'authoritarian' and something else which is seen as 'liberal'? Do you go into meltdown? The quotas I brought up is because that is what it can lead to. I can oppose certain aspects of whatever I like, thanks.

[Henry]

E-embarrsement here. :henn0rz:

[phonics]

Harold believes in liberal authoritarianism? This is a turn up for the books.

[Lewis]

What's your point? I know full well what they both believe and don't believe in. This is getting a bit boring.

Because you said it isn't repressive, which makes you wonder why exactly you've spent so much time arguing against religion (and using Christopher Hitchens' lines to do so).


And what happens if I believe in one thing which is seen as 'authoritarian' and something else which is seen as 'liberal'? Do you go into meltdown? The quotas I brought up is because that is what it can lead to. I can oppose certain aspects of whatever I like, thanks.

You can, but it doesn't make sense to do so. Peter Hitchens at least realises that (or maybe doesn't, but he is consistent).

[QE Harold Flair]

Because you said it isn't repressive, which makes you wonder why exactly you've spent so much time arguing against religion (and using Christopher Hitchens' lines to do so).

I said it isn't necessarily repressive. And again, 'religion' is different from the Church Of England. Jainism isn't repressive and it's a religion. Most religion is repressive, but the main reason I argue against it is because it's plainly wrong and ignores evidence. In the case of Islam it's clearly dangerous.




You can, but it doesn't make sense to do so. Peter Hitchens at least realises that (or maybe doesn't, but he is consistent).

So you think it's not possible to have authoritarian views on some issues and liberal views on another? That's ridiculous. Peter Hitchens believes in the death penalty but also does not believe in going to war under almost any circumstances and was opposed to identity cards. What scale do those views fall under, I wonder?

[Lewis]

I said it isn't necessarily repressive. And again, 'religion' is different from the Church Of England. Jainism isn't repressive and it's a religion. Most religion is repressive, but the main reason I argue against it is because it's plainly wrong and ignores evidence. In the case of Islam it's clearly dangerous.

But it is if you have to go along with it to receive favour, which is the case with the Church of England (and would be more so if Peter Hitchens got his way). That is such a crap reason to oppose religion. You might as well have started all those threads having a go at Father Christmas.


So you think it's not possible to have authoritarian views on some issues and liberal views on another? That's ridiculous. Peter Hitchens believes in the death penalty but also does not believe in going to war under almost any circumstances and was opposed to identity cards. What scale do those views fall under, I wonder?

It is (war isn't related to either), but you put yourself in a difficult position deriding 'liberals' (even pretend ones) when you yourself are unable to remain consistent.

[QE Harold Flair]

But it is if you have to go along with it to receive favour, which is the case with the Church of England (and would be more so if Peter Hitchens got his way). That is such a crap reason to oppose religion. You might as well have started all those threads having a go at Father Christmas.

And I would if the belief in Father Christmas was as widespread and led to the kind of consequences that certain religious beliefs do. I.e not the Church Of England.


It is (war isn't related to either), but you put yourself in a difficult position deriding 'liberals' (even pretend ones) when you yourself are unable to remain consistent.

I don't just 'deride liberals' in a vacuum - I deride them on certain aspects of what they believe. If you can't accept that a person can believe in some liberal views as well as some seen as authoritarian then you clearly lack imagination. Do you think Peter Hitchens is 'inconsistent' with his opposition to ID cards, he ultimate authoritarian fantasy? Maybe you should pop him an email in the 'ask an expert' mode as I'd like to see him tear you apart.

[Lewis]

And I would if the belief in Father Christmas was as widespread and led to the kind of consequences that certain religious beliefs do. I.e not the Church Of England.

So you're against religion because of 'consequences' (which I take to mean violence)? Why aren't you against all violence-inducing ideas?


I don't just 'deride liberals' in a vacuum - I deride them on certain aspects of what they believe. If you can't accept that a person can believe in some liberal views as well as some seen as authoritarian then you clearly lack imagination. Do you think Peter Hitchens is 'inconsistent' with his opposition to ID cards, he ultimate authoritarian fantasy? Maybe you should pop him an email in the 'ask an expert' mode as I'd like to see him tear you apart.

And when you do you attribute it to their liberalism, like when you were blaming them for the deliberate erosion of patriotic feeling. I would think Peter Hitchens was inconsistent were he to oppose ID cards with claims that he opposes authoritarianism, but I've no idea whether he does or not. He can oppose them on their own merits.

[Magic]

Henn0rz using the Henn0rz smiley is just about the greatest thing to happen to the new board.

Also: Toby :D

[QE Harold Flair]

So you're against religion because of 'consequences' (which I take to mean violence)? Why aren't you against all violence-inducing ideas?

Why do you take that to mean violence? I thought you were someone who paid attention to detail? I've goner into great detail in the past about which aspects of religion I find appalling and which religions are especially dangerous. The Church Of England was never something I brought up, and no, I won't fall into your poorly thought-out, attempted traps.




And when you do you attribute it to their liberalism, like when you were blaming them for the deliberate erosion of patriotic feeling. I would think Peter Hitchens was inconsistent were he to oppose ID cards with claims that he opposes authoritarianism, but I've no idea whether he does or not. He can oppose them on their own merits.

Yes, I've said I deride modern liberalism in most of its forms. So great, you think Peter Hitchens is inconsistent, now what? Why not confront him on it? I don't think it's inconsistent but even were it to be, so what?

[Lewis]

Why do you take that to mean violence? I thought you were someone who paid attention to detail? I've goner into great detail in the past about which aspects of religion I find appalling and which religions are especially dangerous. The Church Of England was never something I brought up, and no, I won't fall into your poorly thought-out, attempted traps.

I took it to mean violence because you don't appear to be that concerned about how religions impinge on freedom of conscience. So what 'consequences' motivate your opposition to religion (I'm sure you've identified as an anti-theist in the past, but I don't think that fits if you aren't primarily concerned with religious repression)?


Yes, I've said I deride modern liberalism in most of its forms. So great, you think Peter Hitchens is inconsistent, now what? Why not confront him on it? I don't think it's inconsistent but even were it to be, so what?

It's just nice to know where we all stand.

[QE Harold Flair]

I took it to mean violence because you don't appear to be that concerned about how religions impinge on freedom of conscience.

Impinging on freedom of conscience wouldn't only lead to violence. And again, 'religion' and 'the Church Of England' are two separate things.


So what 'consequences' motivate your opposition to religion (I'm sure you've identified as an anti-theist in the past, but I don't think that fits if you aren't primarily concerned with religious repression)?

I'm afraid I won't go around in circles.




It's just nice to know where we all stand.

Don't worry, henry was as baffled as you when I said I had some left leaning ideas as well as right. You're both guilty of a lack of imagination. You obviously think in straight lines. Are you religious?

[Lewis]

Impinging on freedom of conscience wouldn't only lead to violence. And again, 'religion' and 'the Church Of England' are two separate things.

I'm afraid I won't go around in circles.

You said that even a stronger Church of England 'would[n't] necessarily repress anyone', so you clearly don't think that the very idea of having to accept certain ideas to gain favour and go to Heaven is repressive. What is it then that you object to if not only violence?


Don't worry, henry was as baffled as you when I said I had some left leaning ideas as well as right. You're both guilty of a lack of imagination. You obviously think in straight lines. Are you religious?

We're more likely baffled by your mis-use and/or mis-understanding of basic terminology.

[QE Harold Flair]

You said that even a stronger Church of England 'would[n't] necessarily repress anyone', so you clearly don't think that the very idea of having to accept certain ideas to gain favour and go to Heaven is repressive. What is it then that you object to if not only violence?

Yes, that's correct. it would depend rather on how far it went. If it's still a religion of choice that didn't interfere in government then people who choose to follow it of their own accord wouldn't be repressed. Repression is something which comes about more through indoctrination, but that's another issue. I object to non-thinking, the rejection of clear scientific facts and many other things which I've gone over many times.




We're more likely baffled by your mis-use and/or mis-understanding of basic terminology.

I've told you very clearly that I believe in some issues which are considered liberal and some considered more authoritarian. I couldn't be any clearer. Now answer my question, just so we know where we stand.

[Lewis]

Yes, that's correct. it would depend rather on how far it went. If it's still a religion of choice that didn't interfere in government then people who choose to follow it of their own accord wouldn't be repressed. Repression is something which comes about more through indoctrination, but that's another issue. I object to non-thinking, the rejection of clear scientific facts and many other things which I've gone over many times.

So Christopher Hitchens was wrong (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aecGejnBqo) about religion?


I've told you very clearly that I believe in some issues which are considered liberal and some considered more authoritarian. I couldn't be any clearer. Now answer my question, just so we know where we stand.

I am not religious.

[QE Harold Flair]

So Christopher Hitchens was wrong (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aecGejnBqo) about religion?

No, and that doersn't fly in the face of anything I've said. Theistic religion has at its core totalitarianism. But most people don't take it a'la carte - another thing Christopher Hitchens has said. You've been trying to set up that trap all night, haven't you? You're such a bore.

[ItalAussie]

Theistic religion?

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, problem?

[Lewis]

No, and that doersn't fly in the face of anything I've said. Theistic religion has at its core totalitarianism. But most people don't take it a'la carte - another thing Christopher Hitchens has said. You've been trying to set up that trap all night, haven't you? You're such a bore.

I've been making the same point all night. It just came to a head with that gibberish.

[QE Harold Flair]

I mean most people take it a'la carte, of course. Which means while it's totalitarian at its core, our great friends such as Italf...aussie would not think they are repressed in the least. Do you think he's repressed?

[ItalAussie]

Yes, problem?

As opposed to?

[QE Harold Flair]

Non theistic religions, of course.

[ItalAussie]

Non theistic religions, of course.
You have to admit that does sound like something of an oxymoron.

[QE Harold Flair]

No, it's factually correct. There are lots of religions which do not have Gods. By the way, tell Lewis about how repressed you are.

[ItalAussie]

No, it's factually correct. There are lots of religions which do not have Gods. By the way, tell Lewis about how repressed you are.

That's quite curious to me. I've always thought that theism is the essential part of a religion, but I'm open to other definitions. At what point does it instead become a philosophy rather than a religion? And what is a religion, if not a theistic belief system?

[QE Harold Flair]

That's quite curious to me. I've always thought that theism is the essential part of a religion, but I'm open to other definitions. At what point does it instead become a philosophy rather than a religion? And what is a religion, if not a theistic belief system?

Well Buddhism is described as a religion, as is secular humanism in many parts. It's getting a bit deeper than I have the need or want to go into but, like you and your ilk were pretty intent on telling me, religion is different things to different people. And I'm not sure you get to tell Buddhists that their religion isn't a religion just because they don't believe in invisible, magic entities.

[ItalAussie]

Well Buddhism is described as a religion, as is secular humanism in many parts. It's getting a bit deeper than I have the need or want to go into but, like you and your ilk were pretty intent on telling me, religion is different things to different people. And I'm not sure you get to tell Buddhists that their religion isn't a religion just because they don't believe in invisible, magic entities.
That's totally fair. Again, I wasn't coming out swinging here - this is something I hadn't really thought much about.

I wonder where the distinction between a philosophy and a religion really is.

[Lewis]

I mean most people take it a'la carte, of course. Which means while it's totalitarian at its core, our great friends such as Italf...aussie would not think they are repressed in the least. Do you think he's repressed?

If he believes he has to do x/i], [i]y, or z to gain favour then yes. So although it is 'totalitarian at its core' (finally), the fact that most people don't go along with everything, and they themselves don't see a problem with it... This undermines your given reasons for opposing religion slightly doesn't it?

[Yevrah]

Watson's being urged to apologise.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34484611

The git.

[Magic]

I really thought Watson and Fatpie were on to something, turns out it was all bollocks.

[Boydy]

I forgot this was actually the politics thread.

[QE Harold Flair]

If he believes he has to do x/i], [I]y, or z to gain favour then yes. So although it is 'totalitarian at its core' (finally), the fact that most people don't go along with everything, and they themselves don't see a problem with it... This undermines your given reasons for opposing religion slightly doesn't it?

Well unfortunately for you, he doesn't like to let you know where he stands. And no, it doesn't. Because in case you hadn't noticed, lots of people are getting thrown off buildings, raped and decapitated because of 'religion' if you want to use it that broadly.

[Lewis]

Well unfortunately for you, he doesn't like to let you know where he stands. And no, it doesn't. Because in case you hadn't noticed, lots of people are getting thrown off buildings, raped and decapitated because of 'religion' if you want to use it that broadly.

You said you oppose it because you 'object to non-thinking, the rejection of clear scientific facts and many other things'. But if 'most people take it a 'la carte', and '[do] not think they are repressed in the least', then you're left with the 'other things' that (having said was not the case earlier) you've just identified as violence.

It seems strange that you would defend the Church of England despite it being 'totalitarian at its core'. Was all the anti-religion stuff really just anti-Islam?

[Boydy]

Nooo, surely not?

[QE Harold Flair]

You said you oppose it because you 'object to non-thinking, the rejection of clear scientific facts and many other things'. But if 'most people take it a 'la carte', and '[do] not think they are repressed in the least', then you're left with the 'other things' that (having said was not the case earlier) you've just identified as violence.

Yes and, as I keep pointing out, some religions are obviously more dangerous than others. I do identify obvious violence within Islam, it's not really a big secret. That's why I keep saying 'religion' is too broad a term. Jainists are never going to commit any violence due to their religion. Stop ignoring what I tell you. I could easily level this kind of nonsense at you regarding immigration, some of which you say is good but you don't half hate the Muzzies.


It seems strange that you would defend the Church of England despite it being 'totalitarian at its core'. Was all the anti-religion stuff really just anti-Islam?

I don't defend it, I still say it's wrong and we'd be better off without it. It's just not dangerous in the least. But you've shifted the conversation from the consequences of religion to its core, which are different things. It is mostly anti-Islam, yes. If we were having this conversation 70-80 years ago I would say it was mostly Catholicism. That's the problem when you keep saying 'religion', which encompasses only something in the region of 4,000 separate religions.

[QE Harold Flair]

Just make sure you keep in touch with how things are:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtphgwLOYZA

[Lewis]

If you oppose the 'consequences' (violence) of religion rather than its 'core' (totalitarianism) then the 'obvious violence within Islam' isn't a concern is it? Why oppose Islam if most Muslims take it 'a la carte' and don't carry out acts of violence? It sounds like you're opposed to violence rather than any particular belief system[s], which is nice to know (post #338), but think of all that time wasted watching/having religious debates when you could have been reading Gene Sharp.

[QE Harold Flair]

If you oppose the 'consequences' (violence) of religion rather than its 'core' (totalitarianism) then the 'obvious violence within Islam' isn't a concern is it? Why oppose Islam if most Muslims take it 'a la carte' and don't carry out acts of violence? It sounds like you're opposed to violence rather than any particular belief system[s], which is nice to know (post #338), but think of all that time wasted watching/having religious debates when you could have been reading Gene Sharp.

I didn't say violence, you did. You keep trying to insert things I did not say and arguing against them. Stop it. I oppose the core as well but, as I am now saying for the third time, most people do not take religion seriously and do not follow core beliefs.

[Lewis]

The 'core belief' of Christianity (for example) is that you accept Jesus as the son of God (and associated pish). and that through him you gain favour. If you don't follow that you're not really a Christian are you? Going around gay-bashing is peripheral stuff when you consider the central totalitarian aspect of it all.

You don't have any issue with the 'core' ('I don't think it being a bit stronger would necessarily repress anyone'). Your issue is with the 'consequences', which we can take to be violence from your willingness to accept the repressive aspect of it as well as your claims that violence comes from certain faiths. So again, why oppose Islam as a belief system when you're actually just a big fruity pacifist?

[QE Harold Flair]

That's one core belief among many. I don't think they would put it as 'gain favour'. I'm not sure what this has to do with violence but I'm sure you're saving something really exciting on that.

And there you go making up things I never said again. I never said I 'never had issues with the core'. If I ever said that then show where I did. Why can't you ever argue in an honest fashion? You continually bring up things I did not say anjd do not think and then argue against them. I will continue to tell you to stop doing that.

[Reg]

I wonder where the distinction between a philosophy and a religion really is.
Maybe at the point of rituals or worshipping/revering a god/person (then you can shove Buddhism into the definition).

[Lewis]

You've accepted that the 'core' of religion is inherenty totalitarian, but you've also claimed that 'Jainism isn't repressive' (does it not depend on believing certain things for salvation?) and that a strengthened Church of England would not 'necessarily repress anyone'. That (along with your earlier confusion about repression and man-made laws) means your focus is on the 'consequences' of religion, in which case your opposition should be directed towards idiots and their actions rather than beliefs.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, and that's why I keep saying that you shouldn't use 'religion' as a blanket term. That is why I separated theistic religion from the likes of Jainism. But why let such facts get in the way? And what you say after is incoherent nonsense. I should focus on individual's actions instead of their beliefs? Well I do. Unless it's obvious that their beliefs lead to their actions, which is rather often the case. You really do choose the most boring, pedantic, inconsequential things to argue about.

[Lewis]

Your insistence on that distinction is irrelevant. Jainism still requires people to believe/do certain things in pursuit of salvation, which is why Christopher Hitchens used 'religion' as a blanket term when he called it totalitarian. But why let such facts get in the way?

It's one thing to accept that particular interpretations of Islam might provide justifications for violence, but you talk about the 'obvious violence within Islam' to criticise the entire belief system even though hundreds of millions of them don't act on this 'obvious violence'. If we got another David Copeland would you criticise anti-immigration rhetoric in its entirety?

[QE Harold Flair]

Not really, there's no eternal punishment for not following rules within Jainism. Maybe you should research on that. As for Hitchens, he never mentions Jainism, and is very clear that his ire is directed squarely at Abrahmic religion. In case you hadn't noticed, his book title is 'God Is Not Great'. Jains do not believe in God. Now if you want you can keep directing the exact same points at me while I refute them in the exact same manner, but I'm sure even you would find that a bit tiresome.

As for Islam, which interpretation do you know which repudiates the actions of Muhammed? Just as I wouldn't criticise anti-immigration in its entirety (and I'm not anti-immigration, anyway), neither would you criticise pro-immigration because of Muslim immigrants. Something you completely ignored when I brought it up earlier. Any more non-sequiturs?

[Lewis]

What has 'eternal punishment' got to do with anything? There wasn't an East German conception of hell. If you have to live your life in accordance with certain rules in pursuit of enlightenment and/or salvation then you are adhering to a totalitarian system, as it seeks (whether successful or not) to control the entirety of your behaviour. That is how Hitchens defined it, and it isn't 'very clear that his ire is directed squarely at Abrahmic religion', because in the aforementioned God is Not Great he says the following:


Although many Buddhists now regret that deplorable attempt to prove their own superiority, no Buddhist since then has been able to demonstrate that Buddhism was wrong in its own terms. A faith that despises the mind and the free individual, that preaches submission and resignation, and that regards life as a poor and transient thing, is ill-equipped for self-criticism. Those who become bored by conventional 'Bible' religions, and seek 'enlightenment' by way of the dissolution of their own critical faculties into nirvana in any form, had better take a warning. They may think they are leaving the realm of despised materialism, but they are still being asked to put their reason to sleep, and to discard their minds along with their sandals.

That (with my emphasis) reads remarkably like him calling Buddhism totalitarian. I should say I've just Googled that, so if you've read the book feel free to put it in context; but it's looking like you haven't actually understood Hitchens and what he was about.

As for Islam, I don't know of any interpretation that repudiates Mohammed's violence; but most of its adherents don't seem to be violent, so the belief system itself doesn't seem to be doing that much damage. If you place the emphasis on beliefs rather than actions you effectively absolve the individual, when they are the ones who choose to act on the shithouse version of something unlike the hundreds of millions who don't (I wouldn't criticise pro-immigration because of shit Muslim immigrants, but that's the point I'm making).

[QE Harold Flair]

Shut up. Absolutely pointless talking with you when you repeatedly ignore what I say and repeat your same points over and over again. I don't care if you think I'm inconsistent (you are as well, if you use your criteria).

[Lewis]

:evictory:

[QE Harold Flair]

You went to the trouble to save that smiley? Says it all. :happycry:

[Lewis]

It's part of the board. :o

[QE Harold Flair]

So it is. Still, you would have anyway. I'm glad I don't have to tinypic my victories now. Since it's so easy:

:evictory::evictory::evictory::evictory::evictory: :evictory:

[Pepe]

Ffs. :D

[Reg]

On Harold's hero's quote that Lewis posted:

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/print/2060

[QE Harold Flair]

Watch this heroic woman finally get what we never knew out of Peter Hitchens - he doesn't like multiculturalism! Well done, moron. This is what I would describe as the typical lefty cunt. It's a bit like Lewis in here, actually - ascribe things to someone that they do not believe and never said.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnlyL5yMTnk

Quick summary for those not watching:

"I'm saying this".
"No what you're really saying is this"
"No I'm saying what I am saying"
"No you're not you're saying this"

all a midst incessant interruptions, of course.

[Lewis]

[Sir] Charles Moore giving it (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11923196/Tom-Watson-must-prove-his-point-or-admit-he-is-unfit-for-public-office.html) to Twatson. :drool:

[Yevrah]

He's absolutely bang on.

Watson is a disgusting, attention seeking fantasist who has no place being deputy leader.

[John]

On Harold's hero's quote that Lewis posted:

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/print/2060

One of the stated goals of an organisation he heads up.


Investigate and refine definitions of personhood and those criteria sufficient for the recognition of non-human persons.

Not a man to be taken seriously.

[Yevrah]

"Celebrate" must be the worst word in politics at the moment.

[Yevrah]

As for Hitchens there, I don't know why he doesn't just say the Hijab's a bit rubbish.

[QE Harold Flair]

Because it adds nothing. He believes in liberty, which means he is opposed telling people what they can or can't wear. Had he been given a chance to speak without being interrupted I think this would have been made clear.

[Yevrah]

That's fine, but believing in liberty doesn't stop him having his own opinion.

[Lewis]

Peter Hitchens is a serious columnist, and he [supposedly] revels in not caring what people think about him, so how does he get himself into a position where he's having to argue about a baking contest with such a pleb? He doesn't do himself any favours half the time.

[QE Harold Flair]

That's fine, but believing in liberty doesn't stop him having his own opinion.

I've seen him say before that he doesn't like it and I think he would readily express that view here if the interview was longer and he was given a chance. That isn't what the twat was asking, though. He would say he also doesn't like baseball caps, but who cares?

[QE Harold Flair]

Hitchens has touched on this today in a very long and very qe article. Here is the second half of it:


Oh, all right, I said, suspecting that it might not work out well. I did the usual thing of explaining my opinions to an intelligent and receptive researcher, all too aware that when it reached the studio, the debate would be less satisfying(this is almost always so) . I think the researcher was a bit surprised when I said clearly and emphatically that I opposed any legal restrictions on the wearing of the veil. But I may be mistaken about that.


As you may see here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnlyL5yMTnk


…the actual exchange wasn’t very enlightening.

A few hours beforehand I had learned that my opponent would be Nesrine Malik.

Who is she, by the way?

Well, here’s an interesting and relevant article about her.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/7896536/Burka-ban-Why-must-I-cast-off-the-veil.html

Now, a few things about the Channel Four occasion struck me rather strongly.

Matt Frei introduced the item by rhapsodising about the victory of a hijab-wearing woman in a baking contest, saying approvingly this was an ‘extraordinary celebration of multicuturalism’ . No doubt he was being a devil’s advocate at the time, but at the BBC and C4 news, they do always seem to be advocating the same devil. Many people, even in the Liberal Elite, nowadays disapprove of multiculturalism and say it was a mistake which they now oppose. David Cameron is, or says he is, one of them. See this 2011 speech
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994


Ms Malik began her contribution by asserting: ‘It shouldn’t even be something to comment on in any way other than “This is really cool. It is representing a significant swing of Muslim British people and it’s something we should celebrate.” ’

I thought and still think this was an astonishing attitude to take. She appeared to me to be saying (‘It shouldn’t even be something to comment on in any way other than….’) that only one opinion on the matter was permissible. So I responded by saying that other views were permissible. She took this an expression of opinion about the wearing of hijabs, on my part, which it wasn’t. It was an expression of opinion on free thought and speech. I was now quite sure that this, not a discussion about headwear, was my main aim



Later on she began her inquisitorial, nay prosecutorial attempt to establish what I was ‘really saying’. The clear implication *here* is that I had some hidden message that I was concealing, presumably for reasons of shame.

Seizing on the words ‘gradual and unstoppable adaptation’ she described this wording as ‘alarmist’. I have to say that in my dictionary the word ‘gradual’ doesn’t really go together with alarm, but that’s just an opinion.

This was somehow a ‘warning shot’ (shot?) and the words ‘gradual and unstoppable’ were by clear implication a condemnation. Actually this isn’t so. People often describe their own movements and causes, or those of which they approve, as unstoppable. The left-liberal anthem ‘We Shall Overcome’, with its uncompromising use of the verb ‘shall’, is a declaration of unstoppabilty, in my view, and has turned out to be much more right about that than it sounded when I first heard it in about 1966.

She again suggested that I had said this was something to be ‘alarmed’ or ‘worried’ about it. I had not done so. And under this repeated pressure to be confess to having opinions different from those I had actually expressed, I found it necessary to harden my heart. I wasn’t going to give such inquisitorial behaviour, redolent of people’s courts and Stasi interrogations, any victories.

I was then told I should forgive people for readng things that were not there into what I had written. I declined to do so. First, they hadn’t asked for my forgiveness or admitted to doing anything wrong, the absolute requirements for forgiveness; secondly, these attempts to make windows into people’s souls are plain wrong and must be resisted in a free society or it won’t stay free for long.

Channel Four News’s Matt Frei, a civilised and travelled man, was even so seemingly under the bizarre impression that I am a Tory. Apparently believing that this might wring my withers, he brought David Cameron (‘railing against racism’ – but who until then had mentioned race or ‘racism’? Not I for certain) into the argument, and made the usual liberal error of assuming that opposition to multicuturalism had racial implications. Culture and race are not merely not the same, but the opposite of each other (See Thomas Sowell’s fine book ‘Race and Culture’). Indeed, I would say that the best way to achieve a harmonious multiracial society is to ensure that it is monocultural.

Ms Malik could not understand or really register my use of the past tense to describe the long-ago death of British culture (Good heavens, I described this back in 1999 in my book ‘The Abolition of Britain’ which as it happens makes no mention of race or immigration as contributors that abolition, though it briefly notes the existence of the change) . She seized on it as my longed-for confession of Crimethink.


She then said : ‘The motif of the hijab makes people like Peter uncomfortable because it implies that the sort of rosy white homogenous culture of British society is now on the wane. That’s what it’s what its all about…

'…It’s a figleaf for a dying gasp of monoculturalism in the UK’ .


Now, there were two key words in this passage.

That word, smuggled quickly in at the last moment, is ‘white’. Without it, the statement is quite harmless, apart form the word 'figleaf, which suggests concealment, which indeed has no other purpose outside botany than to suggest concealment.


Note that both Mr Frei and Ms Malik both introduced the question of skin-colour or 'race' into the matter. Yet it was not there until they put it there.

In fact the spread of the hijab, niqab and burqa throughout the Islamic world is a matter of controversy among Muslims, some of whom resist it and some of whom welcome it. And it is a religious, not an ethnic matter. And, as I so often find I need to say, religions (including my own) are matters of opinion, with which people may legitimately disagree. Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity. A woman with a pinko-grey skin (what Ms Malik describes as ‘white’) can wear the hijab, indeed there are some such whom I occasionally see in Kensington High Street in London, where I work. Pinko-grey British men can and do embrace Islam.
Women with other skin colours can, even if Muslim, decide not to wear hijab or niqab. The matter, in short, has nothing to do with skin colour or ‘race’. So why did Mr Frei mention 'race' and why did she introduce the word ‘white’.

Your guess is as good as mine.



http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/10/a-brush-with-the-thought-police.html

[Lewis]

[Lord] Andrew Gilligan has given Corbyn/McDonnell a right going over (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html), as only he can.

[John]

That picture of McDonnell with Gerry Kelly should be the end of him.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I think you'll find that article is a Tory smear.

Andrew Gilligan is so fucking good.


Lord Tebbit, whose wife, Margaret, was permanently crippled by the Brighton bomb, said: "It’s hard to think how Corbyn could sink any lower. It’s the classic definition of the snake’s belly. He betrays his hatred of democracy and his love of violence, which survives to this day.”

:drool:

[John]

The bit about Diane Abbott is good. He's summed her up and given her a good solid smack in about forty words.

[GS]

Whatever your politics, that article is pretty serious stuff when you're talking about the alternative PM.

I don't see how he survives until the local elections. No doubt the likes of Henry and Boyd will be in to apologise for them shortly.

[Luca]

It's hard to see how all of that isn't going to end up in political suicide. I don't purport to be an expert in British politics (let alone The Troubles), but surely supporting an organization that killed soldiers and politicians of the government you're attempting to run just isn't going to fly with the general public.

To put it into perspective, we had our own period of separatist violence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis) (the Quebeckers, natch), and I can't even begin to fathom the idea of a former member/public sympathiser of the FLQ running for office in Quebec, never mind national office.

[Jimmy Floyd]

In the post Corbyn era it's acceptable to think or be associated with pretty much anything if you're on the left, as long as you're not an evil TORY.

[QE Harold Flair]

The fascist left think they own the monopoly on morality. Always have, always will.

[ItalAussie]

Everyone does. Nobody thinks of themselves as the bad guy.

[Yevrah]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY

[QE Harold Flair]

Everyone does. Nobody thinks of themselves as the bad guy.

That maybe so, but most don't smear their opponents in the worst way possible and deliberately put words in their mouths. Most on the right would frame their argument more on the common sense side than the moral, emotional side. I think that's the difference.

[ItalAussie]

That maybe so, but most don't smear their opponents in the worst way possible and deliberately put words in their mouths. Most on the right would frame their argument more on the common sense side than the moral, emotional side. I think that's the difference.

I think that's more a function of whose arguments you're personally more sympathetic towards, to be honest. Consider the invective that's been thrown at the gay equality movement over the past decade or two, for example. Or you on just about any topic, if we aren't pulling punches.

Both sides get nasty, because both sides think they have the moral high ground. We're just more inclined to believe one side than the other, and hence parse their arguments as at worst "reasonable, if a little over-the-top".

[Luca]

Yeah, sorry Harry; I'm certainly on the right side of the spectrum (at least in the economic sense), but there's proverbial shit being slung from both sides. Look at the American Right's campaign against Planned Parenthood.

[GS]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/deserved-downfall-tom-watson-leon-brittan

It's all going well in Labour circles at the minute.

[QE Harold Flair]

I think that's more a function of whose arguments you're personally more sympathetic towards, to be honest. Consider the invective that's been thrown at the gay equality movement over the past decade or two, for example. Or you on just about any topic, if we aren't pulling punches.

Both sides get nasty, because both sides think they have the moral high ground. We're just more inclined to believe one side than the other, and hence parse their arguments as at worst "reasonable, if a little over-the-top".

No, I really don't think so. The lefty types such as that trollop in the video I posted with Peter Hitchens are always trying to paint their oppponents as racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever other kind of 'ist' or 'phobe'. It seems to me that this happens very little in reverse. I mean look at her first sentence, and I'll quote Peter Hitchens on this:


Ms Malik began her contribution by asserting: ‘It shouldn’t even be something to comment on in any way other than “This is really cool. It is representing a significant swing of Muslim British people and it’s something we should celebrate.” ’

I thought and still think this was an astonishing attitude to take. She appeared to me to be saying (‘It shouldn’t even be something to comment on in any way other than….’) that only one opinion on the matter was permissible. So I responded by saying that other views were permissible. She took this an expression of opinion about the wearing of hijabs, on my part, which it wasn’t. It was an expression of opinion on free thought and speech. I was now quite sure that this, not a discussion about headwear, was my main aim

[QE Harold Flair]

Yeah, sorry Harry; I'm certainly on the right side of the spectrum (at least in the economic sense), but there's proverbial shit being slung from both sides. Look at the American Right's campaign against Planned Parenthood.

The American right is very different from the British right, much more entwined with religion and all the garbage that comes with it.

[ItalAussie]

The American right is very different from the British right, much more entwined with religion and all the garbage that comes with it.

See also: Peter Hitchens.

[QE Harold Flair]

Except he distances himself from the religious right in the US. Don't test my Hitchens knowledge or I guarantee you that you will fail.

[Lewis]

His point is that the likes of Peter Hitchens don't always 'frame their argument more on the common sense side than the moral, emotional side'. Hitchens thinks that culture, morality, and politics have been systematically undermined by 'Eurocommunism', which implies non-native subversion, and he generally ascribes nefarious motives to everybody but himself. UKIP do likewise with their 'Westminster' pish, the implication of which is that everybody except UKIP is working against the Great British Public.

[QE Harold Flair]

I didn't say they 'always' did, you'll find. Whenever they don't it tends to be for religious reasons, which doesn't surprise me. I'm not sure Hitchens, himself, would agree with your assertions on what he thinks. As for UKIP, if UKIP means Farage, then he's dead right. Those in power have indeed been undermining Britain for a long time. That doesn't mean they do it deliberately.

[Lewis]

Farage says they have been doing it deliberately (so does Hitchens, and so you do with your belief in the Andrew Neather crap).

[QE Harold Flair]

Well that was New Labour, and Neather never said anything about Britain. And yes many do it deliberately, but that doesn't account for everyone in the party. It also depends on who Farage and Hitchens are talking about. I'm sure if you bothered to ask them they wouldn't say everyone within a party wanted to destroy Britain and, even if they did, it would be destroying Britain as they see it. After all, why would anyone seriously want to destroy the country they live in? (except Muslamics)

[John]

Don't test my Hitchens knowledge or I guarantee you that you will fail.

Lewis tested it the other day with a quote from a book you claim to have read and your response was 'Shut up.'

[Lewis]

'That doesn't mean they do it deliberately' to 'yes, many of them do it deliberately' in the space of a single reply is some going.

Who said 'everyone within a party'? I thought we were talking about people on the left/right (unless you originally meant everyone in the Labour Party) accusing one another of underhand motives? That said, just today Peter Hitchens has claimed that 'concreting over what remains of the English countryside, [was] a long-term New Labour obsession' (even though they hardly built any houses), so apparently he thinks it's parties as well.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, just another example of you not being able to think in anything but straight lines. There is nothing contradictory in that sentence.

You're the one who brought up Labour under Andrew Neather.

[Lewis]

I brought it up as an example of people on the right (Peter Hitchens, you even though you're not really right-wing) accusing their opponents of underhand tactics. Neather (supposedly) alleged that Labour let the entire Third World in to create a multicultural society simply as a means of winding their opponents up. Hitchens is rightly opposed to such a society because it wrecks the social cohesion upon which the nation and nation state are founded. How is that not deliberately undermining Britain, and doing so for shadowy, partisan reasons?

[QE Harold Flair]

There's your autistic thinking again. Hitchens doesn't always or even usually accuse people of underhand tactics (aside from those who accuse him of some kind of phobia) - if you think that then you don't pay much attention to what he says or writes. He also doesn't say Labour let the ethnics in just to wind people up Neather said that, he doesn't need to do anything but quote him. It isn't necessarily undermining Britain in the eyes of those who support mass-immigration, since they obviously think that's good for Britain. They're wrong of course, and thus are undermining Britain without deliberately or knowingly doing so. I don't know why you can't or won't see this very obvious point.

[Lewis]

The EXPLOSIVE revelation in what Neather said (and then clarified) was that they did it largely to 'rub the rights noses in diversity'. His other points about cheap labour and whatever else could conceivably be spun into an argument about doing what was right for the country; but that is strictly partisan, and what the likes of Hitchens emphasised as a means of accusing Labour of acting with malicious intent.


The Blairites’ aim was to undermine and get rid of traditional conservative British culture. They really did want to turn Britain into a foreign land... He (Andrew Neather) recalled coming away from high-level discussions ‘with a clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

I have to say I am not surprised. Nor am I so sure about the ‘main purpose’. In late 1996, an old friend of mine abandoned his long career as a distinguished journalist and went to work for New Labour. We held a sort of wake, since from now on we would be opponents. I asked him why he had done this awful thing. He replied: ‘You have no idea at all just how enormous the New Labour Project is.’

This was one of those moments when a shiver really does run down the spine. Knowing the Labour leader to be a Blair of Very Little Brain, I had assumed he was no more than window-dressing for a standard-issue high-tax anti-British socialist government. From then on, I began to suspect that something much bigger was afoot – a gigantic, irreversible cultural, social and sexual revolution, accompanied by huge constitutional change – a slow-motion putsch. I think that suspicion was borne out. Mass immigration, so vast that Britain would have to adapt to the migrants rather than the other way round, would be very useful in attaining this.

He's accusing New Labour (whose big names were all ex-Marxist proponents of 'Eurocommunism' remember) of concealing their shadowy plans for a 'slow-motion putsch'. It's fucking deranged, and it makes some twat 'putting words in his mouth' in a debate over cakes look a bit trivial. Try paying attention to what he says and writes in future.

[QE Harold Flair]

Clarified lol. And luckily there weren't that many 'big names' in the party beyond Blair and Brown. Undermining British culture and undermining Britain are two separate things. There's a group of people who think Britain is better off with more multiculturalism, and Blair is certainly among them. You're still not quite getting the very obvious point that Blair does not think his actions were undermining Britain and he felt it was good for Britain, wrongly. Obviously from Hitchens point of view and mine, his actions were serving to undermine Britain. It's called a difference of opinion.

I'd also point out that he's written and spoken quite a lot more than your little quote there.

[Lewis]

Here (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/08/marxists-terror-war-and-the-real-nature-of-new-labour.html) is Hitchens noting the Marxist links to a whole bunch of them (he doesn't mention Jack Straw there, the Home Secretary at the time of the Neather business, although he has mentioned it elsewhere), so there were more of them in his eyes at least.

You're still not getting the obvious point that whilst Blair would have thought more immigrants were good, he obviously didn't think 'rub[ing] the Right's nose in diversity and render[ing] their arguments out of date' was good for the country as a whole, otherwise they wouldn't have concealed it as part of their secretive 'gigantic, irreversible cultural, social and sexual revolution' (Jesus that gets more mental each time you read it). In the initial Hitchens article you posted (where he's crying about that cake debate) he says 'she began her inquisitorial, nay prosecutorial attempt to establish what I was "really saying". The clear implication *here* is that I had some hidden message that I was concealing, presumably for reasons of shame'. That is exactly what he does with Labour and immigration in the passages I've just quoted. He takes a throwaway quote by his mate and accuses them of subverting the entire national life.

[Reg]

In case someone's interested:

Another article on Hitchens' quote on Buddhism - http://flappingmouths.blogspot.co.uk/2007_09_01_archive.html

In short, he's massively mistaken.

[Lewis]

The Britain Stronger in Europe campaign (good acronym that, lads, 'BSE') launch has been getting a bit of a hammering. Stuart Rose just comes across as your classic Big Business twat, and the political 'heavyweights' set to play a prominent role are either a) the same divs who wanted us to join the Euro; b) John Major. The less said about the luvvies in the baggage train the better. Meanwhile, Vote Leave is run by professional headcase Dominic Cummings, has a load of dirty Conservative money behind it, and makes nifty POSITIVE videos like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tItgGcWVHw).

In an aside related to my E-Victory yesterday, Nigel Farage responded to the BSE launch by saying 'Most preposterous of all is Lord Rose’s claim that what he is doing is patriotic'. Questioning his patriotism. He must have a hidden message that he's concealing, presumably for reasons of shame.

[QE Harold Flair]

There was no victory, I was just bored of answering the same stuff regurgitated over and over again. And your usual dishonest style of debating. You should consider getting a job doing it, you'd fit right in with the interviewers these days. You continue to ignore, on purpose, that Farage there is speaking from what he defines as patriotic, as opposed to his opponent who probably thinks that patriotism means something completely different. Only a few days ago Corbyn claimed he was a patriot because Britain is a fair society who welcomes immigrants bla bla etc.

[Lewis]

That's the entire point you pleb. Nigel Farage defines patriotism as agreeing with him. That means leaving the European Union. If you want to stay in, Farage doesn't regard you as a patriot, and in doing so he attempts to claim the monopoly on morality (http://www.thethirdhalf.co.uk/showthread.php?10-The-UK-Politics-Thread&p=14511&viewfull=1#post14511). Had Farage just said Rose was wrong that would constitute a respectable disagreement; but instead (to use Hitchens' whinge about that Muslim woman and the cake debate) he claims that 'only one opinion on the matter was permissible'.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Why the fuck was June Sarpong at the launch? June fucking Sarpong?

[QE Harold Flair]

That's the entire point you pleb. Nigel Farage defines patriotism as agreeing with him. That means leaving the European Union. If you want to stay in, Farage doesn't regard you as a patriot, and in doing so he attempts to claim the monopoly on morality (http://www.thethirdhalf.co.uk/showthread.php?10-The-UK-Politics-Thread&p=14511&viewfull=1#post14511). Had Farage just said Rose was wrong that would constitute a respectable disagreement; but instead (to use Hitchens' whinge about that Muslim woman and the cake debate) he claims that 'only one opinion on the matter was permissible'.

Of course he does. So therefor the 'underhand' thing doesn't come into it. Underhandedly doing something means you're doing something deliberately. If the opposition feel they're being patriotic then they're not undermining Britain deliberately.

[QE Harold Flair]

Watson still refusing to apologise. The man has no shame

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34504385

[Lewis]

The *accusation* made by Farage (Nigel Farage of UKIP; not me) is that because it is 'preposterous' for Stuart Rose to be a patriot then he cannot be advocating we stay in the European Union with Britain's best interests in mind. So why is he doing it? There is no suggestion that he is stupid. Therefore, he must be deliberately undermining Britain (much like how Big Business works against the people on immigration).

[phonics]

Why the fuck was June Sarpong at the launch? June fucking Sarpong?

Her Career of T4 > Celebrity Big Brother > Serious Journalist has to be one of the oddest televisual moves I've seen growing up. Although Cat Deeley's face always worries me on Strictly. SMTV Live might be my childhood highlight.

[Disco]

Her Career of T4 > Celebrity Big Brother > Serious Journalist has to be one of the oddest televisual moves I've seen growing up. Although Cat Deeley's face always worries me on Strictly. SMTV Live might be my childhood highlight.

By serious journalist do you mean being on a (seemingly serious) show about conspiracy theories with Jesse Ventura?

[QE Harold Flair]

The *accusation* made by Farage (Nigel Farage of UKIP; not me) is that because it is 'preposterous' for Stuart Rose to be a patriot then he cannot be advocating we stay in the European Union with Britain's best interests in mind. So why is he doing it? There is no suggestion that he is stupid. Therefore, he must be deliberately undermining Britain (much like how Big Business works against the people on immigration).

I've already abnswered this, and every other version of it. You can choose not to accept my view if you want, but I'd refrain from continually boring away at the same issue.

[niko_cee]

:harold:

[Yevrah]

Watson still refusing to apologise. The man has no shame

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34504385

He's a completely shameless wanker.

[phonics]

By serious journalist do you mean being on a (seemingly serious) show about conspiracy theories with Jesse Ventura?

Wasn't she on the News or presenting tramatic documentaries at some point?

[Lewis]

:evictory:s stacking up. I might publish them all as Harold Is Not Great.

[Boydy]

What's the deal with this whole Tom Watson thing?

He lobbied for the investigation of allegations of abuse against Leon Brittain to be re-opened, now the police have stopped investigating again because there wasn't enough evidence and the press are shitting themselves at Watson for taking the allegations seriously? Is that it? I've not read into it in much depth, like.

[phonics]

He used Parliamentary Immunity to out him and protect himself from any potential reprecussions is what most should take issue with. Rather than him raising the issue in the first place. Tom Watson was also the first to come out against the Phone Hacking stuff before everyone got behind it. You can say the man goes around things in a sleazy way but he has a set of morals that you can actually view and judge which I do like about him.

[Disco]

What's the deal with this whole Tom Watson thing?

He lobbied for the investigation of allegations of abuse against Leon Brittain to be re-opened, now the police have stopped investigating again because there wasn't enough evidence and the press are shitting themselves at Watson for taking the allegations seriously? Is that it? I've not read into it in much depth, like.

He used his Parliamentary privilege to spur the investigation on and make allegations which the police couldn't then ignore (no matter the veracity).

[Lewis]

What I like about Tom Watson is that he was just as vocal in his criticism of the hacking done by The Mirr... Oh wait no he wasn't he's a cunt.

[GS]

What's the deal with this whole Tom Watson thing?

He lobbied for the investigation of allegations of abuse against Leon Brittain to be re-opened, now the police have stopped investigating again because there wasn't enough evidence and the press are shitting themselves at Watson for taking the allegations seriously? Is that it? I've not read into it in much depth, like.

He went beyond his brief as an MP, and effectively attempted to weigh in to an investigation when spurious evidence existed that it should be pursued. The bigger issue, I suspect, is that he a) he probably wouldn't have done so had it been a Labour peer and b) he fancies himself as some sort of great moral crusader.

It's probably not a resigning matter given, you know, Labour etc. Still, he acted like a massive cunt and is trying to brazen it out.

[phonics]

It's probably not a resigning matter given, you know, Labour etc.

Pathetic.

[GS]

Pathetic.

If this was a resigning matter then Corbyn and McDonnell would be out on their ear tomorrow on the basis of their now-proven support of the IRA.

We're playing on a different level in Labour at the present time.

I think Watson should resign over it, but he won't.

[QE Harold Flair]

I think they need to have a democratic meeting about this.

[phonics]

The Conversative Secretary of State for Health believes in homeopathy. It's the equivalent of having your top science guy believe in alchemy. Pretending the idea of being a tit not a resignable matter as a Labour thing, rather than a politics thing, is absolutely pathetic and sums up your view on politics quite succinctly. Partisan as fuck.

[GS]

The Conversative Secretary of State for Health believes in homeopathy. Pretending the idea of it being a Labour thing is absolutely pathetic and sums up your view on politics quite succinctly. Partisan as fuck.

If you can't see that Labour, right now, are somewhat detached from the regular "rules of the game" then you're off your rocker.

"The membership" not caring will probably be used as the excuse, as it is for so much else.

[phonics]

What are the 'regular rules of the game' because going off what I know of them, Boris has broken them left and right including the worst of all the rules, shagging about and nobody cares (and rightly so). But nah, it's a Labour thing.

[Yevrah]

Almost everybody shags about.

[GS]

Indeed.

As it is, "the membership", or elements of the new members certainly, are the type of people who are turning up at the Tory conference to throw eggs and spit at people.

To that type of "active" left winger, Watson will be some sort of hero because anything goes when you're targeting a Tory.

[niko_cee]

Shagging about probably isn't as bad as falsely accusing someone of being a paedophile/murderer. Unless you're accusing them of being a paedohile-murderer, which has a ring of cosmic balance about it.

And since when is the minister for health any sort of 'top science guy'? Politicians believe crazy shit all over the shop. Most of them are probably religious, for one.

[Boydy]

Now the Tories are allowing big business to design their own tax loopholes

http://gu.com/p/4d8ty?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[Henry]

Senior Tories have lent support to far more odious things than the IRA campaign, as people have already been told, and ignored.

[Jimmy Floyd]

What is more odious than organised murder of innocent people?

Labour are an utter shambles. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34508959

[Boydy]

I don't know, why don't you ask General Pinochet?

[Jimmy Floyd]

If you're going to go down that route I think I can bring out some bigger hitters to be honest, like Mao.

[phonics]

If you're going to go down that route I think I can bring out some bigger hitters to be honest, like Mao.

It's almost like there's dicks on both sides that both say/believe in things we don't like. It's almost THE ENTIRE POINT.

Glad we got there eventually though.

[Boydy]

Serious question as I don't actually know - were any of the Labour Party ever cosying up to Mao like Thatcher did with Pinochet?

[phonics]

653870516508467200

[randomlegend]

And since when is the minister for health any sort of 'top science guy'?

That's not what he said. He said that putting someone who believes in magic medicine being in charge of the health department would be like putting someone who believes in magicking gold out of lead in charge of science. Not that Jeremy Hunt should be a 'top science guy'.

And it is proper mental. It's as ridiculous as the Ron Swanson character in Parks and Rec.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Having Jeremy Hunt in charge of health (or any major department) is a far worse crime than having someone who believes in homeopathy in charge of health.

[Lewis]

The government always works with shithouse regimes, but they do so reluctantly because they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that it furthers British interests. Supporting the IRA doesn't really do that. It's the difference between sending the Soviet Union weapons in 1942 and speaking at dinners for Nazi industrialists.

[phonics]

For all the bike riding nonsense, the last Government have done an absolutely piss poor job on energy. And that's not even taking into account that bills haven't gone down despite Oil being nearly half the price per barrel these days.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2015/oct/13/tweets-energy-department-andrea-leadsom?CMP=twt_gu

[ItalAussie]

Having Jeremy Hunt in charge of health (or any major department) is a far worse crime than having someone who believes in homeopathy in charge of health.

Wait, that can't be real can it? :D

[randomlegend]

That he believes in homeopathy? Certainly can be:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/08/jeremy-hunt-homeopathy-studies-chief-medical-officer

[phonics]

Here's a more detailed piece on that Gove/Saudi/MoJ story

http://jackofkent.com/2015/10/michael-gove-picks-a-fight-over-the-mojs-saudi-contract-bid-the-background/

edit: It's just been announced that we won't be running Saudi jails. Yay.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34518706?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

[Jimmy Floyd]

Gove is such a hero. They should spend the next 15 years sending him round every department in turn sorting it the fuck out. Already made the teaching unions cry and undone Chris Grayling's absolute bollocks around prisons.

[randomlegend]

He made the teaching unions cry because his ideas were shit.

[Davgooner]

Aye, he was fucking mental even if I did briefly like him winding them up. In the end he got shifted as he was just becoming a joke.

[Lewis]

His problem was giving it back to them. Had he just rammed everything through and kept it shut (except for trumpeting achievements) nobody would have cared, since his main ideas have been accepted anyway.

[Jimmy Floyd]

His ideas were almost exactly what Tony Blair did and they weren't crying then.

[Davgooner]

They're not so much crying as just leaving.

[ItalAussie]

It's tempting to believe that anything your ideological opponents don't like is a good idea. But sometimes a turd is just a turd.

[phonics]

It's tempting to believe that anything your ideological opponents don't like is a good idea. But sometimes a turd is just a turd.

But, you know, Labour.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I hope you enjoy doing this for the next 20 years as people continue voting for these terrible ideas instead of Labour ones.

[QE Harold Flair]

I don't know, why don't you ask General Pinochet?

That would be bad, but not as bad as supporting the murder of your own citizens.

[Lewis]

It's tempting to believe that anything your ideological opponents don't like is a good idea. But sometimes a turd is just a turd.

His main policies were extending the academies programme and introducing free schools, and they both seem to be successful (and are being carried on without the same level of opposition). The stuff like messing about with the curriculum and sending out personally-signed Bibles... Yeah. Not so great.

[phonics]

Isn't Gove the one that's banned books and planning on banning smoking in Prisons? Because I can see those two going down well.

[QE Harold Flair]

No, that was Grayling. Gove is looking to repeal the books 'ban'.

[Reg]

I hope you enjoy doing this for the next 20 years as people continue voting for these terrible ideas instead of Labour ones.
I wouldn't be surprised if you've read more about why people vote than I have, but I'm not convinced people vote for ideas, or are too often correct about what ideas they're voting for... I think a lot of people vote based on political catchphrases, faces, personalities, and very vague ideas about what parties mean.

And also, some parties are terrible at getting their ideas across (e.g. Labour for the past 2 elections).

[Spammer]

Why in the fuck would they ban books in prisons?

[Reg]

The ban got lifted in the end.

[QE Harold Flair]

Why in the fuck would they ban books in prisons?

They banned the sending in of books, not books in general. They have a library, obviously.

[Spammer]

It's not obvious. I read 'ban books' and I think 'ban books', funnily enough. Hence my question.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well I'll rephrase that - it's obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense.

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw8vF78K_Ks

4:30 for what I've wanted someone to say for a long time to these stupid BBC, leftist, automaton, interruption merchants.

[phonics]

Now you're quoting Marine Le Pen? Who's next on your list of youtubers, fucking Pol Pot? That woman is an absolute disgrace and anything that comes out of her mouth is immediately discredited by the bile that was fallen out of it over the past 20 years.

edit: And now I've watched the video it's the same old shit. A Le Pen telling people that 'your/their' traditions disgust them and they shouldn't be able to do it in public or interact with the public. They've just moved on from the Jews to Muslims. How progressive.

[QE Harold Flair]

Now you're quoting Marine Le Pen? Who's next on your list of youtubers, fucking Pol Pot? That woman is an absolute disgrace and anything that comes out of her mouth is immediately discredited by the bile that was fallen out of it over the past 20 years.

edit: And now I've watched the video it's the same old shit. A Le Pen telling people that 'your/their' traditions disgust them and they shouldn't be able to do it in public or interact with the public. They've just moved on from the Jews to Muslims. How progressive.

I don't see any connection between Le Pen and Pol Pot - more sensationalist claptrap, I fear. Followed by an insinuation that Muslims are suffering just as the Jews did. Fucking lol at you. I also didn't quote her, I just like the way she stuck it to the stupid bint. Your description of the video is absolute nonsense, of course. She didn't say anything 'disgusted' her and merely reiterated that praying in public is not acceptable in France, among other things which no sensible person would dispute. That isn't just for Muslims either, you'll find.

It's refreshing to see someone white sticking up for their own culture for a change. It certainly scares twats like you, which is good.

[phonics]

That isn't just for Muslims either, you'll find.

Yes, I know, they're egalitarian in their hatred of those different from them. They're the Le Pens!

[QE Harold Flair]

That makes no sense. They're against public prayer. That goes for everyone, so why cry about Muslims?

[phonics]

You really can't read can you? Like genuinely, you struggle to read. Do you just miss words or what? Do you see the word Muslim and it sends you into such a froth you've forgotten what words came previously? At this point it's coming across as a genuine mental disability.

[Lewis]

To be fair she does give her a bit of a donning in that video.

I would like to see some polling on the Le Pen brand. On the one hand it obviously helps get the message out there, with the existing party and that; on the other you wonder whether it prevents some people from voting for them (then again, it's not like the French care about anti-Semitism). Maybe their 'modernisation' will only be complete when the hot niece gets the job.

[QE Harold Flair]

You really can't read can you? Like genuinely, you struggle to read. Do you just miss words or what? Do you see the word Muslim and it sends you into such a froth you've forgotten what words came previously? At this point it's coming across as a genuine mental disability.

Well the whole video you were crying about was about Muslims, and you have previous form. Are you upset for the Christians, then?

And you did shed a tear about Muslims here, as I stated:




edit: And now I've watched the video it's the same old shit. A Le Pen telling people that 'your/their' traditions disgust them and they shouldn't be able to do it in public or interact with the public. They've just moved on from the Jews to Muslims. How progressive.

Like genuinely, like.

[Boydy]

Maybe their 'modernisation' will only be complete when the hot niece gets the job.

Had to look that up. Fucking hell.

[QE Harold Flair]

Sexist!

[phonics]

Well the whole video you were crying about was about Muslims, and you have previous form. Are you upset for the Christians, then?

And you did shed a tear about Muslims here, as I stated:



Like genuinely, like.

Yes, she's moved onto Public Prayer (a Muslim issue) from Hasiddic Jews and Kippahs (Jewish issues). I live on the border of the country, I've been surrounded by this insane familiy's opinion for a decade and a half. And while she's slightly better at tone than her Father, it's the exact same core message.

[QE Harold Flair]

I didn't realise only Muslims wanted to pray in public. Still, you live near there.

[John]

I've long imagined Daddy Le Pen being one of Harold's heroes, having seen the need to be a racist shit and frame it in vaguely modern terms in the seventies. This is an interesting development.

[phonics]

I didn't realise only Muslims wanted to pray in public. Still, you live near there.

What are you even disagreeing with? I said it's more of her same old shit but this time it's about Muslims (Public Prayer is a specifically Muslim issue due to it 'having' to happen at certain times which lead some of the more devout to publicly pray in 'weird' places like those guys at the Liverpool game whereas the rest don't) instead of the Jews, (who have outfits etc.) as well as Kosher and Halal food (equal opportunities again). She also went big on not wearing Crosses anywhere, which I think is pathetic, if you'd like me to mention it. There's got to be some sort of Reading for Beginners class we can enrol you in.

[QE Harold Flair]

I've long imagined Daddy Le Pen being one of Harold's heroes, having seen the need to be a racist shit and frame it in vaguely modern terms in the seventies. This is an interesting development.

I've never paid attention to him. I deal in true things, whether they're deemed racist or not. Sometimes the truth hurts.

[QE Harold Flair]

What are you even disagreeing with? I said it's more of her same old shit but this time it's about Muslims (Public Prayer is a specifically Muslim issue due to it 'having' to happen at certain times which lead some of the more devout to publicly pray in 'weird' places like those guys at the Liverpool game whereas the rest don't) instead of the Jews, (who have outfits etc.) as well as Kosher and Halal food (equal opportunities again). She also went big on not wearing Crosses anywhere, which I think is pathetic, if you'd like me to mention it. There's got to be some sort of Reading for Beginners class we can enrol you in.

I made it abundantly clear - it's not only Muslims who want to pray publicly. Regardless, they're in France and they know the law. Simple as that. And I fear again I have to tell you, it's not 'we'. You are not speaking as a collective, you speak for yourself.