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

[phonics]

http://i.giphy.com/10sXTCdlsdKn8k.gif

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrwuk6NoMv8

[Henry]

Sometimes the truth is racist,eh?

[QE Harold Flair]

By the standards with which you define racism (as long as the victims aren't white), I expect so.

[niko_cee]

So are Corbs and co going to fall at the first Gideon hurdle tonight?

[Henry]

Was Adolf Hitler a racist, Harold?

[Lee]

Had to look that up. Fucking hell.

Marion Le Pen is not fit and has always looked like the result of generations of inbreeding to me. She's nearly fit, but there's something I can't put my finger on that is very wrong somewhere. It's not even the racism.

[QE Harold Flair]

Was Adolf Hitler a racist, Harold?

:happycry:

[ItalAussie]

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.What do you think about laws on public expressions of religion, like public prayer?

[QE Harold Flair]

What do you think about laws on public expressions of religion, like public prayer?

I'm not personally bothered.

[ItalAussie]

I'm not personally bothered.

Sure, it doesn't affect you directly. But what are your thoughts on the principle of the thing?

[QE Harold Flair]

Sure, it doesn't affect you directly. But what are your thoughts on the principle of the thing?

I'm neither for nor against it. In other words, I don't care.

[ItalAussie]

Let's put it differently then. You don't have any objections at all to restrictions on the free exercise of religious speech?

[QE Harold Flair]

Tell you what, you tell me what your religious beliefs are and I'll answer that.

[ItalAussie]

Tell you what, you tell me what your religious beliefs are and I'll answer that.

Blatant dodge. Valiant but obvious.

For someone who squeals like a stuck pig about fascists blocking free speech when it suits you, you're rather evasive here. Let's just remember this next time you tear off about a similar topic. Free speech for me but not for thee.

[Henry]

:happycry:

Evasion on this one too.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, blatant dodge by you. Why do you insist on digging into my beliefs when you refuse to espouse your own? I'm fairly certain I've already said freedom of religion is fine by me many times over.

[QE Harold Flair]

Evasion on this one too.

Yes, because asking if I think Hitler was racist is like asking if I think the pope is Catholic.

[Henry]

Considering you now have gone so far as to express support for French fascist leaders, the question is certainly relevant.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well in that case, are you in favour of the IRA?

Just to add to this, I never expressed support at all. If I'm wrong then show me. I'll be waiting.

[ItalAussie]

Yes, blatant dodge by you. Why do you insist on digging into my beliefs when you refuse to espouse your own? I'm fairly certain I've already said freedom of religion is fine by me many times over.

But you've also indicated that you're fine with it being curtailed. Being as you don't care one way or the other.

[QE Harold Flair]

But you've also indicated that you're fine with it being curtailed. You don't care one way or the other.

It's a bit more nuanced than a simple yes or no answer. I scarcely think that the outlawing of praying in public streets counts as oppression in any real sense. There is still freedom of religion there, broadly speaking.

[ItalAussie]

It's a bit more nuanced than a simple yes or no answer. I scarcely think that the outlawing of praying in public streets counts as oppression in any real sense. There is still freedom of religion there, broadly speaking.
Whether or not you personally feel it's "oppressive", it is still a textbook example of curtailing of both freedom of religion and speech.

Apparently, neither of which you care about one way or the other. And more power you to do so, but let's not forget this next time you complain about fascist curtailing of free speech - because apparently you don't mind it at all if it's aimed at people you disagree with.

[QE Harold Flair]

http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/prie__768_re2.jpg

Well this is a prime example of curtailing freedom of travel. If religious people really need to pray in public (they don't) then they can do so without public spectacles like this, which only serve to separate people. I doubt someone doing it by themselves would be a problem at all.

I'm glad to see you using the Lewis tactic of laying traps on complicated issues and trying to trip me up, all without having to defend any of your views, naturally.

[ItalAussie]

Well this is a prime example of curtailing freedom of travel. If religious people really need to pray in public (they don't) then they can do so without public spectacles like this, which only serve to separate people. I doubt someone doing it by themselves would be a problem at all.

So you're fine with curtailing freedom of speech if it "separates people"? That's what you're going with? Anything divisive in any way can be blocked in the interests of unity? Let's not forget the rhetoric you generally line up behind, which isn't exactly a warm bubble of cohesion.

The take-home message here is that actually, you're not all that bothered about freedom of speech (and religion) - being as you don't care one way or the other - and that you don't mind them being curtailed as long as they're aimed against groups you don't like. And you're more than welcome to take that stance, but it'll get brought up next time you complain about free speech in any other context.

[QE Harold Flair]

I don't see the act of praying as free speech in any way.

What's your opinion? Do you think any speech should be allowed? Even incitement to murder?

[Lewis]

Harold. Go and kill your neighbour for us, mate. Cheers.

[ItalAussie]

I don't see the act of praying as free speech in any way.

What's your opinion? Do you think any speech should be allowed? Even incitement to murder?

I hold with the legal principle behind the US Supreme Court interpretation of free speech, which specifically permits limitation in the case that it is both directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (the key terms being "directed", "likely", and "imminent"). Other than that, I'm pretty much an absolutist on the free speech issue. "Creating division", "Expressing religious sentiment", or "Being someone Harold doesn't like" are all covered by any reasonable legal definition of free speech.

In truth, it doesn't bother me at all that you don't actually believe in free speech as an absolutist concept. Reasonable people can disagree on the topic. It's just something to remember the next time you get on your high horse about it in a different context.

[QE Harold Flair]

I hold with the legal principle behind the US Supreme Court interpretation of free speech, which specifically permits limitation in the case that it is both directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action. Other than that, I'm pretty much an absolutist on the free speech issue. "Creating division", "Expressing religious sentiment", or "Being someone Harold doesn't like" are all covered by any reasonable legal definition of free speech.

In truth, it doesn't bother me that you don't actually believe in free speech as an absolutist concept. It's just something to remember the next time you get on your high horse about it in a different context.

You're more than welcome to take that stance, but it'll get brought up next time you complain about free speech in any other context.

[ItalAussie]

You're more than welcome to take that stance, but it'll get brought up next time you complain about free speech in any other context.

Suits me. Disagreement with an idea does not necessarily mean a desire to abrogate the expression of that idea in a public space. If I ever slip into the latter, then I'd be glad to have that pointed out to me.

But, and I suspect that you're just going to whinge about this next time you get a warning, TTH is not a public space either. Nor are the staff in any sense representatives of the government. Private entities are permitted to decide what is expressed within their space, just like newspapers are not obliged to print every letter that gets sent to them.

[QE Harold Flair]

That's already occurred.

Moving on, look at this cunt:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPbGpx2M7ew

[Jimmy Floyd]

Some quality porridge propaganda here:

https://twitter.com/theSNP/status/654620139552268288

If only Culloden had been fought via the medium of YouTube, things could have been so very different.

[Lewis]

The Spectator would have me believe that the SNP are shittest governing party in the developed world. Why is it only Ruth Sandison sticking it to them?

[Toby]

If they're the shittest governing party it makes the opposition all the more tragic. Kezia Dugdale is a complete embarrassment, and yet somehow not all that bad by Scottish Labour standards.

[Toby]

I was waiting for Tomkins' Spectator piece to appear online and it hasn't disappointed. Just as the 'one-party state' tagline promised, it's a paranoid lolfest from start to finish.

EDIT:

And she's spoiled it slightly with her parenthesis but Sturgeon's response is pretty good.

654281220747096064

[Henry]

If you don't support freedom of speech for people with whom you disagree, then you don't support it at all.

[Lewis]

Her response (and everyone loving it) kind of proves his point about them 'avoid[ing] proper scrutiny'.

[Toby]

Her response (and everyone loving it) kind of proves his point about them 'avoid[ing] proper scrutiny'.

How's that work then?

"Here are some criticisms of me and my government that you might not have seen already. Just please don't ask us about them.

Not exactly ducking from scrutiny to publicly share it with half the country.

It's all been discussed in Holyrood before and will be again in the wake of this, but laughing at is the most sensible option because it's Magic-tier hyperbole of the "I disagree with the SNP so refuse to accept they've done anything good" persuasion.

Half of those policies were brought in with multiparty support, as is required in a "one party state" where they leading party has rarely ever had an actual outright majority.

[Lewis]

It's not really sharing it with half the country. It's dismissing it and counting on her followers being twats (see the comments on the article).

[Toby]

There are plenty of people following her who aren't ardent supporters, and that tweet has given it exposure far beyong her own followers anyway. It's a nonsense criticism.

[Lewis]

I'm sure she'll be responding to all those followers who question her on the contents of the article, but in the meantime lots of people (let's say most) can take it as the definitive verdict.

[Toby]

I don't even get what you're talking about now. She's not going to be wanking on answering every point on Twitter. These things have been and will be discussed in parliament, even the utterly incompetent opposition just about manage that.

[Boydy]

Old man Lew still doesn't understand how Twitter works.

[Lewis]

I know she's not going to respond to the article on Twitter; but posting it with a 'lol' is a deliberate attempt to dismiss it as shite, thereby avoiding the scrutiny that the claims made within it might merit (you yourself called it a 'paranoid lolfest' and avoided the main point). It doesn't matter if people question her on education in the parliament. Who watches that shit?

[Toby]

That's because it deserves to be dismissed as shite. If he wants a more reasoned response he should write a more reasoned article, rather than marking it as absolute shite from the off with his trumpeting of the nonsense suggestion that Scotland is a "one party state" under Orwellian rule. It's absolute headbanging, swivel eyed bollocks, that undermines other fairer points that have been better made by better writers.

To suggest that Sturgeon laughing at it on Twitter - with a direct link for anybody to view the article for themselves - plays into that reputation, simply doesn't make sense.

[Toby]

You'd think, for example, that a "one party state" wouldn't have allowed the Named Person thing to be manipulated in such a manner that it's almost entirely accepted to talk complete shite about it, but that's largely what has happened.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/legal-blow-for-opponents-of-named-person-plans-1.898151


Lord Pentland refused an initial petition for the judicial review of the legislation at the Court of Session in January but campaigners appealed against the decision.

A panel of three judges who reconsidered the case in June have refused the appeal, stating the legislation does not breach human rights or European Union law.

A judgment issued today said: "The mere creation of a named person, available to assist a child or parent, no more confuses or diminishes the legal role, duties and responsibilities of parents in relation to their children than the provision of social services or education generally.

"It has no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family. The assertion to the contrary, without any supporting basis, has the appearance of hyperbole."

The "State Guardian" claims are just idiotic.

[QE Harold Flair]

I can't be bothered to read the article but it's pretty clear the SNP are largely a bunch of cunts, run with an iron fist.

[Toby]

It's refreshing that you admit to not having read it, at least.

There are many problems with the SNP, but Scotland's biggest issue is that the opposition parties are an absolute laughing stock and completely unelectable. I actually agree with Tomkins about the police thing, it's just a shame that his party did not.

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuIfwY_jzz8

[Lewis]

The 'named person' thing is sinister shite however you look at it, and the SNP are 'archetypes of the top-down, authoritarian, one-size-fits-all school of government' (see: Nick Cohen's article on their attempts to politicise universities). Saying so with a bit of political licence does not make it a 'paranoid lolfest', worthy of being dismissed out of hand by the First Minister. It's a bit like when David Cameron just used to shout 'WEAK!' over Ed Miliband, and people figured that out quickly enough.

[Toby]

It's sinister shite as wilfully misrepresented by people like Tomkins, but I don't get the issue with giving a singular point of contact for services and powers that already existed. What's the big deal exactly?

[Jimmy Floyd]

I took the LOL to be a lol at the cover featuring her as BIG SISTER, which I'm pretty sure would induce a lol in any of us in that position, rather than the contents of the article.

I find her very creepy. Her face doesn't move in the traditional fashion.

[QE Harold Flair]

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

Fucking glorious on every level.

[phonics]

Nothing to do with Politics and you post that video every 6 months. I'm quite surprised you're not a GamerGater by the way Harold. You'd like them. It's about ethics in game journalism.

[Henry]

I'm curious as to how many people watch Harold's youtube video's, which he uses in lieu of intelligent comment. I never do.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm curious as to how many people watch Harold's youtube video's, which he uses in lieu of intelligent comment. I never do.

Yes, you do. You've commented on the videos many I post many times and if I know one thing about you, Henry, it's that you would never post a comment about something in ignorance. Definitely.

I have no idea what moronics is on about.

[Boydy]

I watch some of them if they're reasonably short and seem interesting. I've seen that one before. Laurie Penny's a knob. She's one of those people who you're embarrassed to have on your 'side'.

[Lewis]

I'd like to marry her one day, and I would sulk until she took my surname.

[Boydy]

I couldn't put up with her voice.

[Lewis]

Does the very real chance of being hectored into an early grave instantly make it shameful lustage?

[Lewis]

Speaking of which, Jack Monroe came out (or whatever their reveal is) as 'non-binary', so you're basically gay, mate.

[Boydy]

Does the very real chance of being hectored into an early grave instantly make it shameful lustage?
Are you actually serious with this now?

Speaking of which, Jack Monroe came out (or whatever their reveal is) as 'non-binary', so you're basically gay, mate.

Yeah, she was in a relationship with Allegra McEvedy for a while.

[phonics]

Seriously? That's quite the couple. Imagine James in that threesome.

[Lewis]

I was always serious. I'm going to infuriate whoever I marry, so I may as well go all-in.

[Boydy]

I used to have a bit of a thing for Laurie Penny but she irritates me too much now.

[Lewis]

I'd have to woo her being really vague about my beliefs, and then drop them on her when she's fully-committed.

'I went to that fucking breastfeeding protest, so why won't you delete all the minorities off your Facebook?'

[QE Harold Flair]

Weirdos.

[phonics]

You forget about them and then they find a new way to give you a lol

655372533068386304

[QE Harold Flair]

The move comes after Mr Munday's mother passed away earlier this year.

Asked on his facebook page if he was giving up on politics Mr Munday replied he was giving up "on everything."


Isn't that hilarious. Seems like he just wants to get away.

[Yevrah]

That's already occurred.

Moving on, look at this cunt:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPbGpx2M7ew

What a disgusting, disgusting man.

[Yevrah]

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

Fucking glorious on every level.

That is quite excellent. The fucking state of her as well.

[Lewis]

That David Starkey appears to be smashed makes it a bit better as well.

[GS]

What a mug she comes across as.

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09bs3apFe3k

The perfect dissection of the left, by former Liberal lefty come good, Melanie Phillips.

[DC]

I'm curious as to how many people watch Harold's youtube video's, which he uses in lieu of intelligent comment. I never do.

Worth doing just to see that his intellectual dishonesty remains as unparalleled as ever.

[QE Harold Flair]

In what way?

[Yevrah]

Well I for one like Harold's vids (not always, but in the main) so keep them coming.

[phonics]

The new board getting Dave Challoner posting means this thing is way more successful than I imagined. We've started getting guests as well :cool:

[GS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09bs3apFe3k

The perfect dissection of the left, by former Liberal lefty come good, Melanie Phillips.

I don't agree with everything she's saying, however it is quite clear that "the left" can get viscerally angry against people who disagree with them - as if people who aren't on "the left" are illiberal, intolerant and hate poor people. Virtue resides only on the left.

It's quite poor form, really.

[QE Harold Flair]

I had no idea Phillips was a Guardian writer/editor for 20 years.

[phonics]

I don't agree with everything she's saying, however it is quite clear that "the left" can get viscerally angry against people who disagree with them - as if people who aren't on "the left" are illiberal, intolerant and hate poor people. Virtue resides only on the left.

It's quite poor form, really.

And anyone on the left is a scrounger loving, immigrant sponsoring Britain hater but the lefts monopoly on virtur doesn't let them express it.

[GS]

And anyone on the left is a scrounger loving, immigrant sponsoring Britain hater but the lefts monopoly on vortue doesn't let them expressbit.

I didn't say this, which is why I put "the left" in "". "The left" and the left are two different things.

Henry and Boydy, for instance, are of "the left". The likes of Tobias are of the left. The former are ANGRY all the time. The latter's just a liberal type.

[Luca]

The new board getting Dave Challoner posting means this thing is way more successful than I imagined. We've started getting guests as well :cool:

I was wondering who that was. Dave Challoner. :cool:

[Lewis]

It's The Righteous Mind (to use the title of the book that covers it) rather than left/right. The ranks of the left clearly contain more self-righteous wanks than the loosely-assembled right, but the likes of Melanie Philips put enough moralist graft in to cover for those of us on the live 'n' let live wing.

[QE Harold Flair]

Who wouldn't describe themselves as part of the live 'n' let live wing?

[Lewis]

If they were being honest with themselves most people would have to disqualify themselves from it (you included).

[QE Harold Flair]

What about those who don't want any more Muslim immigrants?

[Lewis]

They understand what they're on about and don't see how those are related (not that I ever recall advocating some sort of faith-based embargo on certain immigrants).

Anyway, I turned that Melanie Philips (who I don't mind generally) video off when she got onto talking about how the left doesn't like having a debate with facts and that. I'm sure I remember her calling the Question Time audience 'trivial' and 'ignorant' when they lolled at her trivial and ignorant calls to use the Syria aggro as an excuse to 'neutralise Iran'. How would that one have gone down, love?

[QE Harold Flair]

She didn't mean the whole of 'the left' - it's a certain section of the left. The media left, as she put it. And she's correct.

And I'm afraid you've highlighted a definite inconsistency (which I know you hate) since you always say certain Muslim immigrants are the problem. That's not 'live 'n' let live'. Perhaps, to get out of this massive ditch you find yourself in, you should describe what it is you mean by 'live n let live'?

[Lewis]

I mean letting individuals do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. It's a pretty straight-forward concept that not a lot of people seem to actually embrace, and it doesn't have anything to do with immigration. It doesn't give the world the right to settle here, but it also doesn't place any restrictions on their lifestyles if they do get here.

[QE Harold Flair]

So what have I ever said which makes you think I am not a 'live n let live' proponent on that definition?

Just to add, the argument you use against Muslim immigrants would see you described as either a racist or bigot, and probably both. Which is the thrust of her point.

[Lewis]

The obvious place to start would be the fact you don't think cannabis (and other drugs) should be legalised. Then you've got your less-than-solid commitment to free speech. There are other things that come to mind ('sharia courts', and didn't you support the French burqa ban?), but I can't be bothered with those debates again.

I'm not sure what my argument against 'Muslim immigrants' is meant to be. I think we should be more wary of immigration from shit countries generally, rather than Muslim countries specifically (although they do tend to dominate the list of shit countries we tend to receive immigrants from), so shithead Christians and other plebs who believe in witchcraft from deepest darkest Africa don't exactly top the wish list either.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well that would then entail a further discussion on what you mean by 'hurt other people'. Clearly the drug addled suicide merchants do harm other people and, as a further result of drugs fueling other crimes, it hurts other people indirectly as well.

How does being 'more wary' manifest itself on a practical level?

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcngNMaPnD8

Tobes loves it.

[Toby]

He demonstrated perfectly well that he was among the many, many opponents to Scottish independence that simply didn't understand what people were asking for. To compare them to Nazis should lose him any credibility on the matter - it's just total nonsense. He doesn't manage to make any point against the differences between civic and "blood and soil" nationalism, because it's obvious to anybody sensible and not on the wind up (as his various digs at Scotland suggest he is) that the modern approach to Scottish independence has little to do with "nationalism" in the sense of where you were born.

[Lewis]

Well that would then entail a further discussion on what you mean by 'hurt other people'. Clearly the drug addled suicide merchants do harm other people and, as a further result of drugs fueling other crimes, it hurts other people indirectly as well.

How does being 'more wary' manifest itself on a practical level?

Make it harder for them to get in than a similarly dense German (assuming we regained control of that).

I'm not interested in what hurts people 'indirectly'. Pissheads commit crimes as well, and there are people out there who think advertising turns people into anxiety-ridden wrecks.

[Yevrah]

Yeah, that's fucking ridiculous of Starkey there, He isn't half a twat at times.

[phonics]

Those cannabis smokers doing their mary j wana doobies and comitting crimes.

[phonics]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/10/17/22/2D82FB0C00000578-3277402-image-m-11_1445118359430.jpg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3277402/Smoking-gun-emails-reveal-Blair-s-deal-blood-George-Bush-Iraq-war-forged-YEAR-invasion-started.html

From a year before we went to Iraq.

[Yevrah]

Where's the Chilcot enquiry at these days?

[phonics]

Still being blocked while Cameron and friends pretend they want it released. I think they're at the point where they're contacting people who are slagged off in it to ask them if they're okay with being slagged off or something.

[Yevrah]

Wiki has it down as concluding on 2nd November 2011, nearly four years ago now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry#Criticism

What a complete shambles.

[Lewis]

I took 'should military options be necessary' to be the key phrase in that document. I'd like to know what they have whited out, but it's not quite as sinister as the headlines suggest (the implication of which seems to be that they decided they were definitely doing it a year in advance), and probably what you would expect from a British Prime Minister (sadly).

[Lee]

Blair committed to going to war in Iraq ahead of telling us? I'm truly shocked. It was going to happen from the moment he pledged to stand "shoulder to shoulder' with the Americans. From memory it was never a secret that he wanted us to go in. He took it through parliament and won the vote. If he had lost that vote he would have resigned. I don't see that the process was undemocratic or deceptive. The case for war is another matter, of course.

[QE Harold Flair]

Make it harder for them to get in than a similarly dense German (assuming we regained control of that).

I'm not interested in what hurts people 'indirectly'. Pissheads commit crimes as well, and there are people out there who think advertising turns people into anxiety-ridden wrecks.

So an i.q test?

And the drunk argument doesn't hold up. That's just saying 'well drink is legal so everything else harmful should be'. If alcohol were a completely new drug, knowing what we do now, it would not be legal.

[Lewis]

I was thinking more of a system that prioritises developed countries.

And yes, drink is legal so everything else harmful should be. Got it in one.

[QE Harold Flair]

I was thinking more of a system that prioritises developed countries.

And yes, drink is legal so everything else harmful should be. Got it in one.

That's a ridiculous argument which doesn't show you in a good light at all. Making the point that drink causes untold damage as a good reason to legalise other things whoch cause untolkd damage is not the most moral case.

Your point about 'developed countries' is without doubt a clear case of Islamicophobiaism, masked.

[Lewis]

Cultural supremacism ftw.

The moral case I care about is people doing what they want (and not telling me what to do).

[Toby]

It's quite amusing how quickly Harold went from arguing he was one of the "live and let live" crowd to telling Lewis why he was wrong about certain restrictions on how people should be allowed to live.

[Henry]

"Let's move on", will be the refrain from the establishment, of course.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's quite amusing how quickly Harold went from arguing he was one of the "live and let live" crowd to telling Lewis why he was wrong about certain restrictions on how people should be allowed to live.

I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies. But I wouldn't expect you to get that. I also don't recall saying any such thing.

[Toby]

Since there have been a few unreasonable arguments about them in the past couple pages, here's a good take on the SNP conference from a far less partisan writer: http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/analysis/1330957-stephen-daisley-on-nicola-sturgeon-speech-to-snp-conference/




Three questions emerge from SNP conference 2015.

Question one: What is the SNP today?

Answer: Who knows.

The angry and aggrieved are still there; muttering the old prejudices, their faces etched with resentment. A BBC fringe meeting turned ugly, as the Nats’ raw paranoia about the broadcaster spilled out. Elsewhere, Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, a walking press release, went off-message and used a speech on the refugee crisis to denounce “British values”. That got them whipped up into a hollering, foot-stomping frenzy. For all Nicola Sturgeon disavows Scottish exceptionalism, there is nothing as orgasmic for nationalists as being told how much more kind and caring they are than the English.

Around them are newer aspects, some fresh, others weathered by age or circumstance. (As well as a cult of moral superiority, the new SNP is a self-help group for the broken and the left-behind.) There are semi-Trots and ought-to-be-Tories, sincere social democrats and ambitious political climbers, sharp-suited businessmen and cardiganned home economics teachers.

It was the biggest, glossiest, New Labourest conference the SNP has ever had. As delegates railed against corporations from the podium, McDonald’s and INEOS schmoozed MPs from expensive perches in the exhibition hall. Lobbyists brushed up against ancient Bravehearts and an unprecedented contingent of journalists queued with ingénue radicals for overpriced coffee. (Not to be a miserly Jock but six quid for a baguette? Have they not heard about this austerity we’re living through?)

There was a modest victory for the left on land reform and a hint of hope for the right on fracking. But the centre retains its iron grip on proceedings: Independence, at some point. Fighting poverty, costings to come. More “investment”, scant talk of outcomes.

These paradoxes circled each other suspiciously but for now the SNP’s schtick as the insurgent establishment is working. There is, however, a hairline fracture in this otherwise healthy tooth. Run your tongue over the smooth enamel fast enough and you’ll probably miss the flaw but it’s there. The SNP is a coalition of interests but it is a largely unconscious one. The left-wing, post-referendum membership still doesn’t know the right-wing exists; they have swallowed the audacious fiction of the SNP as a reconstituted Labour Party, battling for the egalitarian nirvana certain to ensue after independence.

The cavity will open up when the September 19ers find their way around the standing orders and push to get their people on the key committees. They may behave with faithful obedience now but impatience is a potent force in politics.

Question two: Who is Nicola Sturgeon?

The First Minister must be the most photographed woman in Scotland, half of them taken with her own iPhone. And yet there remains an inscrutability to the selfie queen. She is a woman, a leader, an icon, a figure of devotion gazed upon moonily by her followers like a dazzling chimera of Eva Perón and Princess Diana. (Whenever she takes a stage, I can’t help but hear Wham! in my head. Usually ‘Everything She Wants’ but I suppose her groupies prefer ‘Freedom’.)

Sturgeon is caught betwixt and between. She has seven years’ incumbency as the virtual co-First Minister and a further 12 months running things in her own right. Still, next May she will ask Scotland for the first time to back her as First Minister. That Scotland will do so is beyond doubt but it doesn’t tell us much more about her.

I know I like her. I know she cares. I know there’s something special about her, that shine that attends perhaps one leader in every generation. But try as I might I can’t get any deeper than that. I don’t know who Sturgeon is, what her vision for the country is. I couldn’t define Sturgeonism, if it even exists yet, and other than independence and a bit more compassion, I’m not sure what her philosophy involves.

"Trust us – trust me – to always do the best for you, for your family and for your community,” she told the conference hall, but didn’t expand on who “me” is.

This matters. The polls can’t defy gravity forever and when they do drop, the public will need a clear definition of Sturgeon. Something you can scribble on a Post-it note. If she wasn’t already First Minister, why would you vote for her? Fail to answer this and eventually her opponents, when they get their act together, will do it for her.

If the answer is that she “stands up for Scotland” or is “a safe pair of hands”, fair enough, but I believe there’s more to her. I just can’t tell you what it is yet.

And that brings us to the final interrogative: Why not?

What is the argument against voting SNP? Their record on schools, hospitals and policing is found wanting but there is no opposition worth the name to exploit these failings. Kezia Dugdale is witty and charming and regularly bests Sturgeon at FMQs but she has a long way to go to convince people she’s first ministerial. Her party, shorn of its old hands and rising stars, couldn't be trusted with the mid-morning coffee run let alone a devolved administration. Ruth Davidson is a significant talent but her continued commitment to the Scottish Tories is starting to look like a care in the community scheme.

As Sturgeon acknowledges, it is not good enough to win on the weakness of her rivals. She has to press a positive case for voting Nationalist next May. This she began to do in Aberdeen by firming up her opposition to a second independence referendum until a sizeable shift in public opinion can be discerned. Instead, the 2016 Holyrood elections will be fought on Sturgeon’s pledge of extra childcare, new NHS treatment centres and a more generous social welfare net. For much of its history the SNP has been an “independence plus” party, the constitution taking pride of place with other policies tacked on. Sturgeon is slowly reshaping it as an “independence too” outfit, where public services, social welfare, and the economy take centre stage but separation is still the long-term goal.

In doing this, she is edging towards an answer to our second question but what the membership will make of it remains to be seen.

Whatever the internal party politics, Sturgeon’s manoeuvres are electorally sound. They force No voters to confront this question: If independence is off the table, what’s stopping you from voting SNP next time? Sturgeon offers strong leadership and has the potential to turn around her party’s domestic policy failings. And imagine the boost to that mission brought by a new voter base who demand that education and the health service be made priorities over the constitution.

Nicola Sturgeon will spend the next six months setting out a case for Unionists to lend their vote to the SNP. It’s not just Nationalists who have questions to answer.

[Henry]

Blair committed to going to war in Iraq ahead of telling us? I'm truly shocked. It was going to happen from the moment he pledged to stand "shoulder to shoulder' with the Americans. From memory it was never a secret that he wanted us to go in. He took it through parliament and won the vote. If he had lost that vote he would have resigned. I don't see that the process was undemocratic or deceptive. The case for war is another matter, of course.

Blair had made it very clear in the course of events that he would exhaust diplomatic avenues. A commitment to go to war proves that that was (another) lie.

It's also illegal, but then so was the whole thing.

[phonics]

It's time for them to roll out the psychopath again.

http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2013/09/30/17/theresa-may-pa.jpg


The home secretary has vowed to "systematically confront and challenge extremist ideology" as she detailed new curbs on those who "spread hate".

Radical preachers will be banned from posting material online and anyone with convictions for extremist activity will be barred from working with children.

Deradicalisation classes will be made mandatory for others deemed a threat.

But Muslim leaders warned the strategy "continues down a flawed path" and risks "alienating" Muslims in the UK.

Also among the measures within the counter-extremism strategy (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/469171/51774_Cm9145_Final.pdf) are:


A full review of public institutions such as schools, further and higher education colleges, local authorities, the NHS and the civil service to ensure they are protected from "entryism" - or infiltration - by extremists
An official investigation into the application of Sharia law in the UK
Extremism disruption orders to stop individuals engaging in extremist behaviour
Closure orders for law enforcement and local authorities to close down premises used to support extremism
Tougher powers for broadcasting regulator Ofcom so action can be taken against radio and television channels showing extremist content
Demands that internet service providers do more to remove extremist material and identify those responsible for it

[Lee]

She really is fucking hateful. Who decides the next Tory leade? The members? If things are going to shit and they decide they need somebody less wet than Dave/George/Boris they might just go mental enough to give her the job.

[Henry]

How is extremism defined and who decided what constitutes extremism? There is a thin line between extremism and dissent.

If you substitute one for the other in the above list, things begin to get very worrying.

[QE Harold Flair]

How would you define extremism?

In any case, it's no good letting in all these Muslims from the world's backwaters and then trying to deal with the mess you create by doing so. Closed or very closely controlled borders was the only way, even though it's probably too late to actually achieve much now.

[John Arne]

How would you define extremism?

In any case, it's no good letting in all these Muslims from the world's backwaters and then trying to deal with the mess you create by doing so. Closed or very closely controlled borders was the only way, even though it's probably too late to actually achieve much now.

Do you think every Muslim country is a "backwater", or just the ones those currently seeking asylum are from?

[QE Harold Flair]

Do you think every Muslim country is a "backwater", or just the ones those currently seeking asylum are from?

Pretty much, yes. Those which aren't backwaters (there aren't many) still have backwards ideas and practices.

I think people underestimate the hold Islam has over its followers compared to those of other faiths.

[John Arne]

Pretty much, yes. Those which aren't backwaters (there aren't many) still have backwards ideas and practices.

I think people underestimate the hold Islam has over its followers compared to those of other faiths.

I think you have a warped perception of what many of the countries are like. For sure, there will be some shitholes, but there are also a lot of regular looking countries, with regular looking cities, with regular people who just happen to be Muslim.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, London being one. What Islamic countries are you thinking of?

[Henry]

Well, there's Indonesia, population 255 million.

[John Arne]

Malaysia, Algeria, Indonesia, Albania, Qatar (if we exclude human rights from shitholery).... Shall I go on?

[Lewis]

They're still pretty shit. Not that it's really Islam's fault. The Arabs could have embraced atheism a thousand years ago and they would still have never progressed beyond slotting goats behind tents.

[Toby]

Malaysia, Algeria, Indonesia, Albania, Qatar (if we exclude human rights from shitholery).... Shall I go on?

That's not exactly a brilliant list to showcase...

[John Arne]

All those countries are perfectly fine. Certainly not shitholes.

[Davgooner]

They seem to be going utterly mental with this anti-extremism shit. The only upside is that it looks as if a few emails might be enough to land some of my work colleagues on a government hit-list.

[Yevrah]

They seem to be going utterly mental with this anti-extremism shit.

Something needs to be done. You can argue May's approach is ultimately the wrong one (and there's a legitimate worry that the general tone of it may play into the hands of extremist groups), but a few of those bullet points in that post above seem reasonably sensible.

"Muslim leaders" might not like it, but I don't see them coming up with anything better, let alone something that might actually work. In the main, all they really seem to do is piss and moan.

[Lewis]

Speaking of making sure institutions are 'protected from "entryism" - or infiltration - by extremists', Twitter sez that a former Labour minister has resigned the whip and called them a sack of shit.

EDIT: Stand down. It's nobody good (http://order-order.com/2015/10/19/lord-warner-quits-labour/).

[Boydy]

656209090197131264

Lord Warner. Who?

[Henry]

Something needs to be done.

I'm tempted to quote Thomas Jefferson at you.

[Yevrah]

I'm tempted to quote Thomas Jefferson at you.

Crack on.

[Henry]

I'm sure you've heard it before. Those who sacrifice liberty for security will lose both, and deserve neither.

If "something" is to be done, it should be "something" consistent with personal freedoms.

[Yevrah]

I'm sure you've heard it before. Those who sacrifice liberty for security will lose both, and deserve neither.

If "something" is to be done, it should be "something" consistent with personal freedoms.

As long as the said personal freedoms exercised aren't hurting anyone then I'd absolutely agree.

I don't think any of these, for example, come under that category though:

A full review of public institutions such as schools, further and higher education colleges, local authorities, the NHS and the civil service to ensure they are protected from "entryism" - or infiltration - by extremists
An official investigation into the application of Sharia law in the UK
Demands that internet service providers do more to remove extremist material and identify those responsible for it

[Henry]

It goes back to my question of what constitutes extremism. The last point could potentially be used to suppress all sorts of dissent.

[Yevrah]

It would have been easier for everyone if she'd just said 'Islamic Extremism', I agree.

[Davgooner]

It's a bag of shit. The effort within education seems to be particularly fucked; the training course that we're being made to take is the more power-puff thing I've ever sat through. From an IT point of view were now subject to safeguarding protocols that are completely unworkable and seem designed purely to ensure someone at the bottom of the ladder and their institution can be blamed if one of their gimps becomes the new Jihadi John.

[Yevrah]

What do you do Dav? Teach and Internet Service Provide?

[Davgooner]

I run an ISIS recruiting centre in the West Midlands.

[Yevrah]

Fucking knew it.

[phonics]

If it's anything like the recruitment centers I've been going to lately the success rate is so poor, we're probably safe till at least 2022.

[QE Harold Flair]

Malaysia, Algeria, Indonesia, Albania, Qatar (if we exclude human rights from shitholery).... Shall I go on?

Why do we exclude human rights? Surely the complete lack of such rights is at the very forefront of what a shithole is?

It's funny how such 'non-shitholes' have so many people wanting to leave them and come to Europe, I find.

[QE Harold Flair]

They're still pretty shit. Not that it's really Islam's fault. The Arabs could have embraced atheism a thousand years ago and they would still have never progressed beyond slotting goats behind tents.

That's definitely not true. They were, at one time, at the forefront of understanding. The problem is, they have stayed at that point because of their shit religion. Islam is a non-progressive religion.

[QE Harold Flair]

It goes back to my question of what constitutes extremism. The last point could potentially be used to suppress all sorts of dissent.

And I'll ask you again, what constitutes extremism to you?

[Henry]

LOL at Harold's understanding of history. LOL once more.

[QE Harold Flair]

LOL at Harold's understanding of history. LOL once more.

You won't get away with that without expanding, I'm afraid.

[phonics]

LOL at Harold's understanding of history. LOL once more.

He's kind of right. Putting it all down to Islam is a bit of a stretch but it's not that far off.

[Henry]

He's kind of right. Putting it all down to Islam is a bit of a stretch but it's not that far off.

It's very far off. The Islamic world achieved and maintained their position at the "forefront of understanding" for some time while Islam was at the height of its power.
To recognise this (or not, if you're aggressively philistine like Harold) but then maintain that Islam is synonymous with backwardness is pretty contradictory.

The problems that the Islamic world are experiencing are relatively recent (i.e. not endemic) and are attributable mainly to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the subsequent collapse of things like Arab nationalism. Yes, Islam is not blameless but there's no reason why we should identify the extremes like salafism with the entire thing. And at the end of the day, Islamic countries are mostly middle-income. They're not economically dominant, but then they do exist mainly in the middle of some very large deserts and don't have the other advantages that western society has had.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's very far off. The Islamic world achieved and maintained their position at the "forefront of understanding" for some time while Islam was at the height of its power.
To recognise this (or not, if you're aggressively philistine like Harold) but then maintain that Islam is synonymous with backwardness is pretty contradictory.

Err, that's pretty much what I alluded to. 'Science' wasn't really a thing back then. When it became a thing, proving Islam backwards in many ways, Islam and those following it strictly, have been left behind.

You only have to look at the attitudes towards gays and women in the Islamic world to see this highlighted.

[Henry]

What the fuck are you on about? How did science "becoming a thing" "prove Islam backwards in many ways" and how does that counter the fact that Muslims led the world for some time?

[QE Harold Flair]

Are you seriously confused as to how science and religion has conflicted? And you claim to 'lol' at my take on history......

It doesn't counter the fact, it helps explain it.

[Henry]

I'm well aware of how science and religion conflict. But whatever half dozen lines or so that you're remembering from The Portable Atheist doesn't explain all of human history.

The main point being that neither Islam or any other religion is monolithic or unchanging. The Islam of the 8th century caliphate is wildly different to the Islam of the 18th century enlightenment (when science arose) which is again wildly different from the 21st century faith, and there are many currents within each. The fact that you don't like some of the more extreme modern ones in particular in no way entitles you to apply what you think of them to the previous fifteen centuries.
It's like saying that the Roman Empire collapsed because Jehovah's Witnesses waste their time going door to door.

And no, insisting that it's backwards doesn't help explain why Islamic civilisation once led the world.

[Lewis]

Between the Crusaders and the Mongols the Islamic world took a battering, and then it all ended up under stagnant and insular Ottoman control. The end result being that Europe got busy killing itself and came out the other end with innovative systems of government and economies. It was a very similar story in China, and they weren't particularly Islamic.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm well aware of how science and religion conflict. But whatever half dozen lines or so that you're remembering from The Portable Atheist doesn't explain all of human history.

Never read it. Don't make assumptions.


The main point being that neither Islam or any other religion is monolithic or unchanging. The Islam of the 8th century caliphate is wildly different to the Islam of the 18th century enlightenment (when science arose) which is again wildly different from the 21st century faith, and there are many currents within each. The fact that you don't like some of the more extreme modern ones in particular in no way entitles you to apply what you think of them to the previous fifteen centuries.
It's like saying that the Roman Empire collapsed because Jehovah's Witnesses waste their time going door to door.

Well this is just what I was saying earlier. You refuse to see the obvious distinction between religions. Islam claims to be the final word, it will never have a 'New Testament' as it claims to be perfect.


And no, insisting that it's backwards doesn't help explain why Islamic civilisation once led the world

That's just you not being able to read. I said it once was because at that time it was ahead of the other backwards religions, which have since evolved a lot more, leaving behind the barbarism of Islam. The enlightenment escaped the Islamic world.

[John Arne]

Z
Why do we exclude human rights? Surely the complete lack of such rights is at the very forefront of what a shithole is?

It's funny how such 'non-shitholes' have so many people wanting to leave them and come to Europe, I find.

Ok, take it out.

However, you still don't see people from Indonesia, Malaysia or Qatar (or Pakistan, or Bangledesh....) clambering to get to Europe - what complete nonsense.

[Toby]

I suspect there are about 0.73 people who actually care, but here's a piece challenging the view that the SNP - and it's removal of tuition fees - has harmed access to university for young people from the poorest backgrounds:

http://tomforth.co.uk/uniaccess/

http://tomforth.co.uk/uniaccess/Inequality_of_Access_Table.png


There should be never complacency in education, but combining Scotland's strong position in the table above with the evidence from my first graph showing its recent improvement I would argue that current criticism of its higher education system is unfounded.

Yet another criticism of the SNP government that has blanket acceptance in the media and from the opposition, and yet it's the SNP that are supposedly running a one-party state without proper scrutiny.

(I'm going to end up sounding like Sebo if I keep harping on about it, which I don't want to because I don't even support the SNP that strongly as a party. :moop:)

[phonics]

Interesting piece on us buying our energy commitments from foreign states.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/20/george-osborne-renationalisation-britain-nuclear-power-china-france-privatisation


Take Hinkley, which at £24.5bn will cost as much as the London Olympics, Crossrail and a new terminal at Heathrow put together. Osborne will proudly blare that taxpayers aren’t chipping in a penny towards the costs. True enough, but his civil servants will quietly admit that we are guaranteeing up to £17bn of the total cost. In the screwy logic of Britain’s renationalised capitalism, the public assumes the risk while the corporations get to scoop the profits.

Because rest assured, there will be profits – all of us will be making sure of that. To secure EDF as a builder, Cameron guaranteed a fixed price for electricity from Hinkley of £92.50 per megawatt hour (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/21/britain-nuclear-power-station-hinkley-edf). That is around double the going rate for electricity on the wholesale markets, a price so high that equity analysts term it“financial insanity” (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/25/george-osborne-presses-on-with-hinkley-power-station-despite-criticism). Change your supplier as often as you like, you and everyone else in Britain will be paying for that de facto subsidy in your electricity bills for decades to come. Britons will in effect be paying more for their energy so that French households can pay less. Indeed, so generous are the terms of this deal that the government of Austria is currently taking Britain to court on the grounds that it’s handing out state aid to EDF.

[Henry]

Never read it

Of course you haven't. Silly me.


Well this is just what I was saying earlier. You refuse to see the obvious distinction between religions. Islam claims to be the final word, it will never have a 'New Testament' as it claims to be perfect.

Do you know what a Shi'ite is?


I said it once was because at that time it was ahead of the other backwards religions, which have since evolved a lot more, leaving behind the barbarism of Islam.

You say wrongly, because you don't understand history, or anything else about this.

[Byron]

Interesting piece on us buying our energy commitments from foreign states.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/20/george-osborne-renationalisation-britain-nuclear-power-china-france-privatisation

Yeah, but it's Tories so they know what they are doing with the economy.

[Davgooner]

Security security security.

[Kikó]

I'm sure the Chinese will look after the nuclear power very well.

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/3/32/Cheng_Zhi_S6.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140708022358

[Henry]

I'd say David Cameron should raise the issue of human rights with them, but with the way things are going, maybe it should be the other way around.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Bwahahaha.

[QE Harold Flair]

Of course you haven't. Silly me.

So you will retract your silly assumption, then? Thanks.


Do you know what a Shi'ite is?

Yes, Scoobs in bed. Glen isn't much better.




You say wrongly, because you don't understand history, or anything else about this.

You asserting things does not make them so. Try and make the point by showing me where I'm wrong.

[Henry]

I did show that you're wrong, but you turned it into a jibe about "Scoobs", so what's the point?

[QE Harold Flair]

Z

Ok, take it out.

However, you still don't see people from Indonesia, Malaysia or Qatar (or Pakistan, or Bangledesh....) clambering to get to Europe - what complete nonsense.

It's coming. That's also not true of Pakistan. Pakistani-borns are the third highest immigrant group coming to Britain, after India and Poland.

[QE Harold Flair]

I did show that you're wrong, but you turned it into a jibe about "Scoobs", so what's the point?

No, you didn't. You asked if I knew about the Shi'ite. Well yes, I do. Explain what that has to do with my correct assertion that Islam has rather stood still in its progression compared to other religions? Iran is the most famous Shia-run country in the world - who gave the order to kill Salman Rushdie? Who said the following?:


We don't have any gays in Iran


Where do you think it is still acceptable to be punished for 'swearing at the Prophet'? Or leaving the faith?

It may well be that it's 'progressive' compared to the worst form of Islam but that's not my contention. My contention is that Islam, in all its guises, is much less progressive than any other religion has been and is necessarily so.

[John Arne]

It's funny how such 'non-shitholes' have so many people wanting to leave them and come to Europe, I find.


It's coming. That's also not true of Pakistan. Pakistani-borns are the third highest immigrant group coming to Britain, after India and Poland.

A 30 second Google shows that 14,500 Pakistanis went to the UK in the past 12 months.... That's a mind-boggling 0.000075% of the Pakistan population. They don't exactly seem desperate to head to the UK to me.

[Henry]

If you knew what Shia Islam was, then you wouldn't make comments about Islam being the "final word" that can't be added to. HINT: They've done just that.

And no, the Iranian political system isn't very nice but that's not what we were discussing.

[QE Harold Flair]

A 30 second Google shows that 14,500 Pakistanis went to the UK in the past 12 months.... That's a mind-boggling 0.000075% of the Pakistan population. They don't exactly seem desperate to head to the UK to me.

Well ask yourself how many Europeans are going to those countries in comparison. It's something of a one-way stream, you'll find.

[QE Harold Flair]

If you knew what Shia Islam was, then you wouldn't make comments about Islam being the "final word" that can't be added to. HINT: They've done just that.

And no, the Iranian political system isn't very nice but that's not what we were discussing.

No, they haven't. They interpret things a bit more but, like I said, there is no new testament equivalent and there never will be. The Iranian system is based on Shia Islam, which is the official state religion. Those punishments I gave examples of were based on Shia Islam. What progress!

[John Arne]

Apparently in 2010 Pakistan had 4.2m migrants, plus another 1.6m asylum seekers (most in the world).
80,000 of the migrants were British (2010). Unfortunately, I couldn't find any country-by-country/year-by-year breakdown.

Interestingly, emigration-wise, the most population destination for Pakistani's (in 2010) are;
- UAE (Muslim)
- Bahrain (Muslim)
- Kuwait (Muslim)
- Libya (Muslim)
- Malaysia (Muslim)
In fact, 96.5% of Pakistani emigrants end up in the Middle-East
https://www.budapestprocess.org/component/attachments/download/167

It seems like they are heading from shithole to shithole.

[Henry]

No, they haven't. They interpret things a bit more but...

Nope. Do some reading. TTH isn't school.

[QE Harold Flair]

Nope. Do some reading. TTH isn't school.

Here's some reading for you:


The Jurists of the Shia faith have divided the apostate into two categories – Milli and Fitri. The ‘Murtad-e- Fitri’ is the one who is born into a family in which either one or both parents are Muslims and after he/she reaches to the age of maturity and willfully accepts Islam, then leaves the faith. However, the ‘Murtad-e-Milli’ is the person who was born into a family in which neither of his parents were Muslims and after reaching to the age of maturity and willfully accepting Islam then leaves Islam to another tradition.

In regards to the ruling for being an apostate, the Jurists of the Shia differentiate between the male and female apostate. As for the woman who apostates – whether of the ‘Fitri’ or ‘Milli’ – if she repents, her repentance will be accepted and the penalty for apostasy will be removed from her. However, if she does not repent and recant, then she is to be flogged and imprisoned.
However for the man who apostates – either the Fitri or the Milli - there are different rulings. The most well known position of the Jurists is that the repentance of the Murtad-e-Fitri is not accepted and thus his ruling is that he is to be executed. However the Murtad-e-Milli can repent and recant his statement of apostasy and if he does so, he will not be subject to the death penalty.


http://www.al-islam.org/articles/thoughts-apostasy-islam-mahdi-azizan

Progress!

Why do you insist on appeasement of Islamic barbarism? Why do the left always do this?


I fear this is following a predictable pattern of me actually presenting evidence and being met with opposition and no evidence to back that up.

[Henry]

Why are you trying to pretend that we're arguing about whether the Iranian theocracy is a nice place to live? We already agree that it isn't, so you've no need to be producing "evidence" of it.

The issue that you're trying to get away from is your understanding of the history of Islam.
The whole point of Shia Islam is that the Koran is not the final word, and that the writings of Muhammad's successors (the Imam's) also apply.

See here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahj_al-Balagha).

And to per-empt your repetition of your previous points, this is not to argue that Shia Islam is nice and cuddly - just to point out that it's an evolution and that things are not as monolithic and final as you keep proclaiming.

[Toby]

A 30 second Google shows that 14,500 Pakistanis went to the UK in the past 12 months...


Well ask yourself how many Europeans are going to those countries in comparison. It's something of a one-way stream, you'll find.



80,000 of the migrants were British (2010). Unfortunately, I couldn't find any country-by-country breakdown.

:harold:

[Lewis]

These stories about Seamus Milne becoming Labour's Director of Communications makes me think it's all some sort of performance art.

[Jimmy Floyd]

That clip of Dave and Jeremy having a chat earlier is quality. They both look properly into whatever the conversation is. Gardening, perhaps, or manhole covers.

[Boydy]

These stories about Seamus Milne becoming Labour's Director of Communications makes me think it's all some sort of performance art.

Guido Fawkes has cum in his pants.

[QE Harold Flair]

Apparently in 2010 Pakistan had 4.2m migrants, plus another 1.6m asylum seekers (most in the world).
80,000 of the migrants were British (2010). Unfortunately, I couldn't find any country-by-country/year-by-year breakdown.

By 'British' I think you'll find they are largely Pakistani/British, probably either going to training camps or visiting their fucked up relatives.

How many 'refugees' have you seen saying their dream is to reach Pakistan?

[QE Harold Flair]

Why are you trying to pretend that we're arguing about whether the Iranian theocracy is a nice place to live? We already agree that it isn't, so you've no need to be producing "evidence" of it.

That Theocracy is directly based on Shia Islam, which we are talking about. You will not deflect this, I'm afraid.


The issue that you're trying to get away from is your understanding of the history of Islam.
The whole point of Shia Islam is that the Koran is not the final word, and that the writings of Muhammad's successors (the Imam's) also apply.

See here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahj_al-Balagha).

Even if I agree with you, which I don't, then it would beg the question - why is a faith open to progression not progressing much? Why is homosexuality still punishable by death, as is apostasy? And so on.

[Jimmy Floyd]

All those refugees in Pakistan are Afghans (obviously). Unless that number is people leaving Pakistan? In which case they get snapped up as migrant labour in the Gulf. I would guess that there are many, many more Pakistanis in the UAE than Emiratis.

[QE Harold Flair]

Since this hero was banned from speaking in Britain recently, let's indulge ourselves in the sound of many of his well aimed strokes of the hammer hitting that nail firmly on the head, from a few years ago:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBtsScLjV8M


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3KKYvW9AHc


You can get barred for telling the truth, it seems.

[Luca]

He sort of sounds like a Dutch Jose Mourinho.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Luca, why have your countrymen elected a total cuntweasel?

[Byron]

Actually, I'd be curious as well. Not the cuntweasel part but more what is Trudeau like? Only thing I've heard is that he's the son of the politician regarded as the 'father of Modern Canada'

[Luca]

Luca, why have your countrymen elected a total cuntweasel?

I should have included you in my ranting PM to Lewis. To paraphrase:

Idiots got caught up in a wave of YOUTH VOTE HYPE, CHANGE, and STRATEGIC VOTING. Harper has, in truth, done plenty of boneheaded things (muzzling government scientists, Patriot Act lite) to distract voters from the things (the economy) that people usually vote on, leading to plenty of backlash, especially from swing voters.

I voted Conservative, obviously (to ensure strategically that they'd be the opposition, and not the fucking NDP), but I'm glad Harper has resigned. He's the sort of religious-right type of Conservative that we could use less of here. Unfortunately, the collateral damage includes Joe Oliver, who would probably have been the best choice for leader. If it's Jason fucking Kenney (Harper v0.8), I'm going to rage at the idiocy. In summation, Harper has lost here by doing what Labour did over there; ie. try and govern from one hard side and not from the centre. Kenney would just be more of the same shite.

'JT' won't change anything (he's a drama schoolteacher, for fuck's sake), but he takes selfies, so people like him.

This (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-tories-deserve-another-mandate-stephen-harper-doesnt/article26842506/) is a pretty good summation of how I feel.

[Jimmy Floyd]

So Twitter won? Oh dear. Here, or in England at least, Twitter always loses.

[Luca]

Actually, I'd be curious as well. Not the cuntweasel part but more what is Trudeau like? Only thing I've heard is that he's the son of the politician regarded as the 'father of Modern Canada'

He's got the looks and the charm of his father, that's for sure. He's been an MP for about 7 years now. Some of his main platform positions include include shifting tax benefits from the upper class/corporations to the middle class, electoral reform (moving from FPTP to STV), and marijuana legalisation (fair play). My issue is that he's full of piss and wind, even relative to the general level of shit that politicians talk, and constantly flip-flopping his opinions.

[Toby]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/workie-says-dont-ignore-the-workplace-pension


A new character is introduced to Britain’s television screens this evening (Wednesday 21 October) with the launch of a campaign which aims to change the country’s perception of pensions in the workplace.

Workie, a striking physical embodiment of the workplace pension, will be seen visiting people in all sorts of work environments over the coming months, asking them not to ignore him.

And that 'striking physical embodiment of the workplace pension looks like...



this.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/image_data/file/45280/s300_Workie_GovUK.jpg

[Lewis]

I bet they spent thousands on that. Johnny Vegas and Monkey would have done it for petrol money and a crate of beer.

[Boydy]

I bet they spent thousands on that. Johnny Vegas and Monkey would have done it for petrol money and a crate of beer.

Thousands? Try fucking millions. £8.5 million (http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/21/wtf-iain-duncan-smith-spent-8-5-million-on-a-giant-furry-monster-5453847/).

[Jimmy Floyd]

'a striking physical embodiment of the workplace pension' has probably topped that sausage roll shite as a new low for politics.

[Toby]

The worst bit is that the thrust of the argument itself is clearly just that pensions are the "elephant in the room" that nobody wants to talk about, but they clearly felt too smart to just use an elephant.

[phonics]

These Government contractors... It's absolutely fucking embarassing. We can't even get a quote from someone without spending a few hundred thousand pounds.

Imagine what happens when TPP comes in and any corporation can sue us to shit for the last idiots guff. Eight point five million pounds. That's so depressing.

[phonics]

A Conservative MP who was famously tricked into condemning a made up drug called “Cake” has been put in charge of scrutinising the Government’s new drugs policy.

David Amess appeared on the satirical television programme Brass Eye in 1997 where he was filmed referring to Cake as “a big yellow death bullet”.


As a result of the encounter he asked ministers a real life question in Parliament about the made up drug.


It was announced this week that Mr Amess will chair the bill committee for the Government’s Psychoactive Substances Bill.

It's the bill to ban 'legal highs'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbq3kc29Tmg

[Lewis]

657275889932181504

That picture is Floyd's life.

[Luca]

But with hair.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Mr Xi looks a lot more convincing in a pub than some.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/30/article-2548666-0070952F00000258-61_634x400.jpg

[Boydy]

He's got the 'I've been cornered by the pub bore' face down to a t.

[phonics]

657509698141331456

'Maintaining harmony in Manchester'

Wut?

[Boydy]

What's going on with that woman's hair on the right?

[phonics]

It's been photoshopped a bit to bring colours out, she's moving and there's a shitload of purple in the room so it's interpolated the light into her hair.

[Jimmy Floyd]

As in they're going to both grounds so as not to deharmonise either set of supporters.

[Jimmy Floyd]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CR_7aCaUcAAV0u9.png:large

Hmm.

[Henry]

Why do they always do that shit with their hands when they're talking? Act like proper people, dickheads.

[phonics]

Poor selfie game from the big DC there.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I want to know how the Premier gets his hair to stay like that.

[phonics]

I bet he absolutely stinks of hairspray and cheap aftershave.

[Lewis]

I reckon he smells like wax.

[Boydy]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-accused-of-doing-chinas-bidding-after-police-raid-home-of-tiananmen-square-survivor-over-peaceful-a6704911.html

[QE Harold Flair]

That sounds shit on the face of it, but I can never quite bring myself to believe 'campaigners' when they say he was 'brutally manhandled' by police officers.

He also wasn't arrested for protesting - he was arrested for standing in front of the motorcade, blocking them. That sounds fair enough to me. Not like the police went looking for him.

[Boydy]

657503551778922496

[Lewis]

I don't see how it's any different from when we have the Americans over. We're a medium power. Impressing Asians with flags and palaces (and the City) is about the best diplomatic hand we've got.

[Toby]

Top effort in The Spectator's letter pages this week:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSEhU_8WcAAqdif.png

[Henry]

Tory scum may have bitten off more than they can chew on tax credits. LOL if they have to do a u-turn.

[Byron]

To be fair, I have no issue with the tax credits. I think they should be brought in gradually in line with the wage increases but scrapping them isn't the worst thing in the world.

The lol part is them saying it would be unconstitutional to oppose it (it isn't) and threatening to flood the Lords with 150 peers if it doesn't go through.

[Kikó]

I agree - if tax credits were eased out then it would be less of an issue. The fact that it isn't and will put people's lives at risk is the deal breaker.

[QE Harold Flair]

I think 'putting people's lives at risk' is proper emotional scaremongering.

[Henry]

I think 'putting people's lives at risk' is proper emotional scaremongering.

You're obviously a single mother who stands to lose £1,000 of what little she has to feed her kids, I suppose.

[QE Harold Flair]

You're obviously a single mother who stands to lose £1,000 of what little she has to feed her kids, I suppose.

People will not starve to death in this country unless they allow it to happen to themselves. Their lives are not 'at risk'.

[Kikó]

Oh right, so I guess that money they have know that ensures they can feed their family is superfluous and next year with less they'll do just as well. Thanks for the clarification.

[simon]

They're only spending it on booze and fags anyway, init.

[QE Harold Flair]

Oh right, so I guess that money they have know that ensures they can feed their family is superfluous and next year with less they'll do just as well. Thanks for the clarification.

You're not arguing with what I actually said though, are you? How many of those families actually starve to death? Like I said - people do not starve to death in this country unless they allow it to happen and do not take advantage of the services this country offers to stop such things happening.

[Kikó]

Services on offer such as food banks?

[Henry]

Starving to death is unlikely. But malnutrition is already a problem, and will grow more acute. As will other social problems that this exacerbates.

[Toby]

Surely the reason people don't starve "in this country" currently is that it is relatively wealthy, and surely removing some of that wealth from the worst off is at some point going to have a noticeable effect.

What's the tipping point of lost income at which people might starve?

£2000? £5000?

[Kikó]

And what does the country gain by making more people less healthy? Especially those who are actually working. Seems pretty short sighted and counter productive.

[QE Harold Flair]

Starving to death is unlikely. But malnutrition is already a problem, and will grow more acute. As will other social problems that this exacerbates.

Malnutrition is much more to do with parents feeding their kids shit. Often not inexpensive shit, either.

[QE Harold Flair]

Surely the reason people don't starve "in this country" currently is that it is relatively wealthy, and surely removing some of that wealth from the worst off is at some point going to have a noticeable effect.

What's the tipping point of lost income at which people might starve?

£2000? £5000?

There is no such tipping point if you have safeguards in place to stop such things happening (food banks, emergency funds etc). That was my point.

[QE Harold Flair]

And what does the country gain by making more people less healthy? Especially those who are actually working. Seems pretty short sighted and counter productive.

Don't worry about it, there's plenty of fit, young men coming from Immigrantstan.

[phonics]

Food banks and emergency funds? I thought this was the 21st Century, not Oliver Twist.

[QE Harold Flair]

Food banks and emergency funds? I thought this was the 21st Century, not Oliver Twist.

That's nice. But what I said is correct, isn't it?

[phonics]

658729979350528001

So what happens now?

[phonics]

That's nice. But what I said is correct, isn't it?

That people are unlikely to die of starvation? Yes, it's correct. It's not a great bar to hold your government to I must admit, a lack of widespread famine.

[Lewis]

658729979350528001

So what happens now?

People who oppose the House of Lords temporarily forget that they oppose the House of Lords.

[Toby]

It'll be the second time in a week that Cybernats have been in the tricky situation of agreeing with things they don't normally agree with, since there were a bunch of people getting worked up over the 'EVEL' proposals supposedly being barred by the wording of Act of Union.

[Byron]

So, the stronger motion has been passed, asking the government to bring on the cuts over three years on a gradual basis, which would be the smart option.

Question though, surely the government can just get the Lords to reject it a couple more times in quick succession and then use the Parliament Act to force it through? Basically what happens now?

[Henry]

The Parliament Act has only been used a handful of times IIRC (one of them, laughably was for foxhunting). Not sure why, but they don't like using it.

[Byron]

Osborne: 'the vote has raised constitutional issues that need to be dealt with'

Prepare for another hundred Conservative peers soon.

[Henry]

It damages Gideon personally, which is good.

[QE Harold Flair]

That people are unlikely to die of starvation? Yes, it's correct. It's not a great bar to hold your government to I must admit, a lack of widespread famine.

I agree, but it was only mentioned to refute the ridiculous, emotive claptrap that Kiko served up.

[Kikó]

It's not emotive claptrap.

[QE Harold Flair]

Where are all these dying poor people, then? We don't actually have real poverty in this country.

[Henry]

We don't actually have real poverty in this country.

Jesus wept.

[Davgooner]

"They've got widescreen TVs."

[Kikó]

Where are all the dying people? Probably in the ground. DEAD. BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS HAROLD.

[QE Harold Flair]

Jesus wept.


Everyone knows that ‘poverty’ in Britain is relative. The British ‘poor’ of today do not starve, do not freeze, do not go without medical treatment – as truly poor people across the world undoubtedly still do.
I have seen actual poverty in Africa, South America, India and Burma. And I have seen the poor areas of my own country too. There is no comparison.

:dc:

[Henry]

Fuck Peter Hitchens. The fact that some poverty is worse than other poverty is not demonstrative of anything.

[QE Harold Flair]

Fuck Peter Hitchens. The fact that some poverty is worse than other poverty is not demonstrative of anything.

At what point in your libtard world does someone become poverty-less?

I mean don't get me wrong - I'm glad we've moved away from 'omg people will die!'.