Printable View
So, the internet is on the agenda for being hitlisted by the Tories. If Corbyn said about restricting free speech and controlling the internet akin to North Korea and China, a few posters here wouldn't quiet down about Stalinism.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7744176.html
...Did you not read what I said? They score based on a commentary's tone. There is no data, just the opinion of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Are you being intentionally naiive? They are selected by nations and voted in by nations, they are representatives whether the UN admits it or not and the UN's ability to avoid politically based and biased appointments is non existant.Quote:
I don't think you understand what you are referring to. As I said, convention members are member-states (through their representatives). Agencies and committees of the UN that perform investigative, statistical, or advocacy work are neither member states nor their representatives - they are mostly academic and bureaucratic staff. The link you post about the Committee on the Rights of the Child in fact says as much, suggesting you did not read it.
They are used as political tools by nations to hit eachother with. Using their opinions for data is like using tabloids for news.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...Pages/CRC.aspxQuote:
The definitions are provided for in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The group providing the rankings explicitly describes the Convention as the basis for the rankings. That's the whole point.
Read the entire thing if you want to, there is no fixed definition of "best interests of child".Quote:
Article 3
1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.
3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.
Did you not read my post explaining this?Quote:
Did you read my post explaining just this? From the report:
There were some new reporting standards in 2016 and the countries that did or could not meet them partly or fully for that year took a serious hit in the 5th domain of Enabling Environment.
http://www.kidsrightsindex.org/Porta...-11-124125-077 page 16
United Kingdom 2008:
Non-discrimination - 2
Best interests of the child - 1
Respect for the views of the child -2
Enabling legislation -2
Best available budget -2
Collection and analysis of disaggregated data -N/A
State-civil society cooperation for child rights -3
United Kingdom 2016
Non-discrimination - 1
Best interests of the child - 1
Respect for the views of the child -1
Enabling legislation -1
Best available budget -1
Collection and analysis of disaggregated data - 1
State-civil society cooperation for child rights - N/A
This idea that you have that we took that great a hit for a N/A is utter crap; We were dropped to minimum in all catagories recorded, as was New Zealand, and we got a 0.01, Ireland had some better stats but got the same N/A yet they still got rated 0.4.
Your lack of self awareness and your eagerness to project your own faults on others is an embarrassment.Quote:
It's really frustrating that your posts are consistently so ill-considered.
When I linked to an extremely well-respected documentary on the Labour party's history, featuring just about everyone who was anyone (who was still alive), speaking on camera, thus providing both primary sources and unassailable attribution, Idaho dismissed it as:
Then Idaho gets quoted an unattributed post, probably on social media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Hang on, here's some more. I posted a list of direct quotes, open letters and such from people who used to work with Corbyn, and here's Idaho's response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Hunting disadvantaged creatures for reasons other than food is the coward's martial art. There should be no thrill in a chase unless you have delusions of grandeur. There's no athletic or moral integrity in pursuing an animal that doesn't know there is a game going on.
Do some hard sparring with a human, in a fair one, if you want to be honest with yourself.
You mean the hunted animal would feel better if it knew it was going to be eaten after all, and this chase is not for fun?Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Whilst the Tories to call Corbyn a communist and stealing everyone's money.. or more the fact you earn over 80,000 you pay a tiny bit more tax in rates lower than Winston Churchill in the 1950s, the Tories pledge they will fix spending by removing food from starving primary school children instead!
Where is the backlash? Where is the Daily Mail putting on front page that Conservatives will be removing food from kids who don't get fed properly at home.. oh wait, they advertise to the middle classes who can afford to eat thus not eligible to the free food.
While Corbyn himself may not be a Communist, it's not that much of a stretch as he's sympathised with the USSR in the past and still sympathises with Russia, Cuba (he prioritised attending a Cuba rally over meeting with the Parliamentary party) and others in that bloc. His associates and staff are even less removed from the accusation of being Communists. His shadow chancellor and no.2 John McDonnell recently attended a rally and gave a speech with Baathist and USSR flags just above his head. His campaign chief was still a Communist party member in May last year, having been so for decades. His chief of staff was considered an extremist and a lapdog of the USSR by the leader of the Communist Party of Great Britain (there's something wrong when the head of the UK's Communist Party thinks you're too close to Soviet Russia). His shadow home secretary reckons Mao Zedong did more good than bad. So that's at least four of his close circle, who decide the direction of the Labour party (not the shadow cabinet as a whole, as we've seen from accounts of former shadow cabinet ministers), who reckon Communism is a good thing. I've seen videos from a conference where Corbyn introduced and spoke glowingly of Andrew Murray and Seumas Milne (two of the above) and George Galloway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Is it that unfair to call Corbyn a Communist or accuse him of consorting with Communists?
Well, if we had no foxes the only predators for livestock would be badgers and curs - so killing foxes is certainly advantageous, so if fencing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
However, hunting with hounds is essentially predation against foxes. Without the hunt the fox essentially becomes the apex predator in most rural environments. Possibly they are challenged by badgers, but badgers have a different diet so they don't often directly conflict.
We were discussing this in work and one of my colleagues told me the Black Torrington hunt caught 300 foxes on Dartmoor one day. How, you ask? Well, they had all been dumped there by Liverpool City Council the day before, most were sick and dying from mange and other diseases.
Hounds find the weak, the stupid, the old and the reckless. For various reasons those are more likely to pose a threat to livestock. Eliminating them is positive for the fox population and encourages them to develop a fear of humans and dogs, which helps to keep them off farmland.
It's not a martial art. Unlike boar hunting fox and stag hunting have nothing really martial about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Excellent question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Have you considered that it has to do with Corbyn and McDonnall's characters, and not their policies?
In any case,5% is not a "tiny bit more" in tax, it's a lot more in tax. Also, you'll note that Churchill paid less in indirect taxes, and the basic rate at the time was over 30%, not the 20% of today. If Corbyn committed himself to reducing VAT whilst increasing tax for higher earners then his plans would be better recieved. Anyway, these aren't even the most eye-watering changes, the worst one so far is the increase in Private Medical Insurrance Tax.
So - get this - you pay NI which pays for the NHS, then you buy private insurance so you don't use the NHS, then you pay AGAIN on that private insurance. Corbyn wants to hike that one by 8%, which will likely drive people back into the NHS, negating the benefit of them opting out but still paying NI.
Just like 2015, my facebook feed is filling up with likes and shares from the usual anti-tory bile.
One I'm particularly amused by is "Nobody likes a Tory".
Amused, because it is a significant part of why the left is going to lose the election: these people do not know how to communicate. By these people, i don't just mean the vendors of this social media bile or the parties they advocate (tho it applies to them too), but the people sharing this content!
When they share such aggressive and polarising content, they are not just attacking a party, they are attacking the values of people who find themselves attracted to that party's ideas. This is beyond polite disagreement, it is a public and visceral denigration of that person's perceived moral worth.
What does someone normally do when an acquaintence treats their values with contempt? I'm willing to bet they don't roll over and say; "Fair enough, I can see your point of view, and I've reconsidered my opinion in consequence. Thanks for taking the time, appreciated!" What matters is not that it happens here and there, rather, that up and down the land everyone's social media feed is filling up with this bile. What affect do they think this has?
I mention this not because i'm feeling particularly snowflake'y today, but in anticipation of the shock and despair on June 9th from those same people: "How did this happen, again? I don't know anyone who'd vote this way!"
Really?
And at the same time, people who share stories like that on facebook aren't really representative of the labour voters.
In fact, most of the things shared and seen on facebook have precious little to do with anything happening out there in the real world. The entire logic of facebook is written in such a way to promote the most controversial and attention grabbing content.
what can be described as representative of typical labour voters?
it does lead people into the false assumption that their outrage is normal, and that everyone else is like them.
Well that is earth shattering revelation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Since you appear rather concerned on animal welfare issues I do hope you reported this very illegal act to the relevant authorities.
Though on a moments reflection some questions are raised.
Is it just complete twaddle?
If someone has to give out such obvious fabrications to support their viewpoint on a subject does there viewpoint hold any real merit?
Lets just look at the basics. shooting urban foxes can net @50 a day, a trap may catch 20~30 in a year. So did those evil northerners have a very big collection of traps or did they store the captured foxes until they had enough to illegally ship them half way across the country?
Did they pack them all into the back of a lorry for the journey or would 300 individual cages have to be loaded?
How much would such an operation cost how long would it take and how would it be accounted for since it is illegal and would have to be kept off the books?
How did the Black Torrington hunt catch so many liverpudlian foxes in a single day?
Sorry, but if you just repeat clearly false stories you heard because you think they support your viewpoint then your viewpoint is obviously not well thought out.
Fox hunting serves one purpose , its fun. Well its fun if you like riding with few restrictions on where you can go , and its fun for the followers who like to watch people riding.
Other than that there is no logical arguement which can suppoprt it, it is a highly inefficient method to achieve what it claims it wants to achieve to achieve
It's representative of Corbyn's supporters, so much so that it's actually official policy to concentrate on social media to build a social movement (as opposed to getting elected to Parliament, which Corbyn's faction despises). Ironically, even Corbyn himself has expressed doubts about the self-reinforcing nature of the social media bubble. Not that it's going to change his direction of course, as he's in his comfort zone there, and he's operated within his comfort zone for the whole of his career.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
There are articles about the fragmentation of society due to the social media bubble, with specific reference to the Corbyn phenomenon.
Certainly not facebook. I'm not going to go into details about typical labour voters, first and foremost because my knowledge of the subject is rather limited. I've written that not because I know labour voters, but because I know facebook.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Very true. Also true for every other group, and it's a problem of modern times when media corporations worry about click-bait qualities of an article, rather than its validity, accuracy or comprehensiveness, and when social networks like facebook allow people to live in their own little bubbles which they share with their like minded individuals.Quote:
it does lead people into the false assumption that their outrage is normal, and that everyone else is like them.
Yet Facebook is apparently causing what is happening out there to the real world to be like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39830727
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-37945486
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-32590917
Trump is an example of post-truth politics. So is Corbyn. So was Brexit. I've described the salient features often enough, and pointed to where their supporters demonstrated them. There's an example above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
So true:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
http://www.realcleardefense.com/arti...ea_111352.html
This was some years ago before the ban, at the time it was entirely legal as the mangy foxes were being "re-homed"Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephantine
[/quote]Though on a moments reflection some questions are raised.
Is it just complete twaddle?
If someone has to give out such obvious fabrications to support their viewpoint on a subject does there viewpoint hold any real merit?[/quote]
^This was unnecessary and it's going to make you look more foolish in but a moment.
I've seen video of them being dumped out of the back of vans, half dead, and left by the side of the road. I think it was BBC Panarama but it was at least ten years ago and I can't find a video at the moment. as to where you get 300 from - I would assume they didn't all come from Liverppol, and also that this was a campaign to round them up, once rounded up they were probably held and just about fed until some bright spark hit on "re-homing" them. Perhaps it was not 300, perhaps it was 30, but even catching 30 foxes in a day is extra-ordinary for a hunt that would usually expect to catch two only if very lucky, and often simply none.Quote:
Lets just look at the basics. shooting urban foxes can net @50 a day, a trap may catch 20~30 in a year. So did those evil northerners have a very big collection of traps or did they store the captured foxes until they had enough to illegally ship them half way across the country?
Did they pack them all into the back of a lorry for the journey or would 300 individual cages have to be loaded?
This isn't a story I got from someone who is pro-hunting, anyway.
As I say, I believe this particular case was before the ban.Quote:
How much would such an operation cost how long would it take and how would it be accounted for since it is illegal and would have to be kept off the books?
Having said that - here's some Cornish accounts, from just a few years ago: http://www.cornwalllive.com/urban-fo...ail/story.html
Here's a Torygraph link to the Parliamentary questions on this a few years back:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...-farmland.html
Farmer shoots ten foxes after he loses 32 lambs:
http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/28/farmer...illed-5778656/
The loss of so many lambs on Exmoor to predators, and so many foxes letting themselves get shot is extra-ordinary.
And another account from Swindon: http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/n...left_in_woods/
Presumably because the fell into the categories I mentioned earlier and were easily caught? As I said, I am relaying the story to you third hand, so the number may be inflated but that doesn't make it untrue.Quote:
How did the Black Torrington hunt catch so many liverpudlian foxes in a single day?
Sure, no big cats released onto the Moors either... Nope, nothing ever escaped from Dartmoor Zoo!Quote:
Sorry, but if you just repeat clearly false stories you heard because you think they support your viewpoint then your viewpoint is obviously not well thought out.
Fox hunting aims to control the population - all other methods of "control" are actually culling or outright extermination.Quote:
Fox hunting serves one purpose , its fun. Well its fun if you like riding with few restrictions on where you can go , and its fun for the followers who like to watch people riding.
Other than that there is no logical arguement which can suppoprt it, it is a highly inefficient method to achieve what it claims it wants to achieve to achieve
While we're on the subject of Urban Myths, here's Chris Packham telling us foxes never attack humans.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-animal.html
Here are two articles from the BBC about Urban foxes attacking babies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10251349
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-2140...fox-recovering
Did you read the links you posted?
They do not support your claim.
They don't support the claim foxes are being dumped from cities to the countryside?Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephantine
Yes they do. They even support the fact it's happening in Devon, on Dartmoor.
Do they support the specific case I originally quoted as having been described to me by a friend? No, they do not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39992892
Corbyn's connections to the IRA during the Troubles continue to haunt him. Whilst there's no suggestion he actively supported the Terrorism he is himself a Republican and campaigned for the "Troops Out" movement in the 1980's and for a "United Ireland"
Apparently Ulster Unionist (and former NI First Minister) Arlene Foster feels so strongly about this she is planning to attack Corbyn directly - which is highly unusual.
But in the end the Northern Ireland troubles were settled peacefully by "talking to terrorists", accepting "troops out" and making concessions to a "united Ireland".
Shh, don't let facts come in the way of painting Corbyn as the anti-Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Did you know his middle name is also Judas? Terrible. Burn him at the stake.
Which is how it creates a "win" for the terrorists. You must either pay the blood price to crush them OR, eventually, sit across the table from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Maybe its because behind most political and terrorist causes, there are some reasonable motivations tucked away amongst the craziness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
"Does the Hon Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason."
Jeremy Corbyn, 27th November 1985, on the Anglo-Irish agreement.
Source: Hansard.
Corbyn lies, claims credit for work that others did (a habit of his), and his supporters perpetuate his lies.
Looking at the debate, I'm reminded once again of Orwell's observation that there are sections of the British Left who will always oppose violence, but only where it's perpetuated by Anglo-Americans. Where it's perpetuated by the USSR and its puppets, these supposed pacifists are curiously silent.
In that Commons debate, Corbyn says he supports a united Ireland, and says the problem lies with the barbarism of the British authorities. When you split down the 3000+ deaths in the Troubles, 10% were caused by the British authorities (which Corbyn condemns), while 58% were caused by republican terrorists (which Corbyn supports).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
It's more who exactly he was associating with and what his ultimate goal was. To me it looks as though Corbyn sees Northern Ireland as a relic of Imperialism, which is wronghead to say the least. Ireland is not analogous to our African, Asian or American colonies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
It's a sadly common position among self-hating Anglo's.
Someone should ask him if he condemns the murder of Lord Mountbatton.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
See Orwell's comment about British pacifists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus