-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
You're projecting, not empathising. I get soppy over sheep, but I still eat lamb. I've also seen them killed, quickly and humanely, outside of an abattoir (which is neither) and it was still a tremendously sad thing to watch.
Aside from that, the point is that chasing the fox is not about causing him suffering. You might suggest huntsmen are callous for this, but it does not make them cruel. You need to try to empathise with the hunt supporters, because they are human beings.
I did not say they don't care - I said that if the fox escapes it does not reduce the enjoyment of the chase.
At least you admit your ignorance of the culture. Given that you are ignorant, however, you cannot reasonably claim to know how huntsmen feel about hunting, can you? So you are not qualified to say that they hate foxes, or enjoy their suffering.
If the thrill and the culture is the main point of the hunt, I'm not sure it has that much going for it. There are other things that used to be acceptable culture in the past, but are decidedly unfashionable nowadays. Such as war, which hunting was a surrogate for in the past. If the main point of hunting is thrill-seeking, then surely there are other ways of getting that thrill, without having to subject non-consenting partners to the risk of death. Other pastimes of this kind have been replaced by sport, which further abstracts the contest of war, and like the ideal war, only involves willing participants.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
I covered that in the past - if you have to kill something you might as well make a day of it and do it at a remove, with dogs, as shoot it in cold blood from the undergrowth.
That's my view, having had to participate in the killing of farm animals - bloody horrible, literally.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I covered that in the past - if you have to kill something you might as well make a day of it and do it at a remove, with dogs, as shoot it in cold blood from the undergrowth.
That's my view, having had to participate in the killing of farm animals - bloody horrible, literally.
Does killing foxes, particularly via the hunt, effectively protect livestock? I'm unfamiliar with the workings of the English countryside, but in other parts of the world, wild animals tend to keep away from humans, except for some that don't. Does the hunt actually kill the foxes that cause the trouble, or does it kill some foxes? At least shooting a fox from the undergrowth necessitates camping out in the location where the trouble is.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Interesting comments from an industry insider about the government proposals to make people sell their homes to pay for care. Amazingly it will be the city that benefits :
Quote:
'People need to read the small print associated with this because its a lot nastier than it looks.
I work in the City. The insurance industry was approached by the Government several months ago with the aim of creating a new market for a new product.
This arrangement is a culmination of those discussions. You wont have to sell your house PROVIDED that you purchase an insurance product to cover your social care. The "premiums" would be recovered from the equity after the house has been sold and the Insurance company will have a lien on the house and can force a sale if it wants to. So your offspring cant keep it on the market for long in order to get the best price.
The real kicker in this is that in order to encourage the industry to market these products the government guaranteed that there would be no cap on the premiums.
This was in some ways "attonement" for Osborne's destruction of the highly lucrative annuties market. This means that the premiums could be up to (and including) the entire remaining equity in the property after the government has taken its cut. Compamies will be falling over themselves to get their snouts in this trough.
In short your offspring and relatives could get absolutely nothing from your estate.
If you buy one of these products you need to read the small print very very carefully indeed because there will be some real dogs on the market.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
No source on that one. A friend of an insider. Could be bs, but is very consistent with the city and insurance industry I have seen so far in my personal and professional life.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
With personal disposable incomes dropping, the city has no good line of income from liquid assets. Consequently they must have a stab at fixed assets - in this case houses.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Idaho
No source on that one. A friend of an insider. Could be bs, but is very consistent with the city and insurance industry I have seen so far in my personal and professional life.
Googling turns up this on eastdevonwatch.
Quote:
I have just seen this post online:
‘People need to read the small print associated with this because its a lot nastier than it looks.
I work in the City....
Is this another of these posts in the social media bubble that even Corbyn himself thinks is problematic? Except in this case you seem to have dressed it up as personal insider knowledge.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Why are you trying to steer the discussion away from foxes and hounds? I wasn't this entertained about British policies regarding small wild animals since that episode of Yes, Minister with the beavers.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
Googling turns up this on eastdevonwatch.
Is this another of these posts in the social media bubble that even Corbyn himself thinks is problematic? Except in this case you seem to have dressed it up as personal insider knowledge.
I didn't dress it up as personal knowledge. I presented it as plausible sounding hearsay.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
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
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Montmorency
Most of the data is reported by participating governments.
...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:
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.
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.
They are used as political tools by nations to hit eachother with. Using their opinions for data is like using tabloids for news.
Quote:
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.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional...Pages/CRC.aspx
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.
Read the entire thing if you want to, there is no fixed definition of "best interests of child".
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.
Did you not read my post explaining this?
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.
Quote:
It's really frustrating that your posts are consistently so ill-considered.
Your lack of self awareness and your eagerness to project your own faults on others is an embarrassment.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Idaho
Wow - argument from authority! Keep them coming.
Then Idaho gets quoted an unattributed post, probably on social media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Idaho
No source on that one. A friend of an insider. Could be bs, but is very consistent with the city and insurance industry I have seen so far in my personal and professional life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Idaho
I didn't dress it up as personal knowledge. I presented it as plausible sounding hearsay.
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
This is called argument from authority. Usually a favourite rhetorical fallacy of American gun nuts and anti abortionists.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
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.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Showtime
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.
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?
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
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.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
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.
Is it that unfair to call Corbyn a Communist or accuse him of consorting with Communists?
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
Does killing foxes, particularly via the hunt, effectively protect livestock? I'm unfamiliar with the workings of the English countryside, but in other parts of the world, wild animals tend to keep away from humans, except for some that don't. Does the hunt actually kill the foxes that cause the trouble, or does it kill some foxes? At least shooting a fox from the undergrowth necessitates camping out in the location where the trouble is.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Showtime
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.
It's not a martial art. Unlike boar hunting fox and stag hunting have nothing really martial about them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
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.
Excellent question.
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.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
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?
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
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.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
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.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
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.
Well that is earth shattering revelation.
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
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Furunculus
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.
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.
There are articles about the fragmentation of society due to the social media bubble, with specific reference to the Corbyn phenomenon.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Furunculus
what can be described as representative of typical labour voters?
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:
it does lead people into the false assumption that their outrage is normal, and that everyone else is like them.
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.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
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.
Yet Facebook is apparently causing what is happening out there to the real world to be like that.
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
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
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.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elephantine
Well that is earth shattering revelation.
Since you appear rather concerned on animal welfare issues I do hope you reported this very illegal act to the relevant authorities.
This was some years ago before the ban, at the time it was entirely legal as the mangy foxes were being "re-homed"
[/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.
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?
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.
This isn't a story I got from someone who is pro-hunting, anyway.
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?
As I say, I believe this particular case was before the ban.
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/
Quote:
How did the Black Torrington hunt catch so many liverpudlian foxes in a single day?
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:
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.
Sure, no big cats released onto the Moors either... Nope, nothing ever escaped from Dartmoor Zoo!
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
Fox hunting aims to control the population - all other methods of "control" are actually culling or outright extermination.
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
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Did you read the links you posted?
They do not support your claim.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elephantine
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?
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.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
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.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
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".
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Idaho
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.
Did you know his middle name is also Judas? Terrible. Burn him at the stake.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Idaho
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".
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.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
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.
Maybe its because behind most political and terrorist causes, there are some reasonable motivations tucked away amongst the craziness.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
"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.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
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).
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Idaho
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".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
Shh, don't let facts come in the way of painting Corbyn as the anti-Christ.
Did you know his middle name is also Judas? Terrible. Burn him at the stake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
"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.
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.
It's a sadly common position among self-hating Anglo's.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
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).
Someone should ask him if he condemns the murder of Lord Mountbatton.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
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.
It's a sadly common position among self-hating Anglo's.
See Orwell's comment about British pacifists.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Someone should ask him if he condemns the murder of Lord Mountbatton.
I'd rather ask him what authority he had, as a no-name opposition backbencher, to talk to Republican terrorists to bring about peace. If he'd reached an agreement with them (and none has come to light), what concrete substance did it have, given his status as a political gnat.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
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.
It is the same processes between why people stick up "Pray for Paris" but neglect to show support for the other countries experiencing atrocities and bombings. It is usually because of the locally held higher standards, and infringement on these, opposed to them lot over there who are barbarians who lack the same enlightenment so it doesn't matter because "Nothing we can do about it".
You don't see amnesty international doing big campaigns due to inappropriate internment in North Korea due to the same mental logic that "well, nothing we can do in that crackpot country, lets highlight countries such as the USA for their misconduct". Though to be far, they do general coverage on countries like North Korea, Syria, etc but with despots, it is a case of "You have no power here!".
It is part of a more complex phenomena.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
It is the same processes between why people stick up "Pray for Paris" but neglect to show support for the other countries experiencing atrocities and bombings. It is usually because of the locally held higher standards, and infringement on these, opposed to them lot over there who are barbarians who lack the same enlightenment so it doesn't matter because "Nothing we can do about it".
You don't see amnesty international doing big campaigns due to inappropriate internment in North Korea due to the same mental logic that "well, nothing we can do in that crackpot country, lets highlight countries such as the USA for their misconduct". Though to be far, they do general coverage on countries like North Korea, Syria, etc but with despots, it is a case of "You have no power here!".
It is part of a more complex phenomena.
Do these people with peace stickers try to claim credit for helping to bring about world peace, as Corbyn and McDonnell are doing with Northern Ireland? I recommend anyone trying to further peddle Corbyn's lies read his comments from the Commons debate. There's no MSM twisting or bias there. Just Corbyn's actual words.
Oh, and FYI, John Hume was the guy who brought Sinn Fein to the table. Not Jeremy Corbyn, who was a nobody. Corbyn's trying to whitewash his dodgy record by claiming credit, and his fans eagerly repeat the crap he's pushing.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
I'd rather ask him what authority he had, as a no-name opposition backbencher, to talk to Republican terrorists to bring about peace. If he'd reached an agreement with them (and none has come to light), what concrete substance did it have, given his status as a political gnat.
Bo, no. I think my question would induce more squirming.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
No arguments from me. I would have preferred someone else to be leading to Labour party. Though I have to agree with some of his fans that the media can be unfairly biased against him, but then again, look at the reporting of Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich to see how rubbish they are. What is the biggest shame is that Labour have a few good policies I would love to see better credence given to and there is the saying 'dont throw the baby out with the bathwater' should be resaid as 'dont get rid of the water as you throw out the Corbyn'.
Random note in terms of well-being and happiness, the wage for happiness is £47,000. Above this amount, the money does not make you anymore happier overall as this is the sweet point where you income covers all your necessities and luxery. So for example, if you compare the difference of £18,000 to someone on £50,000 there is a significant difference, but not between £50,000 and £100,000. (Might be more expensive holiday, but they are both having holidays compared to not having one)
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Good for them if they have more, I'm not one of them but couldn'tcare less. Who knows, maybe he gets terminal cancerand everything is equal again and money means nothing
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Idaho
Maybe its because behind most political and terrorist causes, there are some reasonable motivations tucked away amongst the craziness.
Likely true in the large majority of instances. Rarely is any human being motivated by some cause that is purely and clearly "evil." Even then, from their perspective, it is likely being viewed as some kind of "necessary evil" as were the shooting of Belgian civilians in War One or the bombing of Dresden in War Two. Is that simply rationalization? Perhaps. But the human mind is a complex thing and the logic of decisions is not necessarily rational in any conventional sense nor will it conform always to Occam's standard.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
You know what the Tory strategy will be from here until election time? They're just going on hammer on about Corbyn and the prospect of him as PM. Everything will be largely irrelevant compared with that salient point; electing Labour means Corbyn as PM.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
You know what the Tory strategy will be from here until election time? They're just going on hammer on about Corbyn and the prospect of him as PM. Everything will be largely irrelevant compared with that salient point; electing Labour means Corbyn as PM.
Corbyn is not going to win, don't need to be a pollster to know that. If Corbyn is able to maintain (or even gain seats), it would be a boon, but he won't be winning this election.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
Corbyn is not going to win, don't need to be a pollster to know that. If Corbyn is able to maintain (or even gain seats), it would be a boon, but he won't be winning this election.
Against probably the most incompetent government in my lifetime. Blair circa 1997 would run up a 200 seat majority against the bunch of numpties that is the current Tory front bench. Yet their incompetence pales in comparison with Corbyn's front bench, including a shadow home secretary who can't even keep track of what she's said in an interview (and that's even disregarding her costing of policies that mean £300 buys a police officer).
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
I get it that you don't like Corbyn, and you may very well be completely right about him, but you certainly know that there are a number of reasons why labour has lost seats.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
On the subject of the IRA. There is actually a serving Conservative who was a member of it during the 1970s.
Maria Gatland
She was accepted back into the fold after initially being suspended.
Are the Conservatives simply trying to point score on Corbyn whilst practising a policy of amnesty for their own?
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
I get it that you don't like Corbyn, and you may very well be completely right about him, but you certainly know that there are a number of reasons why labour has lost seats.
According to constituency canvassers, the most frequent reason canvassees gave for not supporting Labour is Corbyn. Note these set ups have detailed databases of canvassees and their previous record.
FYI, during the Copeland campaign (which they lost after having held it and its predecessor seat for 80+ years), one canvassee noted Corbyn and his IRA connections as why they wouldn't be voting Labour in the by-election.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
On the subject of the IRA. There is actually a serving Conservative who was a member of it during the 1970s.
Maria Gatland
She was accepted back into the fold after initially being suspended.
Are the Conservatives simply trying to point score on Corbyn whilst practising a policy of amnesty for their own?
You've just got this from your Facebook friends? AFAIK Maria Gatland isn't in the running to become PM of the UK. Labour and whoever in the UK had heard of him were quite accepting of Corbyn's views when he was still a backbencher. Not so much in a GE when he's leader of the opposition.
BTW, are you going to back up his claims about contributing to the eventual peace, after having read through that Commons debate I linked to and quoted from? You have read through it, haven't you?
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
According to constituency canvassers, the most frequent reason canvassees gave for not supporting Labour is Corbyn. Note these set ups have detailed databases of canvassees and their previous record.
FYI, during the Copeland campaign (which they lost after having held it and its predecessor seat for 80+ years), one canvassee noted Corbyn and his IRA connections as why they wouldn't be voting Labour in the by-election.
I would very much like to see a report. Where was it conducted, did it target only labour voters, how was the question phrased etc... That can have a huge influence on the answer. If a tory voter answers that the prime reason for not voting labour is Corbyn, it might mean Corbyn is actually doing his job right.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
I would very much like to see a report. Where was it conducted, did it target only labour voters, how was the question phrased etc... That can have a huge influence on the answer. If a tory voter answers that the prime reason for not voting labour is Corbyn, it might mean Corbyn is actually doing his job right.
You're not thinking FPTP. Swing voters count double, as they're taken away from Labour, and added to the Tories. If someone decides not to vote Labour because of Corbyn, and votes Tory instead, then it's doubly damaging. As for these reports; I haven't seen them myself, only heard of them. However, one general study of Labour's situation noted that presumedly Labour safe seats are in danger because the canvassing set ups there have been neglected, and you have Tory canvassers out there but no Labour canvassing set up. From that, you can work out that these databases are concentrated in competitive seats or targeted seats, and what kind of information is in them. What I do know is that canvassees are divided into categories, depending on how red or blue they are. If you've read Terry Pratchett's Nigh Watch, then the scene at the party where Lady Meserole turns the guests red is a good description of the process.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Sinn Féin Ireland President Gerry Adams TD defends the Labour leader’s record on the IRA.
Quote:
He said his comments show Mr Corbyn is "on the right side of history", adding: "What he did was very modest, what he did was very fundamental. “He recognised the rights of the people who voted for Sinn Fein and I think he was vindicated by subsequent events. “Because where he led – others followed.”. -
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
Sinn Féin Ireland President Gerry Adams TD defends the Labour leader’s record on the IRA.
"Where he led"? Before the 2015 leadership election, who'd heard of Jeremy Corbyn? I've seen accounts of people who were in SWP circles in the 1980s, and they were looking forward to the likes of Tony Benn and Arthur Scargill. Not support acts like Corbyn.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
On the subject of the IRA. There is actually a serving Conservative who was a member of it during the 1970s.
Maria Gatland
She was accepted back into the fold after initially being suspended.
Are the Conservatives simply trying to point score on Corbyn whilst practising a policy of amnesty for their own?
Young woman joins IRA as idealist, leaves when she realises it's about killing innocent people. Hardly edifying, but unlike her Corbyn is claiming credit for the peace process, and unlike her he seems to think IRA activities, including bombings and murders, were justified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
Sinn Féin Ireland President Gerry Adams TD defends the Labour leader’s record on the IRA.
Gerry Adamas is an important man to the IRA and Sien Fein, he isn't all that important a man in Northern Ireland - it was McGuiness, not Adams, who led the party towards political engagement with Unionists, and ultimately peace.
Adams, meanwhile, denies ever being a member of the IRA.
He also said it was perfectly fine to murder the retired Lord Mountbatton whilst on holiday with his grandchildren. He feels Mountbatton would have done the same.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
How come strident right wing bollocks is so prevalent, so self defeating and so comprehensively shown to have been wrong in retrospect - and yet persists long after the event?
This daily mail headline rhetoric about only spouting "no surrender" and other nonsense. Grow up. Talk to anyone. Peace comes through negotiations. This gets proved again and again. Sadly only after long, pointless and bloody wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, ulster). And then the lesson gets forgotten! Back to the standard script "no surrender!" :facepalm:
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Idaho
How come strident right wing bollocks is so prevalent, so self defeating and so comprehensively shown to have been wrong in retrospect - and yet persists long after the event?
This daily mail headline rhetoric about only spouting "no surrender" and other nonsense. Grow up. Talk to anyone. Peace comes through negotiations. This gets proved again and again. Sadly only after long, pointless and bloody wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, ulster). And then the lesson gets forgotten! Back to the standard script "no surrender!" :facepalm:
Actually, in the IRA's case, peace came because the British had thoroughly infiltrated the IRA and rendered coordinated campaigns impossible. The conditions that they eventually arrived at, they could have got in the 1980s had they stopped then. Self determination for the people of Northern Ireland, self government for the people of Northern Ireland. Read the Commons debate I quoted from.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
So you are saying that the British state won and only gave concessions to the republican side as an act of beneficence?
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Idaho
So you are saying that the British state won and only gave concessions to the republican side as an act of beneficence?
Effectively. On the salient points, the British state hadn't budged from the 1980s: self determination, self government. When PIRA found they could no longer effectively function, they needed a way out, and the British and Irish governments offered them the face saving they needed.
Probably the one thing that did change since the 1980s that substantially made this possible was the greater intertwining of the British and Irish economies. With the free movement of peoples and greater prosperity they'd got used to, economically the UK and Ireland became almost a joined state, with the prospect of further good things to come. With that prospect in their sights, neither the British nor the Irish state saw any point in upsetting the applecart for the sake of irredentism.
With that in mind, I refer you back to Corbyn's comments in that Commons debate, on the agreement that started that process.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Idaho
So you are saying that the British state won and only gave concessions to the republican side as an act of beneficence?
I'm not sure they even really gave them any concessions - the sectarian prejudice in NI and the lack of Civil Rights for Catholics was an acknowledged problem in the 1970's. I would say that, politically, the IRA's campaign achieved nothing that could not have been achieved much sooner through peaceful protest.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I'm not sure they even really gave them any concessions - the sectarian prejudice in NI and the lack of Civil Rights for Catholics was an acknowledged problem in the 1970's. I would say that, politically, the IRA's campaign achieved nothing that could not have been achieved much sooner through peaceful protest.
Or flagging up the problem to Westminster, making it clear it was unjust and unacceptable, and working with them to address the problem. Outside the armed struggle, Westminster's problem with Northern Ireland politics has been the reactionism of the Unionist side. If couched in liberal ideals rather than republican terms, the British government would happily take their side on civil rights and giving all Northern Irish, Catholics included, the same rights as enjoyed by any other British citizen.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
Or flagging up the problem to Westminster, making it clear it was unjust and unacceptable, and working with them to address the problem. Outside the armed struggle, Westminster's problem with Northern Ireland politics has been the reactionism of the Unionist side. If couched in liberal ideals rather than republican terms, the British government would happily take their side on civil rights and giving all Northern Irish, Catholics included, the same rights as enjoyed by any other British citizen.
To what extent was the issue substantive inequality over specific rights?
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Montmorency
To what extent was the issue substantive inequality over specific rights?
Goodness knows. But the solution was to tell the devolved Northern Ireland government to grow up and deal with things themselves, within the parameters of general British decency, with a healthy subsidy as an incentive. Whatever problems they have locally, Britain don't really want to care about, except that there shouldn't be any discrimination (as that falls within the realms of British decency). Before he stepped down, Martin McGuinness (the head man in the IRA before they ended their campaign) said that he preferred direct government by Westminster to the DUP-led Stormont government. That's Sinn Fein wanting the British government to be more involved than the British government want to be.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
I think chance of Theresa May getting a larger majority just rose significantly. People will be more conscious for a 'Strong and Stable' message.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
I think chance of Theresa May getting a larger majority just rose significantly. People will be more conscious for a 'Strong and Stable' message.
Corbyn's history was known when he was elected in 2015. Labour can have no complaints about his image on that front being detrimental to the party's electoral chances. You vote for Corbyn, you get Corbyn.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Unfortunately, some papers cannot keep the tone civil.
https://i.imgur.com/2gTdryo.jpg
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
I think chance of Theresa May getting a larger majority just rose significantly. People will be more conscious for a 'Strong and Stable' message.
Hmmmm, conservative political philosophies benefitting from a public sentiment that they have been attacked....
Beskie, I must agree with you but this level of analysis will NOT get you that NASA gig. :creep:
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
Unfortunately, some papers cannot keep the tone civil.
Why are you surprised? I saw this coming in 2015. I said at the time that he was toxic to the British people, and would turn the Labour party toxic by association. All the Tories needed to do to win re-election was point at Corbyn and say, look, he's the Labour leader. The Labour members elected and re-elected him regardless of this extremely obvious attack line. They can have no complaints about the Tory press doing what the Tory press can be expected to do. After all, they were no less harsh on Owen Smith last year, so complaints about a harsh reception and unfairness stinks of hypocrisy.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Montmorency
To what extent was the issue substantive inequality over specific rights?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
Goodness knows. But the solution was to tell the devolved Northern Ireland government to grow up and deal with things themselves, within the parameters of general British decency, with a healthy subsidy as an incentive. Whatever problems they have locally, Britain don't really want to care about, except that there shouldn't be any discrimination (as that falls within the realms of British decency). Before he stepped down, Martin McGuinness (the head man in the IRA before they ended their campaign) said that he preferred direct government by Westminster to the DUP-led Stormont government. That's Sinn Fein wanting the British government to be more involved than the British government want to be.
There were endemic problems, including deliberately gerrymandered constituencies designed to prevent Republicans or Catholics every gaining seats - irrc there were no Catholic ministers until 1972, a year before the NI Parliament was abolished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
Last week Theresa May was accused of stealing food from children.
Sean O'Callaghan says Corbyn has "blood on his hands" because he encouraged the IRA.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: UK General Election 2017
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Jeremy Corbyn to blame terrorist attacks such as Manchester bombing on UK foreign policy
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7756266.html
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Yes, of course, because it's the fault of the victims.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
He can't help himself, can he. Abedi's family fled Qaddafi. Abedi's family were able to return to Libya because UK foreign policy had removed Qaddafi. Abedi then bombs and kills children in the UK. And the Stop the War Coalition chairman, with a sideline in leading the Labour party, blames UK foreign policy for this arsehole deciding that kids were a fair target. I bet Corbyn's predecessor as chairman of the StWC, now his campaign chief, is proud of his boss.
Corbyn is doing all he can to turn the UK into a one party state.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
It doesn't have to be true in every single case. You had a Charleston church shooting because someone felt that white males were oppressed in America. Or the mass shooting in Norway...
Terrorism is connected with a political goal, even if that goal isn't always the same or even rational.
Also, blaming the UK foreign policy is not blaming the victims. There's no equivalence there.
-
Re: UK General Election 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
Also, blaming the UK foreign policy is not blaming the victims. There's no equivalence there.
The problem is that the UK foreign policy is absolutely blameless and was never wrong. And if it ever was undeniably "wrong", it doesn't count because they ended all slavery worldwide for ever!
Take the Zulus for example, they were terrible slackers who were too lazy to invent gunpowder and got slaughtered by the British in return, who were just defending their country.
British foreign policy is (and always has been) the height of enlightenment and more altruistic than Mother Theresa. Only a terrorist would ever disagree with that.
