***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 10 *****
As above.*
* this site does not endorse any political party in any shape or form. Any posts/links deemed offensive by moderators will be removed
383120
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 8 May 14 at 21:26
|
|
Sceptic !!! in English English !!
|
From previous volume
HnH agreed that UKIP is not a racist party. We were largely ignored by them until we started - according to polls and by-election results - taking Labour voters away from that party.
Now we ARE the object of their "hate".
Strange that.
Just saying!
UKIP may pick up some 'swing' voters who'd previously been Labour and who might otherwise have voted Conservative. I don't think there's much precedent/evidence of core Labour support going Kipper but HnH is right to track where ex BNP folks go whether to 'new' NF, more neo-Nazi outfits or just as fruitcakes on UKIP fringes.
HnH's interest is tightly focussed on those who'd previously voted for BNP or other overtly racist outfits for some of whom UKIP is moth/candle or fly/jampot territory.
|
With my daily contacts being mostly Labour voters, I can happily reassure Bromp that your average Labour man/woman is just as xenophobic as the rest of the population.
the right/left has no monopoly on bigotry.
|
"xenophobic"
It's quite easy to confuse xenophobia with a) A realisation that the country is already full to capacity b) A knowledge that trying to mix up religious groups, particularly if one of them is Islam, isn't going to work.
|
From the UK arm of Breitbart - an on-line blog/news channel.
(For balance, I should say that the site's leaning is Libertarian & Right-wingish.)
www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/05/eu-and-uk-govts-propagandise-using-taxpayer-money
|
>> "xenophobic"
>>
>> It's quite easy to confuse xenophobia with a) A realisation that the country is already
>> full to capacity b) A knowledge that trying to mix up religious groups, particularly if
>> one of them is Islam, isn't going to work.
It's also easy to excuse xenophobia behind the assertion that the country is 'full' and that different religious/cultural groups cannot mix.
Most UK Muslims live similar lives to yours or mine. Work, home, travel etc. They follow their own religion, its observances at home and in the Mosque and its fasts and feasts as do Christians, Jews and members of non Abrahamic faiths.
Their culture adds to ours. Look at cosmopolitan London.
|
"It's also easy to excuse xenophobia behind the assertion that the country is 'full' and that different religious/cultural groups cannot mix. "
Most definitions of xenophobia include the words 'irrational' and 'unreasonable'. Believe me, there is nothing irrational or unreasonable about having concerns for population growth on either a global or local (national) level, nor is it unreasonable to look at what history tells us about the results of mixing religions.
|
>> rt.com/op-edge/156844-euroskeptics-fractious-factions/
>>
This bit at the end sums it up for me:
"Such staggering contempt for democracy hardly suggests Europe is on the right track".
|
|
One of those articles where the concluding sentence is written before the input of loaded jargon. Not to mention it's a Russian organ prone to spreading "truther" delusions. Now, why would Russian propaganda favour the EU?
|
Bromptonaut,
Do you not think your dismissive and intolerant post on the previous thread is one of the reasons why a party like UKIP is doing so well?
"I wouldn't get too hung up on use of the term Right. It's simply shorthand for more vocal support of, and dog whistling towards, those who 'know I shouldn't say this but'. Those who think that are going to welcome UKIP".
There's a vast army of people fed up with the BBC type view of the world...the politically correct and the suppression of their own thoughts in case someone labels them 'ist'.
Cue UKIP, because none of the other parties are willing to say what they think or stand up for them, although the others are now beginning to realise...and before you twist it, 'no' I do not mean the out and out bigot who firmly belongs in the BNP or EDF and who are somewhat few in number.
|
>> the out and out bigot who firmly belongs
>> in the BNP or EDF and who are somewhat few in number.
I got out of EDF years ago, but didn't like Scottish Power so I'm with Eon now.
|
"I got out of EDF years ago"
Because they're French??? Sounds a bit racist to me ;-)
|
>> "I got out of EDF years ago"
>>
>> Because they're French??? Sounds a bit racist to me ;-)
>>
Xenophobic would be the word. The might eat snails but they're still the same race as me.
;-)
|
WP,
I was responding to a specific point where Stu, and more strongly Roger, were asserting that HnH was a front for people with extreme left views. In the course of that conversation the use of the term 'Right' by HnH was in question - ie extent to which a good UKIP show in Euro elections might encourage anti immigration/anti immigrant policies from Lab or Con.
'I know I shouldn't say this' while it might cover a reasonable view that people fear to express is all to often a precursor to pretty blatant racist views.
If you're right about 'cue UKIP' then their support will hold up after Euros and into GE 2015. My guess is it won't.
|
|
Nigel Farage is currently making a guest appearance in the 'Alex' strip cartoon on the front page of my comic's business supplement. The strip specialises in verbal double-entendres and a po-faced Farage is the butt of those.
|
|
Today's front page Matt cartoon is very funny too. A propos, I could probably do with some of this virgins' blood myself. I was wondering if the nippers could spare me some, and said to herself that since there are several of them it shouldn't be necessary to drain any of them dry. She told me I was being horrible though.
|
|
And: will Mr Farage be able to escape the sticky embraces of the EDL, the French FN and blond bombshell Geerd Wilders? A good few of his members wouldn't even want to.
|
>>And: will Mr Farage be able to escape the sticky embraces of the EDL, the French FN and blond bombshell Geerd Wilders? A good few of his members wouldn't even want to.<<
The EDL is a proscribed group so yes, besides, now Robinson has gone to lunch with Nawaz I doubt it will last that long as a unit.
There are many who understand the reasons why frustrated voters had kneejerk reactions to events and supported the EDL but it was simply the wrong reaction, nothing is solved by dividing by race or by violence which is why we continue to ban them from our party.
The FN has very different roots to UKIP, the similarities are specific to a small number of policy areas so actually it is very easy to avoid such an embrace - I find very little in common with them beyond EU issues and assuming that the EU alone should be a good enough reason to hook up with another party is both simplistic and short-sighted, I am fully supportive of Farage for not doing so.
The rise of the FN, the ability of Le Pen to re-brand and push the party to such heights is certainly interesting to watch, from a distance.
|
That article in the Torygraph, quoting Gert Wilders was a little more subtle than usual in its very oblique attack on UKIP.
Implying a link with other European parties who are Eurosceptic, including Marine LePen's Front National, is using the "guilt by association" gambit. I'm surprised it did not suggest UKIP merging with Greece's Golden Dawn!
|
>> That article in the Torygraph, quoting Gert Wilders was a little more subtle than usual in its very oblique attack on UKIP.
Are you sure that's what it was Roger? I only skimmed the piece but my impression was that it was the leaders of these far-right parties that were keen to recruit UKIP, not the other way round. Farage is still fluttering coy eyelashes and playing hard to get.
|
>>Farage is still fluttering coy eyelashes and playing hard to get.<<
Because anyone who knows the EU Parliament knows Wilders etc are looking to unlock cash for their cause and just as it isnt the role of UKIP to prop up the Tories, it isnt our role to help Wilders and friends access EU cash.
|
>>There's a vast army of people fed up with the BBC type view of the world.
Very true.
One of the reasons it is difficult to categorize UKIP is the varied and substantially different reasons people have for being part of it;
1) The people who have just had enough of the status quo and want a short term protest vehicle for some elections that they don't care about too much
2) Basically reasonable, sensible people who believe that UKIP's policies are appropriate and will help.
3) Those who actually are racist, xenophobic, call it what you will
4) Those who just need help blaming someone else and love a bandwagon.
Stu, for example, seems to me to come very firmly from 2). (No offence intended Stu, just an example). However, we seem to be trying to argue with him based on what we believe are the characteristics of 3). Clearly inappropriate since he's not part of them, as far as I can tell he is neither racist nor xenophobic; he doesn't seem to be a plank or a fascist.
The concern is, or at least *my* concern is, how much group 2) are actually "the UKIP party" as against how much they simply project a veneer of intelligence, responsibility and respectability which inevitably covers up 3) as well.
Racist, myopic planks unquestionably do exist in UKIP. [as well as everywhere else]. However it is particularly difficult to understand the proportions between them and the "good guys" within UKIP at this time.
Some of the people accused of being racist in UKIP are simply trying to discuss a point. And some of them actually are racist.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 6 May 14 at 14:21
|
|
A lot of folks I've heard say they might/will vote UKIP are 1 or 4.
|
|
Which will be indicated by the potential [likely?] difference between UKIP's performance at European elections versus their performance at a General Election.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 6 May 14 at 14:33
|
>> A lot of folks I've heard say they might/will vote UKIP are 1 or 4.
>>
Mental age?
|
>>Stu, for example, seems to me to come very firmly from 2). (No offence intended Stu, just an example). However, we seem to be trying to argue with him based on what we believe are the characteristics of 3). Clearly inappropriate since he's not part of them, as far as I can tell he is neither racist nor xenophobic; he doesn't seem to be a plank or a fascist.<<
Sort of. I believe that UKIP is not constrained by centrist groupthink which has dominated politics for much of the last 20 years and the best chance to break out of that cycle is to discard those old political instituitions that appear to have forgotten why they were formed. Although UKIP is painted as a rightwing party, we dont define ourselves as such, this is why RedUKIP as some call it seems as perfectly natural as the 'blue' bits. Some say this is ideologically confused, UKIP would say who says the old left/right scale is valid, it is that distinction that few outsiders seem to get.
I am not racist no, I am non-racist, I dont think race is a valid way to judge an individual either in a positive or negative way, it is to me irrelevant and in a multi-ethnic society like Britain, very hard to define a persons race when so many of us, myself included, are from diverse backgrounds. My skin colour tells you very little indeed and so I take the view that it tells me very little about other people.
I adore a great deal of German culture, I love the place and spent a lot of time there in my younger years and it pains me to see the EU dilute that culture just as much as it pains me to see it dilute British culture too, I very much share the view Farage has expressed that the homogenising of all European culture is a crying shame, hence I reject the idea of being an EU citizen which I see as part of that process.
>>The concern is, or at least *my* concern is, how much group 2) are actually "the UKIP party" as against how much they simply project a veneer of intelligence, responsibility and respectability which inevitably covers up 3) as well<<
I would say group 2 are the party and the mission, especially of group 2 as you call them ( many would call them New UKIP ), is to stamp out the idiots from within the party. My sense is that they are small in number and for me and those I know personally in the party have no time for those individuals who drag the rest of us down.
|
|
Roger Helmer selected to contest Newark by-election, seems a popular choice judging by the UKIP Facebook page.
|
Roger Helmer came along to address a public meeting we had locally last year.
We found him an excellent speaker, with a good knowledge, particularly on energy matters. He's had plenty of successful life experience pre-politics.
He gave an excellent speech at Nigel Farage's recent public meeting in Derby.
He is comes over as a genuinely nice man.
|
Roger Helmer gets the media spotlight shone on him:
'A politician who has said homosexuality is “abnormal and undesirable” could become the UK Independence Party's first MP.'
tinyurl.com/kvytye2 (links to the Telegraph)
|
"'A politician who has said homosexuality is “abnormal and undesirable” could become the UK Independence Party's first MP.'"
I certainly wouldn't vote for any politician who said 'homosexuality is normal and desirable'.
'Struth, they'll be making it compulsory next!
|
Helmer is quoted elsewhere as describing homosexuality as "distasteful if not viscerally repugnant" and likening it to incest.
A wags take on UKIP as a whole:
The rhetoric of socialism with the policies of the US Republicans
|
"A wags take on UKIP"
It's unusual for a wag to offer a political opinion, I was under the impression that they only thought about shoes and handbags.
|
>> Helmer is quoted elsewhere as describing homosexuality as "distasteful if not viscerally repugnant" and likening
>> it to incest.
Roger/Stu - I guess there might well be other candidates in other parties who hold similar views, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this? Surprised you haven't commented already. On the face of it, it would put me off voting for him(/them).
|
>>Roger/Stu - I guess there might well be other candidates in other parties who hold similar views, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this? Surprised you haven't commented already. On the face of it, it would put me off voting for him(/them).<<
I think Mark covered it tbh. I dont think Helmer is anti-gay, not in the slighest and for me that is important. His views on gay marriage, whatever they may be, are a matter for him as an individual and are separate from the official position of the party.
I personally objected to the politicising of marriage by Cameron and the fact that he was too weak to make his case for gay marriage in the 2015 General Election ( or indeed 2010 ), I also fear that the faith of a person has been judged as less important than sexual orientation given which of the two seems to win over in legal judgements - it also happens that I understand the situation from the homosexual point of view personally and my feeling from my experiences is that there were more pressing issues but perhaps for Cameron, less of a big gesture.
Sometimes people express themselves badly and I think the way the media jump on people, especially ignoring them when they then try to clarify what they actually meant, really irritates me. The clarifications that Roger issued have gone almost unreported.
|
I'm not sure I'd like Helmer's views, but I detest the sensationalist, disingenuous inaccuracies and fabrications of the UK Media more.
>>Helmer is quoted elsewhere as describing homosexuality as "distasteful if not viscerally repugnant" and likening it to incest.
Whatever people are saying that he said, he didn't actually say that;
“Some people find homosexuality distasteful if not viscerally repugnant. Different people may have different tastes. You may tell me that you don’t like Earl Grey. That may be a minority view but you are entitled not to like it if you don’t like it.”
and on another occasion;
"Now I regard myself as liberal and tolerant on the question of homosexuality. I have no interest in telling consenting adults what they may or may not do behind closed doors. I have a number of colleagues whom I believe to be homosexual, and that causes me no problems at all. Indeed there may be more people that I work with, who may be homosexual without my knowing it, since (as a friend once remarked) my “Gay-dar” is poorly developed. I am content to treat people as people, regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation.
But I am, nevertheless, opposed to the concept of homosexual “marriage”, on both semantic and social policy grounds.
The institution of marriage has been fundamental to virtually all societies through the whole course of human history, and marriage means the union of a man and a woman, usually with the implicit potential of procreation. That is what the word means. I have no problem with a same-sex couple setting up home together, but it devalues language — and the real institution of marriage — to call such an arrangement “marriage”.
But the problem is not merely semantic. Many people naïvely argue that marriage is a private matter between two people, so it is up to them how they organise it. But it is not. Wherever the institution of marriage exists, it is a public contract between three parties — a man, a woman and society. Society recognises that marriage, and the nuclear family which may result, is fundamental to the stability and the future of the society itself. There is overwhelming evidence that children raised in conventional families do better on a whole range of measures than children raised outside marriage. This is not to denigrate single parents, who may do a fine job in difficult circumstances. It is simply a statistical fact. And society therefore recognises marriage, both in local and informal terms, and more formally and generally through the fiscal, legal and welfare systems. There is no comparable societal reason to recognise same-sex relationships.
That is why I think our Polish colleagues are right to vote against homosexual marriage, and why I would join them in doing so."
|
|
Thanks Mark - looks like Bromp's quote was somewhat misleading (and I was careful to say 'on the face of it' in my post).
|
Very well put Mr No FM2R Sir.
Personally, I am *fiercely* against homosexual marriage, so much so in fact that I would never vote Tory again.
I feel homosexual marriage cheapens marriage and, if I had my time over again, I wouldn't get married.
|
|
I'm with NoFM2R - not sure I like his views either, but he doesn't appear to be as bad as implied by that (mis-)quote.
|
>> Personally, I am *fiercely* against homosexual marriage,
I'm not. But I still think it's a stupid idea. As for harassing priests, registrars and so on who refuse to countenance gay marriage (or even homosexuality) for religious or moral reasons, it's a complete outrage begging for a kick in the gluteus maximus. They are entitled to these views which are majority views and traditional ones. If they won't marry you, move on and find one who will. As for those (like the lamented Iffy, where he?) who get hot under the collar about what homosexuals 'do' in private, they are advised by me to think about something less upsetting and calm down.
>> so much so in fact that I would never vote Tory again.
Heh heh... I am tempted to say Perro that it serves you right for even considering voting Tory in the first place.
|
>>Heh heh... I am tempted to say Perro that it serves you right for even considering voting Tory in the first place.
I only voted Tory to get rid of the other lot, but I'm seriously wondering why I bother with the world really because I've lived outside of mainstream society for 17 years now and it wont affect affect my life in-any-way when Labour get back in next year - or even if William Haig married Crispin Blunt for that matter.
|
>> it wont affect affect my life in-any-way when Labour get back in next year - or even if William Haig married Crispin Blunt for that matter.
It's always worth voting Dawg. Think of it as a long term project, like the ant moving the sand dune grain by grain. If a mere ant doesn't get disheartened, why should we?
:o}
|
>>like the ant moving the sand dune grain by grain. If a mere ant doesn't get disheartened, why should we?
Is that William James, or Thoreau.
:}
|
>> >>Helmer is quoted elsewhere as describing homosexuality as "distasteful if not viscerally repugnant" and likening
>> it to incest.
I've since seen the fuller quote, I think in the Guardian, and accept he was referring to views of others. It does not though dispose of the incest limb to his comments.
I fundamentally disagree with his take on marriage as some sort of three way contract with society and it's being limited to male+female. There's nothing naive in recognising that the world has moved on from when homosexuality was a crime and allowing the institution to advance with social change. In that view marriage simply recognises two people's commitment to one another to the exclusion of others. Although he seeks to relate the fiscal etc recognition of marriage few of it's conditions (as opposed to welfare) are realted to children. The biggest on, exemption from IHT, only applies between the two parties to the marriage.
It matters not what gender combination the couple are and I cannot for the life of me see how allowing same sex marriage in any way, shape or form devalues the conventional male/female institution.
He also, by juxtaposing marriage with single parenthood, utterly ignores the massive group in stable, long term but unmarried relationships.
|
>>I've since seen the fuller quote, I think in the Guardian, and accept he was referring to views of others.
May I, with respect, suggest that in future you check these things out before further propagating reports of this quality and accuracy.
>> It does not though dispose of the incest limb to his comments.
You rather walked into that one.
>>Helmer is quoted elsewhere as describing homosexuality as "distasteful if not
>>viscerally repugnant" and likening it to incest.
What he ACTUALLY said;
"Cardinal O'Brien makes the point, quite reasonably, that once you start to tamper with the institution of marriage, you get into some very murky water indeed.
"If two men can be married, why not three men? Or a two men and a woman? He could have gone further. Why not a commune? If two men have a right to marry, how can we deny the same right to two siblings? Are we to authorise incest?"
A fairly ridiculous comment but again not what he was accused of saying.
He did NOT describe homosexuality as "distasteful if not viscerally repugnant" NOR did he liken it to incest.
Let me be clear, I am NOT saying that I agree with his views. But lying or misrepresenting what he said is not the way to challenge the position.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 7 May 14 at 16:37
|
Mark,
The viscerally repugnant comment was widely reported and I'd no reason to check its veracity. Neither were there necessarily the means until today's papers filled in the blanks.
On incest comparison I think you're splitting hairs.
Helmer quoted a Cardinal, who's basic point that it's complicated I'd accept, though not in words he uses. He then expanded in the way you quote.
It's difficult to read it in any other way than, speaking (speculatively) of how we can deny the right to of marriage to siblings once we'd allowed it for gay men he was making exactly such a comparison.
|
>>The viscerally repugnant comment was widely reported and I'd no reason to check its veracity.
I did.
And I had no more reason than you to check, other than wanting to be sure that something I passed on was true.
>>On incest comparison I think you're splitting hairs.
Don't be daft.
A bit of paraphrasing for simplicity...
1) Homosexuality is like incest.
2) Homosexual marriage is as ridiculous as legalising incest.
I don't agree with either statement, but surely you can see and acknowledge the difference in meaning?
Attack him by all means for 2), I might myself in a while. But don't pretend he said 1).
|
>>Attack him by all means for 2), I might myself in a while.
On which point; (Roger/Stu)
In amongst the stuff that this bloke says is some stuff I reasonably agree with. But as a politician he seems to be a loud and vocal man without seeming to understand how his words can be used against him and his party.
And some of the stuff he says is really quite iffy, and at least shows a bit of dodgy thinking.
Is what UKIP need at this time really such a loose canon?
Surely when trying to convince people of their standing as a "real" party, it would be time to communicate important messages in a more professional way and with a clear and appropriate message?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 7 May 14 at 17:25
|
>> A bit of paraphrasing for simplicity...
>>
>> 1) Homosexuality is like incest.
>>
>> 2) Homosexual marriage is as ridiculous as legalising incest.
>>
>> I don't agree with either statement, but surely you can see and acknowledge the difference
>> in meaning?
2) suggests there is a valid comparison or rather similarity between the two, and by inference the author finds them equally absurd or repugnant.
A split hair from likening gay marriage to incest.
|
I think you may be assaulting an ailing member of the Equus ferus species.
>>A split hair from likening gay marriage to incest.
You didn't say "likening gay marriage to incest", you said .....
"describing homosexuality ..................... likening it to incest. "
That difference is my *exact* point.
However, you carry on with this if you wish, its just too pointless for me.
I would mention that stubbornly sticking to a ridiculous point for no valid reason is something you dislike when you come up against it.
|
>> I think you may be assaulting an ailing member of the Equus ferus species.
>>
>> >>A split hair from likening gay marriage to incest.
>>
>> You didn't say "likening gay marriage to incest", you said .....
>>
>> "describing homosexuality ..................... likening it to incest. "
>>
>> That difference is my *exact* point.
If he's comparing gay marriage to incest I'd suggest his focus is on the so called 'gay sexual act' rather than a morality point about relationships and that maybe he's not as socially liberal as he suggests.
He's also reported as having some old fashioned views on rape:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/07/ukip-candidate-roger-helmer-newark-seeks-clarify-rape-comments
|
>>If he's comparing gay marriage to incest I'd suggest his focus is on the so called 'gay sexual act'
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
He was not comparing gay marriage to incest. He was comparing his reaction to the act of *legalising* gay marriage to something he thought of as equally ridiculous, that of *legalising* incest.
Really Bromp, this is my last word because I suspect that you're saying this stuff just to be difficult. If you haven't got it now then you're either doing this on purpose or the difference is beyond you.
As for his views, some of them are very iffy, but I am focusing on the difference between what he actually said compared to what he is purported to have said.
Have you checked any comments associated to him in the Guardian article with a little more diligence this time or is it merely recycled and assumed/promoted as true?
|
The following is what Helmer said, with his spin, not the media's...
rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/ken-on-rape-badly-phrased-but-basically-right/
I assume that The Guardian's position is that he is totally wrong and all rapes should be treated the same, irrespective of circumstances? Because *that* would seem to be old-fashioned.
I'm not comfortable with what Helmer wrote, but it is not totally without merit. It just needs thinking about a bit more.
|
This perhaps should be in Yewtree, but also it might find a home here.
Ignore, I think, the comments, many of almost inevitably misread what she is trying to say.
I thought it, well, thought provoking at some level.
www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/cliffords-sentencing-has-little-to-do-with-justice/
Disappearing again now.
|
>> I thought it, well, thought provoking at some level.
>>
>> www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/cliffords-sentencing-has-little-to-do-with-justice/
Sort of thought provoking, though I'm struggling with bits. At first impression I'm alarmed that a barrister of Hewson's call/experience publishes such views but free speech and all that.
I might return tomorrow with a considered response when I've had time to reflect.
|
>> I'm not comfortable with what Helmer wrote, but it is not totally without merit. It
>> just needs thinking about a bit more.
It just needs thinking about in any depth whatsoever.
The last minute withdrawal of consent, implicitly post the stop at Haymarket or Edge Hill to use Scots or Scouse vernacular, is to put it mildly implausible.
Such an instance wouldn't be prosecuted. I cannot find the name for the relevant case but back in the nineties just such a scenario (with added ingredient of drink) was prosecuted. The pair involved were were London Uni students and while not a couple as such seemed to push platonic to its limit. On one such occasion he penetrated her and was charged with rape. Guilty at first instance IIRC but acquitted on appeal with support of his eminent lawyer tutor. Not Angus Diggle but in same time frame.
While misreading of signals/consent etc is of course possible I think most accepted research shows that compared to he abuse of power/humiliation etc scenario they're a very small subset of cases. They certainly don't as Helmer suggests 'give the lie' to the more gemeral theory.
|
I've never been raped. Whilst its not impossible, its probably not likely to happen now.
However, if I was raped I think I would feel that the person should be arrested, prosecuted and punished whatever the circumstances.
Nonetheless, if I had been attacked by a stranger in the street I think I'd want that person to get a much more serious punishment than if I had been lying in bed with my partner and then changed my mind at the last minute.
I don't know, because its never happened, but I think that's how I would feel.
Do you believe that the punishment should be the same in both examples?
|
>> Do you believe that the punishment should be the same in both examples?
No I don't but I regard the 'in bed with my partner' example as barely plausible and even less likely to be prosecuted if reported as an offence.
|
>>No I don't but I regard the 'in bed with my partner' example as barely plausible and even less likely to be prosecuted if reported as an offence.
Whole 'nother thing.
Getting raped when you say no, is still rape even if you should have known better. Even if your behaviour is unreasonable. Its still rape.
OK, perhaps the punishment should be different, perhaps you should even acknowledge some level of "self-endangerment", hence the potential for different punishments, but its still rape.
Perhaps incredibly challenging to prove, but still rape. Or are you saying its not rape? Or are you saying it should not be prosecuted?
It may not be likely, but *if* it happened it *is* rape. And as for plausible, I've had a woman change her mind at the *very* last moment. Perhaps you're just not as ugly as me and have been more fortunate.
And you felt that "difficult to prove" should not stand in the way of Yewtree.
And you stated that you do not believe the punishment should be the same in both examples.
And I presume you believe that all rape should be prosecuted.
Help me understand where you disagree with Helmer on this subject, because I don't get it. Because the only disagreement I can see is that Helmer said that all rape should be prosecuted and punished, but you don't seem so sure.
Or perhaps you think it should be, but just that its not likely to be?
Bit old-fashioned, surely?
"Oh that was easy" says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
|
>> "Oh that was easy" says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that
>> black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Etymologically speaking, black and white do indeed mean the same thing. Many Indo-European languages call white black - blanc, bianco, blanco etc. English has words such as bleach and blank which come from the same root as black. The bla- prefix in common Indo-European meant something shining or gleaming, or without any colour at all. I.e black or white.
There you go. Black IS white.
Last edited by: Alanović on Thu 8 May 14 at 11:10
|
You take his statements literally, I interpret them to mean he has some 'issues' with homosexuality.
We're both entitled to our views.
|
>>You take his statements literally, I interpret them.."
Which statements? The ones he actually made or the ones you said he made?
|
>> Which statements? The ones he actually made or the ones you said he made?
There's a Two Ronnies song sketch about double entendres titled something like 'We Heard What You Said but we Knew What You Meant'.
Same principle with Helmer only a different slant on the meaning.
|
Not really answering my question though.
However, may I offer you my thanks, I've never had an argument before where I got green thumbs and the other person got red faces. Its normally quite the opposite.
I'm quite chuffed.
And I don't care if it changes over night (I have few supporters on the night shift), I'm chuffed for now.
|
>>"If two men can be married, why not three men? Or a two men and a woman? He could have gone further. Why not a commune? If two men have a right to marry, how can we deny the same right to two siblings? Are we to authorise incest?"
>>A fairly ridiculous comment but again not what he was accused of saying.
>>He did NOT describe homosexuality as "distasteful if not viscerally repugnant" NOR did he liken it to incest.
>>Let me be clear, I am NOT saying that I agree with his views. But lying or misrepresenting what he said is not the way to challenge the position.
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2611020/Meet-worlds-married-lesbian-threesome-baby-make-four-July.html
|
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2611020/Meet-worlds-married-lesbian-threesome-baby-make-four-July.html
>>
OK, Massachusetts there but hetero polygamy is not unknown in US, particularly Utah, is it? The Mormons may have officially disavowed it but splinter sects carry on.
|
|
I'm pretty sure polygamy is illegal, and Mormons simply take extra 'wives' in name only.
|
>> pretty sure polygamy is illegal, and Mormons simply take extra 'wives' in name only.
Legal or illegal, no matter in practical terms surely?
Hogamus higamus
Men are polygamous
Higamus hogamus
Women monogamous
(Ogden Nash)
|
>> I'm pretty sure polygamy is illegal, and Mormons simply take extra 'wives' in name only.
And I suspect the lesbian wives referred to in Dog's link are 'wives' in name only too.
My point was simply that US polygamy wasn't new.
|
|
I've never heard a racist comment from any of our activist members in closed branch meetings.
|
>> I've never heard a racist comment from any of our activist members in closed branch
>> meetings.
What about the non activist Members? And (as a confessed racist elsewhere in this forum) have you ever offered one?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 6 May 14 at 19:02
|
>>I've never heard a racist comment from any of our activist members in closed branch meetings.<<
Me neither, nor at the public meeting, infact the point is often made that not only do we lay the blame for immigration policy at the door of government, not immigrants, but that UKIP stands for controlled immigration and at the public meeting the case was made for better opportunities for immigrants from places like India and China - plenty nodding in agreement in the audience too.
|
At the root of the whole issue with Britian's place in the EU is the lack of full political union to make it work.
It is wrong to say Britain has no independence, but true to say it is no longer fully independent. We cannot continue on this half-in, half-out basis.
What people need to understand is that there are four basic possibilities -
1. - progress to a full United States of Europe (you can't have currency union without political union)
2. - leave
3. - negotiate a new associate status that amounts to little more than being members of a trading bloc in terms of tariffs and other terms of trade, creating a two tier club.
4. - get the EU as a whole to bin the USE idea AND the Euro (see 1 above) and make it the Common Market that would be nearer to what Britain actually voted on in 1975 - the main controversy was around the CAP IIRC.
4 is not going to happen.
3 is implied by Cameron's ambitious stated ( in my opinion disingenuously) intention of 'renegotiating', which is about as likely as the second coming or Roger's pigs getting airborne.
So make your choice between 1 & 2, or understand that the only chance of negotiating 3 is to make the power brokers in the EU understand and believe that 1 is not an option for the UK.
Yes, that is very broad brush but currently the core issue is being obfuscated - by the the demonising of the EU by the Outies, and the condescending arguments put out by the Innies.
For some reason I am thinking of Big-Endians and Little-Endians again.
|
I would like 4 but accept your view that it's now impossible, which is a bit galling when you think we actually voted for it.
Failing that I'd like 3
If I can't have that, I'd like 2.
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 7 May 14 at 11:56
|
For once I agree entirely with Westpig.
We just have to make sure that everybody absolutely believes we will do 2) before ever getting close to 1).
In the face of that stated intention, if the rest of the EU wishes the UK to remain then we can let the them decide whether they wish to go for 3) or 4).
|
>> What people need to understand is that there are four basic possibilities -
>>
>> 1. - progress to a full United States of Europe (you can't have currency
>> union without political union)
>>
I don't automatically throw up my hands in horror at that prospect. Currency union needs a far greater degree of fiscal union than now but not necessarily full political union - whatever that looks like.
We need a much clearer explanation of what a US of E means. We're not talking something based on the American model where there is (or at least was at foundation) a unity of language and culture. A united Europe would be a looser confederation, particularly for those nations like UK, Denmark etc that remain outwith the Euro. In negotiating such a deal what countries might we ally with, why is such a suggestion anathema to the UK while others are prepared to roll with it and bepragmatic.
I'm not saying it's automatically fine but I'd like to have a clear specification before rejecting it and taking the UK alone line.
A minority view I know but surely not irrational.
|
>>A minority view I know but surely not irrational.
I don;t have an emotional or philosophical difficulty with that at all. I simply believe that such a large entity full of such disparate systems, people, challenges, desires, cultures and types cannot be governed effectively as a single unit.
We struggle with just the UK, can you imagine the challenge with something *that* complex?
|
>> I've never heard a racist comment from any of our activist members in closed branch
>> meetings.
>>
There's a few things I'd like to say about 'racist comments'.
1, One man's racism isn't to another
2, If you followed the dictionary definition of racism it would cover virtually anything if you were to differentiate in any way whatsoever by race, which would be ridiculous.
3, Racism or alleged racism has been used for a while now as a means by some to stifle debate, (which UKIP now seems to have unlocked, thankfully).
4, It is quite often the case that those that some might perceive would be affected by alleged racist comments, are indeed not, but it doesn't stop others interfering anyway.
5, True underhand, spiteful (and illegal) racism is a scourge that needs sitting on very firmly, but sadly can be mixed up by many with the trivial...and I very clearly blame the those that indulge in the trivial for allowing the worst cases to sometimes be passed over or not recognised by the many.
|
"Ukip’s membership has surged over 37,000"
"The party is on course to be bigger than the Lib Dems, who currently have 44,000 members, by the General Election"
www.express.co.uk/news/uk/474420/Half-Ukip-s-Euro-voters-pledge-to-stay-loyal-to-Nigel-Farage-in-the-2015-General-Election
|
|
Just found out our local Euro candidate for UKIP runs a care company. Wonder what his views are on zero hours contracts and employing people from the EU and beyond are...? I will tweet him I think.
|
There was a question on zero-hours contracts on QT last week which you probably saw? The only person who really knew much about it was the chairman of the National Trust, which uses them itself.
The best contribution was from a lady in the audience who runs a care business. She made several very telling points, among which
- just about everybody doing the caring is on a zero hours contract
- local authorities pay by the minute, for the actual time with the carees, and excluding travelling time, at rates they negotiate to the minimum. It would be impossible to provide the service using staff on guaranteed hours under thios conditions.
I.E., it isn't as simple as blaming the nasty employers. Like most things, there are a lot of moving parts and unintended consequences, one of which is the employers who abuse it, another of which is presumably that it's quite hard to get the staff.
A care company that insists on only employing Brits and paying full time wages including travel time would probably not be in business long (and might also be breaking the law by dsicriminating in favour of British vs. EU citizens?).
|
The carers with the most stable incomes that I have met are the self-employed ones as agencies tend to take quite a chunk of the payment from the client.
Some sort of database for self-employed carers that both allowed them to advertise and for clients to find available carers wouldnt go amiss. Finding good care privately is extremely hit and miss.
|
Phew, that's a relief.
Racism doesn't exist amongst 'black and ethnic minority' groups.
|
>> Racism doesn't exist amongst 'black and ethnic minority' groups.
It does actually. But let's not go there this time.
|
>> It does actually. But let's not go there this time.
I'm pretty sure Lygonos had his tongue in his cheek.....
|
>>I'm pretty sure Lygonos had his tongue in his cheek.....
Naturalmente señor.
|
It was either a very clever stunt, or perhaps represented a genuine groundswell.
Also a hard act to criticise without seeming to denigrate the speakers as mere white stooges, which they clearly weren't.
|
|
I know one of the people who signed the letter personally and he would refute the 'stooge' label with passion, he is very much a Kipper and proud of it, he fits in the party perfectly.
|
I was curious about use of Breitbart is a link for several of these kipper pieces.
Digging suggests it's a news aggregation service with links to US Republicans/Neo Cons.
Just saying.......
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 8 May 14 at 10:26
|
>> I was curious about use of Breitbart is a link for several of these kipper
>> pieces.
>>
>> Digging suggests it's a news aggregation service with links to US Republicans/Neo Cons.
>>
>> Just saying.......
You post stuff on here from Left publications? What's the difference?
|
Can't really see an issue; Its perfectly ok to use a news aggregation service provided they are simply aggregating, not editing.
Of course, you'll need to look elsewhere for rebuttal arguments.
|
>
>> You post stuff on here from Left publications? What's the difference?
None really, but everybody knows Guardian is left/liberal. Never heard of Breitbart until Stu started posting links to it for kipper news - had anybody else?
Given a fair bit of UKIP's emerging economic policy is leaning towards Neo Con my antennae were twitching slightly for a connection to US money but maybe that's a conspiracy too far.
|
The London end of Breitbart is run by ex_Telegraph hack, James Delingpole.
He applied for selection for UKIP's MEP list, I believe, but didn't make the vetting cut, whereupon he flounced a bit!
At least he didn't form his own party, like the similarly rejected sitting UKIP MEP, Mike Natrass, who has cunningly named it, not only to resemble UKIP, but to appear above UKIP's name on polling forms!
|
We've done well in the Telegraph today!
No less than two vicious attacks on UKIP, one by the egregious Dan Hodges saying he'll vote for Clegg's lot as Clegg took on Farage over Europe, failing to mention that Clegg was sunk almost without trace on that !
The other one is by someone called Alice Arnold, repeating the untrue "homophobe" slur about Roger Helmer. That canard has already been laid to rest, as previous posts here will attest.
Keep it coming - folks like those two are our best recruiting sergeants!
Last edited by: Roger. on Thu 8 May 14 at 16:43
|
Bromp,
Your standard of investigation seems to depend on how much you want something to be true.
When Helmer was misquoted in a way that was bad for UKIP you felt no need to check.
"The ... comment was widely reported and I'd no reason to check its veracity."
Yet when Stu posted something supportive of UKIP then your "antennae were twitching " and you felt that "Digging" was required.
Do you feel that;
1) Your bias impacts your treatment of a subject.
or that;
2) I'm imagining things
I obviously also have biases, but I don't believe that they affect my eyesight.
|
|
.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 8 May 14 at 16:43
|
I can fully understand why people will vote UKIP for Europe-related elections.
I cannot see why anybody would vote UKIP in a GE, and as the Lib Dem can tell you, a protest vote just doesn't get you anywhere meaningful.
And for me, even though I accept that UKIP is not a racist party as such, I cannot get passed my fear that it has far too many bigots and racists inside it, and who knows where the power would fall if it came to it.
|
|
Enthusiasm might be contagious. Result: a high turn-out. Which might mean the disaffected are not without opposition, or tactical voting countermeasures.
|
>>And for me, even though I accept that UKIP is not a racist party as such, I cannot get passed my fear that it has far too many bigots and racists inside it, and who knows where the power would fall if it came to it <<
I really do think it is an irrational fear. I worried when I first joined UKIP whether I would discover that I had made a mistake but it was completely the opposite actually once I got to know people. I have spoken to people who have been in the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems - they all say to me that UKIP has a far more decent and honest culture - I have heard some horrific stories from ex-members of other parties about events that happened which were covered up, the sort of things that could make anyone wonder if politics is too rotten to ever be honourable.
If you are worried about UKIP, you should be hiding under the bed from the other three, there is nothing they wont do in the name of protecting their own.
|
>> I really do think it is an irrational fear.
And you may very well be correct. However, it seems to me to be a valid concern that if erroneous, will only go away with time and experience.
>> it was completely the opposite actually once I got to know people.
Well, there is a bit of an issue there, since the meetings are inevitably self-selecting. The type of person who will want to go along to such a meeting, will want to socialise and discuss, is not typically the type of person that I would see as a risk.
Consequently, the meetings are likely to be much more pleasant than the rank and file.
>>I have spoken to people ............ UKIP has a far more decent and honest culture
Oh don't get me wrong, I think that they are all a lying bunch of gits. I am just more comfortable when I know which lies they are telling. The pitiful state of the UK political scene will not get sorted out until the electorate wakes up and gets a life.
To an extent UKIP may encourage that awakening.
The parties are not the issue, the people voting for them or not voting at all are the issue.
>> if politics is too rotten to ever be honourable.
Absolutely. Politics will never be honourable.
However, politicians want to be politicians. They need to understand what will keep them as politicians and what will cause them to be ousted. And that criteria should not include who they sleep with, who they call a pleb and what fashionable things they say to the press.
>> If you are worried about UKIP, you should be hiding under the bed from the
>> other three, there is nothing they wont do in the name of protecting their own.
I see little difference between any of them - the leading players are politicians. And that's not a good thing.
Even Farage wants to be a politican. Because he wants to be a politician he will have to do and say what will appeal to the right number of voters.
If the thing that appeals to those voters is something he, you or I don't like, then either it will be too bad and he'll lie, change his mind or he won't get in.
Thus, the problem in my mind is not the politician, its the electorate and the media simply feed that frenzied mob.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 8 May 14 at 17:32
|
>>Well, there is a bit of an issue there, since the meetings are inevitably self-selecting. The type of person who will want to go along to such a meeting, will want to socialise and discuss, is not typically the type of person that I would see as a risk <<
When I joined I had been mulling it over for a long time, the trigger actually was Godfrey Bloom getting the boot, to me that was a very serious message of intent as I found the sort of things he said sometimes uncomfortable, I felt that I had to be able to defend my choice to join robustly.
Party candidates ARE the people you will meet at meetings, generally the more you are seen, the more likely you will be selected as you have to convince those at your local branch that you are the right person - if you are worried about the sort of people UKIP could put in power, you are perfectly able to meet them, in person and decide for yourself - that is why we put ourselves out there with street stalls in town centres and public meetings open to anyone, it is for you and anyone else to judge us up close, we dont do it because we have nothing else to do, we do it because we think you deserve the chance to do so.
>>Even Farage wants to be a politican. Because he wants to be a politician he will have to do and say what will appeal to the right number of voters.<<
I dont buy that tbh, yes Nigel is a politician but his success is directly linked to UKIP members and their efforts - he doesnt have the luxury of challenging his membership like Blair did, UKIP members take no prisoners and they have highly tuned BS meters that they will turn on Nigel if he even thinks about it - the reason many joined the party was to be something different and there isnt much tolerance for focus groups or trying to please certain media outlets to get favourable coverage - we do what we do and say what we think, if people agree fair enough, if not, so be it. Those immigration posters were hardly risk-free, nothing Farage does is, there was no sense that putting up those posters would have a particular reaction from voters.
|
Stu,
Let me describe a ridiculous situation to explain my point...
Assume that Farage is viable and can be elected.
Farage believes that pound coins should be red. However, the key vote to swing it is 2 million voters who all believe that the pound coin should be blue.
1) He insists that pound coins will never be blue. He is not elected.
2) He says he will make pound coins blue, but goes back on his promise. He is never elected again.
3) He agrees that pound coins should be blue and makes them so. He is elected and re-elected.
So, *if* there are a substantial and significant number of racist people in UKIP, although none of them are the leaders on either administrative or political level, what will happen?
Life and the country will be better if you are correct about UKIP, its contents and its policies. But with no offence, I don't think you are.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 8 May 14 at 18:05
|
UKIP is driven by clear values and few members can be in any doubt about what the party stands for - knowing what those values are, any racists will be disappointed is the short answer. I dont believe that racists are numerous, either in politics or the wider population so I dont spend a second worrying about what they want, they can jog on frankly.
I dont think Nigel is as cynical as you think on pleasing voters, he tends to work on bringing people around to his way of thinking rather than moulding himself into what he thinsk might be electable. In politics you have two options, change the product or sell it better and UKIP believe in the values behind the product so it is about communication, hence the street stalls etc rather than trying to second guess what people will buy into.
|
>> I can fully understand why people will vote UKIP for Europe-related elections.
>>
>> I cannot see why anybody would vote UKIP in a GE, and as the Lib
>> Dem can tell you, a protest vote just doesn't get you anywhere meaningful.
Up until fairly recently I thought the same... however... I am now beginning to wonder if UKIP can retain a significant vote in a GE... because... I think there's a number of voters thoroughly fed up with the present arrangements where the main three parties seem to ignore what the electorate want.
Europe is but one example, albeit a good one.
It matters not if our leaders think we are wrong to think like we do..we elect them to do things on our behalf. Many seem to have forgotten this.
One good thing that has come out of UKIP is a re-alignment of some of the old ways and the start of the banishment of political correctness (hopefully)... and more to come?
|
mark,
Considering you were bored with the Helmer stuff last night you're keen to dig it up again. I took a quote from elsewhere (about visceral dislike). It was hardly an unusual view for a man in his sixties coming from right wing (Tory then UKIP) politics. It turned out it was wrong.
I still maintain the gay marriage/incest comparison is dodgy though.
If something is posted as link to Mail, Express, Telegraph or for that matter Guardian I know where it's coming from. Breitbart OTOH is new to me, and I suspect others here too. I simply sought to understand its DNA - which turns out to be US Neocon.
The antenna twitching was about wider NeoCon influence in Europe but as I said, a conspiracy theory too far.
|
Bromp,
Let me try to set out my position for clarity;
I suspect that Helmer has very dodgy views. In fact, I feel that there are far too many people in UKIP who have what I consider to be dodgy views. Theirs is a "risky" set of policies which can only too easily attract what I perceive to be the wrong people.
Despite coming from "the other side" to you, I think you have many valid points about UKIP.
I cannot imagine that I would be prepared to vote UKIP in a GE because of what I perceive to be the "risks".
I can quite imagine voting for them in a "European" election because of the message and impact it has on the other parties.
I have zero issue with gay, homosexual, Muslim, black, Essex people, or anything else you can think of. I am about as unprejudiced as it is possible for a human being to be.
I think gay people should be able to get married if they wish, I do not believe that a particular church or religion should be compelled to marry them if it goes against their beliefs.
HOWEVER, I intensely dislike the behaviour of the UK media, its willingness to distort, lie, sensationalise, corrupt or otherwise bias its reporting.
I dislike even more that the tactics of the media are successful in attracting mindless readers who cannot seem to see how ridiculous it is to believe everythign they wish to believe and see as lies everything they do nto wish to believe and see no need to seek any background, criteria or other means of waking up to the real world.
So, if you, I or anyone else perpetuates that state of affairs, then I like to make sure that should any unsuspecting soul come along and read it in isolation, they also see me putting it straight.
And as a way forwaad, then to my mind if it is in the mainstream press, that in itself is an excellent reason for checking it out.
|
Mark,
I could have written all that myself and I've green thumbed it.
While I picked up a misquote of Helmer I don't think I'm attracted to media as a mindless reader. I tend to aggregate different bits and look for an original source if I can - hence linking to sentencing remarks even if Mapmaker thinks them pornographic.
Sometimes though only the Guardian or minor sources will carry a story at all. The mainly right wing press ignore stuff that doesn't suit their narrative - cases won on Human Rights grounds where the plaintiff iss NOT aa prisoner/immigrant/benefit claimant for example.
And don't get me started on the Mail's coverage of the Court of Protection.
|
>>The antenna twitching was about wider NeoCon influence in Europe but as I said, a conspiracy theory too far.<<
It is perhaps possible that UKIP has inspired more anti-establishment news sources, Breitbart doesnt do the establishment parties any favours, it performs a similar function to Guido Fawkes. Not so much a conspiracy, perhaps there is a growing UK market for outlets that take such positions, perhaps UKIP is giving it legs, who knows.
|
>>I was curious about use of Breitbart is a link for several of these kipper pieces <<
Breitbart London is run by JD as Roger says and James is well liked in UKIP circles, it is a great news source for the lesser UKIP stories too.
You often find Breitbart articles shared by Kippers on Facebook although I can understand why a leftie would feel threatened by it, it is certainly not a tofu-munchers dream news site.
|
UKIP Debate Volume 9. - Dog
