***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 19 *****
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
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 7 Dec 14 at 22:51
|
Interesting CiF piece in today's Guardian penned by Dan Snow:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/26/ukip-history-mps-government
Argument is basically that the executive has subsumed the Parliament which was meant to oversee its activity. Sort of agree with that. Judicial oversight seems more likely to make Ministers think again than anything that happens in Westminster.
|
People try to make it sound as if they vote for conscious reasons, but they don't really. They vote from the heart, or rather from the entrails. Knee-jerk near enough.
We aren't fascist or racist as a nation. But our entrails rumble with reactionary and xenophobic juices. That's why there's a small UKIP bandwagon.
|
UKIP are basically the Conservative party that Alf Garnett thought he was voting for. As you say reactionary and xenophobic. It's a myth that the entire working class are natural
Labour supporters.
|
>> UKIP are basically the Conservative party that Alf Garnett thought he was voting for.
It'll be interesting to see how many MPs they get next year. More than half a dozen, or not so many? Either way they won't hold the balance of so-called power.
Is no one interested in the possibility of a three-party coalition next time round (Labour, LibDem and Green)? What this country needs is a few more parties. Then we could be like France in the fifties, coalitions of every sort lasting about ten minutes each... depressed the hell out of the Frogs, but perhaps we are made of sterner stuff and won't notice.
|
>>Is no one interested in the possibility of a three-party coalition next time round (Labour, LibDem and Green)?<<
Not as much as where the SNP will fit in, the astonishing growth rate of that party is a credit to the party leaders for signing up so many new members, not easy these days.
|
>> Is no one interested in the possibility of a three-party coalition next time round (Labour,
>> LibDem and Green)?
Dear god, just the thought of anyone of those in government on its own is enough to give you nightmares, but a coalition of all three ......................
|
>>
>>
>> It'll be interesting to see how many MPs they get next year. More than half
>> a dozen, or not so many? Either way they won't hold the balance of so-called
>> power.
Nah no more than 3.
|
>> UKIP are basically the Conservative party that Alf Garnett thought he was voting for. As
>> you say reactionary and xenophobic.
What a load of excrement.
There might well be some that fit that cap... however there'll be loads that are just plain fed up with the current system and plenty more who are annoyed at the mainstream parties ignoring some elements of what is important to them and are glad that a party is willing to raise the issue(s).
|
>> Interesting CiF piece
What is a CiF?
|
>> >> Interesting CiF piece
>>
>> What is a CiF?
>>
A well known maker of household cleaners...
Or Comment Is Free (Guardian).. where all the leftwing nutjobs post - as opposed to the telegraph or Mail where all the rightwing nutjobs post...
|
>> What is a CiF?
>>
Comment is Free as per the linked URL.
Comment is free but facts are sacred - sort of motto for the Scott Trust which owns/runs the Grauniad.
|
The same Scott Trust which rants about people and companies paying taxes and then avoids all tax on the profits of its (Part) sale of its Autotrader stake by using an overseas holding company.(Cayman Islands iirc)
tinyurl.com/kphnktw
No wonder UKIP is winning Labour voters over. Such hypocrisy is meat and drink to its campaign..:-)
|
Comment Is Free (Oxymoron?) is perhaps, the most heavily moderated comments section of any newspaper which offers a reader's response facility.
|
I agree with Roger.(again!).
If you dare comment that:
the Guardian's Board is all composed of white Oxbridge educated males - in direct contradiction of their espoused policies of racial equality and social mobility let alone feminism!!
or that Rushbridge earns over £500k pa whilst presiding over a loss making newspaper - in direct contradiction of their "fat cats directors" rants.
they moderate you. Delete your post.
It's like Labourlist and LabourUncut - the two major Labour supporting blogs. ALL comment is moderated. Labourlist very heavily as expected by a union financed site.
Conservative Home is not , nor is LeftFootForward .. except for abuse.
Labourlist reminds me of a bunch of stalinsts . I am banned permanently for politely saying what I thought...
Last edited by: madf on Thu 27 Nov 14 at 10:45
|
I dislike the Guardian and UKIP in almost equal measure, but then as a generalisation I find debating anything with political extremists, left or right, is pretty much impossible. It's not usually long before censorship or abuse start to creep in. Censorship and suppression or abuse of dissenters has long been associated with extreme views.
About the only view I share with UKIP supporters is the thought that the mainstream political parties are a disgrace, and are failing an increasing number of people.
Last edited by: DP on Thu 27 Nov 14 at 10:59
|
>>Conservative Home is not , nor is LeftFootForward .. except for abuse.<<
Con Home has been moderated against pro-UKIP content, not on a post basis but by simply banning identified supporters, happened a while ago now. Then when the Kippers just upvoted any remaining pro-UKIP comment from a wavering Tory, they then stopped post ratings too.
All rather funny really, it is a bit quiet these days, even some of the Tory regulars dont bother anymore.
New Statesman is pretty easy going though for a lefty site, not that anyone reads it.
|
|
I don't read ConHome very often.. Too many people shouting...and in many cases the posters live in a different world to me...very affluent south and really right wing wingnuts.
|
Local party in Thanet, where Farage is to stand in General Election, seem unfamiliar with one of London's landmarks.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/27/-sp-ukip-mistakes-westminster-cathedral-for-mosque
|
|
Yep - red faces - but we are not all metropolitan elite!
|
>> we are not all metropolitan elite!
No need to tell we Rastaman. We know you all rude-bwoy tink a cross same as a crescent innit...
|
>> >> we are not all metropolitan elite!
>>
>> No need to tell we Rastaman. We know you all rude-bwoy tink a cross same
>> as a crescent innit...
To be fair, I wonder how many of the population at large could identify Westminster Cathedral.
The R.C.s probably could, but I bet not too many others who have never visited the Capital City and actually looked around, could do so.
The Cathedral is shown far less on TV than the Abbey. I have visited both : one is a tourist trap, the other is palpably a place of worship. (Even to a heathen like me).
Last edited by: Roger. on Fri 28 Nov 14 at 12:55
|
"To be fair, I wonder how many of the population at large could identify Westminster Cathedral"
I couldn't. I can't say that I've ever seen it.
|
|
Couldn't have told you what the building was in the Guardian's picture, although wouldn't have assumed it was a mosque.
|
>> I can't say that I've ever seen it.
It's a peculiar Oriental sort of building which can't compare with the Abbey for beauty. When I was a Catholic I was horrified by it and found it embarrassing. I quite like it now, it goes with the Edwardian mansion blocks scattered around it.
|
Perhaps the campanile does bear a passing resemblance to a minaret. The colouring of the brickwork has echoes of the mezquita in Cordoba - but that's a Cathedral as well! The latin carvings over the main entrance are distinctly unislamic though.
Thirty five years working and for part of that living in London maybe puts me in the Metropolitan elite. It used to often feature on TV though whenever the late Cardinal Hume had made some public statement.
|
|
It takes inspiration from Santa Sophia in Constantinople, apparently. Variously described as Italianate but also Byzantine. It's a hybrid.
|
>> the brickwork has echoes of the mezquita in Cordoba - but that's a Cathedral as well!
That Grand Mosque in Cordoba is an utterly wonderful building, steeped in Muslim religious sentiment which I fancied I could feel in the place. The cathedral inside it is another wonder, because it's in a radically different style, very ornate with lots of gold leaf, and sticks up out of the huge, low-roofed mosque.
Worth going to Cordoba just to see it.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 1 Dec 14 at 15:02
|
SQ. Seems the Zero bug is spreading to others as well
>> Worth going to Cordoba just to see it.
I agree 100%, AC - I have been to the Cordoba Mesquita and I rate it better than the Alhambra, the Palacio Real, El Escorial and El Valle de los Caidos, for sheer jaw droppingness.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 1 Dec 14 at 21:26
|
>> palpably a place of worship. (Even to a heathen like me).
I went to a wedding in Westminster Cathedral a couple of decades back. The groom was someone I knew at school in Asia in the forties when we were both 8 or 9, one of the other two or three Catholics in that very British school (his father was a tea planter I think), whom I had run into again in the sixties when we were both in advertising/marketing in the West End of London.
He's a nice cat but we had grown apart over the years (he was still a Catholic and pretty straight, while I had become an atheist bohemian into dope and general cavorting) and we didn't stay in touch.
|
>>but we are not all metropolitan elite!
Indeed we are not. However, do you believe that only the "metropolitan elite" can recognise Westminster Cathedral?
Because if so, and thus i am Metropolitan Elite as are my children, is here any chance you could let me know what that is?
|
Metrolpolitan Elite is a sneer used for others who are either richer, better educated or brighter than the speaker. or all three.
And live in a City.
Last edited by: madf on Fri 28 Nov 14 at 13:48
|
"Here's another mosque:"
Ah yes, I have seen that one.
|
Once your start looking they are everywhere.
Sezincote House
farm5.static.flickr.com/4035/4571268629_0743c8831a.jpg
|
>> www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/01/Gullible-Left-Wing-Media-Taken-In-By-Fake-UKIP-Account
This links to a piece by Suzanne Evans in which she asserts that a UKIP account tweeting racist and homophobic language was a 'trolling' hoax. She goes on to state that the branches/groups it supposedly belonged to do not exist witihn UKIP.
She might be more worried that it was sufficiently plausible that the 'left wing media' taken in included the London Evening Standard.
Another angle here:
www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ukip-denies-affiliation-with-homophobic-twitter-account-that-sent-abuse-to-gay-campaigner-jack-monroe-nice-people-these-marxists-9895664.html
Although JAck Monroe is an out lesbian she's much better know as a poverty campaigner and cookery writer.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 2 Dec 14 at 11:28
|
I only posted it to point out that these trolling accounts exist and that one should not accept that every anti-UKIP article, based on social media postings, is necessarily correct.
If genuine UKIP accounts post such stuff, by all means out it - rest assured that UKIP will deal with the offending person or group.
|
>and that one should not accept that every anti-UKIP article, based on social media postings, is necessarily correct.
In much the same way that UKIP does not leap on every anti-Lib / Lab / Con / whatever article?
Because presumably you also understand that if its genuine that Lib / Lab / Con / whatever will deal with the offending person or group.
Or are those guidelines just one way?
|
Actually Labour, LibDems & Conservatives don't have a particularly good record in dealing with members of their parties who offend in one way or another.
There is, however, a valid point in that things posted on the internet are all too often taken as true.
I have, myself been taken in by such assertions (not limited to politics!)
I hope I have learnt my lesson, but sometimes, for whatever reasons, links or articles are not followed through to their end (Yes - I have had "fails" here, as I'm sure you will be quick to remind me).
|
>> >and that one should not accept that every anti-UKIP article, based on social media postings,
>> is necessarily correct.
>>
>> In much the same way that UKIP does not leap on every anti-Lib / Lab
>> / Con / whatever article?
>>
>> Because presumably you also understand that if its genuine that Lib / Lab / Con
>> / whatever will deal with the offending person or group.
I get the impression Roger agrees with you; his main point being that some of the stuff that appears to come from UKIP doesn't - i.e., it's not just UKIP people going off piste, which is pounced on on regardless of which party does it, but actually people impersonating UKIP so as to damage it.
I hold no brief for UKIP, but I think anybody who is opposed to it would do better to address the issues and policies than to continue the insults and ridicule.
All that the "swivel eyed loons" scorn showed is that the established parties were massively complacent and unable to take the UKIP challenge seriously.
UKIP has a pretty clear message -
leave the EU; and
stop uncontrolled immigration; and
cancel HS2, because we are too skint to pay for it (although Reckless Mark doesn't seem to have bought into that one yet).
The daft thing is that these are not, in my opinion, the biggest issues but in not taking UKIP seriously enough the other parties have allowed UKIP to broaden its base.
I'm not having a go at anybody in particular, but if we are to continue with the UKIP threads here then the debate would benefit from more attention to the argument (not just the ones above) rather than attacking anybody who supports UKIP.
|
"All that the "swivel eyed loons" scorn showed is that the established parties were massively complacent and unable to take the UKIP challenge seriously."
Quite! You won't win votes by calling people with 20:20 political vision 'swivel-eyed loons'.
|
>> "All that the "swivel eyed loons" scorn showed is that the established parties were massively
>> complacent and unable to take the UKIP challenge seriously."
>>
>> Quite! You won't win votes by calling people with 20:20 political vision 'swivel-eyed loons'.
>>
Even if they have 5:5 vision and are swivel eyed loons. because all it does is upset them.
Last edited by: madf on Tue 2 Dec 14 at 16:05
|
>> because all it does is upset them<<
....Not really.
I think most of us, whatever political persuasion we may be, expect our politicians (and their supporters) to behave in an adult and responsible manner.
I know it's asking a lot, but just as soon as these below the belt, snide remarks stop then a lot more people may just bother to vote.
Pat
|
That post deserves a green thumb Manatee.
Pat
|
>> I only posted it to point out that these trolling accounts exist and that one
>> should not accept that every anti-UKIP article, based on social media postings, is necessarily correct.
I would like to point out that all the loony ideas that were supposed to come out of the EU were also incorrect, does not stop anyone spouting them as gospel tho does it.
The fact is UKIP DID tell us that Westminster Abbey was a Mosque. They DID tell us they would repatriate immigrants. Its the DIDS that makes the spoofs believable.
|
>> Its the DIDS that makes the spoofs believable.
>>
I think you'll find you're not supposed to call them that any more.
|
May I ask a question that seems quite basic to me, as an outside observer?
Is there somewhere, in a back room or whatever, a group of UKIP or UKIP-sponsored 'experts' working to produce a coherent set of policies that might be used by a party actually involved in some form of government?
|
Yes - there is and it's currently at work!
The road map document "Policies for People" produced at Conference last September is the framework, but is liable to be adjusted in view of events and member's thoughts as passed on by elected representatives on our National Executive Council.
By the time all other party election manifestos are published, UKIP will have its own manifesto with agreed and costed policies covering a wide range of subjects.
We then need to ensure that we are all familiar with the manifesto, know the broad sweep of our intentions and are singing from the same hymn sheet!
|
>> May I ask a question that seems quite basic to me, as an outside observer?
>> Is there somewhere, in a back room or whatever, a group of UKIP or UKIP-sponsored
>> 'experts' working to produce a coherent set of policies that might be used by a
>> party actually involved in some form of government?
>>
Read tinyurl.com/pzann5u
Looks like they are all spinners policy makers.
|
|
Johnny Rotten's take on UKIP is trenchant. It's similar to my own but I might express it more politely. Ukippers are bad cats but they aren't the Kray brothers or those frightful American-paid Ukrainian nationalists. Give the devils their due.
|
|
Why "bad cats"? (Specifically on policies not personalities).
Last edited by: Roger. on Fri 5 Dec 14 at 17:48
|
>> Why "bad cats"? (Specifically on policies not personalities).
AC will answer for himself but it can be difficult to deal with policy alone when much of party's strength is based on its leader's personality.
He might have put a foot wrong today though, reportedly saying that breast feeding women should 'go in the corner' or some such place. Presumably following the recent case at Claridges.
|
>> He might have put a foot wrong today though, reportedly saying that breast feeding women
>> should 'go in the corner' or some such place. Presumably following the recent case at
>> Claridges.
Cut & paste below from Breitbart.
Nigel Farage "It just a question of good manners, and in this case, accurate journalism."
Nigel Farage, has hit the headlines for daring to question whether women should ostentatiously breastfeed in public. "Nigel Farage says breastfeeding women should sit in a corner" screamed the Guardian. But closer inspection reveals that he was merely advocating for the rights of businesses to set their own rules on their premises – and for mothers to show consideration and good manners.
The row broke out after Louise Burns, 35, claimed that a waiter in top London hotel Claridge's approached her with a "ridiculous shroud" and asked her to cover up whilst breastfeeding her 12 week old daughter. She also claims that the waiter told her it was hotel policy – something that Claridge's has since denied.
When questioned about the incident on LBC radio, Farage said: "I'm not particularly bothered about it, but I know a lot of people do feel very uncomfortable, and look, this is just a matter of common sense, isn't it? I think that given that some people feel very embarrassed by it, it isn't too difficult to breastfeed a baby in a way that's not openly ostentatious.
"Frankly, that's up to Claridge's, and I very much take the view that if you're running an establishment you should have rules."
When asked by the presenter whether new mothers should go to the toilets to breastfeed, Farage replied: "Or perhaps sit in the corner, or whatever it might be – that's up to Claridge's. It's not an issue that I get terribly hung up about, but I know particularly people of the older generation feel awkward and embarrassed by it."
The government jumped on the anti-Farage bandwagon, with No 10 saying that it was "totally unacceptable" to make new mothers self-conscious about breastfeeding in public.
But Farage hasn't sought to make anyone feel uncomfortable. He's merely pointing out that, in a free and equal society, one group doesn’t have the unfettered right to feel totally free and comfortable at the expense of others who are being made to feel uncomfortable. Rather, there must be consideration on all sides.
He said: "The media fabrication over breastfeeding has been extraordinary. Let me get this clear, as I said on the radio and as I repeat now, I personally have no problem with mothers breastfeeding wherever they want.
"What I said was... and it is immensely frustrating that I have to explain this... is that if the establishment in question, in this case Claridge’s, wants to maintain rules about this stuff, then that is up to them, as it should be. I remarked that perhaps they might ask women to sit in a corner. Did I say I believe they should have to? No. Did I say I personally endorse this concept? No.
"We do however have to recognise that businesses have a responsibility to all of their customers, some of whom may well be made uncomfortable by public breastfeeding. It’s a two-way street: breastfeeding women should never be embarrassed by staff asking them to stop, and most mums will recognise the need to be discreet in certain, limited, circumstances. It just a question of good manners, and in this case, accurate journalism."
Last edited by: Roger. on Sat 6 Dec 14 at 12:09
|
Mmm, well, in this case I can't really see anything wrong with what Farage said. It is a matter of common sense.
Just a standard media attack on a politician providing a bandwagon for the professionally offended to jump on. It happens to them all, and frequently with this level of accuracy. Its just more palatable when its someone we either don;t like or don't support.
|
"It is a matter of common sense."
Aaaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!!!!!!
|
"I don;t understand."
Well …… whenever I mention 'Common sense' - I am pounced upon by the Grauniadisti.
|
I suspect the Tories may be overplaying their hand on this one.
I saw this comment "I hate Farage. And yet I am forced to support Farage on this" and variations on this on most comment sections following the story.
The trouble is you can view the show on Youtube and see the context and exact words, so it isnt relying on the word of a journalist, people can make up their own minds. Many are seeing what the media have done with what he actually said and judging not Farage but the twist the media put on it instead.
It hasnt got much traction either, I was on a street stall this morning, we were very busy, people signing up to join us, many coming over to tell us they voted UKIP and not one person mentioned this story.
|
Two issues here. The general principle and how Farage responded to the question.
Reports of mothers breast feeding in stores, hotels etc being instructed to cover up crop up regularly. In pretty much every case the inquisition seems to conclude that rules were made up on the hoof. There was no policy or if there was it was poorly promulgated to front of house staff. Or there was one and it said No but nobody senior is prepared to front up and admit it to a hostile media.
Press officer promises to do better in future.
So the first piece of (business) common sense is to make sure you have a policy and that staff know what it is.
There's a rub there because the only policy that's tenable in C21 UK is one that says feeding is OK provided it's done discreetly - as appeared to be the case in Claridges. While understanding the right of others to be offended some rights are important enough to be trumps, the right to feed your child as nature intended is such a right. If anybody's offended they can look the other way.
If an issue arises over whether feeding is discrete it's not for FOH staff to resolve; refer to duty manager. If mother is giving the entire room 'both barrels' gratuitously or for protest there's a case for asking her to desist. OTOH a new Mother and/or a baby who cannot or will not latch on is going to be in three handed paperhanger territory with supporting child while managing clothing and boobs - some exposure might be inevitable.
Farage's response simply emphasises the irony in the recent Private Eye Cover showing the UKIP liveried taxi and the usual speech bubbles.
'Where to Guv' says the driver. The passenger replies '1957'.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 6 Dec 14 at 15:24
|
>> Farage's response simply emphasises the irony in the recent Private Eye Cover showing the UKIP
>> liveried taxi and the usual speech bubbles.
>>
>> 'Where to Guv' says the driver. The passenger replies '1957'.
>>
His response was perfectly reasonable.... and the brouhaha afterwards, stirred by the Press, has not done UKIP any harm at all, because reasonable people will see..... reason.
There are plenty of people out there who do not mind a lady breastfeeding, but would wish her to try to be discrete... me included... and that is exactly what was said/ meant... and anything twisted otherwise is just politicking... which a lot of British people despise with a vengeance.
Oh and I cannot work out what was '1957' about it.
|
The inference was that ukip voters wanted to turn the clock back to that year
|
>> Why "bad cats"? (Specifically on policies not personalities).
Getting votes from bad cats, well aware of it and happy to play to that audience. No worse really than the other parties which do much the same in their ways.
I did say Ukippers weren't the Kray brothers or right wing Ukrainian nationalists. What more can you ask Roger?
Good big cartoon in today's comic, Osborne as Dr No or Blofeld and Nick Clegg as his tatty mog jumping off his lap and walking away with his nose in the air.
|
"Ukippers are bad cats'
Come on, AC, get a sense of proportion. Them there ISIL (IS, ISIL?) chappies are bad cats. We kippers are, in comparison, just pleasant, smoked fish with a view to realism.
|
|
Yeah, OK, but compared to Isil Jack the Ripper would have seemed normal, if a bit of a role model.
|
I always think Jimmy was ahead of his time. He would have surely have been a member of UKIP.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=drlPbIWAz-E&list=RD8nxo0fS2VMM&index=2
|
Ive been called alot worse than a 'bad cat' now, I earned my abused in the street by a leftie badge recently, very educational, I thankfully wasnt the activist absorbing the physical attack, another poor chap got that.
I get that people can fundamentally disagree with your point of view, but I find it much harder to understand why violence is the solution for some, trying to thump a couple of blokes in the street changes very little.
The 16 yo lad who was told to kill himself on Twitter for joining UKIP was less direct but still in that same hateful vein, it baffles me that such people consider themselves any kind of moral judge.
|
"I always think Jimmy was ahead of his time. He would have surely have been a member of UKIP."
Like everyone else in the country with any common sense, he would have been asking himself "If I don't vote for UKIP, who else is there?"
|
>> Like everyone else in the country with any common sense, he would have been asking himself "If I don't vote for UKIP, who else is there?"
Ah, common sense. Used to be the bane of my life after my poor innocent father noticed I seemed to be deficient in it. He wasn't nearly as horrible as I would have been in his place. Common sense on his part no doubt.
I never wanted to have it anyway, beyond the modicum needed to keep one out of jail. I thought something less common might be more entertaining and potentially useful in the longer term. But perhaps Ukippers can't aspire to that, poor darlings. I'm sure they mean well in their own benighted way.
|
It's illegal to discriminate against breastfeeding mothers.
End of.
Farage might be spouting 'common sense', but he is wrong.
Do we put a napkin over black people, homosexuals, or cripples in case other shoppers are put off their lunch?
|
>> It's illegal to discriminate against breastfeeding mothers.
Is it?
|
|
Not sure it can be. A lot of restaurants and hotels are adults only.
|
I don't know whether or not its illegal, but I don't like discrimination either way.
But wouldn't "common sense" be that people respected a woman's right to breastfeed and the women that did so were discrete about it?
A bit of consideration goes a long way; For example, its not illegal to snog your partner in public, but I'd still rather you didn't do it in front of me while I'm eating my afternoon tea.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 6 Dec 14 at 17:22
|
>> It's illegal to discriminate against breastfeeding mothers.
>>Is it?
Yes.
www.maternityaction.org.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/breastfeedingpublicplace.pdf
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sat 6 Dec 14 at 17:45
|
I checked with herself that a well brought-up woman won't hesitate to feed a baby in public when necessary, but will do so with as much discretion and natural modesty as possible under the circumstances, whatever they are.
She agreed with that, but added the odd caveat (is the feeding going well or badly for example... difficulty can make calm and discretion more difficult and of course less important). In any case she didn't think it was any of Farage's business and thought it coarse and unnecessary of him to comment on the matter at all.
My own thought is that women vary a lot, and there are some mothers - usually young and of limited intelligence - who go through a period of flaunting their fertility in a messy, aggressive way. Not that many though. A greater number seem persecuted by the responsibility of motherhood and err through maternal anxiety.
|
>>In any case she didn't think it was any of Farage's business and thought it coarse and unnecessary of him to comment on the matter at all.<<
Perhaps you should have pointed out the context - a woman phoned up the radio show and asked him for his view on air then. The point of a radio show where you invite people to phone in with their questions is to try and answer them, isnt it?
|
>> woman phoned up the radio show and asked him for his view
I did know that really stu, and so did herself. Neither of us is very pro-UKIP though, from a snooty, non-guardianista position.
Nigel Farage is very smart and plays well on the hoof. I so, so don't envy him. But then he's in the comic every day and has been drawn by every classy cartoonist in this country of giggling satirists. I think he's personable too, smoker and drinker, our equivalent of a good ol' boy. But herself purses her lips and disagrees I suspect.
|
>> discretion
I meant to add in the assumed role of occasional Deeply Flawed Super-Pedant: 'discreet' with the emphasis on the second syllable means modest, veiled etc., while 'discrete' with the emphasis on the first syllable means something completely different that I more or less understand but can't be bothered to look up.
|
>> I meant to add in the assumed role of occasional Deeply Flawed Super-Pedant: 'discreet' with
>> the emphasis on the second syllable means modest, veiled etc., while 'discrete' with the emphasis
>> on the first syllable means something completely different
I was pulled by the duty pedant for that one last week AC.
|
>> I was pulled by the duty pedant for that one last week AC.
And had forgotten again by time I posted on subject this afternoon.
|
>>its not illegal to snog your partner in public
"The first time two men kissed on screen was in 1927. Two soldiers kissed tenderly in the silent movie Wings, which won an Oscar for best picture. The scene caused no stir in Twenties America as it was accepted that kissing in the trenches in the First World War did happen."
|
(3)A person (A) discriminates against a woman if, in the period of 26 weeks beginning with the day on which she gives birth, A treats her unfavourably because she has given birth.
(4)The reference in subsection (3) to treating a woman unfavourably because she has given birth includes, in particular, a reference to treating her unfavourably because she is breast-feeding.
Farage was on a hiding to nothing if he offered any view really other than to say what Lygonos has said, , but few politicians would be able to resist painting the lily.
Was the mother being treated unfavourably,? It's not clear to me that she was. If, as reported by the Independent, she was asked to cover her baby's head then I would say she was.
I wouldn't think of objecting just to baby-feeding, but in any case the law is as above so anybody who breaks it risks the consequences.
How many realised that the Equality Act explicitly covered this? I didn't. Farage's only real crime is ignorance of the law, in saying it was up to Claridge's, but I suspect he is not alone in that.
My daughter is currently (probably literally as I write) breastfeeding our 6 weeks old (today) granddaughter. I'm happy to say that neither is obviously self conscious about it, and I find it difficult to understand how anybody could object - babies don't usually cry when feeding.
I wouldn't go out of my way to fork out £60 for afternoon tea at Claridge's anyway - I suppose people who do, especially if it is for them a special treat, might think it odd that anybody would take a small baby - breastfeeding aside.
Maybe the staff thought they were doing the mother a service by offering a modesty covering? Misguided but not crime of the century.
Storm in a D cup.
|
>> Was the mother being treated unfavourably,? It's not clear to me that she was. If,
>> as reported by the Independent, she was asked to cover her baby's head then I
>> would say she was.
It seems as though she was given a serviette and instruction to hide baby and breast behind it.
On any reasonable interpretation that would be unfavourable.
>> How many realised that the Equality Act explicitly covered this? I didn't. Farage's only real
>> crime is ignorance of the law, in saying it was up to Claridge's, but I
>> suspect he is not alone in that.
I didn't realise the Act was so specific either. Thought the authors of leaflet referenced by Lygonos were 'pushing the envelope' on the more general definitions of discrimination. The reference to 26 weeks though seems to be a potential lacuna for all concerned, particularly the late weaners.
The first wife of one of Mrs B's cousins went on giving hers a bedtime feed at the breast well beyond their second birthdays.
|
>>The reference to 26 weeks
This does not apply when sex discrimination is a result of breastfeeding.
|
Seems one UKIP MEP suffered a sense of humour failure over a jokey Twitter account for UKIP in Trumpton:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/06/ukip-mep-ridiculed-twitter-call-ban-spoof-trumpton-account
UKIP entral have now decided it is a jioke after all. Listeners again can catch a broadcast aount in last 10 minutes of tonight's PM programme on Radio 4.
|
I'm infinity times more outraged watching 40week pregnant women puffing away at the front of maternity units than a mother feeding her baby.
Before formula milk was available how does anyone think babies got their nourishment?
The supposedly libertarian UKIP just shows the depth of its authoritarian roots, with a veneer of nicey-nicey barely covering their desire to make us do what they want, in a country that reflects their vision.
www.ukip.org/the_constitution
Har har har.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sat 6 Dec 14 at 20:25
|
If you dont want to change the country to reflect your vision you shouldnt be in politics, the vision is kinda the point.
|
>> If you dont want to change the country to reflect your vision you shouldnt be
>> in politics, the vision is kinda the point.
I would rather the vision reflected the country,
Thats the problem with people who go into politicks, they want to stuff their vision on you.
|
>> I would rather the vision reflected the country,
>>
>> Thats the problem with people who go into politicks, they want to stuff their vision
>> on you.
>
Which bit of the Country do you want them to reflect? Isn't UKIP reflecting one subset of the country?
Politics is like any other market, you have yo 'buy' the one nearest to what you need/want.
For me that's usually Labour but might be Green or even LD if I think they're going to outsell the Tories.
|
>> Thats the problem with people who go into politicks, they want to stuff their vision on you. <<
No, they all offer their vision and you get to vote on it, if you dont like the choice your fellow voters make, go into politics and work to change their minds.
If you dont have the gumption to go out and change what you dont like, you cant be as bothered by it as you claim.
|
>> If you dont have the gumption to go out and change what you dont like,
>> you cant be as bothered by it as you claim.
I like it the way it is
And someone who is working towards trying to gain public acceptance could also try and maintain a little civility about it and cut out the "you don't have the gumption" sh it.
|
>>I like it the way it is <<
Then you work to keep things how they are, a fight worth having since all political parties that I know of want to change things one way or another.
Sitting on your hands doesnt get you what you want, it isnt a matter of civility, it is a fact of life.
|
>>
>> The supposedly libertarian UKIP just shows the depth of its authoritarian roots,
From what I heard the libertarian angle was that he said it was basically up to each establishment to set their rules. I'm no political animal but that sounds like libertarian to me? Ie it's not upto the government to decide.
|
Libertarian = individual freedoms.
Establishments telling you what to do.... well the answer's in what you said.
|
>> Libertarian = individual freedoms.
>>
>> Establishments telling you what to do.... well the answer's in what you said.
>>
I take their meaning to be small government, but individual freedom cuts both ways surely? Would it not be, say, an owners/business' freedom to decide what happens in their premises?
I mean we might not agree seems consistent and honest to me.
|
As soon as you rise above the level of the individual, as far as individuals are concerned it doesn't matter who takes away their freedom, be it a shopkeeper, a council official, Westminster, Europe, etc.
It's still a lost freedom.
That's why Libertarianism focuses on the individual.
I suppose it's a political position similar to 'do unto others as you would have others do unto you' - ie. what business is it of anyone else what I do if it causes no harm to them.
Removal of freedoms should be about safety-nets, not corporate/political expediency.
|
|
Telling somebody to do something they actually want to do is still removing a freedom, had they the wit to realise it.
|
Only if they would not have done it without being prompted.
I guess advertising is based upon a removal of freedom, hence why it is held in such low regard.
|
>> advertising is based upon a removal of freedom
What?
Not in a world of adults, surely. Even children aren't robbed of their freedom by advertising. They may be misled a bit, but it doesn't go further than that.
|
>> Telling somebody to do something they actually want to do is still removing a freedom, had they the wit to realise it.
'Ere, are you sayin I've got to smoke this weed and toot this coke and eat this sheep and drink this wine and rub up against these babes whether I want to or not? The bleedin cheek! Removin my freedom, that's what you're up to, don't argue mate! Just for that I'm going to give all that up, so there, right? See how you like it then.'
|
>>Just for that I'm going to give all that up, so there, right?
And your freedoms have been diminished by our cunning use of reverse psychology ;-)
|
There's something obviously menacing about the idea of total freedom, no restrictions of any sort. Been explored a bit in literature.
I've often felt disciplined and restricted over the years, but I've never thought I wasn't 'free'. Always was, by definition almost. Others may be unlucky of course. Must be awful.
|
"There's something obviously menacing about the idea of total freedom"
Quite! Like the freedom to come and nick stuff out of your shed.
|
Lord of The Flies explored total freedom rather well I thought...
But it was written in 1954 so takes us back earlier than 1957..
(I never liked pearls and twinsets)
|
I quite like a nice twinset!
(Apologies for BBD, for nicking a line he could have made)
|
What Drives the UKIP Vote? - Bromptonaut
