***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 15 *****
==============================================================
Ongoing debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 19 May 16 at 12:25
|
How low is this - a British Local Council desperately ashamed of their country's flag.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/16/brexit-rubbish-truck-taken-out-of-service-by-council-is-politica/
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:31
|
|
Maybe this carton could be deemed to be supporting Brexit: www.mornflake.com/our-oats/organic-oats/
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:31
|
|
Silly. One of the achievements of the London Olympics was to wrest the flag back from the hands of scoundrels like Roger. Foolish now to hand ammunition to anyone likely to use the phrase 'Political correctness'.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:31
|
The union flag is as familiar to me as mother's milk. It's been my country's complicated, garish national flag since long before I was born.
Being a national flag, that of an ethnically and politically variegated nation, it gets used in all sorts of ways by everyone from the harmless British Legion to the brutalist National Front.
All sorts of flags at the Notting Hill carnival, union flag included. Some troupe leaders chuck them spinning high in the air and catch them as they come down.
I would recommend anyone to take a trip to Belfast at the right time of year. You will see some union jacks there. The people of all persuasions are charming.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:31
|
I can understand that people are proud of their flag.Our Dutch flag red white and blue is the one I grew up with.Don't the French call it chauvinism. People died for their flag.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:31
|
|
Flag waving is always slightly embarrassing - not really British is it? Even those athletes literally wrapping themselves In the flag seems a bit naff. The flag should only be flown on official buildings on a few recognised days year or waved by small children at coronations.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:31
|
>> The flag should only be flown on official buildings on a few recognised days year or waved by small children at coronations.
I agree it's a bit unBritish in a way, except that it isn't really, just ask an Ulster prod if you doubt me.
I've seen the garish thing, often stylishly tattered at the edge, in a hundred places, even on a little mast on my father's car's front wing, and thousands of times in one corner of red and white ensigns.
How's your cultural DNA? Mine's in fine fettle. You can't be really embarrassed by something you've known from the cradle. That would be self-destructive almost.
Most flags are in quite bad taste design-wise but ours is by far the worst. Yee-hah!
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:31
|
The flag is fine if rather tacky in its design but it's a bit too late for a new version . It's flag waving and ostentatious displays of the thing that should be avoided.
I expect you have Union Jack underpants AC that you ceremonially lower every evening:-)
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:31
|
>> I expect you have Union Jack underpants AC that you ceremonially lower every evening:-)
I'm not a rabid chauvinist, far from it. I am far too rational to be anything but a, er, citizen of the world sort of thing.
Nevertheless one gets used to something they've always been keen to flap in one's face, sometimes for good reason after all if that isn't stretching the point too far. I'm not embarrassed by the flag although I've outgrown it as a personal identity symbol. If you see what I mean.
|
I disagree, AC; it's a rather fine piece of iconography, complex and simple at the same time, and immediately recognizable anywhere, even in black-and-white photographs.
In contrast, the individual national crosses look rather thin and anaemic - making the Welsh dragon the honourable exception - and the cross of St George is a very poor emblem on its own. Another example of the whole exceeding the sum of the parts.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:31
|
The English Flag will soon be Blue with Yellow stars!
That's not an earthquake caused by fracking you feel, it's the dead of two great wars spinning in their graves.
The referendum is not binding, regardless of the vote result, England will be in! - trust in Cameron and the big banks. - wait and see!
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:31
|
Ho! Ho! Ho!. We are all doomed. It's all a conspiracy.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:31
|
|
Since when have referenda (ums) meant anything to politicians, they will just repeat them until they get the answer they want.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:32
|
>> Since when have referenda (ums) meant anything to politicians, they will just repeat them until
>> they get the answer they want.
You mean like those that didn't get out in 1975 are trying again now?
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:32
|
>> blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/10/19/asking-the-public-twice-why-do-voters-change-their-minds-in-second-referendums-on-eu-treaties/
Put the 'problems' that lead to a no vote right and then ask again; just an extension of the negotiating process really.
It's also worth pointing out that referenda consenting to a treaty are a different proposition to the current campaign or any of the other plebiscites here on your/my lifetime.
The questions asked twice in UK, devolution and EU/Common Market, are separated by decades rather than months.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:32
|
|
I don't think an out result would be honoured. Likewise I am sure the SNP would repeat the referendum up here in a heartbeat if they thought they had a chance of a win and they could get away with it politically. Fortunately they are no longer a majority government.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:32
|
>> I don't think an out result would be honoured.
>>
I think it would be. It would be political suicide to do otherwise.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:32
|
>> I don't think an out result would be honoured.
If it was decisive, say 60/40, then divorce would be absolute as soon as practicalities were sorted. OTOH 51/49 would surely lead to some head scratching and renegotiation; Boris has half suggested he'd go down that route.
>>Likewise I am sure the SNP
>> would repeat the referendum up here in a heartbeat if they thought they had a
>> chance of a win and they could get away with it politically.
And if they're re-elected in 2020 on a try again manifesto, or the ground shifts (eg Scotland votes decisively for EU but o/all result is out) then that's politics.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:33
|
>> And if they're re-elected in 2020 on a try again manifesto, or the ground shifts
>> (eg Scotland votes decisively for EU but o/all result is out) then that's politics.
>>
Scotland can't afford independence, the SNP know it, and the thinking voters know it.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:32
|
>> Scotland can't afford independence, the SNP know it, and the thinking voters know it.
That's a question/opinion which should weigh heavily in a referendum campaign. It's not a killer argument as to why another referendum should not be held. As I've already said, a UK out vote where Scotland is wholeheartedly in would be the most obvious trigger.
|
OTOH 51/49 would surely lead to some head scratching and renegotiation; Boris has
>> half suggested he'd go down that route.
Hopefully not, the result should stand if it's 1% or 99% winning margin, whichever way the result is.
|
>> Hopefully not, the result should stand if it's 1% or 99% winning margin, whichever way
>> the result is.
Nigel is calling for a second referendum in event of a close 'stay' result:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 17 May 16 at 09:06
|
|
I'm sure he is, he's wrong though.
|
|
We seem to be descending into a climate of government by referendum. We are a parliamentary representative democracy. We elect MPs to make decisions on our behalf. Let's get back to that and forget this whole refererendum nonsense.
|
>> Silly. One of the achievements of the London Olympics was to wrest the flag back
>> from the hands of scoundrels like Roger. Foolish now to hand ammunition to anyone likely
>> to use the phrase 'Political correctness'.
>>
Personal abuse again from WdB.
Standard fare from "Remainers"
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:32
|
Personal abuse...
I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt, Rog, while they still leave room for some. You removed yours with this:
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=21252&m=468544
|
>> Personal abuse...
>>
>> I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt, Rog, while they still leave room for
>> some. You removed yours with this:
>> www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=21252&m=468544
>>
Really? I stand by it.
I could apply similar epithets to those "one-worlders" who have no concept of "belonging" to a nation.
I just feel sorry, in a way, for those with no concept of loyalty.
|
>> I could apply similar epithets to those "one-worlders" who have no concept of "belonging" to
>> a nation.
How do you manage to conflate those two, entirely separate, concepts? I'm a one-worlder, as you put it, with a strong sense of belonging to my home nation.
Your error is in assuming that a strong bond to one's nation can't be held without excluding a feeling of bond with other peoples simultaneously. You should try it - it's those who can't grasp this concept and shut themselves off from the world who I feel sorry for.
|
|
Don't waste no tears on me, Rog. Your ignorance and prejudice do the country you claim to revere - mine too, whatever you might like to imagine - a grave disservice.
|
|
WdB (*edit - and others) - please desist from the personal insults you keep aiming at Roger, they are getting rather tedious and do not show you in your best light, I'm sure. And they do not add a lot to the forum or the discussion.
Last edited by: smokie on Tue 17 May 16 at 17:35
|
I don't think I've said anything that isn't fair comment. My comments pertain to his views as expressed here, and not to the individual, although he's a self-confessed racist who disparages as disloyal - and by implication dishonourable - those who challenge his toxic views. You keep calling me out for challenging him but I've seen nothing from anyone in authority on the forum to tell him that what he expresses - his racist attack on Obama, for example - is unwelcome and unacceptable.
If Roger wants to air his unsavoury views in a public place like this, he shouldn't be surprised when others take exception to them. And nor should you.
|
|
Democracy, freedom of speech blah blah. He is expressing his views which he is entitled to, some here seem to want to deny him that by being personally offensive. Play the ball not the man.
|
Play the ball, not the man.
And as I've just said, that's what I believe I'm doing. And there's no shortage of balls from that man.
|
I quite genuinely do not understand how calling someone a racist and a bigot is somehow more against the rules than actually being a racist and a bigot.
Its not like Roger denies it, he's quite proud of it. Its not like its some secret, he's open about it.
|
>> I quite genuinely do not understand how calling someone a racist and a bigot is
>> somehow more against the rules than actually being a racist and a bigot.
Because you and a couple of others think him to be a racist and bigot, whereas others do not.
He has firm views and they are not to your taste...so what.
If he was spouting pure hatred e.g. BNP or Nazi type stuff, then fair enough, (I wouldn't want to be part of that and I'm sure a load more wouldn't)... he doesn't.
It takes all sorts to make a world and you have to accept that your views aren't the same as everyone else's.
So, in the light of unproven accusations by a few commentators on here, a mod has asked one of you to be more respectful when posting... what on earth is wrong with that?
|
>> whereas others do not.
I cannot be a***d to look for it, but I seem to remember that Roger was one of the people that said Roger was a racist.
Do you believe that he is not, even in the face of his admission?
|
>> Do you believe that he is not, even in the face of his admission?
>>
The best answer I can give is " I don't know".
My tolerance for this sort of thing is way higher than yours and I don't see things the same way that you do... but as we are all different anyway, that's a norm in itself.
I understand, to a degree, where you come from... and you'll notice I've appropriated your past phrase of 'people are people' on several occasions.... it resonated with me....and I agree with it.
However, the definition of racism is IMO fairly wide and is most subjective apart from the glaringly obvious worse case examples.
At its extreme, no problem, we'd both agree... however, as an example, someone who tells an iffy joke that involves racism, sexism, homophobia or whatever... well if it's funny, then for me it could be fine.... whereas to some it isn't.
Then the sliding scale goes right down to utter trivia that really irritates the hell out me.
So it's all a matter of degree... and... I find it ironic that some when talking about alleged intolerance... indulge in intolerance.
Last edited by: Westpig on Tue 17 May 16 at 21:45
|
>> The best answer I can give is " I don't know".
Well, I guess to "know" is impossible. But i think the phrase "if it walks like a duck......." is relevent here.
>> My tolerance for this sort of thing is way higher than yours
Oh that is certainly true, mine is zero.
>> However, the definition of racism is IMO fairly wide and is most subjective apart from
>> the glaringly obvious worse case examples.
I take your point. However, racism is a subset of bigotry. Would you find it easier if Roger was called a bigot. Because he most certainly is that, and that's not really any better.
>> someone who tells an iffy joke that involves racism, sexism, homophobia or whatever...
>>well if it's funny, then for me it could be fine.... whereas to some it isn't.
Is [was] Bernard Manning funny in your opinion? He was certainly clever, and I have no idea if the views he expressed were genuinely held or not, but was he funny? To me he was not.
But he was essentially just telling jokes. How do you draw the line? I have no idea of any objective or scientific method so I use myself.
I am not bigoted or racist. Or at least, I believe very strongly that I am not. But neither am I a prude or particularly politically correct. Nor do i much care about other people's opinions of me.
So I am fairly comfortable with my working theory which is if it sounds like a duck to me, then it probably is. Of course in Roger's case one does not need to be sensitive. One just listens to his bilious outpourings and his own confessions. One thing you can say for Roger is that seems reasonably honest.
>> Then the sliding scale goes right down to utter trivia that really irritates the hell
>> out me.
Agreed. The whole "whiff" thing, especially that so fondly adopted by left wing council and local authority employees is repulsive and no better than the racism it purports to be fighting.
More harm has been done to the cause by those idiots than by anyone else. Racists by and large win the battle against themselves, because most people don't like racists.
These "whiff of"people give something for the racists to hide behind, a defense against accusation. Ironic since those "whiffers" are stonking great bigots themselves.
>> So it's all a matter of degree...
Not so much degree, but it is very subjective. Its not like a little racism is ok and a lot is not. Intent plays a huge part, for example. And judging someone else's intent can be very difficult.
But I am not comfortable with where you draw the line nor where the "whiffers" draw the line. I think I am somewhere between.
|
>> But i think the phrase "if it walks like a duck......." is relevent here.
What happens if you think it does.. and I do not. Is it a duck..or not?
>> Oh that is certainly true, mine is zero.
I'd suggest that having a zero tolerance would be difficult if you were to define racism at its broadest.. and... at it's more extreme, I'd be sat in your pew.
>> I take your point. However, racism is a subset of bigotry.
But what is racism? Different people apply different meanings. You can have some who'd use such a low tolerance level that it would be nonsensical and meaningless; some who'd use a claim of racism solely as a tool to their advantage; some who have a very high tolerance of what is or is not racist; some who are glaringly obviously racist... and a load in between.
>> Would you find it
>> easier if Roger was called a bigot. Because he most certainly is that, and that's
>> not really any better.
Possibly, but who knows, some might think I am. Who dictates what is 'right'?
>> Is [was] Bernard Manning funny in your opinion? He was certainly clever, and I have
>> no idea if the views he expressed were genuinely held or not, but was he
>> funny? To me he was not.
No, I didn't think so either, but really his extreme crudity put me off.
>> Not so much degree, but it is very subjective. Its not like a little racism
>> is ok and a lot is not. Intent plays a huge part, for example. And
>> judging someone else's intent can be very difficult.
Yes, it can... and that's where mistakes are made.
>> But I am not comfortable with where you draw the line nor where the "whiffers"
>> draw the line. I think I am somewhere between.
I don't have a problem with that, we are all different... however, neither one of us should insist 'our way is the only way'.
|
"But what is racism?"
I wouldn't hold your breath, I asked this question of NoFM several months ago, and he wasn't able to articulate a response. I gave up on him.
|
Of course I was able, I simply attached no importance to your request.
I still don't.
|
"Of course I was able, I simply attached no importance to your request."
Heh, heh. Of course.
|
So you know where you stand Haywain.
Let me help. Racism is of course just whatever FM2R deems it to be. There is arguing and no defence once you have been accused.
|
>>So you know where you stand Haywain.
Oh, sorry. Wasn't it previously obvious? I had tried to be clear.
Don't tell me you're still in doubt as well?
|
>> I don't think I've said anything that isn't fair comment.
To you.
Why can't you do as you have been asked. You've been asked politely, by a Mod, why do you think you are above all that?
|
>> >> I don't think I've said anything that isn't fair comment.
>>
>> To you.
>>
>> Why can't you do as you have been asked. You've been asked politely, by a
>> Mod, why do you think you are above all that?
>>
>>
>>
Maybe he wants a moderator enforced flounce. :-)
|
If that was aimed at me ON the last thing I want is anyone leaving this forum, we have few enough already and have lost some great people over the years but despite that we still have some really lively, entertaining and educational discussion. I learn a lot here, that's one reason why I stay. Just to re-assure you, there is no deep conspiracy on anything between the mods, we barely even talk with each other.
So my apols for not following up this earlier, I've been getting on with my life :-)
As there's a lot of water under the bridge and I don't want to stoke the fire I'll just respond to a bit of what Mark said, which was
"I quite genuinely do not understand how calling someone a racist and a bigot is somehow more against the rules than actually being a racist and a bigot.
"Its not like Roger denies it, he's quite proud of it. Its not like its some secret, he's open about it."
- so why do some forum members feel the need to personally attack Roger so regularly? It's not like Roger denies it, he's quite proud of it, after all... :-)
The persistent personal insults are what I personally (and some others) find somewhat tedious, nothing really to do with what was actually said...
|
>>we barely even talk with each other.
Can't say I blame you.
Do I *really* have to put a smiley?
|
>>It's not like Roger denies it, he's quite proud of it, after all.
Because what he is proud of is not a good thing. Not in any way. He talks about being proud of his country. Well its my country too and I am ashamed of people like him and they shame my country.
If I look at the policies of this site I see....
The following posts or content are not allowed:
1) Personal insults
2) Content likely to incite religious or racial intolerance
3) Libellous content
4) Content which may be a contempt of court
5) Crude or sexually explicit content
6) Copyright protected content
7) Advertisements - (see our Naming and Shaming policy)
There is a difference between advertising and sharing a positive experience!
8) Profanity
9) Impersonating content
10) Harassing content
If you dropped on both 1) & 2), I would understand. If you acted on neither, I would understand. It is the fact that you, as a group, act on only one.
That is not to say that personal abuse is a good thing or should not be dropped on, but it is not the only thing which is not good, it is just the only thing you drop on.
That surely can only be because, as a team, the moderators find personal abuse more of an issue than racist or bigoted posting.
If there is another reason, then please do tell. If you have been told not to by Stephen or if you have no issue with the postings, then why not simply remove line 2? At least we'd all know where the forum stood.
I think it does not speak well of the moderation team that as a whole anything racist or bigoted passes without comment, yet personal abuse instantly catches comment.
And much as you are a single team, this behaviour reflects on the moral standards and integrity of each of you equally.
Now I shall leave the night time frownie team to their proud and admirable work..........
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 18 May 16 at 00:41
|
You read things into my actions (or inactions) which are simply not there, and leap effortlessly to completely invalid conclusions, managing to end with by challenging our personal moral standards and integrity (err what was my original moan about again? :-) )
There are no mods team orders, between ourselves or from above. The guidelines are there and it's up to each of us what we do to support them. Once in a blue moon there is some background discussion but the mods really act fairly independently. I've not consulted with the other mods or with da management over any of this discussion. Maybe I should, before I stick my neck out next time!! :-)
So for me, my own preference is not heavy handed moderation. We are fortunate to have a broadly intelligent bunch of grown ups as members, who should be able to distinguish between what is and isn't acceptable. Wasn't C4P seen as a breath of fresh air after the rather more regulated HJ forum?
I personally can stomach a lot of discussion across a range of topics but it's when it gets personal I don't like it. Any perceived lack of involvement from me (and maybe the other mods) should not be interpreted as support, but simple tolerance, intended to keep the forum flowing with minimal interference. If people had to watch every word they said then it would stymie the easy going nature of the place.
I genuinely don't recall seeing anything racist in a spiteful or personal way. Someones political beliefs can be interpreted as making them racist but I don't see that simply voicing those beliefs is in itself racist. Political views of all colours are on display here and this makes for some illuminating discussion, until it gets personal.
I do believe that some of the people who have left the forum did so less because of the opinions being expressed but more down to the insulting turn which which some discussions took. I have nothing to back this up though.
If it sounds like I'm pontificating on this that is far from the intent. I'm not really very comfortable discussing this as I'm just an ordinary bloke like the rest of you, but with a voluntary moderator role. We're not always going to please everyone all of the time. I'd sooner this wasn't taken apart piece by piece as so as not to extend the discussion. I've made my point and tried to explain my personal position and I'm not sure I have much more to say on it. Sorry if it doesn't match your expectation.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 18 May 16 at 08:38
|
>> If you dropped on both 1) & 2), I would understand. If you acted on
>> neither, I would understand. It is the fact that you, as a group, act on
>> only one.
I cannot remember seeing a post deliberately trying to stir up racial or religious disharmony, from anyone.
There have been posts that some people disagree with, as no doubt they see life through different eyes.
So, for me the issue is that some people think rule no.2 has been breached... when others do not.
So when it comes to moderation, a breach of rule 1 is fairly obvious. A breach of rule 2 is not, it's on a sliding scale depending on who the person is considering it.
|
>> If that was aimed at me ON the last thing I want is anyone leaving
>> this forum,
Not aimed at anyone, I agree that retention is important and may be enhanced by everyone moderating any extreme opinions. The pen and keyboard are powerful devices and should be used with care.
|
On the particular subject of Roger, he gets nothing from me that he doesn't invite with what he posts here; I have, after all, no other information about him.
I called him what I did in this thread because when he casts his racist, xenophobic slurs on those of other cultures and nations, he then has the gall to call himself a 'patriotic Englishman' as if he somehow deserved some credit for it. That tars us all with his toxic brush, which I'm not having. If he's going to make strong statements, he's going to have to take some strong replies without crying to Teacher every time.
Nothing personal to you, Smokie. I am trying to play the ball.
|
I really don't think he has cried to the teacher, WdeB, after all Roger, being a staunch UKIP member is made of far stronger stuff than that.
What he has done is been brave enough to put forward his honest opinion, something a lot more of us would do if it wasn't met with the utter disdain of those who don't agree with it.
You put forward your opinion all the time....do you honestly think we all agree with it?
No, it's an interesting enough a concept, but that's all it is, just as is Roger's.
Now, isn't it time you respected the Mods instead of feeling 'affronted' for the rebuke?
Give it out, get it back, accept it like a man.
Not before time the Mods intervened in my opinion.
Pat
|
This episode is an e***** disgrace, frankly. The mods allow racist content to stand from a self-proclaimed racist, and harangue other contributors for being 'personal'. If, as you say, he's made of such strong stuff (by dint of being in UKIP? Don't make me laugh), then a few personal barbs should be neither here nor there.
Until someone (a mod) can justify this atrocious double standard then the forum's guidelines are not worth the pixels they're written on and WDB is quite justified in his line. Roger is clearly in contravention of the so-called guidelines and has been for many years, why has action not been taken? Until that's the case, it's open season.
Last edited by: Alanović on Wed 18 May 16 at 15:31
|
>> why has action not been taken?<<
Because Roger's comments are his opinion (in general), W de B's are very personal.
That's where the line is crossed.
If W de B feels so strongly then why hasn't he called HM racist for his 'traveller' opinions on another thread.....it's no different!
If anyone's opinions are that strong, and are to be taken seriously, then they can't be selective.
Pat
|
But the point is that Roger's opinions are in express contravention of Rule 1, C4P forum usage guidelines.
So why is this ignored whilst WDB's alleged contravention of Rule 2 is addressed?
What's so difficult about that? Why is there no answer?
If forum rules are that strong, and are to be taken seriously, then they can't be selective.
Last edited by: Alanović on Wed 18 May 16 at 15:54
|
Ah, sorry, got me rule numbers the wrong way round. Roger is in contravention of Rule 2, but is being allowed free reign and not being asked politely by a moderator to pack it in. WDB is allegedly in contravention of Rule 1, but is being politely asked etc etc.
Nothing posted so far by smokie or anyone else has even remotely explained this dichotomy.
|
Perhaps it would be worth thinking of this as a public place or a place of work. So if something is for example racist or xenophobic and you'd get in trouble for saying it publicly or at work, then you shouldn't be allowed to say it here. Same goes for harassment, bullying etc.
>> Because Roger's comments are his opinion (in general),
But if his comments can be seen racist they should not be allowed. If course his comments are his opinion but if that opinion is racist then the posts should be removed because they are against the rules.
WdB comments were his opinion - so that means they are okay unless there are double standards. Or is it okay to post comments that are offensive to thousands or millions but you can't comment on this because it's taken as personal?
|
|
And I wonder what claptrap will be posted if we vote against BREXIT? Which I hope the majority do. Oh sorry that's getting back on the topic of this thread. My apologies.
|
[Response to Al]
Did I not say "I genuinely don't recall seeing anything racist in a spiteful or personal way"? I have clearly missed or mis-interpreted a significant number of Roger's posts but I'm sure one of you can provide the evidence. And undoubtedly I may then appear to be being unfair, under the "rules" which you keep quoting.
Talking of which, I have never ever mentioned or implied any contravention of any rules, that's you putting words in my mouth. I would probably have made the post even if I wasn't a moderator - at the least I would have been thinking it.
I thought it fairly obvious in my earlier response that the post reflected my personal view. It was a post I did spontaneously on my own initiative so don't go assuming I am following some kind of policy or mandate, either from the site or the other mods.
Personally I dislike gratuitously offensive behaviour in real and virtual life, and a number of people were incredibly rude to another recent joiner to the forum, who hasn't said anything of substance which could offend. I spoke up then on more than one occasion about it, and I feel there is a pattern as I'm sure some of the same people were involved, as are involved in insulting Roger and have also been in other lesser instances. Maybe I'm too sensitive but real-life people seem to like how I am.
Just for balance there are many others here who manage to argue their corner really successfully in the exact same threads without being personally insulting.
Lastly in case it's still not clear, this discussion was initiated by me at my own initiative so I doubt any other mod will want to continue it and it is not right to expect them to, so forget the "open season" as it isn't justified. I'm also disinclined to keep defending myself as I would like to think as intelligent people you understand and appreciate where I'm coming from, and I really don't think I have a lot more to say on it.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 18 May 16 at 16:52
|
>> Until that's the case, it's open season.
>>
So, as far as you are concerned, it's "up yours" to the request?...because you know best?
|
I think you missed the bit where Smokie said he had passed a personal opinion, not made a moderator request.
So unless I've missed something, that has no more weight than if I ask Roger to STFU?
|
>> I think you missed the bit where Smokie said he had passed a personal opinion,
>> not made a moderator request.
>>
>> So unless I've missed something, that has no more weight than if I ask Roger
>> to STFU?
>>
OK, fair enough, I did miss that.
I still think though that polite, informed debate, is the way forward.
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 18 May 16 at 17:18
|
>>Not before time the Mods intervened in my opinion.
They still haven't.
|
>> >>Not before time the Mods intervened in my opinion.
>>
>> They still haven't.
But you accused them of doing just that here....
>> think it does not speak well of the moderation team that as a whole anything racist or bigoted passes without comment, yet personal abuse instantly catches comment.<<
Pot, Kettle?
Pat
|
>>But you accused them of doing just that here....
"accused"?
>>Pot, kettle?
What on earth is pot/kettle about my comment about moderators?
In your desperation to whine about me you keep letting the real world slip past.
|
>>In your desperation to whine about me you keep letting the real world slip past.<<
I don't have to whine about you, you do a pretty good job of that yourself.
Meantime, in the real world.....I have better things to do!
Pat
|
>>Maybe he wants a moderator enforced flounce
I believe that is referred to as "suicide-by-mod" these days.
|
From Steven Woolfe, a UKIP MEP: here is his case for Brexit.
www.steven4brexit.uk/
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 01:32
|
|
Interesting this, isn't it? Those who hold the minority view that the UK should leave the EU have been pandered to and given the opportunity to change the hearts and minds of the majority in a referendum. However the same shouty types are usually quite keen to tell other minorities to pipe down, shut up, suck it up, things are never gonna change etc etc etc., you know, minorities such as , ooo, let me see, British republicans for instance, to take one example of many.
|
|
If your thinking in terms of numbers then trying to compare the two, i don't think you can. People looking to leave the eu are large in number look at the opinion polls. to take your example, republicans are in a small minority.
|
But there is no mechanism or barrier to say which issue should get a referendum. It just seems to be down to levels of press hysteria. You can prove/disprove anything you like with opinion polls.
I agree with CGN above - we should return to government by elected representatives, and away from government by the Daily Mail/shouty people.
|
Of course not, however the demand is there for it and it's pretty extraordinary, it's not like we are having them every 5 minutes.
You'd be fine if we left the eu on a vote in parliament?
|
>> You'd be fine if we left the eu on a vote in parliament?
>>
I would disagree with the decision but would accept it. That's how it works.
|
>> I would disagree with the decision but would accept it. That's how it works.
>>
Me too, i hope close or otherwise it's accepted. i doubt it though, the side that loses will want another vote.
|
|
Remember that this referendum was an accident. Cameron, like everyone else, expected a hung parliament and offered the referendum as a sop to his own right wing to keep it from voting for Ukip and letting in a progressive coalition under Miliband. He never imagine he'd win a majority and have to enact it.
|
Technically, of course, we do not need a referendum to decide whether to leave the E.U (not Europe, please note!).
A simple vote in the HoC to invoke Article 50 would suffice.
|
>> A simple vote in the HoC to invoke Article 50 would suffice.
>>
Sadly for you the hard bit would be getting a majority. Currently Parliament is quite heavily in favour of Remain.
|
SQ
>> Sadly for you the hard bit would be getting a majority. Currently Parliament is quite
>> heavily in favour of Remain.
Yes about 450 -200.
Nigel will call that "close"..
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 17 May 16 at 12:51
|
>>
>> I agree with CGN above - we should return to government by elected representatives, and
>> away from government by the Daily Mail/shouty people.
>>
Like this you mean ? goo.gl/ZJoI07
Might be clickbait / scare mongering of course.
|
>> Those who hold the minority view that the UK should leave
>> the EU have been pandered to
I'm not convinced it is a minority ... and even if it is, not by much.
My own (unscientific) discussions on it, have a number of people with noticeable disquiet about how the EU is run and it not being so democratic, who softly favour 'out', but don't want any trading difficulties and or market turmoil, so will probably vote 'in' to keep the status quo.
If the polls are anywhere near being accurate, a large minority chunk want to vote 'out' anyway... so combining them with the 'soft out' doesn't make a much of a minority.
|
I guess 49% is a minority, and 51% ipso defacto is a majority, but which way round are the views? I think the result will be far closer than anyone would like...
Time will tell.
|
|
I will stick my neck out and say it will be 55% remain 45% leave. Might have a punt on that - will checkout the odds tomorrow
|
The young generation if they are voting could be a big IF will vote for remaining in the E.U.in my humble opinion.
|
Saw a bit on Ch4 news yesterday evening where a survey had been done and the results were that white voters were split absolutely 50:50 on brexit.
But ethnic minority groups were all roughly 2:1 in favour of staying-in, so the outcome would apparently ultimately be dictated by ethnic minority voters.
I waited to see, but (of course) nobody mentioned the delicious irony:
Here we are, about to make a momentous decision about whether we govern ourselves, and it's apparent that Policy is ALREADY being dictated by those who aren't the indigenous population...
|
"While white voters are split evenly, all ethnic minority groups are far more likely to back Remain.
However, the data also suggests that turnout could be 20 to 25 per cent lower among ethnic minority voters".
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-outcome-on-a-knife-edge-according-to-new-data-from-british-election-survey-a7034751.html
|
Still means the ethnic minority vote would determine the result though ;-)
|
I agree with Roger. We run our affairs so well we don't need an undemocratic unelected bunch to tell us what to do. Our police are without fault, our courts uphold sensible laws and our judges are noted for their perspicacity and efficiency. No UK politicians are corrupt, UK legislation is sensible and always enforced fairly.. and without pandering to vested interests.
The thought that we could jail 6 Irishmen on trumped up charges of bombing, cover up police failings which killed 96 people at a football match, free convicted criminals and not repatriate them because they have married someone, allow mass rape to continue for a decade in in Rotherham and have a PM who lied to go to war and the subsequent enquiry has lasted over 7 years and is longer by far than Mein Kampf, War and Peace and the Bible combined, and have the biggest banking crash in the world (RBS) with no-one to blame - is nonsensical.
We can run ourselves better than that and it's all the fault of the EU
|
Hey, Roger, I thought you had a Jazz? How's the new truck though? Nice colour scheme.
www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14445878.Huge_swastika_poster_hung_on_house/
|
|
I drive past this house regularly - it is the latest of many !
|
What Viviane Reading actually said:
"There is a strong case for a true fiscal and ultimately political union. In my personal view, the eurozone should become the United States of Europe. Like Winston Churchill, I believe that the UK will not be part of this, but it should remain a close ally with the federated eurozone, with which it would continue to share a common market, a common trade policy and hopefully a common security agenda."
|
We are fortunate to live in a sort of semi-detached union with the rest of Europe, from which we are separated by the sea; and to have a long, very chequered imperial history which has left us rich, shrewd, well-connected and somewhat cold-hearted.
It ill behoves us to sound shrill or demanding in European councils. We are already there. We can afford a bit of fat.
|
Can we have that as an option on the voting slip, then?
And if not, why not?
|
I presume you mean Viviane Reding.
I know that woman. I worked with her when she was European Commissioner for Media. She is a complete b***** nightmare prone to making sweeping statements on matters about which she knows little.
It is far more concerning that she should be in one position after another in Europe than worrying about any particular dribble coming out of her mouth.
|
Here's what happens if we vote to leave,
says a Conservative MEP:
tinyurl.com/zwo6p8c
|
EU IN/OUT Referendum Thursday 23/06/16 - Roger.
