General Election - 8th June 2017

[Matt]

1 minute ago, kowenicki said:

Diane Abbott "temporarily steps aside from the role of shadow HS for the duration of her illness....

 

...and that's the right thing to do. If her constituents feel that she's not up to the job, they'll vote likewise.

 

2 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

Cynical lie to avoid the media. Absolute disgrace.

 

I don't understand why you're so angry. When I watched her cock-up of an interview the other day I honestly thought that she was very poorly, and not in the frame of mind to operate as an MP or currently a candidate.

[HarryBosch]

1 minute ago, View Of Golden Gate said:

 

Wait, what? So lets say a preacher of any faith notices that one of their 'flock' has started to say the odd extremist thing, they report them to the police but know nothing will be done as they are not a threat. Instead they decide to look at the kind of thing this radicalised individual is looking at, in order to get a better understanding, and combat this person's views. You know in the same way people look at alternative view points so they can learn and understand each better, do you lock them up, just in case?

 

 

 

 

I was talking about online material really.  

 

It should result in very few people being locked up because very few people will look at this stuff if they know they'll be locked up.

 

This would result in far fewer people, if any, following this particular route to radicalisation. 

 

Factor in the fact that internet providers will be on board with shutting it all down anyway and it's highly unlikely any of the extremes that you're going off on tangents with would ever become reality.

 

   

 

 

[HarryBosch]

3 minutes ago, rummytheowl said:

 

...and that's the right thing to do. If her constituents feel that she's not up to the job, they'll vote likewise.

 

 

 

I'd imagine most of her constituents, like most of Jim McMahon's, would still vote the same way if she stepped down completely and they replaced her with Rolf Harris. 

[Matt]

2 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

 

I'd imagine most of her constituents, like most of Jim McMahon's, would still vote the same way if she stepped down completely and they replaced her with Rolf Harris. 

 

I don't think that voter attitude is an exclusive trait of left leaning constituencies.

 

EDIT: Might get a better Labour MP though in the event of a by-election down the line?

[HarryBosch]

9 minutes ago, rummytheowl said:

 

I don't think that voter attitude is an exclusive trait of left leaning constituencies.

 

 

 

I'd argue more staunch Tory's have it for the right reasons though, i.e. it's in their own interests. 

 

Masses of people in Oldham will, eg, have lapped up Labours spinning of the proposed changes to Social Care funding and vote to do themselves out of the full value of their parents terraced house preferring to just be able to inherit the last £25k.

Not to mention, and more importantly, they'll be voting for the rising cost of living that will come with Labours tax increases and hit them & their families much harder than wealthier people in wealthier areas. 

 

But, they've "always voted Labour" and that's what's most important. 

Edited June 7, 2017 by HarryBosch

[View Of Golden Gate]

1 minute ago, HarryBosch said:

 

I was talking about online material really.  

 

It should result in very few people being locked up because very few people will look at this stuff if they know they'll be locked up.

 

This would result in far fewer people, if any, following this particular route to radicalisation. 

 

Factor in the fact that internet providers will be on board with shutting it all down anyway and it's highly unlikely any of the extremes that you're going off on tangents with would ever become reality.

 

   

 

 

Except it has happened with child porn, rare, but it has happened. 

 

Also correct me if I'm wrong but has pedophilia any less of an issue now? That is banned, and people prosecuted on a regular basis, but we still have a major issue and websites still open and spreading it.

 

This problem would still remain, there is proof in it in our current lives now. Hell support for ISIS and other similar organisations are banned, yet people still do it and are wildly unpunished/known. If you really think internet suppliers can shut down websites quicker than they can be opened, once again look at the issue we have child porn. 

 

There is no easy answer, stop pretending there is. It is a cancer and disease, a blanket ban like this will not even slow it down. That goes for everything like this, you need to battle the cause not the symptoms. We need experts devising plans not politicians looking for votes, or those who shout loudest on the internet (I include myself in that). 

[HarryBosch]

Just now, View Of Golden Gate said:

Except it has happened with child porn, rare, but it has happened. 

 

Also correct me if I'm wrong but has pedophilia any less of an issue now? That is banned, and people prosecuted on a regular basis, but we still have a major issue and websites still open and spreading it.

 

This problem would still remain, there is proof in it in our current lives now. Hell support for ISIS and other similar organisations are banned, yet people still do it and are wildly unpunished/known. If you really think internet suppliers can shut down websites quicker than they can be opened, once again look at the issue we have child porn. 

 

There is no easy answer, stop pretending there is. It is a cancer and disease, a blanket ban like this will not even slow it down. That goes for everything like this, you need to battle the cause not the symptoms. We need experts devising plans not politicians looking for votes, or those who shout loudest on the internet (I include myself in that). 

 

Where have I done that? 

[Stevie_J]

Abbott's 'taking a break, due to illness'.  Probably for the best.

[View Of Golden Gate]

2 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

 

I'd argue more staunch Tory's have it for the right reasons though, i.e. it's in their own interests. 

 

Masses of people in Oldham will, eg, have lapped up Labours spinning of the proposed changes to Social Care funding and vote to do themselves out of the full value of their parents terraced house preferring to just be able to inherit the last £25k.

Not to mention, and more importantly, they'll be voting for the rising cost of living that will come with Labours tax increases and hit them & their families much harder than wealthier people in wealthier areas. 

 

But, they've "always voted Labour" and that's what's most important. 

 

Maybe they believe in the policies?

 

Nope, sorry those voting Labour aren't intelligent enough to have looked into that. I personally believe Labour policies are better and costed (backed up many economy experts, scholars, consultants, professors) but you obviously disagree, which is totally fine. How about you stop with the superior attitude? 

4 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

 

Where have I done that? 

 

In your original post regarding the issue, one quick line on what should be done. This isn't just you, it is everyone, myself included. We throw out suggestions like we are talking about what formation Oldham should be playing, and if we are honest about we don't a clue what we are talking about. We are just self important dicks on a forum, thinking we know better than each other. If I took out of context what I felt was a rather flippant answer to a huge problem then my apologies, but you would not be the first or last to act like this was an easy fix while typing on a keyboard looking a computer screen. 

[GlossopLatic]

55 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

 

Why can't somebody criticise a group they're part of? 

 

I've never bought into this idea that Labour politicians can't own Tuscan villa's either...... 

 

 

The key word is liberal it seems to be a way of the right wing elite finger pointing that the problems of the working/middle classes are at the door of the left when in fact the right wing elite are just as much to blame. 

[Diego_Sideburns]

Reminder of the link from the start of this thread:

https://fullfact.org/

 

 

 

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

1 hour ago, View Of Golden Gate said:

 

Wait, what? So lets say a preacher of any faith notices that one of their 'flock' has started to say the odd extremist thing, they report them to the police but know nothing will be done as they are not a threat. Instead they decide to look at the kind of thing this radicalised individual is looking at, in order to get a better understanding, and combat this person's views. You know in the same way people look at alternative view points so they can learn and understand each better, do you lock them up, just in case?

 

Or the investigative journalist?

 

The off duty police officer?

 

The teacher worried about a student? Father or mother worried about their child? Someone shown it without knowing what it is?

 

Also what counts, just the stuff encouraging to kill? Or the publications calling for Muslim rule? How about stuff that questions the government? Once a rule like that comes in, it becomes very easy to stretch to include other things to. We already have a current government that love a good cover up, see the amount of Freedom of Information Requests rejected, the intended legislation to regulate the press, the intended law that would allow the government to read our email and texts, the cover up on the report of funding towards Terrorist organisations.

 

You would give them power to lock up people who want to help battle extremists? Yes you will catch out many who are fully paid up members of ISIS and others, but what about those caught in the legal crossfire? What about Nationalist extremism will that be included too, or is only Muslim organisations. 

 

What would be a better idea is stop giving these people the celebrity status they crave, make it illegal to watch them will only encourage others to go out and find it. Giving them a cult status, how about we stop publishing their name, and pictures of them everywhere? We make them heroes, that is what they want. If you have any doubts of this watch the documentary Jihadi Next Door, see the looks on their faces when people ask for photos. 

 

A law like this does not combat it, it makes them outlaws fighting a system that intends to crush their freedom of speech and Islam. And also potentially sees young people trying to find themselves drawn to it already, thrown in a cell and forever known as a terrorist. 

 

I do not know what the answer is, but look throughout modern history banning things only serves to create intrigue and helps to increase an audience. That is all this law would do, it make them cult icons, make them the faces and voices for Islamic Free Speech, not the hatemongers they are. 

 

No one wants to create heroes or martyrs or whatever. But if you can get some results and the only price is hurt feelings and isolated senses of victimisation (this depends on keeping your activities quiet), I still favour a round-up. 

 

I agree about online material. I'm not the first to praise the police for their brainpower, especially having had dealings with PC Knobhead at away games. But even they're are intelligent enough to calibrate a shakedown based on whether someone is a journalist, an interested citizen or a potential or actual maniac. 

 

It sort of doesn't matter as long as you get the message across (quietly, meaning no political noise) that loose talk, including sarcasm, generates anything from inconvenience to criminal convictions.

 

Different situation and times, but the French dealt with the Algerian anti-colonialists in that way. The Algerians were massively organised, on a pyramid basis, in that every member of the group knew only three others (the one who recruited them and the two they recruited). There are obvious differences. For a start, the French used one or two interview techniques that are out of fashion nowadays. Another thing is it was an actual network with an actual hierarchy, rather than a scattered-in-the-wind internet community. Most of the information these days is on people's computers, so you don't really have to hang from the ceiling or tickle the soles of their feet with rubber truncheons to get information out of them. There weren't many joiners after the clampdown.

[View Of Golden Gate]

10 minutes ago, 24hoursfromtulsehill said:

 

No one wants to create heroes or martyrs or whatever. But if you can get some results and the only price is hurt feelings and isolated senses of victimisation (this depends on keeping your activities quiet), I still favour a round-up. 

 

I agree about online material. I'm not the first to praise the police for their brainpower, especially having had dealings with PC Knobhead at away games. But even they're are intelligent enough to calibrate a shakedown based on whether someone is a journalist, an interested citizen or a potential or actual maniac. 

 

It sort of doesn't matter as long as you get the message across (quietly, meaning no political noise) that loose talk, including sarcasm, generates anything from inconvenience to criminal convictions.

 

Different situation and times, but the French dealt with the Algerian anti-colonialists in that way. The Algerians were massively organised, on a pyramid basis, in that every member of the group knew only three others (the one who recruited them and the two they recruited). There are obvious differences. For a start, the French used one or two interview techniques that are out of fashion nowadays. Another thing is it was an actual network with an actual hierarchy, rather than a scattered-in-the-wind internet community. Most of the information these days is on people's computers, so you don't really have to hang from the ceiling or tickle the soles of their feet with rubber truncheons to get information out of them. There weren't many joiners after the clampdown.

 

I am not against a round up, I personally find myself torn on this issue. I am quite openly liberal, but find myself wondering whether a harder approach is what is need now. This is a danger we have never really seen before, and have yet to truly understand.

 

My issue is with a blanket ban and a sentence for looking at the material, my reasons are outlined above, no need to bore anyone all over again with it. I just find ripping human rights laws up to be a slippery slope, and as my trust for this government is at an all time low, I am not sure that is the answer. Right now I prefer the idea of at least pretending we are at least willing to listen to them, before going in for the kill (metaphorically speaking), but I am not an expert and if a counter terrorism expert tells me that is the wrong approach I will be happy to let them do what they need to. As long as experts from all different viewpoints go through all the options, I just feel uncomfortable with many of the options banded about.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

3 minutes ago, View Of Golden Gate said:

 

I am not against a round up, I personally find myself torn on this issue. I am quite openly liberal, but find myself wondering whether a harder approach is what is need now. This is a danger we have never really seen before, and have yet to truly understand.

 

My issue is with a blanket ban and a sentence for looking at the material, my reasons are outlined above, no need to bore anyone all over again with it. I just find ripping human rights laws up to be a slippery slope, and as my trust for this government is at an all time low, I am not sure that is the answer. Right now I prefer the idea of at least pretending we are at least willing to listen to them, before going in for the kill (metaphorically speaking), but I am not an expert and if a counter terrorism expert tells me that is the wrong approach I will be happy to let them do what they need to. As long as experts from all different viewpoints go through all the options, I just feel uncomfortable with many of the options banded about.

 

I know what you mean and I'm pretty much the same. I'm sure the security services could come up with a perfectly good strategy and execute it reasonably well without undermining civil liberties. The problem for them and everyone else is that the politicians want to be seen to be tough, which sometimes means they want to be seen to disown civil liberties, human rights and other essentials. What hasn't worked is May's idea of uncovering the network by "watching" people on the cheap, which means sticking their Facebook and WhatsApp and so on data through the GCHQ algorithm. That might have worked (if we'd had the capability) with al-Qaeda, but it won't work with the randomers, or it won't work quickly enough. We've re-fought the last war brilliantly...but things have changed, and in my view May is too conservative and dead-headed, and fundamentally undynamic, to see it. 

 

I like the leader in The Times today:

 

"Mrs May has been pitched to voters as her party's strongest asset, but she has proved wooden when she needed to show charisma. She has been inflexible when she needed to think on her feet and evasive when she needed to be honest."

 

Every word of that is true and it's just not good enough. I reckon about 75% of voters will vote without any enthusiasm whatsoever, whichever way they vote.

 

 

[Fruitygoo]

2 hours ago, Magic Mikey said:

Not as disgraceful as the Prime Minister not having the bottle to take part in a televised debate.

 

She said from the off that she wouldn't and at that point she had a massive lead and much better approval ratings. TV debates are a waste of time... People arguing and making themselves look ridiculous. 

 

She may not have had the best run in this campaign but i think she was right on that one. 

[kowenicki]

2 hours ago, rummytheowl said:

 

...and that's the right thing to do. If her constituents feel that she's not up to the job, they'll vote likewise.

 

 

I don't understand why you're so angry. When I watched her cock-up of an interview the other day I honestly thought that she was very poorly, and not in the frame of mind to operate as an MP or currently a candidate.

 

That is very generous of you. What was her excuse in all the other interviews over the last 6 months?  She is inept.  I'm not angry by the way.  

[kowenicki]

1 hour ago, OldHallam said:

Absolutely she was caught out yesterday by someone emailing her as Seamus Milne makes interesting reading. Umuna at it today saying a knife crime is mental illness and upsetting many people with mental health links. They really are all clueless bastards PFI in Blair's reign the issue to cost the NHS and schools zillions I worked in a new school where we refused to accept a line of £11,200 for classroom clocks we went to BM and got the lot for £380. 

 

As for public school I opted out with my son in year 6 as his school was crap a bullying teacher in Shaw. Group punishments, called him thick when reading told us she said be quick a lie as friend the TA who told us. Took him to Heathfield small classes, then to Rishworth classes of 14 ended up with a Masters Degree only kid from primary school class who has finished a degree. Sacrificed holidays, new cars etc mine is 11 years old. So many benefits in public schools not all are wealthy and Tory. Lucky we could do that but wouldn't hesitate again as most Oldham Schools are shite and I am ex Crompton House pupil which was dire in 1970s. From personal experience of Oldham and Rochdale schools still too many real leftie and right wing twats teaching who havent got a fucking clue about work beyond teaching as never done it. school uni school route so no experience of real World. Think all teachers should have to do two years away from schools as by God heard some rubbish over years that indicate some teachers are not that professional at times. 

 

Personally the election tomorrow is a sad choice as isnt one really. Can never support Corbyn as hes a serial nutter over many years even Lab party haven't given him any responsibility in 30 years. Where is Tom Watson? Why is McDonnell even near leadership as a Marxist and open about it until recently. Abbott, Thornberry, Ummuna, Khan ..... all mouth and lacking brain function. Of course May dire Boris well, and Farron cant even make ground against this shower of shite. Lucas can promise anything as she represents Brighton and will never have to deliver on a four day week , stupid on all levels, longer days 1/5th less pay???? 

 

Just read that story about the email conversation. Unbelievable. 

[Fruitygoo]

In fairness, im one of abbotts biggest critics but there was something troubling with the SKY interview this week. I don't know if this was illness ot whether it was self inflicted but there was something wrong. She was confused, slurring, twitchy.... Could be ill, could be drunk...who knows

[Matt]

1 minute ago, kowenicki said:

 

That is very generous of you. What was her excuse in all the other interviews over the last 6 months?  She is inept.  I'm not angry by the way.  

 

It's not generosity, it's my observation - which is at odds with those who'd rather jump all over the situation with scorn and insult.

 

You sound angry to me, maybe it's the way I perceive those who can't wait to have a crack at some unfortunate soul - over and over again.

[LaticMark]

2 hours ago, kowenicki said:

Diane Abbott "temporarily steps aside from the role of shadow HS for the duration of her illness.... but she will be available on polling day in her constituency to help get voters out" 

 

Cynical lie to avoid the media. Absolute disgrace.

 

That's totally unfair. Abbott apparently was rushed into hospital yesterday for emergency surgery. They managed to remove one foot from her mouth, but had problems with the other!

[blueatheart]

14 minutes ago, rummytheowl said:

 

It's not generosity, it's my observation - which is at odds with those who'd rather jump all over the situation with scorn and insult.

 

You sound angry to me, maybe it's the way I perceive those who can't wait to have a crack at some unfortunate soul - over and over again.

I think she looked like someone under an enormous amount of pressure who didn't know her brief well enough and didn't have the skillset to work around the interviewer and his questions, couple that with the massive limelight she has been under for her mistakes and that will undoubtedly affect someone.

 

She simply could have said "I don't remember the intricacies of every report but this report by X recommended...."

or

"No, I haven't read that report".

 

Both are short and sweet, neither provide a front page news story and both shut the questioner down on "what did the report say" and move him onto "well it recommended X, what do you think about that".

 

She has had a car crash of an election campaign and I wouldn't be surprised if both mentally and physically she is suffering, I do feel sorry for her.

[View Of Golden Gate]

41 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

That is very generous of you. What was her excuse in all the other interviews over the last 6 months?  She is inept.  I'm not angry by the way.  

Good to see you're going down the innocent until proven guilty route, you sound like the Trump supporters who accused Clinton of faking an illness. I am by no means saying a party is above faking an illness, but do you have any concrete proof this is a lie? Or will continue spouting accusations based on assumptions?

 

I am by no means her biggest fan, and would rather her not be in the party but to attack anyone and accuse them of faking is scandalous, offensive and a dangerous precedent. You realise this kind of attitude is one reason many people do not speak up and get the help when suffering mental illness, because of fears of not being believed or ridiculed.

 

I suggest you keep your unfounded accusations to yourself, and if she is ever proven to have faked an illness then take pride in the fact you guessed. Personally I hope she gets well soon, I may not like her as a politician but I'll take it as true until proven otherwise.

[leeslover]

There were rumours put about that May was ill when she dodged some meetings last week, it seems to be one of the unpleasant strategies we've imported from the States.

 

For what it's worth a mate of mine who is very good at this sort of thing has just plumped for a 102 Tory majority. He got the last GE and Brexit on the nose and I think he was bang on with the Scottish ref as well

[kowenicki]

Some people in here needing a very large step ladder to get off high horses. Pious much?

 

Apparently its common knowledge in London, where I am today, that she is perfectly well and able to work. As will be seen tomorrow.

Edited June 7, 2017 by kowenicki

[Matt]

29 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

She me people in here needing a very large step ladder to get off high horses. Pious much?

 

I don't know, please explain.