Chris B

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gita_Sahgal#A...d_Cageprisoners

 

I see that Amnesty has links to "Britain's most famous Taliban supporter".

 

They suspended their head of gender unit for speaking out about it last year.

 

I'm sure some will think the Taliban are a force for good as they are the enemies of the United States.

 

Sorry, but the whole organisation seems dubious to me. I imagine that the two people being paid off have been paid to ensure their silence.

 

 

 

Anyone going to argue in favour of the Taliban? It seems that human rights abuses are acceptable (or at least less unacceptable) when they are carried out by the enemies of the Western World.

Sometimes people who refer to a fact when posting on an Internet site include a link to the source material for that fact. When they do so, it's to allow other people the opportunity to verify the material and read more about the detail behind it.

Some people simply haven't got time to read a document of the length of the one you linked to.

 

Since you obviously know what you're looking for, can you point out what the relevent bits are? I find it hard to get my head round what Amnesty actually do with the money they recieve.

 

Is it fair to say that AA are more of a political lobby group, more concerned with putting pressure on governments than actually doing anything themselves to directly help the people that are victims of human rights abuses?

For fuck's sake. Just search for 'objectives' in the document and stop whining.

Sorry, my bad, but I actually read that as "travelling to care", as in "commuting to day care centres" or something like that.

 

It's too cold today.

So did I. Especially with the wrist-slashing reference.

No, it fits in very neatly. They're all bollocks as well.

Still less than 1% of the population though. The coverage it recieves in the liberal media is far out of proportion to the amount of influence it actually has. It's like people get off on pointing out that they don't watch it and how bad it is.

 

That's the case if the same two million people are the only people watching throughout the 24 hours.

Two million people is the rating for peak times. It's lower during other times of the day I imagine.

Yesterday's ratings were over 3 million at 8pm. Again, are you suggesting it's the SAME 3 million people watching throughout the 24 hours?

Still less than 1% of the population though. The coverage it recieves in the liberal media is far out of proportion to the amount of influence it actually has. It's like people get off on pointing out that they don't watch it and how bad it is.

That's the case if the same two million people are the only people watching throughout the 24 hours.

The main people that talk about Fox News in this country are the Guardian. I don't know anyone that watches it. Very few Americans watch it(less than 2 million, in prime time), yet the liberal media seems to paint it as some kind of insidious brainwashing machine.

For a 24 hour news channel to get ratings like that during primetime shows how influential it is. Fox News gets more viewers than the other three highest news networks in the US combined.

I simply questionned what the criteria is for suspending/banning users because I'm curious as it's not like the normal experiences I've had on other forums.

I've never been on a another forum with so much bitching, flaming, whinging, crying, trolling and outright stupidity. This place is pretty unique to me.

 

It's hard to have an absolute set of rules because so many circumstances are unforeseen. How do you plan for someone admitting to a sexual assault for instance?

 

I think if everyone keeps the banter friendly, posts with a point of view rather than just to antangonise and works out their extra-testosterone elsewhere, then there'll be no need for mods to do owt.

Well, that's just unreasonable. Tiger Rick? More like Tiger Prick...

I do find it pretty fascinating how a bunch of people were asking about Gladstone within 24 hours. It's almost like people knew he was suspended and were bringing it up in a passive-aggressive way.

The BBC has employment quotas to fulfill for just about every demographic, but working-class white men are not included in any kind of quota for the BBC or any other institiutions that I know of. Unless you count prisons or the armed forces.

That doesn't mean that they're excluded. Quotas almost never mean that they have to overwhelmingly employ a certain kind of person.

Also, is 'class' EVER actually on anyone's employment quotas?

Why hasn't Tennesse Stud been banned for telling Butch to get cancer? That was probably the most offensive I've seen on here, but because he was a past poster it seemed to have been glossed over.

Have you pressed the report button? If no, then go do so.

 

So who reported Gladstone's post then? And if I report tiger_rick's "little shit" comment, will he suspend himself?

 

Of course not. So it comes down to the whim of the mods, and not the clicking of the report button.

 

Personally I think everyone, including rick, needs to just calm down. I know he's a new mod, and new mods tend to be a bit trigger-happy (Woy excepted) but there's really no need for all these suspensions and arguments. And when the banhammer/suspension hammer IS used, it needs to be used consistently. I notice that convicted sex offender boydy is still loose on the forum, so I'd say that sets the bar quite high personally, but that's the choice of the Admin team. As long as they are consistent and also accept the odd bit of ribbing like other posters.

Woyzeck excepted? The man's a monster! He suspended me for 24 hours for making a joke about dentists!* The HEARTLESS BASTARD!

*In fairness, he gave ample warning, and I told him it was worth it when he suspended me. I also still maintain it was a damn good pun, but I was kind of daring him.

Are you seriously saying that white people are excluded from the BBC? REALLY? Count the black and brown faces hosting any show on BBC radio or TV. If you take out the Asian Network, it's overwhelmingly white and middle class. I'd be willing to bet that apart from the people cleaning the buildings, the BBC is not as ethnically diverse as any of the areas it has its biggest offices.

He specified working class, though. He's muddying the waters by linking racism and class-ism.

Hi Happ,

 

It's possible you've missed this post, so I thought I'd repost it.

 

Hugs and kisses.

 

Chris B.

 

PS - I haven't voted Labour since the nineties. Toodle-pip!

I haven't voted Labour since the 90s either.

 

An example of British culture being portrayed as "worthless" would be the BBC's "white season" from a few years ago where all working-class white characters were portrayed as stupid/uneducated etc and were all "taught something about themselves" through interaction with ethnic minorities. Patronising middle-class Guardianista bullshit, and guess what? We had to pay for it, whether we wanted to or not.

Surely it depends on what you think constitutes white working class. If they were shown to be educated, would you still think of them as working class?

In fairness, the only pieces that I remember about the White Season were 'BNP wives' (which was fairly harshly judged by a lot of viewers, but didn't seem to be representing anything other than the voices of the people involved) and a drama about a young girl converting to Islam in Bradford (can't remember the title), in which the only character explicitly shown to be stupid was also a violent and casual racist.

Class is a really difficult thing to define, especially in the modern age. The drama I mentioned showed people in a fairly specifically deprived area, and I think of that as being different to 'working class'. While I'm no fan of his as a politician, I did think John Prescott's documentary about class was pretty well done.

Just as we all are forced to subsidise the Guardian through the public sector and BBC recruitment ads placed in it. And guess what? Working-class British people are almost entirely excluded from those sectors of employment.

I know people who work in the BBC, and I spent years working in the public sector myself. I've not seen any evidence of working-class British people being 'almost entirely excluded'. Unless you mean in the sense that they lack the qualifications for skilled work, but complaining that unqualified people are excluded from jobs which they're not qualified for would be a remarkably stupid argument, so I don't think that's what you're saying.

I would count descendents from the Saxons, Vikings or Celts as being indigenous Brits. If they want to say otherwise, it's up to them.

I'm pretty sure that most people who say that there are almost no indigenous Brits wouldn't class those as being indigenous. That's kind of the point of being indigenous.

If you go back far enough, everyone is descended from immigrants, except for some people in whichever African country life was first born. But that would mean that such people as Aborigines, Native Americans, Palestinians etc had no right to their land any more than white Europeans do. Which I don't believe liberals would find it easy to accept.

There's no hypocrisy there, though. Nobody is saying that Aborigines etc should be allowed EXCLUSIVE rights to their countries, and nor are people saying that anywhere else.

Hi Happ,

It's possible you've missed this post, so I thought I'd repost it.

Hugs and kisses.

Chris B.

PS - I haven't voted Labour since the nineties. Toodle-pip!

Who says British culture is worthless?

Plenty of people. Mostly Guardian-types or other liberals. It's usually disguised by use of weasel-words but there has been a clear agenda for the past 30 years or more of downgrading traditional British culture and promoting foreign cultures as equal to or better than our home-grown culture that has been exported so succesfully around the world that it has largely been internalized and is often not even recognised as being British.

 

But, again, who? You keep saying 'plenty of people' and 'Guardian-types' and so on, but never actually back it up. The way you're talking about it, it sounds like it's something that is a hugely regular thing - whereas I think it's a typical fear, but not one that can actually be backed up.

 

Oh, and why aren't foreign cultures 'equal to or better' than ours? Why isn't the British cultural legacy the fact that it's been exported world-wide?

 

What do you class as 'indigenous Britons'? How far back do you have to go?

People who have no known ancestry from anywhere other than Britain?

 

Would you go up to Native Americans or Palestinians and ask them how far back they go and question whether they are in fact indigenous?

 

So, you wouldn't include the Romans, Celts or Vikings?

 

Don't you think there were shameful elements of the British Empire? I think there were some advantages to the countries that took part, but (again, looking at things from the Irish point of view, because it's an example I know very well), I can see a lot of disadvantages for anyone that was on the 'colonised' rather than 'colonising' side of the fence.

I don't think the British empire is any more shameful than people in general were at the time. The world was open for the taking and we did as good a job of taking than any other nation. Then we were among the first countries to try and stop the worst excesses of colonialism, we did more than any other country to stop slavery. The likes of China and India today owe a hell of a lot to the British in putting them in the situation where they are becoming the dominant countries in the world. The US do as well.

 

Do many people suggest that it was much other than a product of the times? Surely it's seen as shameful BECAUSE it's a product of the times, and it's the people who wish it was a current situation that are seen as being in the wrong?

Who says British culture is worthless?

Plenty of people. Mostly Guardian-types or other liberals. It's usually disguised by use of weasel-words but there has been a clear agenda for the past 30 years or more of downgrading traditional British culture and promoting foreign cultures as equal to or better than our home-grown culture that has been exported so succesfully around the world that it has largely been internalized and is often not even recognised as being British.

But, again, who? You keep saying 'plenty of people' and 'Guardian-types' and so on, but never actually back it up. The way you're talking about it, it sounds like it's something that is a hugely regular thing - whereas I think it's a typical fear, but not one that can actually be backed up.

Oh, and why aren't foreign cultures 'equal to or better' than ours? Why isn't the British cultural legacy the fact that it's been exported world-wide?

What do you class as 'indigenous Britons'? How far back do you have to go?

People who have no known ancestry from anywhere other than Britain?

 

Would you go up to Native Americans or Palestinians and ask them how far back they go and question whether they are in fact indigenous?

So, you wouldn't include the Romans, Celts or Vikings?

Don't you think there were shameful elements of the British Empire? I think there were some advantages to the countries that took part, but (again, looking at things from the Irish point of view, because it's an example I know very well), I can see a lot of disadvantages for anyone that was on the 'colonised' rather than 'colonising' side of the fence.

I don't think the British empire is any more shameful than people in general were at the time. The world was open for the taking and we did as good a job of taking than any other nation. Then we were among the first countries to try and stop the worst excesses of colonialism, we did more than any other country to stop slavery. The likes of China and India today owe a hell of a lot to the British in putting them in the situation where they are becoming the dominant countries in the world. The US do as well.

Do many people suggest that it was much other than a product of the times? Surely it's seen as shameful BECAUSE it's a product of the times, and it's the people who wish it was a current situation that are seen as being in the wrong?

Sorry, Happ, but since you've posted multiple times in this thread since then, you may have missed that I directed a few points directly to you. Especially since you were complaining about points being dismissed and all that.

Chris brought facts and figures and a reasonable question about perceptions being fuelled by a fairly racist newspaper industry. Happ brought some "PC GONE MAD" assertions. Which one is engaging in discussion?

Both of us?

 

What exactly is "PC gone mad" about anything I've said?

 

It sounds like you are just dismissing any opinions that differ from the left-wing hegemony as being not worthy of discussion.

I think a couple of the things that you said to me did sound rather 'PC gone mad'. I'll bold the bits that I think Kenny was referring to, and you can see if you disagree.

Do you feel that immigrants integrate less in Britain than they do in Spain or the US, or any of the many other countries that experience higher levels of immigration than the UK?

 

Basically, since we overestimate it more than a number of other countries, AND are more hostile to it, why do you think this is?

I don't know about Spain. People in the US definitely integrate more than they do here, because they have to. (1)

 

Spanish people are certainly more openly racist than British people. I think the pressure on British people to be outwardly accepting of other cultures (2) has led to a buildup of resentment which is boiling over at the moment due to the economy being in the state it is. People were prepared to put up with it when just about everyone had jobs, money in their pocket etc.

 

I think people are sick of being told lies such as "we have always been a nation of immigrants", "there is no such thing as indigenous Britons" (3) or "British culture is worthless" or "the British Empire was shameful" etc etc etc.

1 - Again, I'll ask you to back this up. It sounds like 'PC gone mad' because of the suggestion that immigrants are free to do as they please.

2 - I don't think there's pressure on British people to be 'outwardly accepting of other cultures'. I feel there's pressure to be genuinely accepting of other cultures, and I think a great deal of that pressure is peer pressure, since a lot of people ARE genuinely accepting of other cultures. But this goes both ways. If people come to the UK and want to be accepted, they have to accept other cultures in response. Johann Hari wrote a great piece for the Independent recently asking Can we talk about Muslim homophobia now?. I do think this smacks of 'PC gone mad', because it seems to be saying that the pressure to accept other cultures is the reason behind the problem.

3 - I've already asked you questions about these, which you've not responded to yet. But they really are a bit 'PC gone mad'.

Do you feel that immigrants integrate less in Britain than they do in Spain or the US, or any of the many other countries that experience higher levels of immigration than the UK?

 

Basically, since we overestimate it more than a number of other countries, AND are more hostile to it, why do you think this is?

I don't know about Spain. People in the US definitely integrate more than they do here, because they have to.

Could you back this up, please? How do they 'have' to?

Spanish people are certainly more openly racist than British people. I think the pressure on British people to be outwardly accepting of other cultures has led to a buildup of resentment which is boiling over at the moment due to the economy being in the state it is. People were prepared to put up with it when just about everyone had jobs, money in their pocket etc.

 

I think people are sick of being told lies such as "we have always been a nation of immigrants", "there is no such thing as indigenous Britons" or "British culture is worthless" or "the British Empire was shameful" etc etc etc.

The Irish, the Jews, the Blacks, the Indians, the Chinese, the Eastern Europeans... I'd say you can go back to the 1880s at least, and there's evidence of it being a nation of immigrants. I genuinely feel the anger and distrust of Islam is similar to the anger and distrust to Blacks, Indians and all the way back to the Irish.

Who says British culture is worthless?

What do you class as 'indigenous Britons'? How far back do you have to go?

Don't you think there were shameful elements of the British Empire? I think there were some advantages to the countries that took part, but (again, looking at things from the Irish point of view, because it's an example I know very well), I can see a lot of disadvantages for anyone that was on the 'colonised' rather than 'colonising' side of the fence.

Do you feel that immigrants integrate less in Britain than they do in Spain or the US, or any of the many other countries that experience higher levels of immigration than the UK?

Basically, since we overestimate it more than a number of other countries, AND are more hostile to it, why do you think this is?

People overestimating immigration is likely due multiculturalism resulting in people being born here, living here all their lives but not integrating at all into British society. A fair amount of people would regard (for example) Muslim women walking round in full-face Burqas, as being "immigrants" regardless of whether they were born here or not.

You don't think it's also got something to do with the constant front pages from the Express, Mail and Star?

Re: Immigration and tabloid culture.

I found this to be fascinating reading. Essentially, surveys have shown that UK residents are not only more hostile to immigration than most other countries, but are also more likely to overestimate the amount of immigration.

It's also a blog I generally find interesting, and is worth pimping in here, I feel.

Can you see why so many people have no time for sancimonious and patronising liberals that want to police every aspect of peoples lives?

This is an assertion that I never understand fully, since it seems contradictory to my understandings of conservatives (not the party). It comes across in the US, as far as I can see as well. I'm not intending to say this is ALL conservatives or ALL liberals. I'm talking about tendencies.

Conservatives tend to criticise liberals for favouring government control in people's lives. But they also tend to be in favour of government control when it comes to women's bodies (pro-life vs pro-choice) and against who should be able to marry/have sex with whom (pro-family values, anti-gay marriage etc).

I'd see those two issues as being enormous examples of government controlling people's lives.

Can anyone settle a query here? I have a cousin who swears that Hulk Hogan once performed a hurricanrana in WCW, but I said to him that he is confusing Hogan taking one from Billy Kidman in 2000. Who's right?

Pretty certain that he didn't perform one - I do remember PowerSlam describing it in a confusing way, though. I remember thinking he performed a Huracanrana as well, after reading that, but after I watched the match, I realised they'd described it badly.

71% of people aged 16-24 are worried about immigration. I wonder what their opinion is of their trendy lefty teachers who promoted immigration as a wonderful thing throughout their school years? What will the teachers have to say now to the millions of school leavers and graduates who are unable to find employment? Vote Labour? I don't think so.

Fascism is bred in conditions that include the likes of mass unemployment and destitution. Were more than likely going to see those conditions increase over the period of these spending cuts.

So Labour encouraged mass immigration, kept the natiives happy with benefits and cushy public sector jobs, a situation not sustainable in the long term, and now it's the coalitions fault that people are justifiably upset at the situation?

How on earth did you read that into David's posts?

I'm not in favour of withdrawing benefits for many people, but I could see an argument for single people or childless couples paying less tax, on the basis that they use less. That could work as an incentive not to have children. Admittedly, this is off-the-top-of-my-head thinking, because taxing those with less disposable income makes less sense. Although there could be long term benefits, in terms of savings. Mind you, it's not like there are easy answers.

Couldn't it be asked why people living in dire poverty are making the decision to bring children into the world?

 

Similarly, it could be asked what Labour did about the problem, other than throwing money in benefits at the people involved, and just snowballing the problem for the future. Labour simply do not know how to deal with problems. The solution would be to incentivise poor people NOT to have children, instead of to have them, which is the case currently. The welfare state was introduced in the late 1940s. It isn't the 1940s anymore. We need to recognise that. Otherwise the system will simply collapse because feckless people will continue to breed at a much more rapid rate than responsible hard-working people.

 

You're always good for a bit of a laugh, Happ.

 

Why don't we just impose something similar to what China have, except only on those who earn under a certain amount per year? How does that sound?

Suggesting something is disincentivised does not = outlawing.