Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

Here you can comment on political news, create threads for open discussion.

Moderators: Soner, PoshinDevon, Dragon

User avatar
Groucho
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3195
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2012 2:43 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 51 of 70 in Discussion

Post by Groucho »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
kerry 6138 wrote:
Your picture of Liverpool fans scaling the walls and gates leading to the decision to open the gates is completely at odds with the cctv footage of the gates at the time presented at the enquiry available online
Without rehashing the Hillsborough thread, I don't doubt that the majority of fans went to Hillsborough with a ticket and behaved. Especially 100% of those that died. You can post up hours of footage of that.
What I do doubt is that every single Liverpool supporter attempting to get into the ground had a ticket. It would be the first time in history that has happened.

If you was to tell me that yesterday not one person was bitten by a dog, I wouldn't believe you. And I love dogs.
I would probably struggle to refute it with video evidence whereas you would easily be able to find dozens of videos of cute dogs playing nicely. Would that mean that yesterday not one person was bitten by a dog?
So we have goose and now dogs.... should this thread be moved to 'Pets'?

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3245
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 52 of 70 in Discussion

Post by erol »

kerry 6138 wrote:Erols assertion that TR only blames muslims never the authorities and only jumped on the grooming gang bandwagon after it became mainstream is at odds with information available online.
To be frank Kerry from where I am sitting this is just getting farcical. Your claim as to what my assertion about TR was, is itself you just seeing what you want to see. It is not an accurate reflection as to what I actually said, or why I said what I said, which is all there in the thread for anyone to see, as far as I am concerned.

EJS made a claim, that (as far as I understood it) TR had been warning about the existence of aisan/uk child grooming gangs that were in operation and were not being stopped for years before the were finally exposed, with the clear implication that had he been listened too, these gangs could have been stopped earlier. Like he had been going around, before such gangs were exposed, saying 'there are asian/uk grooming gangs preying on children today in places like Rochdale and Rotheram and they are not being stopped because of fear of offending the UK/Asian commuinity". My claim is that this is just not true. Of course he was warning about how bad Muslim's were for the UK generically, before such exposures, about the problems of social tensions and the like but he was not giving warning about these gangs specifically such that had they been listened too they would have been stopped earlier. There were indeed people that were giving such warning and were not being listen to and that had they been listen to, would have lead to the gangs being stopped sooner. TR was NOT one of these people. It was people like Sara Rowbotham and Labour MP Ann Cryer who claimed they " been "round at the police station virtually every week" and was "begging" both the police and social services to do something." These are the real people that had they been listend to it would have led to the gangs being stopped much sooner NOT TR. Of course that reality does not fit EJS narrative of 'the whole thing was covered up in order to secure votes for Labour in these areas' but that is a separate issue. Nothing in your video clip that you claim 'if only I was prepared to watch' supports EJS assertion about TR was warning about this specific issue for years before it was exposed and your suggestion that it does is both condescending and inaccurate. For the record I had watched TR speech given at the oxford union soon after it was available to watch, in it's entirety and have re watched the sections you claim show that TR was warning about the dangers of existing gangs of asian/uk preying on children and sexually exploiting them and that these were not being exposed or investigated, and nothing in that clip shows this at all.

Then we have the 'earning a good living' from their actions. I did throw this comment in , again specifically aimed at EJS, who has in the past discounted anything and everything that Noam Chomsky has written on the basis that Noam Chomsky makes a good living out of being a 'dissident voice' and thus anything he says is undermined by this reality. I pointed out that TR also makes a good living from his role as an anti Islam campaigner yet apparently his words and views should not be treated in the same way as EJS say's Noam Chomsky's should. I was pointing out what to me appeared to be total double standards. A bit like the double standards of George Soros is a dangerous billionaire using his money to influence and shape the world to his desire but the Koch brothers are no such problem because them using their money to the same end is just 'capitalism'. You then decided to jump on this, and demand where is the proof that TR makes a living / income that is in the multi millions from his activities as an anti Muslim demagogue. When I provided that evidence you then posted the link to Jeremy Corbyn on wikipedia which frankly is in my view a totally absurd comparison in the first place and secondly entirely irrelevant to the point I was making in any case. If you chose to not believe what Chomsky say's and writes, on the basis he makes a good living from his dissent then why not apply the same standard to TR - That was my point.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3299
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 53 of 70 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

kerry 6138 wrote:
Erols assertion that TR only blames muslims never the authorities and only jumped on the grooming gang bandwagon after it became mainstream is at odds with information available online.
Erol is in the fortunate position of knowing that TRs social media is being taken down all the time so information/evidence will be very hard to come by.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3245
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 54 of 70 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Erol is in the fortunate position of knowing that TRs social media is being taken down all the time so information/evidence will be very hard to come by.
Absolute nonsense (imho). Your claim was that he was making such warnings for years before the gangs were exposed (2009). His personal twitter account was suspended in March 28, 2018 and as far as I know this did not involve the removal of every historic post he made on twitter, every retweet of it and reference to it. Even if twitter had attempted this, which is impossible in any case, there would still be a record of everything he had said on platforms like twitter on thousands of individuals computers and in central storage places like the 'way back project'.

There is a much simpler explanation for the fact that to date you have not been able to provide a single piece of evidence that supports your claim. Namely that the claim itself is just not true. Unless of course you consider 'EJS says it is true and his common sense tells him it is true' is evidence, which I personally do not.

kerry 6138
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 995
Joined: Mon 05 Oct 2015 6:38 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 55 of 70 in Discussion

Post by kerry 6138 »

kerry 6138 wrote:
Erols assertion that TR only blames muslims never the authorities and only jumped on the grooming gang bandwagon after it became mainstream is at odds with information available online.


To be frank Kerry from where I am sitting this is just getting farcical. Your claim as to what my assertion about TR was, is itself you just seeing what you want to see. It is not an accurate reflection as to what I actually said


Erol" When someone like Tommy Robinson only ever talks about the first reason.

The first reason being:_
,

("One of those reasons were about fears that because the perpetrators were predominantly of UK/ Asian background, prosecution could lead to racial tensions and could be exploited by people who were racists and had an agenda of increasing racial tension in the UK and vilifying Islam generically, just as Tommy Robinson has done")


My interpretation of the above was you where claiming TR only blames UK/ Asian men never the authorities was I wrong.
You can ignore the 2005 leaflet handed out by the UPL ( not a typo) calling for authorities to take action to end Islamist extremist, rape and drugging of local girls in Luton amongst other things.
The truth is the race should be the last person needing to raise the issue not the first

The rest we can leave to the court of opinion if you want.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3245
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 56 of 70 in Discussion

Post by erol »

kerry 6138 wrote:My interpretation of the above was you where claiming TR only blames UK/ Asian men never the authorities was I wrong.
Yes you were wrong. I do not think what I was saying was particularly obtuse at all. It certainly was not saying TR only blames UK/asian men and never the authorities. That is just another classic example of you seeing what you wanted to see rather than what was actual there as far as I am concerned.

Once more.

If you look at these cases with a genuine concern for understanding what went wrong in order to avoid it happening in the future then there are two major 'failings' that stand out. One is about race and one is not about race. The one about race is about reluctance to properly investigate and pursue allegations because of fears of upsetting ethnic minority communities. The one that is not about race is about people in authority dismissing testimony from young people because they see those people as being 'damaged'. Both of these factors led to delays in these things being stopped and the perpetrators brought to justice soon enough. I specifically made the point that this second issue is a common theme in such child sex abuses cases where neither the victims or the perpetrators are from ethnic minorities and gave an example of such.

So my point was, is and remains.

When someone, anyone, be that TR or ETS or anyone else who professes to be genuinely concerned with 'learning the lessons' from these cases in order to stop them occurring again focuses and repeatedly talks about only the factor that is about race and does not give equal or near equal time to the other factor that is NOT about race, then questioning how sincere their commitment to 'learning the lessons' from these cases to prevent such failings happening again really is, is natural, sensible and pretty much inevitable. When they also have a long history of agendas that are all to about race and they do this, then the only sensible conclusion I can draw is that whilst they may profess to be concerned about 'learning the lessons' from these cases in order to prevent re occurrence, by ignoring important and crucial factors that are NOT to do with race, they show to me that actually they are just exploiting these tragic events and failures to further an agenda that is nothing to do with protecting children.

Is that clear enough for you ?

kerry 6138
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 995
Joined: Mon 05 Oct 2015 6:38 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 57 of 70 in Discussion

Post by kerry 6138 »

Sorry Erol I come from a world where you call a spade a spade, not a metal tool used for digging, similar to a shovel but not quite the same sometimes with wooden handle but could be metal or occasionally plastic used out doors but not restricted to per se has demonstrated in Mr Titmarshs last book......... A few more paragraphs a whole lot more letters, you get my drift.

repeatedly talks about only the factor that is about race and does not give equal or near equal time to the other factor that is NOT about race

Anyone who talks onlyof the first issue, says or creates the impression that it is the only 'lesson to be learnt' and ignores and does not talk about the second issue

. The one that is not about race is about people in authority dismissing testimony from young people because they see those people as being 'damaged

Sounds a lot like:- TR only blames muslims never the authorities after its been through the tumble dryer.

By the way like the subtle use of the word race makes the term racist easier, why not use the term religion/islam islamaphobe is still disgusting.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3245
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 58 of 70 in Discussion

Post by erol »

kerry 6138 wrote:Sorry Erol I come from a world where you call a spade a spade, not a metal tool used for digging, similar to a shovel but not quite the same sometimes with wooden handle but could be metal or occasionally plastic used out doors but not restricted to per se has demonstrated in Mr Titmarshs last book......... A few more paragraphs a whole lot more letters, you get my drift.
I absolutely 'get your drift' and have no doubt that you very much like to believe that you come from from a world that 'calls a spade a spade' and that doing so brings you much comfort. I come from a world that recognises that what people say they believe is often incompatible with how they behave and act. That they talk the talk but do not walk the walk, if you get my drift. A world where things like reason, logic, consistency and evidence actually matter and are the fundamental tools to be used to try and work out if someone 'walks that which they talk'.
kerry 6138 wrote:Sounds a lot like:- TR only blames muslims never the authorities after its been through the tumble dryer.
Well you will have to forgive my sheer arrogance in thinking that I might actually know what I was saying better than your interpretation as to what I am saying. So once more let me state categorically that I do NOT think TR only blames muslims and never authorities. He absolutely does and has done for years and years and years, blame , accuse and critize authorities. IF , and here is the kicker, he is doing so in regards to issues of race (or any other word your spade a spade calling mind wants to use). His 'interest' in the asian / uk child abuse scandals is nothing to do with an an interest in child abuse and it's prevention it is only in how such events can be used selectively in order to continue his agenda that he does have an interest in. Sure he will present it as and claim it is an interest in preventing child abuse but that does not mean it is such. Can you see the spade yet ? It is right there , right in front of your face and yet to date you keep trying to call it a rabbit.

kerry 6138
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 995
Joined: Mon 05 Oct 2015 6:38 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 59 of 70 in Discussion

Post by kerry 6138 »

Well you will have to forgive my sheer arrogance in thinking that I might actually know what I was saying better than your interpretation as to what I am saying. So once more let me state categorically that I do NOT think TR only blames muslims and never authorities. He absolutely does and has done for years and years and years, blame , accuse and critize authorities

You are forgiven but for me you wield your keyboard like Picasso wielded his brushes, takes a couple of tilts of my head to work out what its supposed to be.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3245
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 60 of 70 in Discussion

Post by erol »

kerry 6138 wrote:You are forgiven but for me you wield your keyboard like Picasso wielded his brushes, takes a couple of tilts of my head to work out what its supposed to be.
Thank you. Look if someone misunderstands what I am saying I am always prepared to try and and explain what I am saying better, clearer or in a different way. What is frustrating for me is when someone makes out I am saying something I am not, with apparent intent to do so. Nor is it easy for me to ignore, esp given your prior accusations of 'seeing what I want to see' the 'coincidence' that such misunderstanding always seem to serve the person who is making them 'narrative' and never a misunderstanding that conflicts with such.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3299
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 61 of 70 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
When someone, anyone, be that TR or ETS or anyone else who professes to be genuinely concerned with 'learning the lessons' from these cases in order to stop them occurring again focuses and repeatedly talks about only the factor that is about race and does not give equal or near equal time to the other factor that is NOT about race, then questioning how sincere their commitment to 'learning the lessons' from these cases to prevent such failings happening again really is, is natural, sensible and pretty much inevitable. When they also have a long history of agendas that are all to about race and they do this, then the only sensible conclusion I can draw is that whilst they may profess to be concerned about 'learning the lessons' from these cases in order to prevent re occurrence, by ignoring important and crucial factors that are NOT to do with race, they show to me that actually they are just exploiting these tragic events and failures to further an agenda that is nothing to do with protecting children
I wondered when the racist chestnut would rear it’s head.

Strangely I am actually am concerned about child rape no matter who the perpetrator. As for me having a long history of agendas that are all to do about race that is nonsense.
I admit to having an agenda about the epidemic of knife crime too. The fact that I am not blind to the fact that the majority of it is committed by young black males. It isn’t me using it as an excuse to have a go about black people because I am also aware that a young black male is statistically most likely to be the victim of knife crime. So some robust policing might save some lives, the majority of them black.
Yes it may infringe on some civil liberties to a point but we can save lives or chin stroke and theorise.

There has always been pedophilia or the exploitation of young children.
The Saville case showed that it can be brushed under the carpet for political/expedient reasons. What I would say is that Saville and others were people of influence/establishment figures and then appears to be the reason the police ignored all the warning signs and dragged their feet.
The perpetrators in Rotherham etc etc were mini cab drivers and kebab shop owners so the only conceivable reason that the police ignored the cases was due to racial reasons.

Now I know you are a reasonable man but I do think you are naïve. You have your news drip fed to you by The Guardian but won’t admit that they just might have their own agenda. If you want to know what a Guardian reader thinks, buy the Guardian, you’ll get a free crossword thrown in.
I remember pointing out to you how strange it was that they did not cover the story at all of the guy who got a suspended sentence for threatening/attacking someone with a zombie knife. This was a story that was a major story in every other paper.

I fully admit that Tommy Robinson is a bigot and has an agenda and a story drops right into his lap. What I can also see is that by giving him this sentence the authorities have played right into his hands. There have been many trials which the press have interfered with, I am struggling to remember another case where anyone went to prison. I would also be interested if anyone else has been sent to Belmarsh for what will be a ten week sentence or for something other than murder, terrorism or crimes that rank in the top rank of misdemeanors. Personally Robinson can spend the rest of his life in prison as far as I am concerned, he won’t be a loss.
But what I can clearly see which the left can’t is that by doing this you will magnify him. How did sending Hitler to prison in 1924 work out?

My point on this was there appears to be some parts of Islam that are incompatible with western secular life. That is not me being Islamaphobic, I personally was born a Catholic and freely admit that there are parts of Catholicism that cannot fit into western secular life. I would also say that there have been too many of these child grooming gang cases for us not to see there is a problem there.

The left’s rush to label every person a fascist just diminishes the term until it has no meaning.
We had a recent incident when The Brexit Party turned their back on the EU anthem. This was immediately likened to the Nazis turning their back on the speaker in the Reichstag. Brexit = Nazi.

This is a form of protest that is not owned by the Nazis. Our veterans turned their back on Hirohito a few years ago, are they Nazis?

What is interesting about the Nazis protest is that they were turning their back on a speaker from the KDP, the German communist party. Back in the twenties the Weimar Republic wasn’t doing a great job and Germany could have gone either way, Nazi or Communist.
The KDP would label the Social Democrats, social fascists which made it impossible for them to work together and unify against Hitler and The Nazis. So the Nazis got in banned the KDP swiftly followed by the Social Democrats. Ironic eh?

The UK isn’t lurching to the right but keep brushing off ordinary people’s concerns and you will drive people to the likes of Robinson. People are getting a little tired of being told how to live their lives by the patronising liberal elite.
I know many Americans, they aren’t all stupid. They know Trump is a buffoon but the alternative was Hilary Clinton. If next time they put Bernie Sanders against him he will win again.

Most people are easy going and just want to get on with life but I don't think they are going to remain the obedient subjects needed for this project. If they have been robbed this year and many people they know have been robbed, then don’t be surprised if they don’t buy into your statistics that crime is going down. You can dismiss their evidence as anecdotal whereas your statistics come from an “independent” source. Good luck with that long term.

As for an example of bayonetting the wounded.

Most people aren’t homophopic, many probably don’t have an opinion one way or the other.
Most people are fair, if you say it’s fair that homosexuality should be legalised then they will go along with it. Homosexuals should have equal pension rights. Why not. Some men want to live their life as a woman. Can’t see it but whatever.

Where the problem occurs is when people with an agenda seem to want to push things immediately into an Alice in Wonderland scenario.
EG;
Reg wants to be known as Loretta. Yeah whatever.
Oh you know you agreed that we should build separate changing rooms, that’s not enough, he demands to change in the same changing room as your granddaughter. Now I have a problem with Reg/Loretta.

I’m so sorry a lot of these SJWs missed the gay rights, black rights and women’s rights struggles but apart from a bit of tweaking the wars have been won there so find a new REAL struggle.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3245
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 62 of 70 in Discussion

Post by erol »

I have written a reply to your last post EJS. It has taken hours. Probably will take a few more yet to 'proof it'. I will probably post it in due course primarily because I have spent so much time on it already. Before that however I will post this which is a kind of 'summary' I guess of that much longer and rather tedious post to come.

You can divide the world in to two categories of people. There are those who hold strong and passionate views on subjects but for whom there is no such view that could not potentially be changed via reasoned argument and application of logic applied consistently. Then there are those who hold strong passionate views on subjects for whom no amount of reasoned argument and application of logic applied consistently will or can change those views.

Now in reality these things are not absolutes but are all 'comparative degrees'. I only present them as absolutes as a 'technique' to try and simply what I am trying to say, trying to get across.

I suggest that this distinction of type of person cuts across any and all other groupings. That there are some people from each group regardless of political outlook, gender, race, or any other grouping other than religious belief vs agnosticism or atheism (for obvious reasons).

I like to think I am in (or more in) the former category than the later. Now I accept that just because I like to think this, that alone does not mean that I am such or is it evidence of such. I think everyone wants to believe and have others believe they are in the former camp pretty much regardless of if they are or not in reality. If anything those who are, in reality, in the later camp want this (to believe and have others believe they are in the former) even more than those who are in reality in the former camp.

So how might you try and judge / determine / guess which category a given person is in , or most in or most in for a given view? I suggest that evidence of consistency is at the core of making such a determination, in any way that is not itself just totally arbitrary and random.

I suggest that for you EJS your views on the 'misguided nature of the left' are firmly planted in the later camp. That this is in essence a view that you have that is based first and foremost on 'faith' and that there is no amount or level of reasoned argument and application of logic applied consistently that can or will change your view on this. That it is for you the starting point and not in fact the end result of reasoned logical consistent 'analysis'. But you do not want to have to accept this, in your own head or to others, so what you do instead is go from this unchangeable starting point and try and pretend it is the result of 'reason, even though it is not. I suggest that the evidence that you do this (or do it more than others or more than me) is seen in the inconsistency of how you apply the 'reason' you use to all situations or only to those that serve the purpose of being able to pretend your views on the failings of the left are 'reason based' and not 'faith based'. The more you apply such 'reason' consistency across all situations the more that is evidence that it truly is 'reason'. The more you apply it 'selectively' the more it is evidence that it is, for you not truly 'reason' but just a means of pretending it is such when it is in fact not.

Which brings me back round to the long tedious reply that I have 'written' but not yet 'proofed' that I a may or may not yet post at some point in the future but probably will at some point.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3299
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 63 of 70 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:I have written a reply to your last post EJS. It has taken hours. Probably will take a few more yet to 'proof it'. I will probably post it in due course primarily because I have spent so much time on it already. Before that however I will post this which is a kind of 'summary' I guess of that much longer and rather tedious post to come.

You can divide the world in to two categories of people. There are those who hold strong and passionate views on subjects but for whom there is no such view that could not potentially be changed via reasoned argument and application of logic applied consistently. Then there are those who hold strong passionate views on subjects for whom no amount of reasoned argument and application of logic applied consistently will or can change those views.

Now in reality these things are not absolutes but are all 'comparative degrees'. I only present them as absolutes as a 'technique' to try and simply what I am trying to say, trying to get across.

I suggest that this distinction of type of person cuts across any and all other groupings. That there are some people from each group regardless of political outlook, gender, race, or any other grouping other than religious belief vs agnosticism or atheism (for obvious reasons).

I like to think I am in (or more in) the former category than the later. Now I accept that just because I like to think this, that alone does not mean that I am such or is it evidence of such. I think everyone wants to believe and have others believe they are in the former camp pretty much regardless of if they are or not in reality. If anything those who are, in reality, in the later camp want this (to believe and have others believe they are in the former) even more than those who are in reality in the former camp.

So how might you try and judge / determine / guess which category a given person is in , or most in or most in for a given view? I suggest that evidence of consistency is at the core of making such a determination, in any way that is not itself just totally arbitrary and random.

I suggest that for you EJS your views on the 'misguided nature of the left' are firmly planted in the later camp. That this is in essence a view that you have that is based first and foremost on 'faith' and that there is no amount or level of reasoned argument and application of logic applied consistently that can or will change your view on this. That it is for you the starting point and not in fact the end result of reasoned logical consistent 'analysis'. But you do not want to have to accept this, in your own head or to others, so what you do instead is go from this unchangeable starting point and try and pretend it is the result of 'reason, even though it is not. I suggest that the evidence that you do this (or do it more than others or more than me) is seen in the inconsistency of how you apply the 'reason' you use to all situations or only to those that serve the purpose of being able to pretend your views on the failings of the left are 'reason based' and not 'faith based'. The more you apply such 'reason' consistency across all situations the more that is evidence that it truly is 'reason'. The more you apply it 'selectively' the more it is evidence that it is, for you not truly 'reason' but just a means of pretending it is such when it is in fact not.

Which brings me back round to the long tedious reply that I have 'written' but not yet 'proofed' that I a may or may not yet post at some point in the future but probably will at some point.
I've not read it for a while, which of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals are you using here?

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3245
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 64 of 70 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I've not read it for a while, which of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals are you using here?
I have never heard of it before you mentioned it just now and have never read it. I just 30 second googled it. Which somewhat undermines the implication that I am following any such rules from where I am sitting ?

Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as the 'radical right' ? That they do not also seek change just as the radical left do? That they will also have people who have 'formalised' 'rules' as to how to go about achieving such change ? Can you see how this question relates directly to what I was trying to say in the post you refer too but appear to be trying to 'dismiss' ?

User avatar
waz-24-7
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 927
Joined: Sun 24 Aug 2014 2:37 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 65 of 70 in Discussion

Post by waz-24-7 »

The whole political and indeed social structure has moved significantly since the Brexit referendum 3 years ago.

The division upon LEAVE or REMAIN has crossed political stereotypes.

The anti immigration stance within the LEAVE camp would usually be accepted as a right wing agenda. NO It is the left wing labour voter who has turned this around and they now unwittingly support the very right wing BREXIT party and Mr Farage.
The conservatives appear the only party to really promise Brexit. So how many staunch labour fans are shifting allegiance in order to secure their wish to Leave.

Mr Corbin cannot decide as the risk of loss is just to big for him and Labour. Sit on the fence and no general election for the time being and before November 1st.. The labour party is in the doldrums and everyone knows it.
Will Mr Farage and Mr Johnson form an alliance and secure those left wing leavers get a parliamentary majority and once in re establish the right wing political agenda of capitalism. To the expense of those labor Brexit supporters. Interesting prospect.

People are very disillusioned. On the one hand they are LEAVE or REMAIN. on the other they are RIGHT or LEFT politically.

Both options are at odds . A general election and its timing will be very interesting indeed as voters make the difficult decision.

Deniz1
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 4781
Joined: Sat 07 Apr 2012 11:22 am

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 66 of 70 in Discussion

Post by Deniz1 »


EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3299
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 67 of 70 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

waz-24-7 wrote:The whole political and indeed social structure has moved significantly since the Brexit referendum 3 years ago.

The division upon LEAVE or REMAIN has crossed political stereotypes.

The anti immigration stance within the LEAVE camp would usually be accepted as a right wing agenda. NO It is the left wing labour voter who has turned this around and they now unwittingly support the very right wing BREXIT party and Mr Farage.
The conservatives appear the only party to really promise Brexit. So how many staunch labour fans are shifting allegiance in order to secure their wish to Leave.

Mr Corbin cannot decide as the risk of loss is just to big for him and Labour. Sit on the fence and no general election for the time being and before November 1st.. The labour party is in the doldrums and everyone knows it.
Will Mr Farage and Mr Johnson form an alliance and secure those left wing leavers get a parliamentary majority and once in re establish the right wing political agenda of capitalism. To the expense of those labor Brexit supporters. Interesting prospect.

People are very disillusioned. On the one hand they are LEAVE or REMAIN. on the other they are RIGHT or LEFT politically.

Both options are at odds . A general election and its timing will be very interesting indeed as voters make the difficult decision.
Corbyn has been a committed leaver his entire life. He is in a difficult position because historically the Labour Party has been almost as split on this as the Conservatives. The other problem he has is this could be the crises that brings down the Conservatives and puts him into power. So he will continue to sit on the fence.
What side of the fence you sit politicially shouldn't really effect how you feel about the EU. Tony Benn and Enoch Powell was at completely different ends of the spectrum but both were anti EU because they both believed Parliament and the British people should be in charge of our fate.

User avatar
waz-24-7
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 927
Joined: Sun 24 Aug 2014 2:37 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 68 of 70 in Discussion

Post by waz-24-7 »

ETS wrote

Corbyn has been a committed leaver his entire life. He is in a difficult position because historically the Labour Party has been almost as split on this as the Conservatives. The other problem he has is this could be the crises that brings down the Conservatives and puts him into power. So he will continue to sit on the fence.
What side of the fence you sit politicially shouldn't really effect how you feel about the EU. Tony Benn and Enoch Powell was at completely different ends of the spectrum but both were anti EU because they both believed Parliament and the British people should be in charge of our fate.[/quote]

Mr Corbyn is certainly not towing the LEAVE line right now. He simply seeks to secure power over the conservatives. The Labour party are so unsure how to do this given the clear division within the UK populous over BREXIT.
Mr Powell and Mr Benn certainly had their views. These were clearly political and were once again many years ago. I wonder how they may feel in the current situation.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3299
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 69 of 70 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

waz-24-7 wrote:
Mr Powell and Mr Benn certainly had their views. These were clearly political and were once again many years ago. I wonder how they may feel in the current situation.
Tony Benn only died 5 years ago and kept the same view on the EU until his death. Corbyn is a leaver but is compromising his belief on it for power. The point is you make out that wanting to leave the EU is some right wing fascist ideal. Benn and Corbyn aren't right wing or fascist.

User avatar
waz-24-7
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 927
Joined: Sun 24 Aug 2014 2:37 pm

Re: Johnson on immigrants - Sauce for the goose ?

  • Quote
  •   Message 70 of 70 in Discussion

Post by waz-24-7 »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
waz-24-7 wrote:
Mr Powell and Mr Benn certainly had their views. These were clearly political and were once again many years ago. I wonder how they may feel in the current situation.
Tony Benn only died 5 years ago and kept the same view on the EU until his death. Corbyn is a leaver but is compromising his belief on it for power. The point is you make out that wanting to leave the EU is some right wing fascist ideal. Benn and Corbyn aren't right wing or fascist.

Mr Corbyn has sided with Remain very clearly on many occasions. If he was leave he would do as Boris is doing. Corbyn is running scared . Scared on losing the election.
Mr Ben is Dead.

I have not said that leavers are Fascists. Certainly the leave campaign smells of some rather right wing xenophobic attitudes.
Generally , I do believe that standard political allegiances are being tested by strong views upon the European Union.

Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS - Kibkom North Cyprus Forum”