Forum Replies Created
-
1 user thanked author for this post.
An absolute joke. No doubt Bucks will fire away and say we don’t care about other examples, but I would argue that I have called out similar nonsense (e.g. the Dahl books) which infringes upon free speech and doesn’t cross a line.
Alan Sugar, Andrew Neil, Deborah Meaden and others have used social media to voice their arguments, and they should be free to, no matter their stance. It doesn’t matter that I think Linekar was wrong headed, he is his own person and what he said is perfectly permissible in a free country.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Everyone knew he was on about Nazi rhetoric though, even if not the Holocaust. I think it would have been wise to use another example. However, he shouldn’t lose his job over it.
1 user thanked author for this post.
“Actually, Siderite, I criticise the Tories a lot and if you check back over my posts you’ll see that to be the case.”
Where have I said you haven’ in this thread? I mean we can go into that if you want, but your previous condemnations have been weak, full of distracting what abouts to Labour and you always seem to damn anyone for making a critical argument of the Tories if you don’t agree with it. You have in this thread made out people critical of values seen as appalling
“What I don’t see are any comments on how to address the problem, other than saying it isn’t surmountable.”
It’s not my job to do so, I am not in government. However, I am allowed to have an opinion on whether it’s a good solution in a democracy. The Tory solution seems to be to deport everyone immediately, regardless, and then whine when people point out this might not be a moral solution. 76% of asylum seeker cases were accepted last year from boat crossings, so in Braverman’s world these people would be sent back. And I am not supposed to think ill of someone who rejects something I consider as moral? That’s what’s absurd.
“It’s also highly disingenuous to come out with absurd comments about Government ministers not caring”
I don’t think people like Braverman are being empathetic. Why is it ‘disingenuous’ of me to think this? Am I obliged to think the best of people when they have demonstrated what I see as poor moral values, because it might hurt precious feelings of those who support the government? If Braverman cared she would not toss red meat to sound like the problem is being sorted, when they know it might not pass through the courts. If she cared she’d know that 76% of asylum cases from such kind of arrivals were approved, and wouldn’t use the rhetoric she does to make out many are not worthy. I am supposed to have overreaching good faith towards some Tories seemingly, yet lefties can be bashed without care. Right. I mean, there’s plenty to bash about the left, but your aching concern is hidden by a lot of bias and agenda.
I am basing my opinion on this on my own interpretation, or is that not allowed? I am not saying all Tories are like this, but seemingly negative opinions of some makes me suspect. If Braverman is going to push forward policy which, in my view, harms humans they can expect negative opinions on them and their morals. I fail to see what’s so hideous about this, beyond the precious hurt feelings of some who like Braverman (hurt feelings matter more than human rights, seemingly). I certainly don’t see what’s disingenuous in taking a view that she doesn’t care based on her lack of care for an honest discussion on this for political gain.
It’s ok for you to cast your own self-righteous spiel about damn lefties, but when someone says something bad about the right it shows the judgemental nature of the left. Yawn. Hypocrisy. Fact is that I am not that left wing, and I am forever being damned as an evil righty by people of 64’s left wing nature, and you will say I am a gutter sniping lefty. Meh, I can live with it; it just shows the dogmatic nature of those launching such blanket statements to dismiss anything anyone else says, to me. Anything I can be said, which is critical can just be dismissed because of prejudice about my ‘left wing nature’ and nothing can be valid in any way, even if it’s disagreed with.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I will reiterate my own opinion that having concerns about immigration is not racist or xenophobic, necessarily. I don’t think the pressures on the system are insurmountable myself, but realise others think otherwise, and don’t think that’s an inherently racist or xenophobic argument. I understand the need to deal with people traffickers and that not everyone who comes over via boats or otherwise is an honest asylum seeker. Deterring people from crossing the Channel like this is as important for their lives as much as anything. However, I think that the government’s means of controlling it will worsen it and is truly pathetic. The reason why hotels are becoming more booked up with people claiming asylum (rightly or wrongly) is due to a slowdown in the processing, which their woeful solutions won’t address.
I do not think Tory ministers are necessarily doing it from the goodness of their own hearts, as they laughably claim. This issue needs careful consideration which can address public concerns, as well as the human beings who are coming over. I do not think Tory MPs who have outright lied about this, such as Braverman yesterday claiming legitimate asylum seekers can find another route (there isn’t another route, and these Tories are not interested in setting up such for asylum seekers), are being honest or moral. I think they are trying to use simplistic rhetoric to sure up support and are putting this above finding meaningful solutions.
Of course I have committed the cardinal sin of implying that some Tories are not darlings, so I must be some judgmental bigot. Well, I have railed against the worse of the left too, so I can sleep well in that I try my best to give a fair assessment of character and I am not obliged to think positively of people if I find their actions to be immoral. Evidently the real evil is hurting feelings of Tories by saying that some of them have bad traits, when I know not all or most are, and I need to learn compassion by not caring about the best outcome for all and seeing inhumane policy as wrong.
2 users thanked author for this post.
I don’t think immigration control is wrong, I don’t think anyone with concerns are racist. I do think the means in which the government have pursued this is wrong, and worsened the situation, which will probably make me a usual suspect for disagreeing with Bucks. The rhetoric is demonising and it plays into the discord of those trying to attack those claiming asylum. No, I am not saying this represents a majority of people who have immigration concerns before any straw men are hurled in my direction.
If Andrew Neil was allowed to express his opinions over social media, I don’t see the issue with Linekar, no matter how unwise and crass the comparison was. It’s good news he isn’t losing his job, given how easy people turn against free speech, from left and right.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Your post wasn’t directed solely at the OP though; it was at those who made comments stating it doesn’t exist too. Ok, I didn’t see the need to post like the above, but it’s an honest comment from the point of view of any atheist. It’s not disrespecting the right to hold a religious view to say it’s a figment of imagination. I think it is made up, but I can accept others believe in an afterlife. I don’t see why I should respect a horrible concept like Hell either, just because some believe in it. I respect them as a believer, but the belief is not the person, and it’s one which doesn’t sit well with my moral framework.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I am not saying Dean doesn’t have a large part to play in our recent dip in form, he has made some strange decisions, but upset to team harmony with so many new signings could be another factor.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The response to this from some has been truly pathetic and cowardly. We do not have blasphemy laws, we should not have blasphemy laws, yet many Labour councillors and MPs from the area are falling over themselves to apologise to and placate Islamic zealots. The poor kid involved is getting death threats, yet that isn’t worth looking into, but accidental scuffing of a book is.
I have no truck with Christians trying to force their beliefs on others, nor do many who have behaved so cowardly here. We shouldn’t when Muslims want to force everyone to have punishment based on religious waffle.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Which he has no agency over, of course. We have forced him to obliterate cities by existing, seemingly. They never listen to Putin’s grandiose proclamations of reclaiming Russia’s greatness against the fake nations who dared to break away. It has to be NATO.
1 user thanked author for this post.
It’s pathetic. I agree it’s bad optics, and there are arguments here about comprising the neutrality of the civil service. However, the desperate attempts to just rubbish partygate is just agenda, not good faith criticism. It was the police who found Johnson broke the rules; Johnson thought Sue Grey’s report absolved him.
1 user thanked author for this post.
