(And I'm honestly undecided about all this. On the one hand, I don't really see a problem if eg. someone who opposed NATO's Libyan campaign were to call the then-POTUS "Barack O-bomb-er", even though the parodied name is non-anglo. On the other hand, something about "Priti ugly" just sorta feels worse to me. Maybe because it's more the sort of thing I could imagine being used as a schoolyard taunt. YMMV.)
"Ugly" for Priti Patel feels off to me because it is both racist and above all sexist. While the name may be intended as a slight on her character rather than her face, women in public life are so routinely judged on their looks that it's hard not to hear it that way IMO.
Yes. Having been guilty in the past of using *Ugli*, because I thought it funny and appropriate, I am now convinced that I was Wrong and Wrepulsive so to do.
Well, someone is entitled to disagree with something the players do on the field, and also to support the right of fans to boo it.
Though, if they want their principles to be taken seriously, they should clarify that they also support the RIGHT of the players to do the thing they find disagreeable. I'm guessing Ms. Patel's rant had not much to with principle, however, and more just about dog-whistling.
Indeed. Likely Ms Patel gets so much flak because female MPs are expected to “play nice” ( exception being the departed grocer’s daughter from Grantham, may she rot in purgatory)
Even the grocer's daughter was expected to play nicer than her male colleagues. I doubt she ever got away with appearing in public without making sure her appearance was immaculate.
I'm also not sure I recall her making outright racist or sexist comments (at least, nothing significantly worse than was common at the time) or making statements she knew to be demonstrably false (without an immediate retraction and apology when she was told the mistake). I'm not a fan of her, but she had integrity and conviction that isn't even on the radar of the current government.
Her policies were a load of rubbish, and a total disaster for manufacturing industry and those who depended on those jobs, but she never pandered to the NF to get votes, she never quite managed to come up with anything as evil and damaging to the lives of others as the "hostile environment", going against international conventions on refugees by declaring the victims of war and persecution to be criminals for nothing more than seeking asylum, cutting foreign aid at a time when it's needed more than ever ... She set a low standard for political views, but the current lot have dived below that.
Well yes. When Johnson got the leader's job, I was thinking that much as I was no fan of them, it was hard to believe that this chancing spiv was leading the party of Churchill, Thatcher and MacMillan.
Well, someone is entitled to disagree with something the players do on the field, and also to support the right of fans to boo it.
You might want to tell UEFA about these booing rights, given that booing other countries' national anthems has got the English FA into trouble.
...and then of course you'd have to tell the English FA about these booing rights when it comes to taking a stand against racism, given that the English football authorities are quite explicitly supportive of the players and have been actively campaigning to have the rampant racism from "fans" on social media and the like to be eradicated.
Politicians try to tell sportspeople to stay out of politics... maybe the politicians should show a bit of consistency and stay the hell out of sport.
^ Thatcher was never really a social conservative, in either the US religious-right version, or the UK immigrant-bashing version.
I think the closest she came to any stance like that was supporting that bill banning supposedly pro-homosexual materials from schools, which in her autobiography she tried to reconcile with her earlier opposition to sodomy laws, by saying that in both instances, she was trying to restrain state intervention in private life. (I'm guessing, though, that she was okay with more traditional viewpoints being propagandized in the schools.)
Other than that, she was pro-choice on abortion, and I, too, do not recall her making bigoted comments against anyone, except the Germans, within the context of EU debates. (And that really doesn't warrant inclusion in the same category of racism as "paki"-bashing.)
The Home Secretary is also pushing for people who help asylum seekers who arrive illegally to face life imprisonment. There was a flurry about the RNLI getting into trouble over this.
I gather it is not only her policies which are abhorrent, but the way she treats her underlings.
In other news that just boggles the imagination, this afternoon Parliament debates racism and not a single BAME MP (there are 63 of them) has been chosen to speak. That's right, Parliament is going to debate racism without hearing from anyone who has ever been the victim of racism. I don't believe it
Did any of the speakers defend racism ?
I remember sitting in a plane flying to Iceland, looking down on the Hebrides from cruising altitude.
We still cleared those islands by a smaller distance than that by which the point went over your head there.
Hell, astronauts in the ISS have the same experience.
Please explain what you are on about.
Why do you think it might be a problem that all the people in a given conversation about racism are white?
Over 200 years ago Slavery in the British empire was abolished by an all white Parliament.
I'm sure you fully understand and take the point that 200 years ago an all white Parliament would be the only option for those times. I'm sure you also understand that one of the reasons abolishing the legal slave trade (slavery in Britain is, sadly, still alive and kicking) was such a struggle was because white (mainly male, Anglican/Protestant) politicians weren't particularly interested in listening to others who weren't.
We don't live 200 years ago. We don't have the excuse for that kind of ignorance. We now live in a nation that has, representationally, people who are not only white but are non-white and from other ethnicities and cultures. It's really not hard to conclude that some of these people have valuable contributions to make about the experience of being non-white and from ethnic minorities. There are even Parliamentarians who are non-white and from ethnic minority backgrounds. As Parliament is going to have a debate about these things, again it's not hard to come to the conclusion the kind of folk who ought to be taking part in the debate at various levels.
Parliamentarians like Priti Patel who get a lot of abuse on here.
The Home Secretary is also pushing for people who help asylum seekers who arrive illegally to face life imprisonment. There was a flurry about the RNLI getting into trouble over this.
I gather it is not only her policies which are abhorrent, but the way she treats her underlings.
In other news that just boggles the imagination, this afternoon Parliament debates racism and not a single BAME MP (there are 63 of them) has been chosen to speak. That's right, Parliament is going to debate racism without hearing from anyone who has ever been the victim of racism. I don't believe it
Did any of the speakers defend racism ?
I remember sitting in a plane flying to Iceland, looking down on the Hebrides from cruising altitude.
We still cleared those islands by a smaller distance than that by which the point went over your head there.
Hell, astronauts in the ISS have the same experience.
Please explain what you are on about.
Why do you think it might be a problem that all the people in a given conversation about racism are white?
Over 200 years ago Slavery in the British empire was abolished by an all white Parliament.
I'm sure you fully understand and take the point that 200 years ago an all white Parliament would be the only option for those times. I'm sure you also understand that one of the reasons abolishing the legal slave trade (slavery in Britain is, sadly, still alive and kicking) was such a struggle was because white (mainly male, Anglican/Protestant) politicians weren't particularly interested in listening to others who weren't.
We don't live 200 years ago. We don't have the excuse for that kind of ignorance. We now live in a nation that has, representationally, people who are not only white but are non-white and from other ethnicities and cultures. It's really not hard to conclude that some of these people have valuable contributions to make about the experience of being non-white and from ethnic minorities. There are even Parliamentarians who are non-white and from ethnic minority backgrounds. As Parliament is going to have a debate about these things, again it's not hard to come to the conclusion the kind of folk who ought to be taking part in the debate at various levels.
Parliamentarians like Priti Patel who get a lot of abuse on here.
Yes. Socially regressive Home Secretaries do come in for some criticism in here.
In other news that just boggles the imagination, this afternoon Parliament debates racism and not a single BAME MP (there are 63 of them) has been chosen to speak. That's right, Parliament is going to debate racism without hearing from anyone who has ever been the victim of racism. I don't believe it
Did any of the speakers defend racism ?
I remember sitting in a plane flying to Iceland, looking down on the Hebrides from cruising altitude.
We still cleared those islands by a smaller distance than that by which the point went over your head there.
Hell, astronauts in the ISS have the same experience.
Please explain what you are on about.
Why do you think it might be a problem that all the people in a given conversation about racism are white?
Over 200 years ago Slavery in the British empire was abolished by an all white Parliament.
I'm sure you fully understand and take the point that 200 years ago an all white Parliament would be the only option for those times. I'm sure you also understand that one of the reasons abolishing the legal slave trade (slavery in Britain is, sadly, still alive and kicking) was such a struggle was because white (mainly male, Anglican/Protestant) politicians weren't particularly interested in listening to others who weren't.
We don't live 200 years ago. We don't have the excuse for that kind of ignorance. We now live in a nation that has, representationally, people who are not only white but are non-white and from other ethnicities and cultures. It's really not hard to conclude that some of these people have valuable contributions to make about the experience of being non-white and from ethnic minorities. There are even Parliamentarians who are non-white and from ethnic minority backgrounds. As Parliament is going to have a debate about these things, again it's not hard to come to the conclusion the kind of folk who ought to be taking part in the debate at various levels.
Parliamentarians like Priti Patel who get a lot of abuse on here.
Yes. Socially regressive Home Secretaries do come in for some criticism in here.
Parliamentarians like Priti Patel who get a lot of abuse on here.
Being non-white is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It's reasonable to ask whether the Home Secretary gets the same amount of crap that a white man who said the same things would get, just like it's reasonable to ask whether the amount of crap that Diane Abbott got over that famous trainwreck of an interview would have been less had she been a white man.
And given that racism exists, I'd suspect that some of the opprobrium aimed at Ms Patel is racist. Given that a lot of the things that Ms Patel says are also things that racists say, I'd suspect she gets off lighter than Ms Abbott.
The Home Secretary is also pushing for people who help asylum seekers who arrive illegally to face life imprisonment. There was a flurry about the RNLI getting into trouble over this.
I gather it is not only her policies which are abhorrent, but the way she treats her underlings.
You describe People Traffickers as 'Helpers'
The legislation gave exemptions for any recognised charity helping refugees, but basically anyone else who gives aid to people who are entering the UK entirely legally to claim asylum (that is legal under international conventions ... the new law would make it illegal to enter the UK to claim asylum, with those who are fleeing war or persecution being made criminals here) put in the same category as the criminal gangs who exploit the desperate - so the RNLI if they rescue migrants, anyone who comes across migrants on a beach and gives them something to eat and drink and a blanket to keep them warm etc. All they needed to do was leave in a few words specifying that it's a crime to help an asylum seeker for financial gain and the charitable sector who just see someone in need and help safe from prosecution.
Priti Patel gets so much flak on this issue because she described the English football team taking the knee before matches as gesture politics
Kneeling is a gesture, and a political statement. Isn't it exactly gesture politics?
You missed the rest of the quotation and link - it's obvious in the section you snipped - you missed "and she supported the right of fans to boo". That's really changing what I said, egregiously, to challenge it. And you obviously know that it's not acceptable encouraging fans to boo the England team, otherwise you would not have cut that out in your response.
If you'd read the link, you'd know that those comments were made on GB News in June and was part of a condemnation against anti-racist activities. The complaints and responses since, bringing up this interview, were after Priti Patel condemned the racism against Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka following the final penalty shoot-out, pointing out her hypocrisy because she'd been stoking the racism it earlier in the series.
In other news that just boggles the imagination, this afternoon Parliament debates racism and not a single BAME MP (there are 63 of them) has been chosen to speak. That's right, Parliament is going to debate racism without hearing from anyone who has ever been the victim of racism. I don't believe it
Did any of the speakers defend racism ?
I remember sitting in a plane flying to Iceland, looking down on the Hebrides from cruising altitude.
We still cleared those islands by a smaller distance than that by which the point went over your head there.
Hell, astronauts in the ISS have the same experience.
Please explain what you are on about.
Why do you think it might be a problem that all the people in a given conversation about racism are white?
Over 200 years ago Slavery in the British empire was abolished by an all white Parliament.
I'm sure you fully understand and take the point that 200 years ago an all white Parliament would be the only option for those times. I'm sure you also understand that one of the reasons abolishing the legal slave trade (slavery in Britain is, sadly, still alive and kicking) was such a struggle was because white (mainly male, Anglican/Protestant) politicians weren't particularly interested in listening to others who weren't.
We don't live 200 years ago. We don't have the excuse for that kind of ignorance. We now live in a nation that has, representationally, people who are not only white but are non-white and from other ethnicities and cultures. It's really not hard to conclude that some of these people have valuable contributions to make about the experience of being non-white and from ethnic minorities. There are even Parliamentarians who are non-white and from ethnic minority backgrounds. As Parliament is going to have a debate about these things, again it's not hard to come to the conclusion the kind of folk who ought to be taking part in the debate at various levels.
Parliamentarians like Priti Patel who get a lot of abuse on here.
Yes. Socially regressive Home Secretaries do come in for some criticism in here.
I was refering to abuse.
Plenty of parliamentarians have got a lot of abuse here, if by abuse you mean that people have come up with unflattering nicknames for them. Off hand I can think of Johnson, Blair and Trump.
If you are claiming that as per your first post that people here are being racist and targeting non-white parliamentarians specifically then either substantiate that or withdraw it.
The Home Secretary is also pushing for people who help asylum seekers who arrive illegally to face life imprisonment. There was a flurry about the RNLI getting into trouble over this.
I gather it is not only her policies which are abhorrent, but the way she treats her underlings.
You describe People Traffickers as 'Helpers'
The legislation gave exemptions for any recognised charity helping refugees, but basically anyone else who gives aid to people who are entering the UK entirely legally to claim asylum (that is legal under international conventions ... the new law would make it illegal to enter the UK to claim asylum, with those who are fleeing war or persecution being made criminals here) put in the same category as the criminal gangs who exploit the desperate - so the RNLI if they rescue migrants, anyone who comes across migrants on a beach and gives them something to eat and drink and a blanket to keep them warm etc.
As an aside the current legislation has already been used to prosecute migrants steering the boat even when they did so for no financial gain.
The Home Secretary is also pushing for people who help asylum seekers who arrive illegally to face life imprisonment. There was a flurry about the RNLI getting into trouble over this.
I gather it is not only her policies which are abhorrent, but the way she treats her underlings.
You describe People Traffickers as 'Helpers'
That is an appalling bit of sophistry. Alan outlined the details above very well.
Let's be clear. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO ENTER THE UK AND CLAIM ASYLUM. In fact, it is almost impossible for anyone seeking refugee status to enter the UK by regular means, almost by definition.
The reason the people traffickers are flourishing is because the government is deliberately making it as difficult as possible for people to claim asylum here. Thye have very easy to establish alternatives but they'd rather play politics with people's lives. That indeed speaks of an ugly character.
Parliamentarians like Priti Patel who get a lot of abuse on here.
Being non-white is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It's reasonable to ask whether the Home Secretary gets the same amount of crap that a white man who said the same things would get, just like it's reasonable to ask whether the amount of crap that Diane Abbott got over that famous trainwreck of an interview would have been less had she been a white man.
And given that racism exists, I'd suspect that some of the opprobrium aimed at Ms Patel is racist. Given that a lot of the things that Ms Patel says are also things that racists say, I'd suspect she gets off lighter than Ms Abbott.
The same Ms Abbott who used the N word on Politics live a few days ago. But she has the get out of jail card
The Home Secretary is also pushing for people who help asylum seekers who arrive illegally to face life imprisonment. There was a flurry about the RNLI getting into trouble over this.
I gather it is not only her policies which are abhorrent, but the way she treats her underlings.
You describe People Traffickers as 'Helpers'
The legislation gave exemptions for any recognised charity helping refugees, but basically anyone else who gives aid to people who are entering the UK entirely legally to claim asylum (that is legal under international conventions ... the new law would make it illegal to enter the UK to claim asylum, with those who are fleeing war or persecution being made criminals here) put in the same category as the criminal gangs who exploit the desperate - so the RNLI if they rescue migrants, anyone who comes across migrants on a beach and gives them something to eat and drink and a blanket to keep them warm etc. All they needed to do was leave in a few words specifying that it's a crime to help an asylum seeker for financial gain and the charitable sector who just see someone in need and help safe from prosecution.
I was only referring to People Traffickers and that's what the new law will be about
In other news that just boggles the imagination, this afternoon Parliament debates racism and not a single BAME MP (there are 63 of them) has been chosen to speak. That's right, Parliament is going to debate racism without hearing from anyone who has ever been the victim of racism. I don't believe it
Did any of the speakers defend racism ?
I remember sitting in a plane flying to Iceland, looking down on the Hebrides from cruising altitude.
We still cleared those islands by a smaller distance than that by which the point went over your head there.
Hell, astronauts in the ISS have the same experience.
Please explain what you are on about.
Why do you think it might be a problem that all the people in a given conversation about racism are white?
Over 200 years ago Slavery in the British empire was abolished by an all white Parliament.
I'm sure you fully understand and take the point that 200 years ago an all white Parliament would be the only option for those times. I'm sure you also understand that one of the reasons abolishing the legal slave trade (slavery in Britain is, sadly, still alive and kicking) was such a struggle was because white (mainly male, Anglican/Protestant) politicians weren't particularly interested in listening to others who weren't.
We don't live 200 years ago. We don't have the excuse for that kind of ignorance. We now live in a nation that has, representationally, people who are not only white but are non-white and from other ethnicities and cultures. It's really not hard to conclude that some of these people have valuable contributions to make about the experience of being non-white and from ethnic minorities. There are even Parliamentarians who are non-white and from ethnic minority backgrounds. As Parliament is going to have a debate about these things, again it's not hard to come to the conclusion the kind of folk who ought to be taking part in the debate at various levels.
Parliamentarians like Priti Patel who get a lot of abuse on here.
Yes. Socially regressive Home Secretaries do come in for some criticism in here.
I was refering to abuse.
Plenty of parliamentarians have got a lot of abuse here, if by abuse you mean that people have come up with unflattering nicknames for them. Off hand I can think of Johnson, Blair and Trump.
If you are claiming that as per your first post that people here are being racist and targeting non-white parliamentarians specifically then either substantiate that or withdraw it.
In which post did I accuse anyone of being racist ?
In other news that just boggles the imagination, this afternoon Parliament debates racism and not a single BAME MP (there are 63 of them) has been chosen to speak. That's right, Parliament is going to debate racism without hearing from anyone who has ever been the victim of racism. I don't believe it
Did any of the speakers defend racism ?
I remember sitting in a plane flying to Iceland, looking down on the Hebrides from cruising altitude.
We still cleared those islands by a smaller distance than that by which the point went over your head there.
Hell, astronauts in the ISS have the same experience.
Please explain what you are on about.
Why do you think it might be a problem that all the people in a given conversation about racism are white?
Over 200 years ago Slavery in the British empire was abolished by an all white Parliament.
I'm sure you fully understand and take the point that 200 years ago an all white Parliament would be the only option for those times. I'm sure you also understand that one of the reasons abolishing the legal slave trade (slavery in Britain is, sadly, still alive and kicking) was such a struggle was because white (mainly male, Anglican/Protestant) politicians weren't particularly interested in listening to others who weren't.
We don't live 200 years ago. We don't have the excuse for that kind of ignorance. We now live in a nation that has, representationally, people who are not only white but are non-white and from other ethnicities and cultures. It's really not hard to conclude that some of these people have valuable contributions to make about the experience of being non-white and from ethnic minorities. There are even Parliamentarians who are non-white and from ethnic minority backgrounds. As Parliament is going to have a debate about these things, again it's not hard to come to the conclusion the kind of folk who ought to be taking part in the debate at various levels.
Parliamentarians like Priti Patel who get a lot of abuse on here.
Yes. Socially regressive Home Secretaries do come in for some criticism in here.
I was refering to abuse.
Plenty of parliamentarians have got a lot of abuse here, if by abuse you mean that people have come up with unflattering nicknames for them. Off hand I can think of Johnson, Blair and Trump.
If you are claiming that as per your first post that people here are being racist and targeting non-white parliamentarians specifically then either substantiate that or withdraw it.
In which post did I accuse anyone of being racist ?
What was your intention of highlighting that particular sentence in Anselmina's post?
The Home Secretary is also pushing for people who help asylum seekers who arrive illegally to face life imprisonment. There was a flurry about the RNLI getting into trouble over this.
I gather it is not only her policies which are abhorrent, but the way she treats her underlings.
You describe People Traffickers as 'Helpers'
The legislation gave exemptions for any recognised charity helping refugees, but basically anyone else who gives aid to people who are entering the UK entirely legally to claim asylum (that is legal under international conventions ... the new law would make it illegal to enter the UK to claim asylum, with those who are fleeing war or persecution being made criminals here) put in the same category as the criminal gangs who exploit the desperate - so the RNLI if they rescue migrants, anyone who comes across migrants on a beach and gives them something to eat and drink and a blanket to keep them warm etc. All they needed to do was leave in a few words specifying that it's a crime to help an asylum seeker for financial gain and the charitable sector who just see someone in need and help safe from prosecution.
I was only referring to People Traffickers and that's what the new law will be about
The new law is basically nothing to do the people traffickers. If it was then there would be no need to classify those who come to the UK seeking asylum as criminals, nor potentially any groups like the RNLI who seek to help people in danger regardless of who they are. The only people who are criminals are the gangs who take money from desperate people and then pile them onto small boats or into the back of trucks, and often with the people trafficked becoming slaves once here. To criminalise anyone else is to do something very different from being about people traffickers - they probably don't need new laws to prosecute people traffickers anyway, just to put resources into identifying, arresting and prosecuting them, resources that would be more available if the Home Office didn't spend time and money kicking in doors at the crack of dawn to drag families from their beds to be shoved in detention centres that are unfit for purpose.
Do you have any reason (doesn't even have to be a good reason) why if, as you claim, it's a bill about people traffickers, that the bill makes a statement that people entering the UK to seek asylum are entering the country illegally (rather than saying that those who arranged their transport are acting illegally)? Or that people who help asylum seekers out of humanitarian concern without personal gain would be criminals?
In other news that just boggles the imagination, this afternoon Parliament debates racism and not a single BAME MP (there are 63 of them) has been chosen to speak. That's right, Parliament is going to debate racism without hearing from anyone who has ever been the victim of racism. I don't believe it
Did any of the speakers defend racism ?
I remember sitting in a plane flying to Iceland, looking down on the Hebrides from cruising altitude.
We still cleared those islands by a smaller distance than that by which the point went over your head there.
Hell, astronauts in the ISS have the same experience.
Please explain what you are on about.
Why do you think it might be a problem that all the people in a given conversation about racism are white?
Over 200 years ago Slavery in the British empire was abolished by an all white Parliament.
I'm sure you fully understand and take the point that 200 years ago an all white Parliament would be the only option for those times. I'm sure you also understand that one of the reasons abolishing the legal slave trade (slavery in Britain is, sadly, still alive and kicking) was such a struggle was because white (mainly male, Anglican/Protestant) politicians weren't particularly interested in listening to others who weren't.
We don't live 200 years ago. We don't have the excuse for that kind of ignorance. We now live in a nation that has, representationally, people who are not only white but are non-white and from other ethnicities and cultures. It's really not hard to conclude that some of these people have valuable contributions to make about the experience of being non-white and from ethnic minorities. There are even Parliamentarians who are non-white and from ethnic minority backgrounds. As Parliament is going to have a debate about these things, again it's not hard to come to the conclusion the kind of folk who ought to be taking part in the debate at various levels.
Parliamentarians like Priti Patel who get a lot of abuse on here.
Yes. Socially regressive Home Secretaries do come in for some criticism in here.
I was refering to abuse.
Plenty of parliamentarians have got a lot of abuse here, if by abuse you mean that people have come up with unflattering nicknames for them. Off hand I can think of Johnson, Blair and Trump.
If you are claiming that as per your first post that people here are being racist and targeting non-white parliamentarians specifically then either substantiate that or withdraw it.
In which post did I accuse anyone of being racist ?
What was your intention of highlighting that particular sentence in Anselmina's post?
It was for the purpose of my reply. I sometimes get the impression that the 'Left wing' resents BAME Politicians being in the Conservative party. I may be wrong but that's the impression I get.
The Home Secretary is also pushing for people who help asylum seekers who arrive illegally to face life imprisonment. There was a flurry about the RNLI getting into trouble over this.
I gather it is not only her policies which are abhorrent, but the way she treats her underlings.
You describe People Traffickers as 'Helpers'
The legislation gave exemptions for any recognised charity helping refugees, but basically anyone else who gives aid to people who are entering the UK entirely legally to claim asylum (that is legal under international conventions ... the new law would make it illegal to enter the UK to claim asylum, with those who are fleeing war or persecution being made criminals here) put in the same category as the criminal gangs who exploit the desperate - so the RNLI if they rescue migrants, anyone who comes across migrants on a beach and gives them something to eat and drink and a blanket to keep them warm etc. All they needed to do was leave in a few words specifying that it's a crime to help an asylum seeker for financial gain and the charitable sector who just see someone in need and help safe from prosecution.
I was only referring to People Traffickers and that's what the new law will be about
The new law is basically nothing to do the people traffickers. If it was then there would be no need to classify those who come to the UK seeking asylum as criminals, nor potentially any groups like the RNLI who seek to help people in danger regardless of who they are. The only people who are criminals are the gangs who take money from desperate people and then pile them onto small boats or into the back of trucks, and often with the people trafficked becoming slaves once here. To criminalise anyone else is to do something very different from being about people traffickers - they probably don't need new laws to prosecute people traffickers anyway, just to put resources into identifying, arresting and prosecuting them, resources that would be more available if the Home Office didn't spend time and money kicking in doors at the crack of dawn to drag families from their beds to be shoved in detention centres that are unfit for purpose.
Do you have any reason (doesn't even have to be a good reason) why if, as you claim, it's a bill about people traffickers, that the bill makes a statement that people entering the UK to seek asylum are entering the country illegally (rather than saying that those who arranged their transport are acting illegally)? Or that people who help asylum seekers out of humanitarian concern without personal gain would be criminals?
When we get someone other than Traffickers prosecuted, I will be very surprised. No action with be taken against the RNLI
In other news that just boggles the imagination, this afternoon Parliament debates racism and not a single BAME MP (there are 63 of them) has been chosen to speak. That's right, Parliament is going to debate racism without hearing from anyone who has ever been the victim of racism. I don't believe it
Did any of the speakers defend racism ?
I remember sitting in a plane flying to Iceland, looking down on the Hebrides from cruising altitude.
We still cleared those islands by a smaller distance than that by which the point went over your head there.
Hell, astronauts in the ISS have the same experience.
Please explain what you are on about.
Why do you think it might be a problem that all the people in a given conversation about racism are white?
Over 200 years ago Slavery in the British empire was abolished by an all white Parliament.
I'm sure you fully understand and take the point that 200 years ago an all white Parliament would be the only option for those times. I'm sure you also understand that one of the reasons abolishing the legal slave trade (slavery in Britain is, sadly, still alive and kicking) was such a struggle was because white (mainly male, Anglican/Protestant) politicians weren't particularly interested in listening to others who weren't.
We don't live 200 years ago. We don't have the excuse for that kind of ignorance. We now live in a nation that has, representationally, people who are not only white but are non-white and from other ethnicities and cultures. It's really not hard to conclude that some of these people have valuable contributions to make about the experience of being non-white and from ethnic minorities. There are even Parliamentarians who are non-white and from ethnic minority backgrounds. As Parliament is going to have a debate about these things, again it's not hard to come to the conclusion the kind of folk who ought to be taking part in the debate at various levels.
Parliamentarians like Priti Patel who get a lot of abuse on here.
Yes. Socially regressive Home Secretaries do come in for some criticism in here.
I was refering to abuse.
Plenty of parliamentarians have got a lot of abuse here, if by abuse you mean that people have come up with unflattering nicknames for them. Off hand I can think of Johnson, Blair and Trump.
If you are claiming that as per your first post that people here are being racist and targeting non-white parliamentarians specifically then either substantiate that or withdraw it.
In which post did I accuse anyone of being racist ?
What was your intention of highlighting that particular sentence in Anselmina's post?
It was for the purpose of my reply. I sometimes get the impression that the 'Left wing' resents BAME Politicians being in the Conservative party. I may be wrong but that's the impression I get.
Yes. I think you are wrong.
BAME politicians should be in the Tory party, to improve matters from within.
In other news that just boggles the imagination, this afternoon Parliament debates racism and not a single BAME MP (there are 63 of them) has been chosen to speak. That's right, Parliament is going to debate racism without hearing from anyone who has ever been the victim of racism. I don't believe it
Did any of the speakers defend racism ?
I remember sitting in a plane flying to Iceland, looking down on the Hebrides from cruising altitude.
We still cleared those islands by a smaller distance than that by which the point went over your head there.
Hell, astronauts in the ISS have the same experience.
Please explain what you are on about.
Why do you think it might be a problem that all the people in a given conversation about racism are white?
Over 200 years ago Slavery in the British empire was abolished by an all white Parliament.
I'm sure you fully understand and take the point that 200 years ago an all white Parliament would be the only option for those times. I'm sure you also understand that one of the reasons abolishing the legal slave trade (slavery in Britain is, sadly, still alive and kicking) was such a struggle was because white (mainly male, Anglican/Protestant) politicians weren't particularly interested in listening to others who weren't.
We don't live 200 years ago. We don't have the excuse for that kind of ignorance. We now live in a nation that has, representationally, people who are not only white but are non-white and from other ethnicities and cultures. It's really not hard to conclude that some of these people have valuable contributions to make about the experience of being non-white and from ethnic minorities. There are even Parliamentarians who are non-white and from ethnic minority backgrounds. As Parliament is going to have a debate about these things, again it's not hard to come to the conclusion the kind of folk who ought to be taking part in the debate at various levels.
Parliamentarians like Priti Patel who get a lot of abuse on here.
Yes. Socially regressive Home Secretaries do come in for some criticism in here.
I was refering to abuse.
Plenty of parliamentarians have got a lot of abuse here, if by abuse you mean that people have come up with unflattering nicknames for them. Off hand I can think of Johnson, Blair and Trump.
If you are claiming that as per your first post that people here are being racist and targeting non-white parliamentarians specifically then either substantiate that or withdraw it.
In which post did I accuse anyone of being racist ?
What was your intention of highlighting that particular sentence in Anselmina's post?
It was for the purpose of my reply. I sometimes get the impression that the 'Left wing' resents BAME Politicians being in the Conservative party. I may be wrong but that's the impression I get.
Yes. I think you are wrong.
BAME politicians should be in the Tory party, to improve matters from within.
A drunk, a bitch and the last gasp
Of old fashioned Toryism.
You must understand how Churchill is loathed in the Antipodes as the architect of the carnage known as the Gallipoli campaign
And also his attempt to prevent Curtin bringing back the Australian Army from North Africa in WW II to protect Australia against Japanese forces. Churchill wanted to keep open the route through the Suez Canal to India as part of his misguided plan for continuation of the Indian Empire post-war. He simply did not understand the consequences of the 1926 Imperial Conference.
A drunk, a bitch and the last gasp
Of old fashioned Toryism.
You must understand how Churchill is loathed in the Antipodes as the architect of the carnage known as the Gallipoli campaign
And also his attempt to prevent Curtin bringing back the Australian Army from North Africa in WW II to protect Australia against Japanese forces. Churchill wanted to keep open the route through the Suez Canal to India as part of his misguided plan for continuation of the Indian Empire post-war. He simply did not understand the consequences of the 1926 Imperial Conference.
Gallipoli was an ill fated attempt to knock Turkey out of WW1 at an early stage
The Suez Canal was defended to keep the Germans out of the middle east oilfields and to allow us to quickly send troops to fight the Japanese in Burma and East India
Gallipoli was never going to work. Blind Freddie could have told you, but Churchill persisted with the disaster. Much as he approved the similarly unworkable Dieppe raid, which saw the loss of so many brave Canadians.
Regardless of precisely what Churchill's aim was in North Africa ( and I think my interpretation is more accurate than yours) it was clearly wrong of him to assert that he had the power to order where Australians would serve. That power rested in the Australian government.
Comments
Yes. Having been guilty in the past of using *Ugli*, because I thought it funny and appropriate, I am now convinced that I was Wrong and Wrepulsive so to do.
However, it is right for attention to be drawn to her repulsive policies. A day of reckoning will come. Eventually.
Well, someone is entitled to disagree with something the players do on the field, and also to support the right of fans to boo it.
Though, if they want their principles to be taken seriously, they should clarify that they also support the RIGHT of the players to do the thing they find disagreeable. I'm guessing Ms. Patel's rant had not much to with principle, however, and more just about dog-whistling.
I'm also not sure I recall her making outright racist or sexist comments (at least, nothing significantly worse than was common at the time) or making statements she knew to be demonstrably false (without an immediate retraction and apology when she was told the mistake). I'm not a fan of her, but she had integrity and conviction that isn't even on the radar of the current government.
Her policies were a load of rubbish, and a total disaster for manufacturing industry and those who depended on those jobs, but she never pandered to the NF to get votes, she never quite managed to come up with anything as evil and damaging to the lives of others as the "hostile environment", going against international conventions on refugees by declaring the victims of war and persecution to be criminals for nothing more than seeking asylum, cutting foreign aid at a time when it's needed more than ever ... She set a low standard for political views, but the current lot have dived below that.
Dreadful woman and appearance be damned.
Of old fashioned Toryism.
You must understand how Churchill is loathed in the Antipodes as the srchitect of the carnage known as the Gallipoli campaign
You might want to tell UEFA about these booing rights, given that booing other countries' national anthems has got the English FA into trouble.
...and then of course you'd have to tell the English FA about these booing rights when it comes to taking a stand against racism, given that the English football authorities are quite explicitly supportive of the players and have been actively campaigning to have the rampant racism from "fans" on social media and the like to be eradicated.
Politicians try to tell sportspeople to stay out of politics... maybe the politicians should show a bit of consistency and stay the hell out of sport.
I think the closest she came to any stance like that was supporting that bill banning supposedly pro-homosexual materials from schools, which in her autobiography she tried to reconcile with her earlier opposition to sodomy laws, by saying that in both instances, she was trying to restrain state intervention in private life. (I'm guessing, though, that she was okay with more traditional viewpoints being propagandized in the schools.)
Other than that, she was pro-choice on abortion, and I, too, do not recall her making bigoted comments against anyone, except the Germans, within the context of EU debates. (And that really doesn't warrant inclusion in the same category of racism as "paki"-bashing.)
I didn't say I liked them much.
I gather it is not only her policies which are abhorrent, but the way she treats her underlings.
She originally won by adopting the language of the National Front
Kneeling is a gesture, and a political statement. Isn't it exactly gesture politics?
Parliamentarians like Priti Patel who get a lot of abuse on here.
You describe People Traffickers as 'Helpers'
I wasn't aware of that. Thanks.
Yes. Socially regressive Home Secretaries do come in for some criticism in here.
I was refering to abuse.
One question...
Did Thatcher actually make any significant changes to the UK's immigration policies, along the lines implied by her campign rhetoric?
Not that it would exonerate her original racism if she hadn't, I'm just curious.
Being non-white is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It's reasonable to ask whether the Home Secretary gets the same amount of crap that a white man who said the same things would get, just like it's reasonable to ask whether the amount of crap that Diane Abbott got over that famous trainwreck of an interview would have been less had she been a white man.
And given that racism exists, I'd suspect that some of the opprobrium aimed at Ms Patel is racist. Given that a lot of the things that Ms Patel says are also things that racists say, I'd suspect she gets off lighter than Ms Abbott.
You missed the rest of the quotation and link - it's obvious in the section you snipped - you missed "and she supported the right of fans to boo". That's really changing what I said, egregiously, to challenge it. And you obviously know that it's not acceptable encouraging fans to boo the England team, otherwise you would not have cut that out in your response.
If you'd read the link, you'd know that those comments were made on GB News in June and was part of a condemnation against anti-racist activities. The complaints and responses since, bringing up this interview, were after Priti Patel condemned the racism against Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka following the final penalty shoot-out, pointing out her hypocrisy because she'd been stoking the racism it earlier in the series.
Plenty of parliamentarians have got a lot of abuse here, if by abuse you mean that people have come up with unflattering nicknames for them. Off hand I can think of Johnson, Blair and Trump.
If you are claiming that as per your first post that people here are being racist and targeting non-white parliamentarians specifically then either substantiate that or withdraw it.
As an aside the current legislation has already been used to prosecute migrants steering the boat even when they did so for no financial gain.
No she doesn't.
She gets justified criticism.
That is an appalling bit of sophistry. Alan outlined the details above very well.
Let's be clear. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO ENTER THE UK AND CLAIM ASYLUM. In fact, it is almost impossible for anyone seeking refugee status to enter the UK by regular means, almost by definition.
The reason the people traffickers are flourishing is because the government is deliberately making it as difficult as possible for people to claim asylum here. Thye have very easy to establish alternatives but they'd rather play politics with people's lives. That indeed speaks of an ugly character.
AFZ
The same Ms Abbott who used the N word on Politics live a few days ago. But she has the get out of jail card
I was only referring to People Traffickers and that's what the new law will be about
In which post did I accuse anyone of being racist ?
What was your intention of highlighting that particular sentence in Anselmina's post?
Do you have any reason (doesn't even have to be a good reason) why if, as you claim, it's a bill about people traffickers, that the bill makes a statement that people entering the UK to seek asylum are entering the country illegally (rather than saying that those who arranged their transport are acting illegally)? Or that people who help asylum seekers out of humanitarian concern without personal gain would be criminals?
It was for the purpose of my reply. I sometimes get the impression that the 'Left wing' resents BAME Politicians being in the Conservative party. I may be wrong but that's the impression I get.
When we get someone other than Traffickers prosecuted, I will be very surprised. No action with be taken against the RNLI
Yes. I think you are wrong.
BAME politicians should be in the Tory party, to improve matters from within.
They are and they do.
And also his attempt to prevent Curtin bringing back the Australian Army from North Africa in WW II to protect Australia against Japanese forces. Churchill wanted to keep open the route through the Suez Canal to India as part of his misguided plan for continuation of the Indian Empire post-war. He simply did not understand the consequences of the 1926 Imperial Conference.
Gallipoli was an ill fated attempt to knock Turkey out of WW1 at an early stage
The Suez Canal was defended to keep the Germans out of the middle east oilfields and to allow us to quickly send troops to fight the Japanese in Burma and East India
Regardless of precisely what Churchill's aim was in North Africa ( and I think my interpretation is more accurate than yours) it was clearly wrong of him to assert that he had the power to order where Australians would serve. That power rested in the Australian government.