Also in the news

[Kopfkino]

Of course the way around this is that as soon as he is elected share prices will tank so book value will be market value. Frightening that this even has a chance of being UK government policy, will make Brexit seem tame. 

[David Guiza]

I really think some are missing the point as to what Freedom of Speech is and what is serves to protect, not just here but practically everywhere at the moment.

 

Article 10 Freedom of expression

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

 

It is not an absolute right free from ridicule or consequence. It has been mentioned that dangerous precedents could be set as a result of this case, but surely allowing high profile people to state whatever they like without repercussion is a dangerous precedent also? Also, as @Alf Bentley said. it's not hugely different to what Hoddle did and rightly lost his job for it. He's still generally regarded as a great man and has not exactly struggled for employment since then either. Nobody is preventing Folau from saying these things, but Australia Rugby do not want to be associated with the comments and they have every right to do so. 

 

[Buce]

46 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

I find it a bit weird that his post is being characterised as exclusively homophobic when it’s literally being targeted at a wide range of people. I tick more than one box on his sinister shitlist of reasons that Jesus loves you but would happily send you to hell if you don’t love him back. (Which poses the question, why don’t you make yourself a bit more ****ing believable then?!)

 

Really though, I’m a free speech absolutist because I want religious lunatics like him to expose himself. (Not like that)

 

 

I'd have bet good money on that, mate...

[urban.spaceman]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I'd have bet good money on that, mate...

I’m not telling you which ones though 

[Buce]

 

As if we couldn't have guessed, Farage has attracted the racist, misogynist Right to his new Party:

 

A candidate for Nigel Farage’s Brexit party in the European elections described majority-black inner cities as being dominated by “a culture of physical violence, selfishness and predatory sex”, it has emerged.

James Bartholomew, a journalist and author who is standing in the south-east region, called black neighbourhoods of US inner cities “a Lord of the Flies culture” where “uncontrolled male adolescent values” are the norm.

Separately, he also argued that the family was threatened by the rising status of women, something he said had gone “too far” in certain places.

Bartholomew has repeatedly praised the work of Charles Murray, a US writer whose 1994 book The Bell Curve, on the supposed vital role of measured intelligence in predicting life outcomes, has been criticised as both unscientific and, in parts, racist.

 

Bartholomew, who in 2004 published his own book about what he says is the need to greatly pare back social security systems, also backed Murray’s idea that to tackle illegitimacy, governments should abolish all support for single mothers.

The most eye-catching comments come in a Daily Mail article from 1993 in which Bartholomew discussed what he said was the threat to the UK social order from the spread of trends seen in black communities in US cities “where the family structure has all but disappeared”.

Citing the views of Murray, Bartholomew said that “the degeneration of black society in America is a warning of what could happen to society as a whole”.

The article added: “The danger, as he sees it, is that America as a whole will become like black inner cities. A Lord of the Flies culture will dominate in which uncontrolled male adolescent values become normal: a culture of physical violence, selfishness and predatory sex.”

Bartholomew approvingly cites Murray’s apparent solution – to stop all support for single mothers.

He wrote: “This measure would force single mothers to seek the support of others. When they succeed, the child will benefit from the involvement of other adults in bringing it up. Those mothers who cannot obtain such support will be driven to place their babies for adoption.”

The policy would also be beneficial in restoring “the shame attached to illegitimacy”, he added.

While the article mainly cites Murray’s views, Bartholomew makes it plain he supports these, calling them “truths which, in our keenness to allow people to live any kind of life they may choose, we have ignored”.

Bartholomew has praised Murray’s ideas in subsequent articles, including one in 2007 where he again notes the powerful benefits of social stigma.

In a talk in 2016 to a conservative campaign group, the Family Education Trust, Bartholomew argued that while he supported the improved status of women, it was like a revolution in that “these things tend to go too far”.

In the same talk, he accused certain types of feminism of “acting against the interests of the family in general and children in particular”.

Guto Bebb, the Conservative MP who is a supporter of the People’s Vote campaign, said more traditional Tories “will be horrified by these views”.

He said: “It seems more and more that the Brexit party are an alliance of the beyond-the-pale right and the extreme left united only by their desire to create chaos and despair in Britain.”

In a statement, Bartholomew said the 1993 article was written when “John Major was prime minister; Charles and Diana were still married, and Janet Jackson was topping the charts”.

He said: “None of this has anything to do with the Brexit party or my candidacy in the European elections.”

Bartholomew said he had written and spoken many times about the British welfare state, and that his book involved research in 11 countries.

“I believe a welfare state is an inevitable part of a modern democracy,” he said. “My aim is to find ways of making the welfare state avoid the unintended consequences and produce the kind of results that people want and expect.”

[Facecloth]

10 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I’m not telling you which ones though 

The first 8?

[urban.spaceman]

48 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

The first 8?

I'm now in the conundrum of having to lie which means I automatically tick that box. This Helen Damnation business is a bit murky

[urban.spaceman]

[Strokes]

16 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

As if we couldn't have guessed, Farage has attracted the racist, misogynist Right to his new Party:

 

A candidate for Nigel Farage’s Brexit party in the European elections described majority-black inner cities as being dominated by “a culture of physical violence, selfishness and predatory sex”, it has emerged.

James Bartholomew, a journalist and author who is standing in the south-east region, called black neighbourhoods of US inner cities “a Lord of the Flies culture” where “uncontrolled male adolescent values” are the norm.

Separately, he also argued that the family was threatened by the rising status of women, something he said had gone “too far” in certain places.

Bartholomew has repeatedly praised the work of Charles Murray, a US writer whose 1994 book The Bell Curve, on the supposed vital role of measured intelligence in predicting life outcomes, has been criticised as both unscientific and, in parts, racist.

 

Bartholomew, who in 2004 published his own book about what he says is the need to greatly pare back social security systems, also backed Murray’s idea that to tackle illegitimacy, governments should abolish all support for single mothers.

The most eye-catching comments come in a Daily Mail article from 1993 in which Bartholomew discussed what he said was the threat to the UK social order from the spread of trends seen in black communities in US cities “where the family structure has all but disappeared”.

Citing the views of Murray, Bartholomew said that “the degeneration of black society in America is a warning of what could happen to society as a whole”.

The article added: “The danger, as he sees it, is that America as a whole will become like black inner cities. A Lord of the Flies culture will dominate in which uncontrolled male adolescent values become normal: a culture of physical violence, selfishness and predatory sex.”

Bartholomew approvingly cites Murray’s apparent solution – to stop all support for single mothers.

He wrote: “This measure would force single mothers to seek the support of others. When they succeed, the child will benefit from the involvement of other adults in bringing it up. Those mothers who cannot obtain such support will be driven to place their babies for adoption.”

The policy would also be beneficial in restoring “the shame attached to illegitimacy”, he added.

While the article mainly cites Murray’s views, Bartholomew makes it plain he supports these, calling them “truths which, in our keenness to allow people to live any kind of life they may choose, we have ignored”.

Bartholomew has praised Murray’s ideas in subsequent articles, including one in 2007 where he again notes the powerful benefits of social stigma.

In a talk in 2016 to a conservative campaign group, the Family Education Trust, Bartholomew argued that while he supported the improved status of women, it was like a revolution in that “these things tend to go too far”.

In the same talk, he accused certain types of feminism of “acting against the interests of the family in general and children in particular”.

Guto Bebb, the Conservative MP who is a supporter of the People’s Vote campaign, said more traditional Tories “will be horrified by these views”.

He said: “It seems more and more that the Brexit party are an alliance of the beyond-the-pale right and the extreme left united only by their desire to create chaos and despair in Britain.”

In a statement, Bartholomew said the 1993 article was written when “John Major was prime minister; Charles and Diana were still married, and Janet Jackson was topping the charts”.

He said: “None of this has anything to do with the Brexit party or my candidacy in the European elections.”

Bartholomew said he had written and spoken many times about the British welfare state, and that his book involved research in 11 countries.

“I believe a welfare state is an inevitable part of a modern democracy,” he said. “My aim is to find ways of making the welfare state avoid the unintended consequences and produce the kind of results that people want and expect.”

Oh no!

which one of the other racist or misogynistic parties should I vote for instead. 

[Alf Bentley]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Oh no!

which one of the other racist or misogynistic parties should I vote for instead. 

 

I keep hearing that Labour is riddled with anti-semitism and that the Greens are eco-fascists.

 

So, a couple of good options for you there, mate. 

[leicsmac]

 

5 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I dont know about this topic as a whole, but I have to say this statement is in a bit of a denial of the hysteria of the things atm-

 

Lots of people are making whole careers based on the idea that things 'arent hunky dory': that there is a toxic patriarchy, that society is oppressing trans people. that gender is in fact a confusing multicoloured rainbow of tangled oppression and socially constructed evils, or whatever it is they're saying today.  And similarly, children now get to ditch school, parrot the climate change line in the streets and then become lauded as heroes

 

To say there is no personal benefit for indivuduals espousing this is not quite right

 

Having said that, I have no idea on the actual science of climate change.  Most talk about it seems a lot of useless posturing though which of course should make anyone wary of the subject. 

You're absolutely right, which is good, because I didn't say that.

 

I said that the scientific community could make more from pushing the status quo, which I believe wholeheartedly to be true. Of course there are folks who are getting a fair amount of attention and money from saying the world is needing to change, but the serious money - the money that drives business, stocks, society - has always abhorred the idea of dramatic change. Take, for instance, the drastic drop in share prices or currency exchange prices whenever a company or county announces that tomorrow isn't going to be exactly like today. People, as a whole, don't like change when it comes at them drastically, and they certainly don't like people telling them that they have to change themselves - they would much rather bask in their complacency and pay good money for the idea that things are just fine.

 

To give one particular on-topic example, the oil and gas companies still have vast financial resources and I'm sure any scientist willing to verify that their way is the best way now and for the future and back it with data to appear in public would be paid far more handsomely than one who suggests they are causing wholesale trouble for the future.

 

Which sort of forms my entire basis for saying the scientific community is onto something here: why would they pursue this, otherwise? There is much less in it for them.

 

NB. If you want more information on the science of climate change, I'd be happy to point you in the direction of sources both documenting and skeptical for your convenience to help you better understand. As above, guaranteeing the continued existence of civilisation against whatever threats it might face isn't posturing and really shouldn't be political, not when everyone suffers if we get it wrong.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Oh no!

which one of the other racist or misogynistic parties should I vote for instead. 

 

Whichever you like, mate.

 

Make the most of it, though - your sort won't be getting one at all when I'm in charge.

 

And you can laugh all you like @Milo - I'll be nationalising your company with no compensation.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

You're absolutely right, which is good, because I didn't say that.

 

I said that the scientific community could make more from pushing the status quo, which I believe wholeheartedly to be true. Of course there are folks who are getting a fair amount of attention and money from saying the world is needing to change, but the serious money - the money that drives business, stocks, society - has always abhorred the idea of dramatic change. Take, for instance, the drastic drop in share prices or currency exchange prices whenever a company or county announces that tomorrow isn't going to be exactly like today. People, as a whole, don't like change when it comes at them drastically, and they certainly don't like people telling them that they have to change themselves - they would much rather bask in their complacency and pay good money for the idea that things are just fine.

 

To give one particular on-topic example, the oil and gas companies still have vast financial resources and I'm sure any scientist willing to verify that their way is the best way now and for the future and back it with data to appear in public would be paid far more handsomely than one who suggests they are causing wholesale trouble for the future.

 

Which sort of forms my entire basis for saying the scientific community is onto something here: why would they pursue this, otherwise? There is much less in it for them.

 

NB. If you want more information on the science of climate change, I'd be happy to point you in the direction of sources both documenting and skeptical for your convenience to help you better understand. As above, guaranteeing the continued existence of civilisation against whatever threats it might face isn't posturing and really shouldn't be political, not when everyone suffers if we get it wrong.

All maybe true, but my example of the kids getting a day off school you didnt address - nobody gets a day off for saying climate change isnt real   

 

I dont know exactly how the scientific community's funding is meted out but i'm sure I read that to say a project is related to climate change gets you funding quite well

 

For the particular discussion here I suppose stats about funding for scientists for each different perspective on climate change would be useful

 

Edited 17 May 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

All maybe true, but my example of the kids getting a day off school you didnt address - nobody gets a day off for saying climate change isnt real   

 

I dont know exactly how the scientific community's funding is meted out but i'm sure I read that to say a project is related to climate change gets you funding quite well

 

For the particular discussion here I suppose stats about funding for scientists for each different perspective on climate change would be useful

 

 

TBH I don't have statistics like that to hand and I'm not sure that many people would have considering that information is rather sensitive when it's not government funding and therefore subject to freedom of information requests.

 

I'm just extrapolating from the general principle here that there are more powerful and moneyed interests invested in maintaining the status quo rather than changing things up because changing things up tends to lead to risks that those interests deem to be unacceptable. That's been a broad rule of thumb pretty much since links between science and business were a thing, as well as being pertinent in most political areas, too.

[Buce]

Northamptonshire Police e-fit 'looks like Red Dwarf's Kryten'

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-48311661

[Guest MattP]

First seat projection for Thursday 

 

 

[Buce]

Leak reveals Tory party 'looking at 100 cases of alleged Islamophobia'

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/may/17/leak-reveals-tory-party-looking-at-100-cases-of-alleged-islamophobia

[ozleicester]

Federal Election in Australia today, polls just closed in the east.

Expecting (hoping for) for a Labor win after 6 years of awful conservative mismanagement and hate politics

Edited 18 May 2019 by ozleicester

[ozleicester]

2 hours ago, ozleicester said:

(hoping for) for a Labor win after 6 years of awful conservative mismanagement and hate politics

nope 

 

[urban.spaceman]

 

 

[Innovindil]

24 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

 

****ing hell. Between this and the roaming nazis around, it really does make you check the year on a calendar. 

[ajthefox]

On 17/05/2019 at 13:45, urban.spaceman said:

I could tell just from the photo he isn't a real person because the head is blatantly picked to look hipster and superimposed on the body. 

So many people are completely missing the satire on his twitter. I wonder if this is anything to do with Tatiana McGrath..

 

Edited 18 May 2019 by ajthefox

[Wymsey]

Arnold Schwarzenegger attacked in South Africa.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-48322307

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Arnold Schwarzenegger attacked in South Africa.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-48322307

 

He'll be back.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

He'll be kicked in the back. 

 

That bloke should perform flying drop kicks into the back of some other big names. He could become a global cult figure.

 

Initial assignments: Farage, Guardiola, T. Robinson (with milkshake in hand), Keown, Madonna (live on stage in Israel), Maradona, J. Kyle, Trump, Cato from the Pink Panther films, the big orange bloke from the Tango adverts, Cantona (at a Palace match)