1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Every "country" on the entire planet was invading other "countries" ( most were not countries as such a concept was unknown to them ), but single out Britain by all means

The subject is about people in Britain, I am not singling them out. 

Many countries did, including mine. 

2 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

The subject is about people in Britain, I am not singling them out. 

Many countries did, including mine. 

Are you claiming that "Like all the countries who were invaded by Great Britain didn't ask for that too" is relevant to the topic? Britain hasn't been invading countries since Gulf 2, so irrelevant to the present day.

On 8/19/2024 at 3:33 AM, Social Media said:

In Darlington, Ashkan Kareem, aged 33, was sentenced to 12 months in prison for his participation in a clash on August 5. Kareem claimed that he was trying to protect a mosque from being attacked by "racists." However, the presiding judge stated that Kareem was part of a group that gathered in opposition to men "chanting racist and far-right slogans," and it was "abundantly clear that would result in violence and it did."

 

So this guy did not do anything except chanting racist and far-right slogans? It does not say he committed any violence. Yet, he got 12 months in jail. I am not from that country but as far as I know there is a freedom of speech law there. So why did they arrest and convict this man just for chanting racist remarks. It is his opinion and should be protected under the freedom of speech laws. I am sure he was not the only one there doing this so why did they single him out to convict him?

9 minutes ago, thesetat2013 said:

So this guy did not do anything except chanting racist and far-right slogans? It does not say he committed any violence. Yet, he got 12 months in jail. I am not from that country but as far as I know there is a freedom of speech law there. So why did they arrest and convict this man just for chanting racist remarks. It is his opinion and should be protected under the freedom of speech laws. I am sure he was not the only one there doing this so why did they single him out to convict him?

The UK is now all but a Communist Country, governed by rabid socialist gang of nonentities.  Trouble is, the 'Loyal Opposition'  are so useless and ineffective that there is no real opposition allowed.  Blame the voting public, who are collectedly as thick as a brick, add a corrupt voting system and there you have it,  The Country is totally  fxxxxd  for at least a generation.  

1 minute ago, Doctor Tom said:

The UK is now all but a Communist Country, governed by rabid socialist gang of nonentities.  Trouble is, the 'Loyal Opposition'  are so useless and ineffective that there is no real opposition allowed.  Blame the voting public, who are collectedly as thick as a brick, add a corrupt voting system and there you have it,  The Country is totally  fxxxxd  for at least a generation.  

 

...and Labour have achieved all that since July 4.....55555

2 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

...and Labour have achieved all that since July 4.....55555

Yep, pretty impressive isn't it?  

 

All entirely predictable to any thinking person, as they have never been any different , throughout their history. Socialism doesn't work, it never has and it never will.  

7 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

The UK is now all but a Communist Country, governed by rabid socialist gang of nonentities.  Trouble is, the 'Loyal Opposition'  are so useless and ineffective that there is no real opposition allowed.  Blame the voting public, who are collectedly as thick as a brick, add a corrupt voting system and there you have it,  The Country is totally  fxxxxd  for at least a generation.  

Societies get the leaders they deserve.

Just now, maesariang said:

Societies get the leaders they deserve.

Indeed so, which is why I don't live there any more.  

1 minute ago, maesariang said:

Societies get the leaders they deserve.

 

 

2017-2021....agree.

1 hour ago, thesetat2013 said:

So this guy did not do anything except chanting racist and far-right slogans? It does not say he committed any violence. Yet, he got 12 months in jail. I am not from that country but as far as I know there is a freedom of speech law there. So why did they arrest and convict this man just for chanting racist remarks. It is his opinion and should be protected under the freedom of speech laws. I am sure he was not the only one there doing this so why did they single him out to convict him?

 

There is definitely still freedom of speech to shout the most vile, racist, hateful abuse you can think of in the UK as the following story proves.  So if you are not white you still can go there and be as hateful as you want to be against the police, the Jews, women and especially the white people as if you antagonize them and manage to get them to respond they are the ones who go to jail!!

 

 

https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/disgust-over-cps-decision-to-drop-charges-against-remaining-palestine-convoy-suspects/

7 hours ago, thesetat2013 said:

So this guy did not do anything except chanting racist and far-right slogans? It does not say he committed any violence. Yet, he got 12 months in jail. I am not from that country but as far as I know there is a freedom of speech law there. So why did they arrest and convict this man just for chanting racist remarks. It is his opinion and should be protected under the freedom of speech laws. I am sure he was not the only one there doing this so why did they single him out to convict him?

 

Firstly, you have to take into account that "Social Media" is deliberately posting provocative articles, often selectively paraphrased, to stoke enmity and division, and, importantly, generate traffic for a forum that was recently sold, and probably, like most other forums now, dying on its knees. "Social Media" I noticed doesn't take a side, just seems to revel is the resulting discourse.

 

I am not sure why you are trying to make this a freedom of speech thing. I suspect <deleted> stirring. The UK has no general right to free speech, but under Common Law, freedom of expression is a negative right , which means the government is obliged to take no action against a person because of their views, but no one else is obliged to help facilitate publishing those viewpoints, nor listen to them nor agree with them. ie some nutter can't demand a tv or radio station propagate his views. They can cut him off, because they are not the government. Those rights are enhanced by the ECHR, which might be moot given that the UK is likely to withdraw from that within the next 10 years.

 

In the case of Ashkan Kareem; you misread the article, maybe because because English is not your first language. He was not arrested for chanting racist and far-right slogans. He was part of a group confronting other rioters. His defence was that he was trying to defend a mosque. But where his defence fell down was because he admitted charging the crowd, and thus guilty of violent disorder. There are allegations he threw something at the crowd, though he claimed it was just a throwing action, which is bordering on the ridiculous. Police footage suggests he threw something, at people or at cars.

 

https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2024-08-14/man-caught-on-cctv-throwing-missile-during-violent-disorder-convicted

 

Violoent disorder comes under the Public Order Act 1986, and there are clear sentencing guidelines. You can go to prison for upto 5 years.

 

He plead guilty, so the Judge's job was to sentence. To his (slight) credit, he turned himself in.

 

First the judge considers the level of culpability; A, B or C. C basically means threats of violence, and a lack of planning. Category B involves groups, and a degree of planning; he traveled to  "defend the mosque", he wasn't someone passing by who on the spur of the moment, got involved. He was part of a group. Category A means you are Category B, plus you have come tooled up (ie you brought weapons). There is suspicion  about whether he brought something to throw; can't be proven. So he was a Category B offender.

 

Next is the level of harm he caused, 1, 2 or 3. 1 is the most serious, and is combinations of harm considered in category 2. Category 2 includes actual injury, destruction of private property, loss of earnings (eg the pub hat to shut, so the staff didn't get paid), cost to the public purse, attacks on police and other public servants. You get the picture. Category 3 is basically making a bunch of threats and shuting.

 

A combination C3 is at the lowest end of the violent disorder spectrum, and for that the starting point is 26 weeks inside; mitigation can bring that down to a community order (cleaning dog <deleted> or something). A1 means probably 4 years inside, but mitigation might bring this down to 3 years.

 

Kareem was probably B3; he could have got 2 years inside, so should consider himself lucky. He will likely be deported after serving his sentence.

8 hours ago, Doctor Tom said:

The UK is now all but a Communist Country, governed by rabid socialist gang of nonentities.  Trouble is, the 'Loyal Opposition'  are so useless and ineffective that there is no real opposition allowed.  Blame the voting public, who are collectedly as thick as a brick, add a corrupt voting system and there you have it,  The Country is totally  fxxxxd  for at least a generation.  

 

 

I've noticed a new variant of Godwin's law, where any internet conversation inevitably results in comparisons to the Nazis

 

Mike Goodwin talking years later about his Law

 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/03/godwins-law-mike-godwin-hitler-nazi-comparisons.html

 

But actually Godwin's Law predates before even MIke Goodwin was born. It was the East Germans who came up with it in the 50s, when they took umbrage at broadcasts from "Radio in the American Sector", which was obviously broadcasting news about the free world into the GDR. The best the GDR could come up with was to literally call the American broadcasters a bunch of Nazis.

 

Now it seems there are elements of society, for reasons only known to themselves. to substitute Communist/Socialist for Nazi. This isn't the same as Reds-under-the-Bed. Like people who threw around the word Nazi into every conversation, this mob of thickos don't really have any idea of what Communist or Socialist (or Marxist, Trotskyite, Leninist etc) actually means.. Its just some word they heard their grandad used when they were a kid, and now they are using, in same way as "Nazi" to try and shut down discussion, which is very Communist of them. I expect Yellow Peril to see some revival in some quarters (this quite an old term of abuse, reaching back to the 19th century); the Kaiser used the term die Gelbe Gefahr, and used that as the excuse for war with China, which is reality was all about setting the stage for WW1, and ultimately who would hold hegemony over the Globe (the Kaiser thought it should be him).

10 hours ago, Doctor Tom said:

The UK is now all but a Communist Country, governed by rabid socialist gang of nonentities.  Trouble is, the 'Loyal Opposition'  are so useless and ineffective that there is no real opposition allowed.  Blame the voting public, who are collectedly as thick as a brick, add a corrupt voting system and there you have it,  The Country is totally  fxxxxd  for at least a generation.  

If the west continues on the path it is taking, I suspect this generation is the last that will live under anything resembling "democracy". 1984 beckons.

For those unaware of reality, read Animal Farm.

10 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

...and Labour have achieved all that since July 4.....55555

Seriously? It's been coming for most of my life. IMO Vietnam was the beginning of the end of western democracy.

10 hours ago, Doctor Tom said:

Yep, pretty impressive isn't it?  

 

All entirely predictable to any thinking person, as they have never been any different , throughout their history. Socialism doesn't work, it never has and it never will.  

I disagree. Socialism ( small s ) does work- I grew up in a more or less socialist country, but it was taken over by the forces of darkness ( capitalists ) and it's all gone. Even Britain was socialist to some extent ( nationalised railways and the NHS ), but Thatcher destroyed it, IMO. Now it's just a mess after decades of capitalist mismanagement.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I disagree. Socialism ( small s ) does work- I grew up in a more or less socialist country, but it was taken over by the forces of darkness ( capitalists ) and it's all gone. Even Britain was socialist to some extent ( nationalised railways and the NHS ), but Thatcher destroyed it, IMO. Now it's just a mess after decades of capitalist mismanagement.

 

Has someone hacked your account?

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I disagree. Socialism ( small s ) does work- I grew up in a more or less socialist country, but it was taken over by the forces of darkness ( capitalists ) and it's all gone. Even Britain was socialist to some extent ( nationalised railways and the NHS ), but Thatcher destroyed it, IMO. Now it's just a mess after decades of capitalist mismanagement.

I could not agree with you less. 

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If the west continues on the path it is taking, I suspect this generation is the last that will live under anything resembling "democracy". 1984 beckons.

For those unaware of reality, read Animal Farm.

Yes, by socialists. It rather contradicts your other post? 

2 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

Yes, by socialists. It rather contradicts your other post? 

I am not understanding your point.

 

However, I grew up in a socialist society but socialism does not exist in western countries any more, with the exception of the NHS.

 

Socialists ( capital S ) do not IMO practice socialism, just as Communists do not practice Communism- it's just labels. Eg China claims to be Communist, but in practice it's capitalist without elections, IMO.

10 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

I could not agree with you less. 

without an explanation that is meaningless. It's just lazy words.

1 hour ago, Will B Good said:

 

Has someone hacked your account?

Why would you think that? It's no secret that I'm a socialist ( small s ) on here.

''The violence, which has been described as "racist, hate-fueled mob violence,"

 

Where is this hysterical, lying quote from the Guardian? The disturbances had nothing to do with race, yes there was hate against this government, and against a million immigrants every year costing us billions with nothing done about the illegal boat arrivals, thousands since this despotic government got in.

On 8/19/2024 at 9:33 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

Two posts in and nothing but grievance stroking.

 

I for one think it’s fabulous news that racist rioters are getting locked up for their crimes.

 

More please.

 

 

 

Nothing to do with race thats just a slur to divert from the causes of the troubles, stop lying.

2 hours ago, Doctor Tom said:

Yes, by socialists. It rather contradicts your other post? 

 

Socialism and democracy are not incompatible.

3 hours ago, Doctor Tom said:

I could not agree with you less. 

 

Do you think that the privatisation of the various utilities in the UK in the '80s has been a success? 

 

I would argue that by most criterion (economic, efficiency environmental, etc), the opposite is true.

3 hours ago, proton said:

''The violence, which has been described as "racist, hate-fueled mob violence,"

 

Where is this hysterical, lying quote from the Guardian? The disturbances had nothing to do with race, yes there was hate against this government, and against a million immigrants every year costing us billions with nothing done about the illegal boat arrivals, thousands since this despotic government got in.

You are mistaken. "A million" migrants refers to legal migrants. Many of who work and pay tax, NI, IHS and can't claim benefits.

 

Many of them also work in NHS and Healthcare which, without the migrants workers, would collapse.

28 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Do you think that the privatisation of the various utilities in the UK in the '80s has been a success? 

 

I would argue that by most criterion (economic, efficiency environmental, etc), the opposite is true.

The privatisations were designed to negate the need for many billions of tax payers money being spent. In that regards, they were a success.

 

Without knowing how things would have worked out if utilities had remained nationalized, how much of a tax burden they would have been and would still be,  it's difficult to quantify the overall success.

35 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

The privatisations were designed to negate the need for many billions of tax payers money being spent. In that regards, they were a success.

 

Without knowing how things would have worked out if utilities had remained nationalized, how much of a tax burden they would have been and would still be,  it's difficult to quantify the overall success.

 

I agree that judgements are often passed too quickly - look no further than threads on this forum for proof of this: Labour is a failure after two months in office!! - however, I would suggest that 40 years is more than enough elapsed time to start drawing conclusions regarding the costs and benefits of privatisation.

 

Using the very narrow measurement of direct government support, privatisation might be judged a success. Even here there must be a caveat: For example, the privatisation and subsequent enforced re-nationalisation of the rail network (Railtrack) was nothing but an unmitigated disaster by whatever criterion is used. I would also argue that from a wider economic and societal perspective, privatisation has been a failure.

 

Privatisation was a contributory factor in the increase in unemployment in the UK in the '80s. Not only were there direct costs e.g. payment of unemployment benefits, there were indirect economic costs in the reduction in consumer spending, etc: The societal costs were even greater with communities being devastated.

 

It may be difficult to quantify costs definitely but - rather like Brexit - I would argue that the body of evidence points overwhelming to privatisation having a net negative effect.

 

https://www.ciwem.org/the-environment/how-should-water-and-environmental-management-firms-tap,-retain-and-promote-female-talent

 

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uk-economy-in-the-1980s/#:~:text=The upshot of all of,time since the interwar depression.

 

https://www.economicsobservatory.com/what-size-fiscal-multiplier

 

 

 

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

Socialism and democracy are not incompatible.

Agreed, not when the electorate are ignorant, ill educated  and can't see past their own noses.  Democracy in that background, is unworkable.  Unfortunately, any alternative is infinitely worse   

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

Do you think that the privatisation of the various utilities in the UK in the '80s has been a success? 

 

I would argue that by most criterion (economic, efficiency environmental, etc), the opposite is true.

I think in two cases  it went too far (water, electricity) or was ill thought out ( Railways, Post Office).  Some were a success, (airports and airlines), some inevitable (coal, steel). The trouble is not the actual philosophy of privatization, it's the feckless, inefficient, entitled workforces in the various sectors, managed by the second rate, on behalf of the people.