Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people

Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people

Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people

First published in News
Last updated
by , local government reporter

A UKIP councillor believes business owners should be allowed to refuse to serve women and gay people.

Donna Edmunds, a Lewes district councillor and MEP candidate for the South East, said business people should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they want for whatever reason they want.

Responding to a post on an internet forum Coun Edmunds said they should be allowed to refuse service, including because a customer is gay or a woman.

She had been asked to state whether she supported remarks by Henley-on-Thames UKIP councillor David Silvester who said the floods this winter had been caused by the Government’s support for gay marriage.


MORE:


After saying she did not agree with her party colleague, she added: “I believe that all business owners, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, should be allowed to withhold their services from whomever that choose whenever they choose.

“It’s their business. Why should they be forced to serve or sell to anyone?”

When asked by The Argus to clarify her statement the EU election hopeful said it would be ok for a shop owner to refuse to serve her based on no other fact than she was a woman, or if service was refused to a gay person.

She said: “I’m a libertarian so I don’t think the state should have a role on who business owners serve.

“I wouldn’t refuse to serve gay people. I’m not saying their position is a correct one. I’m saying they should be free to make that choice themselves.”

This is not the first time the Lewes councillor has garnered controversy after making statements online.

In 2011 she was forced to stand down from her role as lead councillor for communications in Lewes after labelling a constituent a “village idiot” on Twitter.

Before that she was criticised after telling a constituent to “pay your taxes to die of cancer if that’s what you want” during an online row about the NHS.

Nigel Carter, chairman of Brighton and Hove UKIP, said any action to be taken against the councillor within the party would be taken at a higher level but said her views did not represent the majority of those involved with UKIP.

James Ledward, editor of Brighton-based GScene magazine, described the views as “horrendous”.

He said: “I’m flabbergasted. There is no place for views like this is 2014.

“It is worrying because with proportional representation in the European elections someone like this could get in.

“It’s all well and good getting the government legislation through but we have to win the hearts and minds of people like this. It’s clear there is still work to do.”

Comments (143)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:00am Wed 5 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train!

It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are. HJarrs
  • Score: 47

7:27am Wed 5 Mar 14

Indigatio says...

Taken out of context and twisted maybe.
Many yeas ago Paul Condon, the then Mets Police Commissioner, said that the majority of muggings in London were carried out by Black Youths. This was fact. What he didn't say was that the majority of Black Youths were muggers.Paul Condon was very wrongly castigated for this.
With The Argus's standard of journalism I'd be interested to hear more before I condemned her.
Taken out of context and twisted maybe. Many yeas ago Paul Condon, the then Mets Police Commissioner, said that the majority of muggings in London were carried out by Black Youths. This was fact. What he didn't say was that the majority of Black Youths were muggers.Paul Condon was very wrongly castigated for this. With The Argus's standard of journalism I'd be interested to hear more before I condemned her. Indigatio
  • Score: 76

7:47am Wed 5 Mar 14

Sir Prised says...

UKIP really need to get on top of this issue before it destrroys their credibility. I do think cases like the private Guest House, where the business is conducted in your own home should be allowed a choice. That is simply a question of tolerance on BOTH sides. However, there is no way commercial operations should discriminate on any such basis. UKIP need to concentrate on this one vital question, 'Do you wish to be an independent country or part of the USE?' The electorate have the absolute right to express their opinion of this historic question, something that up until now, they have been disgustingly, refused.
UKIP really need to get on top of this issue before it destrroys their credibility. I do think cases like the private Guest House, where the business is conducted in your own home should be allowed a choice. That is simply a question of tolerance on BOTH sides. However, there is no way commercial operations should discriminate on any such basis. UKIP need to concentrate on this one vital question, 'Do you wish to be an independent country or part of the USE?' The electorate have the absolute right to express their opinion of this historic question, something that up until now, they have been disgustingly, refused. Sir Prised
  • Score: -25

8:09am Wed 5 Mar 14

LB says...

"I’m a libertarian"

except when it comes to free movement of people across political borders for economic reasons?
"I’m a libertarian" except when it comes to free movement of people across political borders for economic reasons? LB
  • Score: 109

8:10am Wed 5 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Indigatio wrote:
Taken out of context and twisted maybe.
Many yeas ago Paul Condon, the then Mets Police Commissioner, said that the majority of muggings in London were carried out by Black Youths. This was fact. What he didn't say was that the majority of Black Youths were muggers.Paul Condon was very wrongly castigated for this.
With The Argus's standard of journalism I'd be interested to hear more before I condemned her.
Oh, I don't know Indigatio. It is after all a libertarian precept ... minimal regulation that is. The trouble is it can be taken to extremes and the refusal to serve women merely because they are women, or even more absurdly because you suspect they may be sleeping with their own gender (after all, without a signed affidavit to that effect, you have only a suspicion to go by) would be a consequence of applying libertarianism without reserve.

Not quite the same as Paul Condon after all is it. Paul Condon would have been extrapolating data from known facts, not applying an ideological concept. So while Condon may have been castigated for not realising that the majority of his audience cannot tell the difference between most muggers are black to most blacks are muggers, it is not the same as saying I believe that you can refuse to engage with someone just because that someone might be a woman, someone of a given sexual persuasion, or because you believe they pick their nose in public.
[quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: Taken out of context and twisted maybe. Many yeas ago Paul Condon, the then Mets Police Commissioner, said that the majority of muggings in London were carried out by Black Youths. This was fact. What he didn't say was that the majority of Black Youths were muggers.Paul Condon was very wrongly castigated for this. With The Argus's standard of journalism I'd be interested to hear more before I condemned her.[/p][/quote]Oh, I don't know Indigatio. It is after all a libertarian precept ... minimal regulation that is. The trouble is it can be taken to extremes and the refusal to serve women merely because they are women, or even more absurdly because you suspect they may be sleeping with their own gender (after all, without a signed affidavit to that effect, you have only a suspicion to go by) would be a consequence of applying libertarianism without reserve. Not quite the same as Paul Condon after all is it. Paul Condon would have been extrapolating data from known facts, not applying an ideological concept. So while Condon may have been castigated for not realising that the majority of his audience cannot tell the difference between most muggers are black to most blacks are muggers, it is not the same as saying I believe that you can refuse to engage with someone just because that someone might be a woman, someone of a given sexual persuasion, or because you believe they pick their nose in public. mimseycal
  • Score: 51

8:23am Wed 5 Mar 14

Dr Pork says...

mimseycal wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
Taken out of context and twisted maybe.
Many yeas ago Paul Condon, the then Mets Police Commissioner, said that the majority of muggings in London were carried out by Black Youths. This was fact. What he didn't say was that the majority of Black Youths were muggers.Paul Condon was very wrongly castigated for this.
With The Argus's standard of journalism I'd be interested to hear more before I condemned her.
Oh, I don't know Indigatio. It is after all a libertarian precept ... minimal regulation that is. The trouble is it can be taken to extremes and the refusal to serve women merely because they are women, or even more absurdly because you suspect they may be sleeping with their own gender (after all, without a signed affidavit to that effect, you have only a suspicion to go by) would be a consequence of applying libertarianism without reserve.

Not quite the same as Paul Condon after all is it. Paul Condon would have been extrapolating data from known facts, not applying an ideological concept. So while Condon may have been castigated for not realising that the majority of his audience cannot tell the difference between most muggers are black to most blacks are muggers, it is not the same as saying I believe that you can refuse to engage with someone just because that someone might be a woman, someone of a given sexual persuasion, or because you believe they pick their nose in public.
Well said Mimseycal
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: Taken out of context and twisted maybe. Many yeas ago Paul Condon, the then Mets Police Commissioner, said that the majority of muggings in London were carried out by Black Youths. This was fact. What he didn't say was that the majority of Black Youths were muggers.Paul Condon was very wrongly castigated for this. With The Argus's standard of journalism I'd be interested to hear more before I condemned her.[/p][/quote]Oh, I don't know Indigatio. It is after all a libertarian precept ... minimal regulation that is. The trouble is it can be taken to extremes and the refusal to serve women merely because they are women, or even more absurdly because you suspect they may be sleeping with their own gender (after all, without a signed affidavit to that effect, you have only a suspicion to go by) would be a consequence of applying libertarianism without reserve. Not quite the same as Paul Condon after all is it. Paul Condon would have been extrapolating data from known facts, not applying an ideological concept. So while Condon may have been castigated for not realising that the majority of his audience cannot tell the difference between most muggers are black to most blacks are muggers, it is not the same as saying I believe that you can refuse to engage with someone just because that someone might be a woman, someone of a given sexual persuasion, or because you believe they pick their nose in public.[/p][/quote]Well said Mimseycal Dr Pork
  • Score: 24

8:28am Wed 5 Mar 14

menton says...

So, now you know: vote UKIP and this is what you get. Just great, eh? Silly woman (and that is the polite way of putting it.)
So, now you know: vote UKIP and this is what you get. Just great, eh? Silly woman (and that is the polite way of putting it.) menton
  • Score: 27

8:31am Wed 5 Mar 14

hey mongo says...

She basically saying people are free to do what they choose.....gay pubs/clubs always turning straight people away so whats the problem??? In times of recession and ridiculous energy prices people will hot turn down work/ sales because someone is gay or black etc..just the argus reporting garbo as usual
She basically saying people are free to do what they choose.....gay pubs/clubs always turning straight people away so whats the problem??? In times of recession and ridiculous energy prices people will hot turn down work/ sales because someone is gay or black etc..just the argus reporting garbo as usual hey mongo
  • Score: 6

8:35am Wed 5 Mar 14

Cave Johnson says...

It sounds like The Argus is trying to put words in her mouth. She said you should be allowed to refuse anyone you like, yet The Argus focuses on women and gays? Why is that? Are you trying to whip up another tabloid frenzy? Yawn.
It sounds like The Argus is trying to put words in her mouth. She said you should be allowed to refuse anyone you like, yet The Argus focuses on women and gays? Why is that? Are you trying to whip up another tabloid frenzy? Yawn. Cave Johnson
  • Score: 39

8:40am Wed 5 Mar 14

Libertarian Patriot says...

We must be careful not to be too quick to judge Donna. In our country we must treat everyone with respect and not discriminate on the basis of religion, ethnicity or any other form of association provided such association is not harmful or violates the rights of others.

There is a balance to be struck and perhaps in our overly liberal society we have gone too far in forcing others to accept the politics of the day. For example, a Christian Magistrate was fired because he requested a facility to sit out on cases involving the adoption of children by homosexual couples. This was based on an exercise of religious belief that would be shared by many faiths in addition to the Christian one. The Magistrate pointed out that there was a large pool of magistrates who would be able to sit on such cases without violating their belief system. Thus, the rights of homosexual couples were not violated as they were free to achieve their objective quite easily. The right to refuse services may, in some cases, be a liberty we in a free society must learn to tolerate.

If someone offers a service to the public the right to refuse to serve someone must be based on clear grounds. Tolerance is key and it is the case that in a free society liberty must cut both ways. It gets complicated because religious freedom must encompass the right to practise that religion to the exclusion of certain practises. I include in this all belief systems in our wonderfully diverse culture, not just established faiths such as Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian etc.

In a culturally diverse nation we are going to have to accept culturally diverse freedoms and it is not fair to decide what one group must accept based on the beliefs of another. Its going to take a lot of work to come to the point of agreeing to be tolerant--both ways.

So lets not judge Donna too quickly. Libertarians believe in the fundamental human right to make choices based on freedom of conscience provided others are not harmed. And hurt feelings or violation of "PC" may not always be a good ground to reject another's freedom. We may cast our thoughts back to the apartheid in South Africa or the civil rights movement in the USA where black people were refused service based on colour. Very few people would find such discrimination acceptable and we should never allow such discrimination in our country. However, in a free society we are going to have to make room for the right to be different in many areas. Let us all agree to practise more understanding and toleration of diverse views even though we may not all agree with all of them.
We must be careful not to be too quick to judge Donna. In our country we must treat everyone with respect and not discriminate on the basis of religion, ethnicity or any other form of association provided such association is not harmful or violates the rights of others. There is a balance to be struck and perhaps in our overly liberal society we have gone too far in forcing others to accept the politics of the day. For example, a Christian Magistrate was fired because he requested a facility to sit out on cases involving the adoption of children by homosexual couples. This was based on an exercise of religious belief that would be shared by many faiths in addition to the Christian one. The Magistrate pointed out that there was a large pool of magistrates who would be able to sit on such cases without violating their belief system. Thus, the rights of homosexual couples were not violated as they were free to achieve their objective quite easily. The right to refuse services may, in some cases, be a liberty we in a free society must learn to tolerate. If someone offers a service to the public the right to refuse to serve someone must be based on clear grounds. Tolerance is key and it is the case that in a free society liberty must cut both ways. It gets complicated because religious freedom must encompass the right to practise that religion to the exclusion of certain practises. I include in this all belief systems in our wonderfully diverse culture, not just established faiths such as Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian etc. In a culturally diverse nation we are going to have to accept culturally diverse freedoms and it is not fair to decide what one group must accept based on the beliefs of another. Its going to take a lot of work to come to the point of agreeing to be tolerant--both ways. So lets not judge Donna too quickly. Libertarians believe in the fundamental human right to make choices based on freedom of conscience provided others are not harmed. And hurt feelings or violation of "PC" may not always be a good ground to reject another's freedom. We may cast our thoughts back to the apartheid in South Africa or the civil rights movement in the USA where black people were refused service based on colour. Very few people would find such discrimination acceptable and we should never allow such discrimination in our country. However, in a free society we are going to have to make room for the right to be different in many areas. Let us all agree to practise more understanding and toleration of diverse views even though we may not all agree with all of them. Libertarian Patriot
  • Score: -6

8:49am Wed 5 Mar 14

Cyril Bolleaux says...

HJarrs wrote:
And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience. Cyril Bolleaux
  • Score: -13

8:55am Wed 5 Mar 14

Indigatio says...

mimseycal wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
Taken out of context and twisted maybe.
Many yeas ago Paul Condon, the then Mets Police Commissioner, said that the majority of muggings in London were carried out by Black Youths. This was fact. What he didn't say was that the majority of Black Youths were muggers.Paul Condon was very wrongly castigated for this.
With The Argus's standard of journalism I'd be interested to hear more before I condemned her.
Oh, I don't know Indigatio. It is after all a libertarian precept ... minimal regulation that is. The trouble is it can be taken to extremes and the refusal to serve women merely because they are women, or even more absurdly because you suspect they may be sleeping with their own gender (after all, without a signed affidavit to that effect, you have only a suspicion to go by) would be a consequence of applying libertarianism without reserve.

Not quite the same as Paul Condon after all is it. Paul Condon would have been extrapolating data from known facts, not applying an ideological concept. So while Condon may have been castigated for not realising that the majority of his audience cannot tell the difference between most muggers are black to most blacks are muggers, it is not the same as saying I believe that you can refuse to engage with someone just because that someone might be a woman, someone of a given sexual persuasion, or because you believe they pick their nose in public.
Fair point mymseycal.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: Taken out of context and twisted maybe. Many yeas ago Paul Condon, the then Mets Police Commissioner, said that the majority of muggings in London were carried out by Black Youths. This was fact. What he didn't say was that the majority of Black Youths were muggers.Paul Condon was very wrongly castigated for this. With The Argus's standard of journalism I'd be interested to hear more before I condemned her.[/p][/quote]Oh, I don't know Indigatio. It is after all a libertarian precept ... minimal regulation that is. The trouble is it can be taken to extremes and the refusal to serve women merely because they are women, or even more absurdly because you suspect they may be sleeping with their own gender (after all, without a signed affidavit to that effect, you have only a suspicion to go by) would be a consequence of applying libertarianism without reserve. Not quite the same as Paul Condon after all is it. Paul Condon would have been extrapolating data from known facts, not applying an ideological concept. So while Condon may have been castigated for not realising that the majority of his audience cannot tell the difference between most muggers are black to most blacks are muggers, it is not the same as saying I believe that you can refuse to engage with someone just because that someone might be a woman, someone of a given sexual persuasion, or because you believe they pick their nose in public.[/p][/quote]Fair point mymseycal. Indigatio
  • Score: 7

9:00am Wed 5 Mar 14

gheese77 says...

If Donna had her way we would see the return of "no dogs, no blacks, no irish" signs in guest house windows.

That can't be right
If Donna had her way we would see the return of "no dogs, no blacks, no irish" signs in guest house windows. That can't be right gheese77
  • Score: 34

9:06am Wed 5 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

gheese77 wrote:
If Donna had her way we would see the return of "no dogs, no blacks, no irish" signs in guest house windows.

That can't be right
No, in all fairness I don't think that Donna wants to see those signs up. I do however think that by applying her principles as law, we will see those signs and others.
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: If Donna had her way we would see the return of "no dogs, no blacks, no irish" signs in guest house windows. That can't be right[/p][/quote]No, in all fairness I don't think that Donna wants to see those signs up. I do however think that by applying her principles as law, we will see those signs and others. mimseycal
  • Score: 17

9:09am Wed 5 Mar 14

Libertarian Patriot says...

Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience.
The case of the Brighton Councillor forced out because she exercised a religious freedom is a good example of intolerance taken too far. We must not become an intolerant society and as most people adhere to some form of belief system it is vital we respect diversity. The councillor in question was the victim of PC bullying in my view.

We must be careful not to allow our country to become so diverse that it flies apart. An overall consensus is essential to any nation and we may have to begin to address who we are in this country and even consider a more up to date Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of conscience and freedom from ever shifting aggressive PC or liberal bullying.

I recommend everyone read Orwell's "1984" and if you read it decades ago, please read it again. Orwell has written that the path to totalitarianism begins with the liberal left and enforced PC (http://www.freeradi
cal.co.nz/content/58
/Orwell.php )
[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience.[/p][/quote]The case of the Brighton Councillor forced out because she exercised a religious freedom is a good example of intolerance taken too far. We must not become an intolerant society and as most people adhere to some form of belief system it is vital we respect diversity. The councillor in question was the victim of PC bullying in my view. We must be careful not to allow our country to become so diverse that it flies apart. An overall consensus is essential to any nation and we may have to begin to address who we are in this country and even consider a more up to date Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of conscience and freedom from ever shifting aggressive PC or liberal bullying. I recommend everyone read Orwell's "1984" and if you read it decades ago, please read it again. Orwell has written that the path to totalitarianism begins with the liberal left and enforced PC (http://www.freeradi cal.co.nz/content/58 /Orwell.php ) Libertarian Patriot
  • Score: 15

9:14am Wed 5 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Cave Johnson wrote:
It sounds like The Argus is trying to put words in her mouth. She said you should be allowed to refuse anyone you like, yet The Argus focuses on women and gays? Why is that? Are you trying to whip up another tabloid frenzy? Yawn.
No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion.

Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement. I'm actually quite impressed with Michael Davies for applying the principle in an interview.
[quote][p][bold]Cave Johnson[/bold] wrote: It sounds like The Argus is trying to put words in her mouth. She said you should be allowed to refuse anyone you like, yet The Argus focuses on women and gays? Why is that? Are you trying to whip up another tabloid frenzy? Yawn.[/p][/quote]No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion. Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement. I'm actually quite impressed with Michael Davies for applying the principle in an interview. mimseycal
  • Score: 16

9:20am Wed 5 Mar 14

Morpheus says...

There was a case some time ago where a woman was refused service in Tesco. The legal position was stated to be "A shop is not obliged to serve you. You are on their premises and are buying their stock - as such they have the right to refuse you service whenever they feel it is appropriate. Unfortunately, there is no legal right to be offered the chance to buy anything - by offering the goods for sale all the shop is doing is inviting you to make them an offer to buy something from them and in return they are free to reject that offer and refuse to sell you anything."
There was a case some time ago where a woman was refused service in Tesco. The legal position was stated to be "A shop is not obliged to serve you. You are on their premises and are buying their stock - as such they have the right to refuse you service whenever they feel it is appropriate. Unfortunately, there is no legal right to be offered the chance to buy anything - by offering the goods for sale all the shop is doing is inviting you to make them an offer to buy something from them and in return they are free to reject that offer and refuse to sell you anything." Morpheus
  • Score: 20

9:22am Wed 5 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Libertarian Patriot wrote:With regards to the case of Christine Summers, I think the Argus may have failed us there. Though I too was of the opinion that she was rail-roaded for not following a whip, I have since learnt that there was also evidence for her intimidating and haranguing women outside the Wistons Clinic in Dyke rd., as a pro-lifer ... justified by her on the basis of her fundamental Christianity.
[quote][p][bold]Libertarian Patriot[/bold] wrote:With regards to the case of Christine Summers, I think the Argus may have failed us there. Though I too was of the opinion that she was rail-roaded for not following a whip, I have since learnt that there was also evidence for her intimidating and haranguing women outside the Wistons Clinic in Dyke rd., as a pro-lifer ... justified by her on the basis of her fundamental Christianity. mimseycal
  • Score: -2

9:27am Wed 5 Mar 14

Nobleox says...

..... and anybody dressed in GREEN.
..... and anybody dressed in GREEN. Nobleox
  • Score: 3

9:39am Wed 5 Mar 14

Brimstone52 says...

menton wrote:
So, now you know: vote UKIP and this is what you get. Just great, eh? Silly woman (and that is the polite way of putting it.)
The only way Donna Edmunds is wrong is if you're happy to be told how to live your life by people who know nothing about you. Donna Edmunds meaning has been twisted by a journalist with a political agenda.

If you're happy to be told how to conduct your life, then argue against her. If you want the freedom to chose then agree with her. However, I suspect many people who want to restrict freedom of thought or action are those with whom they disagree and want to impose restriction on others but not themselves.
[quote][p][bold]menton[/bold] wrote: So, now you know: vote UKIP and this is what you get. Just great, eh? Silly woman (and that is the polite way of putting it.)[/p][/quote]The only way Donna Edmunds is wrong is if you're happy to be told how to live your life by people who know nothing about you. Donna Edmunds meaning has been twisted by a journalist with a political agenda. If you're happy to be told how to conduct your life, then argue against her. If you want the freedom to chose then agree with her. However, I suspect many people who want to restrict freedom of thought or action are those with whom they disagree and want to impose restriction on others but not themselves. Brimstone52
  • Score: 0

9:45am Wed 5 Mar 14

Alison Smith says...

UKIP. Bonkers or Dangerous?: Discuss
UKIP. Bonkers or Dangerous?: Discuss Alison Smith
  • Score: 2

9:48am Wed 5 Mar 14

Libertarian Patriot says...

mimseycal wrote:
Libertarian Patriot wrote:With regards to the case of Christine Summers, I think the Argus may have failed us there. Though I too was of the opinion that she was rail-roaded for not following a whip, I have since learnt that there was also evidence for her intimidating and haranguing women outside the Wistons Clinic in Dyke rd., as a pro-lifer ... justified by her on the basis of her fundamental Christianity.If Christina Summers exercised her right to stand in front of the abortion building it is her right to do so. Many people believe human life begins with conception and that abortion is murder. In our diverse and supposedly tolerant society, we have to accept diversity in views and the right to life. The choice of whether to die or not should be given to the child when it is of an age to decide. The rights of the child outweigh those of the mother as the child is more vulnerable and we must protect the vulnerable in our society even if it is inconvenient (the most common ground for abortion).

I do not know what "fundamental" means in this context. I hope it means what the ordinary meaning says it means: basic or bottom line. Change meaning and you invite the totalitarian state Orwell warned against.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Libertarian Patriot[/bold] wrote:With regards to the case of Christine Summers, I think the Argus may have failed us there. Though I too was of the opinion that she was rail-roaded for not following a whip, I have since learnt that there was also evidence for her intimidating and haranguing women outside the Wistons Clinic in Dyke rd., as a pro-lifer ... justified by her on the basis of her fundamental Christianity.[/p][/quote]If Christina Summers exercised her right to stand in front of the abortion building it is her right to do so. Many people believe human life begins with conception and that abortion is murder. In our diverse and supposedly tolerant society, we have to accept diversity in views and the right to life. The choice of whether to die or not should be given to the child when it is of an age to decide. The rights of the child outweigh those of the mother as the child is more vulnerable and we must protect the vulnerable in our society even if it is inconvenient (the most common ground for abortion). I do not know what "fundamental" means in this context. I hope it means what the ordinary meaning says it means: basic or bottom line. Change meaning and you invite the totalitarian state Orwell warned against. Libertarian Patriot
  • Score: -8

9:52am Wed 5 Mar 14

ThinkBrighton says...

HJarrs wrote:
And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train!

It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
Very quick to reply HJ, obviously you hadn't started licking JK's rear this early!
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]Very quick to reply HJ, obviously you hadn't started licking JK's rear this early! ThinkBrighton
  • Score: -7

10:04am Wed 5 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Libertarian Patriot wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Libertarian Patriot wrote:With regards to the case of Christine Summers, I think the Argus may have failed us there. Though I too was of the opinion that she was rail-roaded for not following a whip, I have since learnt that there was also evidence for her intimidating and haranguing women outside the Wistons Clinic in Dyke rd., as a pro-lifer ... justified by her on the basis of her fundamental Christianity.If Christina Summers exercised her right to stand in front of the abortion building it is her right to do so. Many people believe human life begins with conception and that abortion is murder. In our diverse and supposedly tolerant society, we have to accept diversity in views and the right to life. The choice of whether to die or not should be given to the child when it is of an age to decide. The rights of the child outweigh those of the mother as the child is more vulnerable and we must protect the vulnerable in our society even if it is inconvenient (the most common ground for abortion).

I do not know what "fundamental" means in this context. I hope it means what the ordinary meaning says it means: basic or bottom line. Change meaning and you invite the totalitarian state Orwell warned against.She exercised her right. No arguments there. What about the right to freedom from harassment and intimidation of those women?

Never mind, don't bother answering that. However accept that standing up for firmly held principles, standing up for anything really has a price to pay.

She is still a Councillor, though now as an independent rather then a Green Councillor.
[quote][p][bold]Libertarian Patriot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Libertarian Patriot[/bold] wrote:With regards to the case of Christine Summers, I think the Argus may have failed us there. Though I too was of the opinion that she was rail-roaded for not following a whip, I have since learnt that there was also evidence for her intimidating and haranguing women outside the Wistons Clinic in Dyke rd., as a pro-lifer ... justified by her on the basis of her fundamental Christianity.[/p][/quote]If Christina Summers exercised her right to stand in front of the abortion building it is her right to do so. Many people believe human life begins with conception and that abortion is murder. In our diverse and supposedly tolerant society, we have to accept diversity in views and the right to life. The choice of whether to die or not should be given to the child when it is of an age to decide. The rights of the child outweigh those of the mother as the child is more vulnerable and we must protect the vulnerable in our society even if it is inconvenient (the most common ground for abortion). I do not know what "fundamental" means in this context. I hope it means what the ordinary meaning says it means: basic or bottom line. Change meaning and you invite the totalitarian state Orwell warned against.[/p][/quote]She exercised her right. No arguments there. What about the right to freedom from harassment and intimidation of those women? Never mind, don't bother answering that. However accept that standing up for firmly held principles, standing up for anything really has a price to pay. She is still a Councillor, though now as an independent rather then a Green Councillor. mimseycal
  • Score: 2

10:04am Wed 5 Mar 14

Boshay says...

One word: "Barking" to use in whatever context seems fit.
One word: "Barking" to use in whatever context seems fit. Boshay
  • Score: 4

10:06am Wed 5 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

I don't know what is going on with the quote application but it isn't very clear where the quote stops and my response starts so I shall repeat my response here:

She exercised her right. No arguments there. What about the right to freedom from harassment and intimidation of those women?

Never mind, don't bother answering that. However accept that standing up for firmly held principles, standing up for anything really has a price to pay.

She is still a Councillor, though now as an independent rather then a Green Councillor.
I don't know what is going on with the quote application but it isn't very clear where the quote stops and my response starts so I shall repeat my response here: She exercised her right. No arguments there. What about the right to freedom from harassment and intimidation of those women? Never mind, don't bother answering that. However accept that standing up for firmly held principles, standing up for anything really has a price to pay. She is still a Councillor, though now as an independent rather then a Green Councillor. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

10:40am Wed 5 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

Don't forget its the European elections coming up so the controlled media will now be playing dirty tricks as UKIP are getting popular.As a gay man in brighton if a business refused to serve me I would let the gay scene know so as to avoid giving business to that establishment.As a gay man I can understand the comment about refusing to serve a woman ONLY JOKING.
Don't forget its the European elections coming up so the controlled media will now be playing dirty tricks as UKIP are getting popular.As a gay man in brighton if a business refused to serve me I would let the gay scene know so as to avoid giving business to that establishment.As a gay man I can understand the comment about refusing to serve a woman ONLY JOKING. clubrob6
  • Score: 10

10:41am Wed 5 Mar 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

I bet if someone refused to serve her, she would trot out that old line "Don't you know who I am?"
I bet if someone refused to serve her, she would trot out that old line "Don't you know who I am?" thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 8

10:42am Wed 5 Mar 14

Bugzy84 says...

Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience.
Just goes to show how most UKIP Councillors want to drag this country back to the past and "The good old day", when where these good old day? before women could vote, slavery was still legal and the government mostly consisted of autocratic elite?

The UK has been a multicultural country for the best part of 2000 years, even more so when it was the hub of the British Empire, I would love to know what these people regards as "British" is it our language that evolved from Germanic, French, Latin, Celtic, etc, or our architecture with its roots in Greek, Roman, Indian, French designs? Even our numerical symbols are Islamic FFS.

No, I think we can safely say that the UKIP party is a front for the racists, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic morons, especially when your leader publicly claims to feels uncomfortable being on a bus just because nobody speaks your language. I can only assume he does not holiday abroad?
[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience.[/p][/quote]Just goes to show how most UKIP Councillors want to drag this country back to the past and "The good old day", when where these good old day? before women could vote, slavery was still legal and the government mostly consisted of autocratic elite? The UK has been a multicultural country for the best part of 2000 years, even more so when it was the hub of the British Empire, I would love to know what these people regards as "British" is it our language that evolved from Germanic, French, Latin, Celtic, etc, or our architecture with its roots in Greek, Roman, Indian, French designs? Even our numerical symbols are Islamic FFS. No, I think we can safely say that the UKIP party is a front for the racists, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic morons, especially when your leader publicly claims to feels uncomfortable being on a bus just because nobody speaks your language. I can only assume he does not holiday abroad? Bugzy84
  • Score: 4

10:43am Wed 5 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

Indigatio wrote:
Taken out of context and twisted maybe.
Many yeas ago Paul Condon, the then Mets Police Commissioner, said that the majority of muggings in London were carried out by Black Youths. This was fact. What he didn't say was that the majority of Black Youths were muggers.Paul Condon was very wrongly castigated for this.
With The Argus's standard of journalism I'd be interested to hear more before I condemned her.
Exactly its taken out of context but the Argus is a controlled media and the European elections are coming up so the dirty tricks will be flowing against UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: Taken out of context and twisted maybe. Many yeas ago Paul Condon, the then Mets Police Commissioner, said that the majority of muggings in London were carried out by Black Youths. This was fact. What he didn't say was that the majority of Black Youths were muggers.Paul Condon was very wrongly castigated for this. With The Argus's standard of journalism I'd be interested to hear more before I condemned her.[/p][/quote]Exactly its taken out of context but the Argus is a controlled media and the European elections are coming up so the dirty tricks will be flowing against UKIP. clubrob6
  • Score: 4

10:47am Wed 5 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

Sir Prised wrote:
UKIP really need to get on top of this issue before it destrroys their credibility. I do think cases like the private Guest House, where the business is conducted in your own home should be allowed a choice. That is simply a question of tolerance on BOTH sides. However, there is no way commercial operations should discriminate on any such basis. UKIP need to concentrate on this one vital question, 'Do you wish to be an independent country or part of the USE?' The electorate have the absolute right to express their opinion of this historic question, something that up until now, they have been disgustingly, refused.
Don't believe all you read the argus is a controlled media every dirty trick will be used against UKIP as the European elections are coming up.The ARGUS is concentrating on the word GAY as we have a large gay population of which I am one of them,its purely dirty tactics by the Argus to turn voters away from UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Prised[/bold] wrote: UKIP really need to get on top of this issue before it destrroys their credibility. I do think cases like the private Guest House, where the business is conducted in your own home should be allowed a choice. That is simply a question of tolerance on BOTH sides. However, there is no way commercial operations should discriminate on any such basis. UKIP need to concentrate on this one vital question, 'Do you wish to be an independent country or part of the USE?' The electorate have the absolute right to express their opinion of this historic question, something that up until now, they have been disgustingly, refused.[/p][/quote]Don't believe all you read the argus is a controlled media every dirty trick will be used against UKIP as the European elections are coming up.The ARGUS is concentrating on the word GAY as we have a large gay population of which I am one of them,its purely dirty tactics by the Argus to turn voters away from UKIP. clubrob6
  • Score: 7

10:49am Wed 5 Mar 14

Stoney33 says...

Im not a UKIP supporter, but cant help this continual witch hunt to try and out them as some heavily right wing, nazi party is getting a little tiresome

Is the country a little worried about their potential popularity?
Im not a UKIP supporter, but cant help this continual witch hunt to try and out them as some heavily right wing, nazi party is getting a little tiresome Is the country a little worried about their potential popularity? Stoney33
  • Score: 16

10:49am Wed 5 Mar 14

FrankFisher says...

So those people outraged by Edmunds' principled position: you want people to be sent to jail for refusing to do certain work, is that correct? Unless they agree to do work they really don't want to do, you want them punished, fined, jailed? And this is in the name of liberalism and tolerant, right? Being forced to work on pain of punishment is called slavery, isn't it?
So those people outraged by Edmunds' principled position: you want people to be sent to jail for refusing to do certain work, is that correct? Unless they agree to do work they really don't want to do, you want them punished, fined, jailed? And this is in the name of liberalism and tolerant, right? Being forced to work on pain of punishment is called slavery, isn't it? FrankFisher
  • Score: -5

10:50am Wed 5 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

menton wrote:
So, now you know: vote UKIP and this is what you get. Just great, eh? Silly woman (and that is the polite way of putting it.)
You are one of the people that believe everything the controlled media print,dont forget the European elections are due so the media has been told to turn people away from UKIP.Im gay im voting UKIP as I have read the fact not from rubbish printed in the controlled media.
[quote][p][bold]menton[/bold] wrote: So, now you know: vote UKIP and this is what you get. Just great, eh? Silly woman (and that is the polite way of putting it.)[/p][/quote]You are one of the people that believe everything the controlled media print,dont forget the European elections are due so the media has been told to turn people away from UKIP.Im gay im voting UKIP as I have read the fact not from rubbish printed in the controlled media. clubrob6
  • Score: 6

10:54am Wed 5 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

mimseycal wrote:
Cave Johnson wrote:
It sounds like The Argus is trying to put words in her mouth. She said you should be allowed to refuse anyone you like, yet The Argus focuses on women and gays? Why is that? Are you trying to whip up another tabloid frenzy? Yawn.
No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion.

Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement. I'm actually quite impressed with Michael Davies for applying the principle in an interview.
The argus IS putting words into her mouth by concentrating on the word GAY as we have a large gay population,the controlled media as predicted are trying to turn voters away fro UKIP.Im gay but will be voting UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cave Johnson[/bold] wrote: It sounds like The Argus is trying to put words in her mouth. She said you should be allowed to refuse anyone you like, yet The Argus focuses on women and gays? Why is that? Are you trying to whip up another tabloid frenzy? Yawn.[/p][/quote]No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion. Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement. I'm actually quite impressed with Michael Davies for applying the principle in an interview.[/p][/quote]The argus IS putting words into her mouth by concentrating on the word GAY as we have a large gay population,the controlled media as predicted are trying to turn voters away fro UKIP.Im gay but will be voting UKIP. clubrob6
  • Score: 0

10:55am Wed 5 Mar 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Bugzy84 wrote:
Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience.
Just goes to show how most UKIP Councillors want to drag this country back to the past and "The good old day", when where these good old day? before women could vote, slavery was still legal and the government mostly consisted of autocratic elite?

The UK has been a multicultural country for the best part of 2000 years, even more so when it was the hub of the British Empire, I would love to know what these people regards as "British" is it our language that evolved from Germanic, French, Latin, Celtic, etc, or our architecture with its roots in Greek, Roman, Indian, French designs? Even our numerical symbols are Islamic FFS.

No, I think we can safely say that the UKIP party is a front for the racists, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic morons, especially when your leader publicly claims to feels uncomfortable being on a bus just because nobody speaks your language. I can only assume he does not holiday abroad?
When he holidays abroad, he speaks English loudly, and those bloody foreigners don't understand him!
[quote][p][bold]Bugzy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience.[/p][/quote]Just goes to show how most UKIP Councillors want to drag this country back to the past and "The good old day", when where these good old day? before women could vote, slavery was still legal and the government mostly consisted of autocratic elite? The UK has been a multicultural country for the best part of 2000 years, even more so when it was the hub of the British Empire, I would love to know what these people regards as "British" is it our language that evolved from Germanic, French, Latin, Celtic, etc, or our architecture with its roots in Greek, Roman, Indian, French designs? Even our numerical symbols are Islamic FFS. No, I think we can safely say that the UKIP party is a front for the racists, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic morons, especially when your leader publicly claims to feels uncomfortable being on a bus just because nobody speaks your language. I can only assume he does not holiday abroad?[/p][/quote]When he holidays abroad, he speaks English loudly, and those bloody foreigners don't understand him! thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 4

10:57am Wed 5 Mar 14

theargusissoinformative says...

I think Donna's having us on a bit. Going by that picture, I can't imagine anyone refusing to serve her in their shop.
I think Donna's having us on a bit. Going by that picture, I can't imagine anyone refusing to serve her in their shop. theargusissoinformative
  • Score: -6

10:58am Wed 5 Mar 14

Warren Morgan says...

Morpheus wrote:
There was a case some time ago where a woman was refused service in Tesco. The legal position was stated to be "A shop is not obliged to serve you. You are on their premises and are buying their stock - as such they have the right to refuse you service whenever they feel it is appropriate. Unfortunately, there is no legal right to be offered the chance to buy anything - by offering the goods for sale all the shop is doing is inviting you to make them an offer to buy something from them and in return they are free to reject that offer and refuse to sell you anything."
It's illegal to discriminate in the provision of goods and services: http://www.stonewall
.org.uk/what_we_do/p
arliamentary/2889.as
p
[quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: There was a case some time ago where a woman was refused service in Tesco. The legal position was stated to be "A shop is not obliged to serve you. You are on their premises and are buying their stock - as such they have the right to refuse you service whenever they feel it is appropriate. Unfortunately, there is no legal right to be offered the chance to buy anything - by offering the goods for sale all the shop is doing is inviting you to make them an offer to buy something from them and in return they are free to reject that offer and refuse to sell you anything."[/p][/quote]It's illegal to discriminate in the provision of goods and services: http://www.stonewall .org.uk/what_we_do/p arliamentary/2889.as p Warren Morgan
  • Score: 3

10:59am Wed 5 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

Stoney33 wrote:
Im not a UKIP supporter, but cant help this continual witch hunt to try and out them as some heavily right wing, nazi party is getting a little tiresome

Is the country a little worried about their potential popularity?
Totally agree the controlled media are doing the predicted dirty tricks to turn voters away from UKIP,the argus is very controlled and have probably be told to concentrate on the word GAY as there are loads of us here but im voting UKIP as its the only party talking sense.
[quote][p][bold]Stoney33[/bold] wrote: Im not a UKIP supporter, but cant help this continual witch hunt to try and out them as some heavily right wing, nazi party is getting a little tiresome Is the country a little worried about their potential popularity?[/p][/quote]Totally agree the controlled media are doing the predicted dirty tricks to turn voters away from UKIP,the argus is very controlled and have probably be told to concentrate on the word GAY as there are loads of us here but im voting UKIP as its the only party talking sense. clubrob6
  • Score: 2

11:00am Wed 5 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

FrankFisher wrote:
So those people outraged by Edmunds' principled position: you want people to be sent to jail for refusing to do certain work, is that correct? Unless they agree to do work they really don't want to do, you want them punished, fined, jailed? And this is in the name of liberalism and tolerant, right? Being forced to work on pain of punishment is called slavery, isn't it?
Slavery or workfare ... same difference really.
[quote][p][bold]FrankFisher[/bold] wrote: So those people outraged by Edmunds' principled position: you want people to be sent to jail for refusing to do certain work, is that correct? Unless they agree to do work they really don't want to do, you want them punished, fined, jailed? And this is in the name of liberalism and tolerant, right? Being forced to work on pain of punishment is called slavery, isn't it?[/p][/quote]Slavery or workfare ... same difference really. mimseycal
  • Score: 8

11:05am Wed 5 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

Don't forget folks the European elections are coming up so the controlled media will be doing everything to turn voters away from UKIP,the Argus is using the word GAY as they know there are lots of us in B&H and hope it turns us against UKIP.But it wont work as any gay that has lived in brighton and hove for a while will remember when the Argus itself was against gays and was very homophobic.People remember the damage the argus did,im gay and will be voting UKIP the argus being a controlled media is only doing as it is told.
Don't forget folks the European elections are coming up so the controlled media will be doing everything to turn voters away from UKIP,the Argus is using the word GAY as they know there are lots of us in B&H and hope it turns us against UKIP.But it wont work as any gay that has lived in brighton and hove for a while will remember when the Argus itself was against gays and was very homophobic.People remember the damage the argus did,im gay and will be voting UKIP the argus being a controlled media is only doing as it is told. clubrob6
  • Score: -1

11:05am Wed 5 Mar 14

We are the 99% says...

My god!
What kind of society are we becoming?
And she's a woman?
How I wish we could round up god-awful people like this and blast them into space!
I wouldn't want their bile to be deported to another country!
My god! What kind of society are we becoming? And she's a woman? How I wish we could round up god-awful people like this and blast them into space! I wouldn't want their bile to be deported to another country! We are the 99%
  • Score: -6

11:15am Wed 5 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

clubrob6 wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Cave Johnson wrote:
It sounds like The Argus is trying to put words in her mouth. She said you should be allowed to refuse anyone you like, yet The Argus focuses on women and gays? Why is that? Are you trying to whip up another tabloid frenzy? Yawn.
No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion.

Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement. I'm actually quite impressed with Michael Davies for applying the principle in an interview.
The argus IS putting words into her mouth by concentrating on the word GAY as we have a large gay population,the controlled media as predicted are trying to turn voters away fro UKIP.Im gay but will be voting UKIP.
No dear ... using words is not putting words into peoples' mouths. Can we not use the terms women, homosexual, Jew or animal (amongst others) in general discussion because we might be considered as fcusing on a given group?

Personally, I don't regard either gender, sexual preference, religious persuasion, dietary habits as sancroscant terms that must never be used for fear of being considered prejudicial or discriminating. But then again, I do not have a militant personality. I also will not vote for a given party depending on, or in spite of, my gender, religion, dietary habit or sexual preference. But that is because my vote will be used on what I consider to be the least restrictive and most concerned with my city, my country and my fellow beings as a whole and not just with myself ;-)
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cave Johnson[/bold] wrote: It sounds like The Argus is trying to put words in her mouth. She said you should be allowed to refuse anyone you like, yet The Argus focuses on women and gays? Why is that? Are you trying to whip up another tabloid frenzy? Yawn.[/p][/quote]No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion. Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement. I'm actually quite impressed with Michael Davies for applying the principle in an interview.[/p][/quote]The argus IS putting words into her mouth by concentrating on the word GAY as we have a large gay population,the controlled media as predicted are trying to turn voters away fro UKIP.Im gay but will be voting UKIP.[/p][/quote]No dear ... using words is not putting words into peoples' mouths. Can we not use the terms women, homosexual, Jew or animal (amongst others) in general discussion because we might be considered as fcusing on a given group? Personally, I don't regard either gender, sexual preference, religious persuasion, dietary habits as sancroscant terms that must never be used for fear of being considered prejudicial or discriminating. But then again, I do not have a militant personality. I also will not vote for a given party depending on, or in spite of, my gender, religion, dietary habit or sexual preference. But that is because my vote will be used on what I consider to be the least restrictive and most concerned with my city, my country and my fellow beings as a whole and not just with myself ;-) mimseycal
  • Score: 12

11:22am Wed 5 Mar 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

clubrob6 wrote:
Stoney33 wrote:
Im not a UKIP supporter, but cant help this continual witch hunt to try and out them as some heavily right wing, nazi party is getting a little tiresome

Is the country a little worried about their potential popularity?
Totally agree the controlled media are doing the predicted dirty tricks to turn voters away from UKIP,the argus is very controlled and have probably be told to concentrate on the word GAY as there are loads of us here but im voting UKIP as its the only party talking sense.
Well to be fair, gay people are the ones that are likely to be refused entry to guest houses etc - as has happened in the past. I would be very careful about UKIP - although they do have members who are probably pretty ordinary and just want the borders controlled - there are quite a few nutjobs attracted to this party. Who knows how the party will develop in the future.
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stoney33[/bold] wrote: Im not a UKIP supporter, but cant help this continual witch hunt to try and out them as some heavily right wing, nazi party is getting a little tiresome Is the country a little worried about their potential popularity?[/p][/quote]Totally agree the controlled media are doing the predicted dirty tricks to turn voters away from UKIP,the argus is very controlled and have probably be told to concentrate on the word GAY as there are loads of us here but im voting UKIP as its the only party talking sense.[/p][/quote]Well to be fair, gay people are the ones that are likely to be refused entry to guest houses etc - as has happened in the past. I would be very careful about UKIP - although they do have members who are probably pretty ordinary and just want the borders controlled - there are quite a few nutjobs attracted to this party. Who knows how the party will develop in the future. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 6

11:25am Wed 5 Mar 14

sugar man says...

hey mongo wrote:
She basically saying people are free to do what they choose.....gay pubs/clubs always turning straight people away so whats the problem??? In times of recession and ridiculous energy prices people will hot turn down work/ sales because someone is gay or black etc..just the argus reporting garbo as usual
i'm straight and i've never been turned away from a gay club/bar. neither have any of my straight friends. maybe you got turned away for a another reason?
[quote][p][bold]hey mongo[/bold] wrote: She basically saying people are free to do what they choose.....gay pubs/clubs always turning straight people away so whats the problem??? In times of recession and ridiculous energy prices people will hot turn down work/ sales because someone is gay or black etc..just the argus reporting garbo as usual[/p][/quote]i'm straight and i've never been turned away from a gay club/bar. neither have any of my straight friends. maybe you got turned away for a another reason? sugar man
  • Score: 20

11:33am Wed 5 Mar 14

Pheasant pluckers son says...

Another councillor opens it mouth and puts a huge foot it in. Hardly a surprise. Tho I doubt many would agree with her she is allowed her own views as we live in a society that permits that. What damage she has done to ukip and her credibility will no doubt haunt her and won 'to be far away when ever she seeks some publicity or tries to climb the greasy pole of politics. You only have to remember what happened to Edwina Currie and her infamous egg comments and telling pensions to knit woodie hats to keep warm.
So if any business wishes to turn away customers due to whether they be female, gay, black or what ever then they are committing financial suicide and deserve to fail. The typical house wife has a huge spending power every day of the week, more so if looking after a family, as too with gay people as generally they have a higher disposable income so, if they wish to vote with their feet and spend their cash in a business that welcomes them with open arms them good luck to them. You only have to look at how mainstream multinational companies now advertise amongst the gay press and gay websites. I know many a trader who given the choice would work for gay couples over families with children because they tend to get more work and get paid a lot quicker over someone who has to provide for children. I am gay myself and would not necessarily shop in a gay venue because at time exclusively gay can come at a price.
Just because you work in Tesco doesn't mean you can't shop in Aldi.
Another councillor opens it mouth and puts a huge foot it in. Hardly a surprise. Tho I doubt many would agree with her she is allowed her own views as we live in a society that permits that. What damage she has done to ukip and her credibility will no doubt haunt her and won 'to be far away when ever she seeks some publicity or tries to climb the greasy pole of politics. You only have to remember what happened to Edwina Currie and her infamous egg comments and telling pensions to knit woodie hats to keep warm. So if any business wishes to turn away customers due to whether they be female, gay, black or what ever then they are committing financial suicide and deserve to fail. The typical house wife has a huge spending power every day of the week, more so if looking after a family, as too with gay people as generally they have a higher disposable income so, if they wish to vote with their feet and spend their cash in a business that welcomes them with open arms them good luck to them. You only have to look at how mainstream multinational companies now advertise amongst the gay press and gay websites. I know many a trader who given the choice would work for gay couples over families with children because they tend to get more work and get paid a lot quicker over someone who has to provide for children. I am gay myself and would not necessarily shop in a gay venue because at time exclusively gay can come at a price. Just because you work in Tesco doesn't mean you can't shop in Aldi. Pheasant pluckers son
  • Score: 6

11:36am Wed 5 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Warren Morgan wrote:If I am refused service because a service provider does not wish to serve me, that is perfectly legal. It is however illegal to refuse to serve me because I am a Jew, a woman, a rampantly camp homosexual etcetera ...

It isn't the refusal to serve that is illegal. It is the reason for the refusal to serve that can make the refusal illegal.
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote:If I am refused service because a service provider does not wish to serve me, that is perfectly legal. It is however illegal to refuse to serve me because I am a Jew, a woman, a rampantly camp homosexual etcetera ... It isn't the refusal to serve that is illegal. It is the reason for the refusal to serve that can make the refusal illegal. mimseycal
  • Score: 9

11:42am Wed 5 Mar 14

Pheasant pluckers son says...

Now doubt we will see her on Have I got news for you. Should do the ukip campaign some good!
Now doubt we will see her on Have I got news for you. Should do the ukip campaign some good! Pheasant pluckers son
  • Score: 1

11:52am Wed 5 Mar 14

Dan Gleballs says...

“I believe that all business owners, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, should be allowed to withhold their services from whomever that choose whenever they choose.
“It’s their business. Why should they be forced to serve or sell to anyone?”

to this

"Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people"


PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!
“I believe that all business owners, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, should be allowed to withhold their services from whomever that choose whenever they choose. “It’s their business. Why should they be forced to serve or sell to anyone?” to this "Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people" PATHETIC!!!!!!!!! Dan Gleballs
  • Score: 9

12:04pm Wed 5 Mar 14

her professional says...

Alison Smith wrote:
UKIP. Bonkers or Dangerous?: Discuss
Both
[quote][p][bold]Alison Smith[/bold] wrote: UKIP. Bonkers or Dangerous?: Discuss[/p][/quote]Both her professional
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Durango_Splubb says...

Of course under certain circumstances bosses must be able to refuse service but to do so because of somebody's sex or sexuality is asking for bankruptcy!

This is complete nonsense! Business can't thrive if it limits it's clientele on a whim!
Of course under certain circumstances bosses must be able to refuse service but to do so because of somebody's sex or sexuality is asking for bankruptcy! This is complete nonsense! Business can't thrive if it limits it's clientele on a whim! Durango_Splubb
  • Score: 4

12:34pm Wed 5 Mar 14

the red head says...

Bigotry of all forms can only be healed by education, and by having the hard facts put in front of them. How convenient to dismiss responsibility for her views as libertarianism. It is not. It is bigotry. Government don't have to power to dictate you treat everyone equally, morality should be instinctive. I hope she is suitably shamed very soon.
Bigotry of all forms can only be healed by education, and by having the hard facts put in front of them. How convenient to dismiss responsibility for her views as libertarianism. It is not. It is bigotry. Government don't have to power to dictate you treat everyone equally, morality should be instinctive. I hope she is suitably shamed very soon. the red head
  • Score: -2

12:34pm Wed 5 Mar 14

inmegarden says...

Libertarian Patriot wrote:
We must be careful not to be too quick to judge Donna. In our country we must treat everyone with respect and not discriminate on the basis of religion, ethnicity or any other form of association provided such association is not harmful or violates the rights of others.

There is a balance to be struck and perhaps in our overly liberal society we have gone too far in forcing others to accept the politics of the day. For example, a Christian Magistrate was fired because he requested a facility to sit out on cases involving the adoption of children by homosexual couples. This was based on an exercise of religious belief that would be shared by many faiths in addition to the Christian one. The Magistrate pointed out that there was a large pool of magistrates who would be able to sit on such cases without violating their belief system. Thus, the rights of homosexual couples were not violated as they were free to achieve their objective quite easily. The right to refuse services may, in some cases, be a liberty we in a free society must learn to tolerate.

If someone offers a service to the public the right to refuse to serve someone must be based on clear grounds. Tolerance is key and it is the case that in a free society liberty must cut both ways. It gets complicated because religious freedom must encompass the right to practise that religion to the exclusion of certain practises. I include in this all belief systems in our wonderfully diverse culture, not just established faiths such as Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian etc.

In a culturally diverse nation we are going to have to accept culturally diverse freedoms and it is not fair to decide what one group must accept based on the beliefs of another. Its going to take a lot of work to come to the point of agreeing to be tolerant--both ways.

So lets not judge Donna too quickly. Libertarians believe in the fundamental human right to make choices based on freedom of conscience provided others are not harmed. And hurt feelings or violation of "PC" may not always be a good ground to reject another's freedom. We may cast our thoughts back to the apartheid in South Africa or the civil rights movement in the USA where black people were refused service based on colour. Very few people would find such discrimination acceptable and we should never allow such discrimination in our country. However, in a free society we are going to have to make room for the right to be different in many areas. Let us all agree to practise more understanding and toleration of diverse views even though we may not all agree with all of them.
I take issue with several points raised in your comment;
1
" in our overly liberal society". This is subjective, there are many who argue the complete opposite, with reason.
2
"a Christian Magistrate was fired because he requested a facility to sit out on cases involving the adoption of children by homosexual couples". It is not in a Magistrates' mandate to judge morality but to uphold the law, if they feel unable to do so they are unfit for purpose.
3
" because religious freedom must encompass the right to practise that religion to the exclusion of certain practises". Rubbish. They must be free to practise their religion providing they REMAIN within the law.
4
"In a culturally diverse nation we are going to have to accept culturally diverse freedoms and it is not fair to decide what one group must accept based on the beliefs of another". So you would allow Female Genital Mutilation?
[quote][p][bold]Libertarian Patriot[/bold] wrote: We must be careful not to be too quick to judge Donna. In our country we must treat everyone with respect and not discriminate on the basis of religion, ethnicity or any other form of association provided such association is not harmful or violates the rights of others. There is a balance to be struck and perhaps in our overly liberal society we have gone too far in forcing others to accept the politics of the day. For example, a Christian Magistrate was fired because he requested a facility to sit out on cases involving the adoption of children by homosexual couples. This was based on an exercise of religious belief that would be shared by many faiths in addition to the Christian one. The Magistrate pointed out that there was a large pool of magistrates who would be able to sit on such cases without violating their belief system. Thus, the rights of homosexual couples were not violated as they were free to achieve their objective quite easily. The right to refuse services may, in some cases, be a liberty we in a free society must learn to tolerate. If someone offers a service to the public the right to refuse to serve someone must be based on clear grounds. Tolerance is key and it is the case that in a free society liberty must cut both ways. It gets complicated because religious freedom must encompass the right to practise that religion to the exclusion of certain practises. I include in this all belief systems in our wonderfully diverse culture, not just established faiths such as Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian etc. In a culturally diverse nation we are going to have to accept culturally diverse freedoms and it is not fair to decide what one group must accept based on the beliefs of another. Its going to take a lot of work to come to the point of agreeing to be tolerant--both ways. So lets not judge Donna too quickly. Libertarians believe in the fundamental human right to make choices based on freedom of conscience provided others are not harmed. And hurt feelings or violation of "PC" may not always be a good ground to reject another's freedom. We may cast our thoughts back to the apartheid in South Africa or the civil rights movement in the USA where black people were refused service based on colour. Very few people would find such discrimination acceptable and we should never allow such discrimination in our country. However, in a free society we are going to have to make room for the right to be different in many areas. Let us all agree to practise more understanding and toleration of diverse views even though we may not all agree with all of them.[/p][/quote]I take issue with several points raised in your comment; 1 " in our overly liberal society". This is subjective, there are many who argue the complete opposite, with reason. 2 "a Christian Magistrate was fired because he requested a facility to sit out on cases involving the adoption of children by homosexual couples". It is not in a Magistrates' mandate to judge morality but to uphold the law, if they feel unable to do so they are unfit for purpose. 3 " because religious freedom must encompass the right to practise that religion to the exclusion of certain practises". Rubbish. They must be free to practise their religion providing they REMAIN within the law. 4 "In a culturally diverse nation we are going to have to accept culturally diverse freedoms and it is not fair to decide what one group must accept based on the beliefs of another". So you would allow Female Genital Mutilation? inmegarden
  • Score: 6

12:45pm Wed 5 Mar 14

wippasnapper says...

On some points I would vote UKIP but seeing this has made me reconsider as it turns out the majority of UKIP members have a big problem towards those in seriate be they gender related, sexual orientation related its made me think why vote far a party that dose nothing but belittle and betray the very essence of this contrary they can go stick any chance on getting my vote!
On some points I would vote UKIP but seeing this has made me reconsider as it turns out the majority of UKIP members have a big problem towards those in seriate be they gender related, sexual orientation related its made me think why vote far a party that dose nothing but belittle and betray the very essence of this contrary they can go stick any chance on getting my vote! wippasnapper
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Wed 5 Mar 14

tonupboy says...

What can we expect from another fruitcake?!
What can we expect from another fruitcake?! tonupboy
  • Score: 2

12:51pm Wed 5 Mar 14

andrewedmondson says...

Promotion of homophobia and misogyny takes many different forms. Refusing services is just one of them.

The government has a duty to protect minority groups from being victimised. A person does not choose to be a woman or gay or black or disabled, etc. Allowing people to openly discriminate against them sends a signal that these people are inferior. It is the starting point of tyranny.

The rights we enjoy have been achieved through the noble efforts of people willing to stand up against those in power who would oppress us. We take those rights for granted at our peril. That is why we must protest at any effort to undermine them.

The naivety of this Councillor is incredible and dangerous. In what other ways would she divide us given the chance? If I were the leader of UKIP, she would be kicked out. What is very worrying is that she was voted in as a Councillor.
Promotion of homophobia and misogyny takes many different forms. Refusing services is just one of them. The government has a duty to protect minority groups from being victimised. A person does not choose to be a woman or gay or black or disabled, etc. Allowing people to openly discriminate against them sends a signal that these people are inferior. It is the starting point of tyranny. The rights we enjoy have been achieved through the noble efforts of people willing to stand up against those in power who would oppress us. We take those rights for granted at our peril. That is why we must protest at any effort to undermine them. The naivety of this Councillor is incredible and dangerous. In what other ways would she divide us given the chance? If I were the leader of UKIP, she would be kicked out. What is very worrying is that she was voted in as a Councillor. andrewedmondson
  • Score: 3

12:59pm Wed 5 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

the red head wrote:
Bigotry of all forms can only be healed by education, and by having the hard facts put in front of them. How convenient to dismiss responsibility for her views as libertarianism. It is not. It is bigotry. Government don't have to power to dictate you treat everyone equally, morality should be instinctive. I hope she is suitably shamed very soon.
The legal exercise of bigotry is a possible consequence of a minimalist libertarian legal system. Do not confuse precept with consequence.
[quote][p][bold]the red head[/bold] wrote: Bigotry of all forms can only be healed by education, and by having the hard facts put in front of them. How convenient to dismiss responsibility for her views as libertarianism. It is not. It is bigotry. Government don't have to power to dictate you treat everyone equally, morality should be instinctive. I hope she is suitably shamed very soon.[/p][/quote]The legal exercise of bigotry is a possible consequence of a minimalist libertarian legal system. Do not confuse precept with consequence. mimseycal
  • Score: 2

1:04pm Wed 5 Mar 14

theidiotsarewinning... says...

Hmmm… When I read the Argus' headline "Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people" I had a shocked "oh my worrrd reaction", and then I looked at the picture of the woman whom The Argus was attributing the comment to, and something didn't fit, the two feelings I had were incongruent...
I then read the article and what I 'heard' was someone arguing a case for personal freedom when it comes to whom one does business with: even stating that she is a "libertarian".
It did not seem like nasty right wing comment at all.
It was SO apparent to me that The Argus had deliberately misled me to a prejudiced mindset about her BEFORE I read the article i.e I was against the woman, before I had even read a word she had actually said.
The Argus had deliberately prejudiced my thinking… Hmmmmm….
And I read what 'Mimseycal' wrote:
"No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion.
Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement."
The thing is Mimseycal, The Argus by framing their headline the way they did they deliberately mislead the reader into believing this woman had SPECIFICALLY singled out gay people and women. Which is a VERY VERY different meaning to what she actually was saying. The Argus headline makes her a homophobe and a misogynist.
So it's not about reducing an argument to absurdity as Mimseycal says, it's about deliberately misleading to manipulate the consciousness of the reader.
Im not talking here about the rights and wrongs of the arguments in the piece, I am merely commenting on the Dirty tricks of The Argus' in it's reporting…
I do have a thought on the question at hand though…
What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop.
Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!"
Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?..
Where do all of these constant erosions on freedom lead to? 1984 perhaps...
Hmmm… When I read the Argus' headline "Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people" I had a shocked "oh my worrrd reaction", and then I looked at the picture of the woman whom The Argus was attributing the comment to, and something didn't fit, the two feelings I had were incongruent... I then read the article and what I 'heard' was someone arguing a case for personal freedom when it comes to whom one does business with: even stating that she is a "libertarian". It did not seem like nasty right wing comment at all. It was SO apparent to me that The Argus had deliberately misled me to a prejudiced mindset about her BEFORE I read the article i.e I was against the woman, before I had even read a word she had actually said. The Argus had deliberately prejudiced my thinking… Hmmmmm…. And I read what 'Mimseycal' wrote: "No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion. Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement." The thing is Mimseycal, The Argus by framing their headline the way they did they deliberately mislead the reader into believing this woman had SPECIFICALLY singled out gay people and women. Which is a VERY VERY different meaning to what she actually was saying. The Argus headline makes her a homophobe and a misogynist. So it's not about reducing an argument to absurdity as Mimseycal says, it's about deliberately misleading to manipulate the consciousness of the reader. Im not talking here about the rights and wrongs of the arguments in the piece, I am merely commenting on the Dirty tricks of The Argus' in it's reporting… I do have a thought on the question at hand though… What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop. Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!" Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?.. Where do all of these constant erosions on freedom lead to? 1984 perhaps... theidiotsarewinning...
  • Score: 6

1:13pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Number Six says...

Let's send her to Bongo Bongo land
Let's send her to Bongo Bongo land Number Six
  • Score: -2

1:25pm Wed 5 Mar 14

tinker111 says...

HJarrs wrote:
And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train!

It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
UKIP Are the only hope this country has from the sick PC people and yes this is correct every BIZ person should be able to so NO to who ever they like and NO come backs ABOUT TIME WE BECAME " ENGLAND AGAIN " the COUNTRY OUR FATHER'S/Mothers/ Grandad's/ Grandmothers and all brave people who stood up and some died for.
Have been a conservative for a long time but now know have been "Conned" for a long time Leaders + others of this party + Plus all of Lab + Lib Dem etc are only want on gravy train when they are dummped
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]UKIP Are the only hope this country has from the sick PC people and yes this is correct every BIZ person should be able to so NO to who ever they like and NO come backs ABOUT TIME WE BECAME " ENGLAND AGAIN " the COUNTRY OUR FATHER'S/Mothers/ Grandad's/ Grandmothers and all brave people who stood up and some died for. Have been a conservative for a long time but now know have been "Conned" for a long time Leaders + others of this party + Plus all of Lab + Lib Dem etc are only want on gravy train when they are dummped tinker111
  • Score: -7

1:33pm Wed 5 Mar 14

andrewedmondson says...

Tinker111 the problem is that there will be come backs. That is the whole point of our current laws: to prevent society from becoming divided into them and us.
Tinker111 the problem is that there will be come backs. That is the whole point of our current laws: to prevent society from becoming divided into them and us. andrewedmondson
  • Score: 2

1:48pm Wed 5 Mar 14

sugar man says...

tinker111 wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train!

It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
UKIP Are the only hope this country has from the sick PC people and yes this is correct every BIZ person should be able to so NO to who ever they like and NO come backs ABOUT TIME WE BECAME " ENGLAND AGAIN " the COUNTRY OUR FATHER'S/Mothers/ Grandad's/ Grandmothers and all brave people who stood up and some died for.
Have been a conservative for a long time but now know have been "Conned" for a long time Leaders + others of this party + Plus all of Lab + Lib Dem etc are only want on gravy train when they are dummped
you sound awful.
[quote][p][bold]tinker111[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]UKIP Are the only hope this country has from the sick PC people and yes this is correct every BIZ person should be able to so NO to who ever they like and NO come backs ABOUT TIME WE BECAME " ENGLAND AGAIN " the COUNTRY OUR FATHER'S/Mothers/ Grandad's/ Grandmothers and all brave people who stood up and some died for. Have been a conservative for a long time but now know have been "Conned" for a long time Leaders + others of this party + Plus all of Lab + Lib Dem etc are only want on gravy train when they are dummped[/p][/quote]you sound awful. sugar man
  • Score: 10

1:54pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Number Six says...

tinker111 wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train!

It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
UKIP Are the only hope this country has from the sick PC people and yes this is correct every BIZ person should be able to so NO to who ever they like and NO come backs ABOUT TIME WE BECAME " ENGLAND AGAIN " the COUNTRY OUR FATHER'S/Mothers/ Grandad's/ Grandmothers and all brave people who stood up and some died for.
Have been a conservative for a long time but now know have been "Conned" for a long time Leaders + others of this party + Plus all of Lab + Lib Dem etc are only want on gravy train when they are dummped
Yes, let's go back do the days of the British Empire, when half of the atlas was pink and that Johnny Foreigner jolly well knew his place, what, what
[quote][p][bold]tinker111[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]UKIP Are the only hope this country has from the sick PC people and yes this is correct every BIZ person should be able to so NO to who ever they like and NO come backs ABOUT TIME WE BECAME " ENGLAND AGAIN " the COUNTRY OUR FATHER'S/Mothers/ Grandad's/ Grandmothers and all brave people who stood up and some died for. Have been a conservative for a long time but now know have been "Conned" for a long time Leaders + others of this party + Plus all of Lab + Lib Dem etc are only want on gravy train when they are dummped[/p][/quote]Yes, let's go back do the days of the British Empire, when half of the atlas was pink and that Johnny Foreigner jolly well knew his place, what, what Number Six
  • Score: 11

2:01pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Bugzy84 says...

theidiotsarewinning.
..
wrote:
Hmmm… When I read the Argus' headline "Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people" I had a shocked "oh my worrrd reaction", and then I looked at the picture of the woman whom The Argus was attributing the comment to, and something didn't fit, the two feelings I had were incongruent...
I then read the article and what I 'heard' was someone arguing a case for personal freedom when it comes to whom one does business with: even stating that she is a "libertarian".
It did not seem like nasty right wing comment at all.
It was SO apparent to me that The Argus had deliberately misled me to a prejudiced mindset about her BEFORE I read the article i.e I was against the woman, before I had even read a word she had actually said.
The Argus had deliberately prejudiced my thinking… Hmmmmm….
And I read what 'Mimseycal' wrote:
"No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion.
Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement."
The thing is Mimseycal, The Argus by framing their headline the way they did they deliberately mislead the reader into believing this woman had SPECIFICALLY singled out gay people and women. Which is a VERY VERY different meaning to what she actually was saying. The Argus headline makes her a homophobe and a misogynist.
So it's not about reducing an argument to absurdity as Mimseycal says, it's about deliberately misleading to manipulate the consciousness of the reader.
Im not talking here about the rights and wrongs of the arguments in the piece, I am merely commenting on the Dirty tricks of The Argus' in it's reporting…
I do have a thought on the question at hand though…
What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop.
Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!"
Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?..
Where do all of these constant erosions on freedom lead to? 1984 perhaps...
You are comparing a person who is born as a woman, Asian or gay to someone who made a choice to be a rapist, there is a MASSIVE difference.
Freedom to hate & discriminate leads to intolerance, fundamentalists and anarchy.
Personally, people who have committed serious crimes such as rape, murder etc, get off far to easy in my opinion and tougher sentencing and punishment should be made, prisons are like hotels atm!
However discriminating against a person for something they have had no control over like being female, Asian, gay or Spanish is absurd and bigoted.
[quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: Hmmm… When I read the Argus' headline "Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people" I had a shocked "oh my worrrd reaction", and then I looked at the picture of the woman whom The Argus was attributing the comment to, and something didn't fit, the two feelings I had were incongruent... I then read the article and what I 'heard' was someone arguing a case for personal freedom when it comes to whom one does business with: even stating that she is a "libertarian". It did not seem like nasty right wing comment at all. It was SO apparent to me that The Argus had deliberately misled me to a prejudiced mindset about her BEFORE I read the article i.e I was against the woman, before I had even read a word she had actually said. The Argus had deliberately prejudiced my thinking… Hmmmmm…. And I read what 'Mimseycal' wrote: "No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion. Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement." The thing is Mimseycal, The Argus by framing their headline the way they did they deliberately mislead the reader into believing this woman had SPECIFICALLY singled out gay people and women. Which is a VERY VERY different meaning to what she actually was saying. The Argus headline makes her a homophobe and a misogynist. So it's not about reducing an argument to absurdity as Mimseycal says, it's about deliberately misleading to manipulate the consciousness of the reader. Im not talking here about the rights and wrongs of the arguments in the piece, I am merely commenting on the Dirty tricks of The Argus' in it's reporting… I do have a thought on the question at hand though… What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop. Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!" Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?.. Where do all of these constant erosions on freedom lead to? 1984 perhaps...[/p][/quote]You are comparing a person who is born as a woman, Asian or gay to someone who made a choice to be a rapist, there is a MASSIVE difference. Freedom to hate & discriminate leads to intolerance, fundamentalists and anarchy. Personally, people who have committed serious crimes such as rape, murder etc, get off far to easy in my opinion and tougher sentencing and punishment should be made, prisons are like hotels atm! However discriminating against a person for something they have had no control over like being female, Asian, gay or Spanish is absurd and bigoted. Bugzy84
  • Score: 8

2:06pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Cyril Bolleaux says...

andrewedmondson wrote:
Promotion of homophobia and misogyny takes many different forms. Refusing services is just one of them. The government has a duty to protect minority groups from being victimised. A person does not choose to be a woman or gay or black or disabled, etc. Allowing people to openly discriminate against them sends a signal that these people are inferior. It is the starting point of tyranny. The rights we enjoy have been achieved through the noble efforts of people willing to stand up against those in power who would oppress us. We take those rights for granted at our peril. That is why we must protest at any effort to undermine them. The naivety of this Councillor is incredible and dangerous. In what other ways would she divide us given the chance? If I were the leader of UKIP, she would be kicked out. What is very worrying is that she was voted in as a Councillor.
I imagine if she was a Green or Labour she would seek to divide on the grounds of class. You know all that stuff we hear about toffs, public school twits etc. No-one would mind however as class hatred is approved by the sort of people who like to smear others as homophobic or msogynistic.
[quote][p][bold]andrewedmondson[/bold] wrote: Promotion of homophobia and misogyny takes many different forms. Refusing services is just one of them. The government has a duty to protect minority groups from being victimised. A person does not choose to be a woman or gay or black or disabled, etc. Allowing people to openly discriminate against them sends a signal that these people are inferior. It is the starting point of tyranny. The rights we enjoy have been achieved through the noble efforts of people willing to stand up against those in power who would oppress us. We take those rights for granted at our peril. That is why we must protest at any effort to undermine them. The naivety of this Councillor is incredible and dangerous. In what other ways would she divide us given the chance? If I were the leader of UKIP, she would be kicked out. What is very worrying is that she was voted in as a Councillor.[/p][/quote]I imagine if she was a Green or Labour she would seek to divide on the grounds of class. You know all that stuff we hear about toffs, public school twits etc. No-one would mind however as class hatred is approved by the sort of people who like to smear others as homophobic or msogynistic. Cyril Bolleaux
  • Score: 3

2:13pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Bill in Hanover says...

Cave Johnson wrote:
It sounds like The Argus is trying to put words in her mouth. She said you should be allowed to refuse anyone you like, yet The Argus focuses on women and gays? Why is that? Are you trying to whip up another tabloid frenzy? Yawn.
The Argus doesn't mind using 'women and gays' but they are scared witless about using the term 'traveller' as you may notice that whenever an article appears about them the Argus censors it by not allowing comments.
[quote][p][bold]Cave Johnson[/bold] wrote: It sounds like The Argus is trying to put words in her mouth. She said you should be allowed to refuse anyone you like, yet The Argus focuses on women and gays? Why is that? Are you trying to whip up another tabloid frenzy? Yawn.[/p][/quote]The Argus doesn't mind using 'women and gays' but they are scared witless about using the term 'traveller' as you may notice that whenever an article appears about them the Argus censors it by not allowing comments. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 9

2:22pm Wed 5 Mar 14

RedRamsay says...

But all she has really said here is that business owners should be allowed to refuse service to anybody that they wish - I agree with this. If we start placing actual laws around this sort of thing, then your average shop owner who wishes to refuse service for other and more balanced reasons will be hamstrung and that is infringing on people's basic rights regarding their property (business). This is a similar issue to censorship - you can't have one rule for some people and another for others. Freedom of speech and freedom of choice are very important, whether you agree with what is being said/done or not. In this country, people who refuse to serve customers for such ridiculous reasons will go out of business very quickly, so I say let them be nasty bigots if they want to. They'll learn soon enough.
But all she has really said here is that business owners should be allowed to refuse service to anybody that they wish - I agree with this. If we start placing actual laws around this sort of thing, then your average shop owner who wishes to refuse service for other and more balanced reasons will be hamstrung and that is infringing on people's basic rights regarding their property (business). This is a similar issue to censorship - you can't have one rule for some people and another for others. Freedom of speech and freedom of choice are very important, whether you agree with what is being said/done or not. In this country, people who refuse to serve customers for such ridiculous reasons will go out of business very quickly, so I say let them be nasty bigots if they want to. They'll learn soon enough. RedRamsay
  • Score: 1

2:24pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Libertarian Patriot says...

inmegarden wrote:
Libertarian Patriot wrote:
We must be careful not to be too quick to judge Donna. In our country we must treat everyone with respect and not discriminate on the basis of religion, ethnicity or any other form of association provided such association is not harmful or violates the rights of others.

There is a balance to be struck and perhaps in our overly liberal society we have gone too far in forcing others to accept the politics of the day. For example, a Christian Magistrate was fired because he requested a facility to sit out on cases involving the adoption of children by homosexual couples. This was based on an exercise of religious belief that would be shared by many faiths in addition to the Christian one. The Magistrate pointed out that there was a large pool of magistrates who would be able to sit on such cases without violating their belief system. Thus, the rights of homosexual couples were not violated as they were free to achieve their objective quite easily. The right to refuse services may, in some cases, be a liberty we in a free society must learn to tolerate.

If someone offers a service to the public the right to refuse to serve someone must be based on clear grounds. Tolerance is key and it is the case that in a free society liberty must cut both ways. It gets complicated because religious freedom must encompass the right to practise that religion to the exclusion of certain practises. I include in this all belief systems in our wonderfully diverse culture, not just established faiths such as Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian etc.

In a culturally diverse nation we are going to have to accept culturally diverse freedoms and it is not fair to decide what one group must accept based on the beliefs of another. Its going to take a lot of work to come to the point of agreeing to be tolerant--both ways.

So lets not judge Donna too quickly. Libertarians believe in the fundamental human right to make choices based on freedom of conscience provided others are not harmed. And hurt feelings or violation of "PC" may not always be a good ground to reject another's freedom. We may cast our thoughts back to the apartheid in South Africa or the civil rights movement in the USA where black people were refused service based on colour. Very few people would find such discrimination acceptable and we should never allow such discrimination in our country. However, in a free society we are going to have to make room for the right to be different in many areas. Let us all agree to practise more understanding and toleration of diverse views even though we may not all agree with all of them.
I take issue with several points raised in your comment;
1
" in our overly liberal society". This is subjective, there are many who argue the complete opposite, with reason.
2
"a Christian Magistrate was fired because he requested a facility to sit out on cases involving the adoption of children by homosexual couples". It is not in a Magistrates' mandate to judge morality but to uphold the law, if they feel unable to do so they are unfit for purpose.
3
" because religious freedom must encompass the right to practise that religion to the exclusion of certain practises". Rubbish. They must be free to practise their religion providing they REMAIN within the law.
4
"In a culturally diverse nation we are going to have to accept culturally diverse freedoms and it is not fair to decide what one group must accept based on the beliefs of another". So you would allow Female Genital Mutilation?
Taking your 4 points in response to my original post.

1. Indeed it is subjective view and in a free country we must tolerate individual points of view even if we disagree with them.

2. You say someone is unfit for purpose because they act according to their conscience? The law required the murdering of Jews in Nazi Germany and surely you would say they should not have obeyed the law? There are fundamental human rights that no law should abrogate and freedom of conscience is one.

3. Ditto 2.

4. I made the proviso so long as it does not harm others or infringe on their rights. Mutilation cannot be tolerated in a free society and it is probably true that the victim did not consent to being mutilated. We may have to draw a line under what religions are acceptable as it is possible someone will come up with a religion that permits paedophilia, beating of wives or mutilation and so forth. IN Britain we have a Christian heritage and that is as much to do with treating others as you wold be treated as it is a spiritual realm.

___________

As a libertarian I agree with the following:


"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire
[quote][p][bold]inmegarden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Libertarian Patriot[/bold] wrote: We must be careful not to be too quick to judge Donna. In our country we must treat everyone with respect and not discriminate on the basis of religion, ethnicity or any other form of association provided such association is not harmful or violates the rights of others. There is a balance to be struck and perhaps in our overly liberal society we have gone too far in forcing others to accept the politics of the day. For example, a Christian Magistrate was fired because he requested a facility to sit out on cases involving the adoption of children by homosexual couples. This was based on an exercise of religious belief that would be shared by many faiths in addition to the Christian one. The Magistrate pointed out that there was a large pool of magistrates who would be able to sit on such cases without violating their belief system. Thus, the rights of homosexual couples were not violated as they were free to achieve their objective quite easily. The right to refuse services may, in some cases, be a liberty we in a free society must learn to tolerate. If someone offers a service to the public the right to refuse to serve someone must be based on clear grounds. Tolerance is key and it is the case that in a free society liberty must cut both ways. It gets complicated because religious freedom must encompass the right to practise that religion to the exclusion of certain practises. I include in this all belief systems in our wonderfully diverse culture, not just established faiths such as Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian etc. In a culturally diverse nation we are going to have to accept culturally diverse freedoms and it is not fair to decide what one group must accept based on the beliefs of another. Its going to take a lot of work to come to the point of agreeing to be tolerant--both ways. So lets not judge Donna too quickly. Libertarians believe in the fundamental human right to make choices based on freedom of conscience provided others are not harmed. And hurt feelings or violation of "PC" may not always be a good ground to reject another's freedom. We may cast our thoughts back to the apartheid in South Africa or the civil rights movement in the USA where black people were refused service based on colour. Very few people would find such discrimination acceptable and we should never allow such discrimination in our country. However, in a free society we are going to have to make room for the right to be different in many areas. Let us all agree to practise more understanding and toleration of diverse views even though we may not all agree with all of them.[/p][/quote]I take issue with several points raised in your comment; 1 " in our overly liberal society". This is subjective, there are many who argue the complete opposite, with reason. 2 "a Christian Magistrate was fired because he requested a facility to sit out on cases involving the adoption of children by homosexual couples". It is not in a Magistrates' mandate to judge morality but to uphold the law, if they feel unable to do so they are unfit for purpose. 3 " because religious freedom must encompass the right to practise that religion to the exclusion of certain practises". Rubbish. They must be free to practise their religion providing they REMAIN within the law. 4 "In a culturally diverse nation we are going to have to accept culturally diverse freedoms and it is not fair to decide what one group must accept based on the beliefs of another". So you would allow Female Genital Mutilation?[/p][/quote]Taking your 4 points in response to my original post. 1. Indeed it is subjective view and in a free country we must tolerate individual points of view even if we disagree with them. 2. You say someone is unfit for purpose because they act according to their conscience? The law required the murdering of Jews in Nazi Germany and surely you would say they should not have obeyed the law? There are fundamental human rights that no law should abrogate and freedom of conscience is one. 3. Ditto 2. 4. I made the proviso so long as it does not harm others or infringe on their rights. Mutilation cannot be tolerated in a free society and it is probably true that the victim did not consent to being mutilated. We may have to draw a line under what religions are acceptable as it is possible someone will come up with a religion that permits paedophilia, beating of wives or mutilation and so forth. IN Britain we have a Christian heritage and that is as much to do with treating others as you wold be treated as it is a spiritual realm. ___________ As a libertarian I agree with the following: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire Libertarian Patriot
  • Score: 3

2:28pm Wed 5 Mar 14

PorkyChopper says...

Seems like it's only clubrob and the idiotsarewinning (and me) who have actually read the article properly and haven't reacted in an emotional knee-jerk fashion. UKIP are gaining popularity, there's elections coming up within the year, and all the media will be in smear campaign mode to discredit anyone who isn't part of the LibLabCon party. They daren't start slinging too many accusations at each other, as it will uncover some pretty vile goings on. Harriet Harman and Peter Rock are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Luckily for them, attention is diverted elsewhere at the moment, but these disgusting perverts will be exposed soon enough. They will get even more desperate and obvious in their attempts to keep a lid on it though.
Seems like it's only clubrob and the idiotsarewinning (and me) who have actually read the article properly and haven't reacted in an emotional knee-jerk fashion. UKIP are gaining popularity, there's elections coming up within the year, and all the media will be in smear campaign mode to discredit anyone who isn't part of the LibLabCon party. They daren't start slinging too many accusations at each other, as it will uncover some pretty vile goings on. Harriet Harman and Peter Rock are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Luckily for them, attention is diverted elsewhere at the moment, but these disgusting perverts will be exposed soon enough. They will get even more desperate and obvious in their attempts to keep a lid on it though. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 6

2:33pm Wed 5 Mar 14

spa301 says...

Like it or not UKIP are appealing to a growing number of people. Possibly this is because they state what they think rather than twist themselves in knots trying to say the 'right' thing. If we didn't have such a lamentable group of party leaders, at present, then probably their popularity wouldn't be where it is now.
As for the Argus they are a laughably inept bunch of illiterate so called journalists and I'd never pay for their paper these days. This comments facility however can be very entertaining with some of the insights and comments far exceeding the intelligence and wit of the so called reporters.
Like it or not UKIP are appealing to a growing number of people. Possibly this is because they state what they think rather than twist themselves in knots trying to say the 'right' thing. If we didn't have such a lamentable group of party leaders, at present, then probably their popularity wouldn't be where it is now. As for the Argus they are a laughably inept bunch of illiterate so called journalists and I'd never pay for their paper these days. This comments facility however can be very entertaining with some of the insights and comments far exceeding the intelligence and wit of the so called reporters. spa301
  • Score: 6

2:37pm Wed 5 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
clubrob6 wrote:
Stoney33 wrote:
Im not a UKIP supporter, but cant help this continual witch hunt to try and out them as some heavily right wing, nazi party is getting a little tiresome

Is the country a little worried about their potential popularity?
Totally agree the controlled media are doing the predicted dirty tricks to turn voters away from UKIP,the argus is very controlled and have probably be told to concentrate on the word GAY as there are loads of us here but im voting UKIP as its the only party talking sense.
Well to be fair, gay people are the ones that are likely to be refused entry to guest houses etc - as has happened in the past. I would be very careful about UKIP - although they do have members who are probably pretty ordinary and just want the borders controlled - there are quite a few nutjobs attracted to this party. Who knows how the party will develop in the future.
Im afraid that goes for any party they all have a element of nutjobs as you put it.But the three main parties were afraid even to speak certain words like IMMIGRATION which is why its got out of control and certain immigrants refusing to intergrate and do such things as learn English.Immigration is good but it needs to be controlled which is why people are turning to UKIP even as a protest vote.Plus why are the three main parties afraid to give us a say on the EU,because its a job for the boys when the MPs are voted out by the voters,or BLAIIR wanted the presidents job luckily the EU did not want him.Basically the troubles in the UK now are because the three main parties say what the voters want to hear but then ignore us when in power.Its got to the stage where the opinions of the voters don't matter which is why the three main parties are in for a shock.Every dirty trick will be played by the main parties and the controlled media to try and turn voters away from UKIP but its too late.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stoney33[/bold] wrote: Im not a UKIP supporter, but cant help this continual witch hunt to try and out them as some heavily right wing, nazi party is getting a little tiresome Is the country a little worried about their potential popularity?[/p][/quote]Totally agree the controlled media are doing the predicted dirty tricks to turn voters away from UKIP,the argus is very controlled and have probably be told to concentrate on the word GAY as there are loads of us here but im voting UKIP as its the only party talking sense.[/p][/quote]Well to be fair, gay people are the ones that are likely to be refused entry to guest houses etc - as has happened in the past. I would be very careful about UKIP - although they do have members who are probably pretty ordinary and just want the borders controlled - there are quite a few nutjobs attracted to this party. Who knows how the party will develop in the future.[/p][/quote]Im afraid that goes for any party they all have a element of nutjobs as you put it.But the three main parties were afraid even to speak certain words like IMMIGRATION which is why its got out of control and certain immigrants refusing to intergrate and do such things as learn English.Immigration is good but it needs to be controlled which is why people are turning to UKIP even as a protest vote.Plus why are the three main parties afraid to give us a say on the EU,because its a job for the boys when the MPs are voted out by the voters,or BLAIIR wanted the presidents job luckily the EU did not want him.Basically the troubles in the UK now are because the three main parties say what the voters want to hear but then ignore us when in power.Its got to the stage where the opinions of the voters don't matter which is why the three main parties are in for a shock.Every dirty trick will be played by the main parties and the controlled media to try and turn voters away from UKIP but its too late. clubrob6
  • Score: 6

2:42pm Wed 5 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

Bill in Hanover wrote:
Cave Johnson wrote:
It sounds like The Argus is trying to put words in her mouth. She said you should be allowed to refuse anyone you like, yet The Argus focuses on women and gays? Why is that? Are you trying to whip up another tabloid frenzy? Yawn.
The Argus doesn't mind using 'women and gays' but they are scared witless about using the term 'traveller' as you may notice that whenever an article appears about them the Argus censors it by not allowing comments.
Gays don't like the argus we still remember the days they were very homophobic ,we called the argus the gutter press it resorted back to the gutter on a couple of articles last year.Now they are using the word gay hoping to turn voters away from UKIP but the gay people of brighton knows that the argus have no loyalties towards us.
[quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cave Johnson[/bold] wrote: It sounds like The Argus is trying to put words in her mouth. She said you should be allowed to refuse anyone you like, yet The Argus focuses on women and gays? Why is that? Are you trying to whip up another tabloid frenzy? Yawn.[/p][/quote]The Argus doesn't mind using 'women and gays' but they are scared witless about using the term 'traveller' as you may notice that whenever an article appears about them the Argus censors it by not allowing comments.[/p][/quote]Gays don't like the argus we still remember the days they were very homophobic ,we called the argus the gutter press it resorted back to the gutter on a couple of articles last year.Now they are using the word gay hoping to turn voters away from UKIP but the gay people of brighton knows that the argus have no loyalties towards us. clubrob6
  • Score: 5

2:49pm Wed 5 Mar 14

theidiotsarewinning... says...

Bugzy84 wrote:
theidiotsarewinning.

..
wrote:
Hmmm… When I read the Argus' headline "Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people" I had a shocked "oh my worrrd reaction", and then I looked at the picture of the woman whom The Argus was attributing the comment to, and something didn't fit, the two feelings I had were incongruent...
I then read the article and what I 'heard' was someone arguing a case for personal freedom when it comes to whom one does business with: even stating that she is a "libertarian".
It did not seem like nasty right wing comment at all.
It was SO apparent to me that The Argus had deliberately misled me to a prejudiced mindset about her BEFORE I read the article i.e I was against the woman, before I had even read a word she had actually said.
The Argus had deliberately prejudiced my thinking… Hmmmmm….
And I read what 'Mimseycal' wrote:
"No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion.
Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement."
The thing is Mimseycal, The Argus by framing their headline the way they did they deliberately mislead the reader into believing this woman had SPECIFICALLY singled out gay people and women. Which is a VERY VERY different meaning to what she actually was saying. The Argus headline makes her a homophobe and a misogynist.
So it's not about reducing an argument to absurdity as Mimseycal says, it's about deliberately misleading to manipulate the consciousness of the reader.
Im not talking here about the rights and wrongs of the arguments in the piece, I am merely commenting on the Dirty tricks of The Argus' in it's reporting…
I do have a thought on the question at hand though…
What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop.
Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!"
Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?..
Where do all of these constant erosions on freedom lead to? 1984 perhaps...
You are comparing a person who is born as a woman, Asian or gay to someone who made a choice to be a rapist, there is a MASSIVE difference.
Freedom to hate & discriminate leads to intolerance, fundamentalists and anarchy.
Personally, people who have committed serious crimes such as rape, murder etc, get off far to easy in my opinion and tougher sentencing and punishment should be made, prisons are like hotels atm!
However discriminating against a person for something they have had no control over like being female, Asian, gay or Spanish is absurd and bigoted.
Im making no such comparison. Such a comparison is absurd.
I deplore racism, sexism, homophobia, and cruelty.
It was a question intended to add to the debate.. I.e is discrimination in business relations always wrong, or just sometimes, and if so when, and why - are their exceptions - for example, should someone have the right to refuse entry to someone who has caused great harm to others in their community? What does this mean for freedom? Etc.. It is important to understand and debate the nuances of meaning in things, and I feel that arguments are far often reduced to simplistic absolutes, because it is easy and, frankly a lazy way of thinking, a basic way of organising the world that is conditioned into people by most television and most newspapers. Far too often people see things as black or white, right or wrong, when in fact often things are much more complex and far reaching.
Legislation that erodes freedom in the name of freedom ought to be eyed suspiciously…. Bit by bit they removed our freedom to keep us free…
1984 stealthily, insidiously creeps..
[quote][p][bold]Bugzy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: Hmmm… When I read the Argus' headline "Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people" I had a shocked "oh my worrrd reaction", and then I looked at the picture of the woman whom The Argus was attributing the comment to, and something didn't fit, the two feelings I had were incongruent... I then read the article and what I 'heard' was someone arguing a case for personal freedom when it comes to whom one does business with: even stating that she is a "libertarian". It did not seem like nasty right wing comment at all. It was SO apparent to me that The Argus had deliberately misled me to a prejudiced mindset about her BEFORE I read the article i.e I was against the woman, before I had even read a word she had actually said. The Argus had deliberately prejudiced my thinking… Hmmmmm…. And I read what 'Mimseycal' wrote: "No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion. Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement." The thing is Mimseycal, The Argus by framing their headline the way they did they deliberately mislead the reader into believing this woman had SPECIFICALLY singled out gay people and women. Which is a VERY VERY different meaning to what she actually was saying. The Argus headline makes her a homophobe and a misogynist. So it's not about reducing an argument to absurdity as Mimseycal says, it's about deliberately misleading to manipulate the consciousness of the reader. Im not talking here about the rights and wrongs of the arguments in the piece, I am merely commenting on the Dirty tricks of The Argus' in it's reporting… I do have a thought on the question at hand though… What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop. Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!" Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?.. Where do all of these constant erosions on freedom lead to? 1984 perhaps...[/p][/quote]You are comparing a person who is born as a woman, Asian or gay to someone who made a choice to be a rapist, there is a MASSIVE difference. Freedom to hate & discriminate leads to intolerance, fundamentalists and anarchy. Personally, people who have committed serious crimes such as rape, murder etc, get off far to easy in my opinion and tougher sentencing and punishment should be made, prisons are like hotels atm! However discriminating against a person for something they have had no control over like being female, Asian, gay or Spanish is absurd and bigoted.[/p][/quote]Im making no such comparison. Such a comparison is absurd. I deplore racism, sexism, homophobia, and cruelty. It was a question intended to add to the debate.. I.e is discrimination in business relations always wrong, or just sometimes, and if so when, and why - are their exceptions - for example, should someone have the right to refuse entry to someone who has caused great harm to others in their community? What does this mean for freedom? Etc.. It is important to understand and debate the nuances of meaning in things, and I feel that arguments are far often reduced to simplistic absolutes, because it is easy and, frankly a lazy way of thinking, a basic way of organising the world that is conditioned into people by most television and most newspapers. Far too often people see things as black or white, right or wrong, when in fact often things are much more complex and far reaching. Legislation that erodes freedom in the name of freedom ought to be eyed suspiciously…. Bit by bit they removed our freedom to keep us free… 1984 stealthily, insidiously creeps.. theidiotsarewinning...
  • Score: 4

2:50pm Wed 5 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

PorkyChopper wrote:
Seems like it's only clubrob and the idiotsarewinning (and me) who have actually read the article properly and haven't reacted in an emotional knee-jerk fashion. UKIP are gaining popularity, there's elections coming up within the year, and all the media will be in smear campaign mode to discredit anyone who isn't part of the LibLabCon party. They daren't start slinging too many accusations at each other, as it will uncover some pretty vile goings on. Harriet Harman and Peter Rock are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Luckily for them, attention is diverted elsewhere at the moment, but these disgusting perverts will be exposed soon enough. They will get even more desperate and obvious in their attempts to keep a lid on it though.
Well said porky we will now see dirty tricks being played by all three so called main political parties and the controlled media of which the Argus is a part off.The argus is using the word gay to stir things up but it wont change the gay vote as we gays in brighton and hove remember when the Argus turned on us and was just a gutter paper that was very homophobic.They have one particular reporter at the moment who is very homophobic which we have complained about and only seems to be reporting on minor issues.
[quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: Seems like it's only clubrob and the idiotsarewinning (and me) who have actually read the article properly and haven't reacted in an emotional knee-jerk fashion. UKIP are gaining popularity, there's elections coming up within the year, and all the media will be in smear campaign mode to discredit anyone who isn't part of the LibLabCon party. They daren't start slinging too many accusations at each other, as it will uncover some pretty vile goings on. Harriet Harman and Peter Rock are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Luckily for them, attention is diverted elsewhere at the moment, but these disgusting perverts will be exposed soon enough. They will get even more desperate and obvious in their attempts to keep a lid on it though.[/p][/quote]Well said porky we will now see dirty tricks being played by all three so called main political parties and the controlled media of which the Argus is a part off.The argus is using the word gay to stir things up but it wont change the gay vote as we gays in brighton and hove remember when the Argus turned on us and was just a gutter paper that was very homophobic.They have one particular reporter at the moment who is very homophobic which we have complained about and only seems to be reporting on minor issues. clubrob6
  • Score: 6

2:51pm Wed 5 Mar 14

julesgemini says...

I think businesses should have the right to refuse on an induvidual basis ie. if a customer was drunk or abusive but not to refuse a minority group based on sexuality or religion etc.
I think businesses should have the right to refuse on an induvidual basis ie. if a customer was drunk or abusive but not to refuse a minority group based on sexuality or religion etc. julesgemini
  • Score: 2

3:16pm Wed 5 Mar 14

theidiotsarewinning... says...

clubrob6 wrote:
PorkyChopper wrote:
Seems like it's only clubrob and the idiotsarewinning (and me) who have actually read the article properly and haven't reacted in an emotional knee-jerk fashion. UKIP are gaining popularity, there's elections coming up within the year, and all the media will be in smear campaign mode to discredit anyone who isn't part of the LibLabCon party. They daren't start slinging too many accusations at each other, as it will uncover some pretty vile goings on. Harriet Harman and Peter Rock are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Luckily for them, attention is diverted elsewhere at the moment, but these disgusting perverts will be exposed soon enough. They will get even more desperate and obvious in their attempts to keep a lid on it though.
Well said porky we will now see dirty tricks being played by all three so called main political parties and the controlled media of which the Argus is a part off.The argus is using the word gay to stir things up but it wont change the gay vote as we gays in brighton and hove remember when the Argus turned on us and was just a gutter paper that was very homophobic.They have one particular reporter at the moment who is very homophobic which we have complained about and only seems to be reporting on minor issues.
I studied linguistics as Sussex University, and from a purely linguistic point of view The Argus' language is highly emotive and manipulative in its articles.
To be fair to them though they are not alone in this, and they no doubt draw inspiration from the likes of The Daily Mail amongst many others...
They are just so transparent at it though, naive even - that it is often amusing to me when I read their nonsense, sometimes I really enjoy it it's so bad!
Using the words "gay" and "women" in this sense is so emotive it is off the clock - a rank and extremely crass attempt at manipulation. And it's worked!
They want a knee jerk response and, judging by the comments that's just what they've got..
C'mon people started reading things properly, look closely, - look at the details such as tone, emotive language, juxtaposing, jumping on bandwagons etc…
The devil is always in the detail…
The best self-defence in life, apart from knowing how to physically protect yourself, is intellectual self-defence - if you have this you are immune to twisted arguments, manipulations and falsehoods that rely on tampering with your emotions… Critical and analytical thinking will keep you safe….
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: Seems like it's only clubrob and the idiotsarewinning (and me) who have actually read the article properly and haven't reacted in an emotional knee-jerk fashion. UKIP are gaining popularity, there's elections coming up within the year, and all the media will be in smear campaign mode to discredit anyone who isn't part of the LibLabCon party. They daren't start slinging too many accusations at each other, as it will uncover some pretty vile goings on. Harriet Harman and Peter Rock are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Luckily for them, attention is diverted elsewhere at the moment, but these disgusting perverts will be exposed soon enough. They will get even more desperate and obvious in their attempts to keep a lid on it though.[/p][/quote]Well said porky we will now see dirty tricks being played by all three so called main political parties and the controlled media of which the Argus is a part off.The argus is using the word gay to stir things up but it wont change the gay vote as we gays in brighton and hove remember when the Argus turned on us and was just a gutter paper that was very homophobic.They have one particular reporter at the moment who is very homophobic which we have complained about and only seems to be reporting on minor issues.[/p][/quote]I studied linguistics as Sussex University, and from a purely linguistic point of view The Argus' language is highly emotive and manipulative in its articles. To be fair to them though they are not alone in this, and they no doubt draw inspiration from the likes of The Daily Mail amongst many others... They are just so transparent at it though, naive even - that it is often amusing to me when I read their nonsense, sometimes I really enjoy it it's so bad! Using the words "gay" and "women" in this sense is so emotive it is off the clock - a rank and extremely crass attempt at manipulation. And it's worked! They want a knee jerk response and, judging by the comments that's just what they've got.. C'mon people started reading things properly, look closely, - look at the details such as tone, emotive language, juxtaposing, jumping on bandwagons etc… The devil is always in the detail… The best self-defence in life, apart from knowing how to physically protect yourself, is intellectual self-defence - if you have this you are immune to twisted arguments, manipulations and falsehoods that rely on tampering with your emotions… Critical and analytical thinking will keep you safe…. theidiotsarewinning...
  • Score: 6

3:24pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Old Ladys Gin says...

I quite like to own a business in which I could refuse clients if I didn't like the cut of their jib.
It'd have to be a pub though because as far as I am aware they can still do this.
I quite like to own a business in which I could refuse clients if I didn't like the cut of their jib. It'd have to be a pub though because as far as I am aware they can still do this. Old Ladys Gin
  • Score: 4

3:25pm Wed 5 Mar 14

andrewedmondson says...

After the initial outcry, Donna Edmunds said 'I in no way endorse any form of discrimination.'

... apart from shopkeepers having the right to discriminate against whomever they wish.
After the initial outcry, Donna Edmunds said 'I in no way endorse any form of discrimination.' ... apart from shopkeepers having the right to discriminate against whomever they wish. andrewedmondson
  • Score: 2

3:28pm Wed 5 Mar 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

clubrob6 wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
clubrob6 wrote:
Stoney33 wrote:
Im not a UKIP supporter, but cant help this continual witch hunt to try and out them as some heavily right wing, nazi party is getting a little tiresome

Is the country a little worried about their potential popularity?
Totally agree the controlled media are doing the predicted dirty tricks to turn voters away from UKIP,the argus is very controlled and have probably be told to concentrate on the word GAY as there are loads of us here but im voting UKIP as its the only party talking sense.
Well to be fair, gay people are the ones that are likely to be refused entry to guest houses etc - as has happened in the past. I would be very careful about UKIP - although they do have members who are probably pretty ordinary and just want the borders controlled - there are quite a few nutjobs attracted to this party. Who knows how the party will develop in the future.
Im afraid that goes for any party they all have a element of nutjobs as you put it.But the three main parties were afraid even to speak certain words like IMMIGRATION which is why its got out of control and certain immigrants refusing to intergrate and do such things as learn English.Immigration is good but it needs to be controlled which is why people are turning to UKIP even as a protest vote.Plus why are the three main parties afraid to give us a say on the EU,because its a job for the boys when the MPs are voted out by the voters,or BLAIIR wanted the presidents job luckily the EU did not want him.Basically the troubles in the UK now are because the three main parties say what the voters want to hear but then ignore us when in power.Its got to the stage where the opinions of the voters don't matter which is why the three main parties are in for a shock.Every dirty trick will be played by the main parties and the controlled media to try and turn voters away from UKIP but its too late.
It goes both ways though clubrob. How many British ex-pats speak the language or integrate? Some make the effort but there are plenty who don't bother. It's easy to point the finger and say 'learn English' but how many British ex-pats in Hong Kong speak Mandarin? Or speak Spanish in Spain?
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stoney33[/bold] wrote: Im not a UKIP supporter, but cant help this continual witch hunt to try and out them as some heavily right wing, nazi party is getting a little tiresome Is the country a little worried about their potential popularity?[/p][/quote]Totally agree the controlled media are doing the predicted dirty tricks to turn voters away from UKIP,the argus is very controlled and have probably be told to concentrate on the word GAY as there are loads of us here but im voting UKIP as its the only party talking sense.[/p][/quote]Well to be fair, gay people are the ones that are likely to be refused entry to guest houses etc - as has happened in the past. I would be very careful about UKIP - although they do have members who are probably pretty ordinary and just want the borders controlled - there are quite a few nutjobs attracted to this party. Who knows how the party will develop in the future.[/p][/quote]Im afraid that goes for any party they all have a element of nutjobs as you put it.But the three main parties were afraid even to speak certain words like IMMIGRATION which is why its got out of control and certain immigrants refusing to intergrate and do such things as learn English.Immigration is good but it needs to be controlled which is why people are turning to UKIP even as a protest vote.Plus why are the three main parties afraid to give us a say on the EU,because its a job for the boys when the MPs are voted out by the voters,or BLAIIR wanted the presidents job luckily the EU did not want him.Basically the troubles in the UK now are because the three main parties say what the voters want to hear but then ignore us when in power.Its got to the stage where the opinions of the voters don't matter which is why the three main parties are in for a shock.Every dirty trick will be played by the main parties and the controlled media to try and turn voters away from UKIP but its too late.[/p][/quote]It goes both ways though clubrob. How many British ex-pats speak the language or integrate? Some make the effort but there are plenty who don't bother. It's easy to point the finger and say 'learn English' but how many British ex-pats in Hong Kong speak Mandarin? Or speak Spanish in Spain? thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 6

3:31pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Andy R says...

FrankFisher wrote:
So those people outraged by Edmunds' principled position: you want people to be sent to jail for refusing to do certain work, is that correct? Unless they agree to do work they really don't want to do, you want them punished, fined, jailed? And this is in the name of liberalism and tolerant, right? Being forced to work on pain of punishment is called slavery, isn't it?
What a load of absolute b0ll0x. What are you even talking about? What does "slavery" have to do with it?
[quote][p][bold]FrankFisher[/bold] wrote: So those people outraged by Edmunds' principled position: you want people to be sent to jail for refusing to do certain work, is that correct? Unless they agree to do work they really don't want to do, you want them punished, fined, jailed? And this is in the name of liberalism and tolerant, right? Being forced to work on pain of punishment is called slavery, isn't it?[/p][/quote]What a load of absolute b0ll0x. What are you even talking about? What does "slavery" have to do with it? Andy R
  • Score: 0

3:33pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Andy R says...

Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience.
They were just exercising their right to say "we don't like your views, which you were very secretive about when you were seeking election under our party colours. We don't want you in our club anymore." A "libertarian" should approve......
[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience.[/p][/quote]They were just exercising their right to say "we don't like your views, which you were very secretive about when you were seeking election under our party colours. We don't want you in our club anymore." A "libertarian" should approve...... Andy R
  • Score: -5

3:35pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Andy R says...

Libertarian Patriot wrote:
Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience.
The case of the Brighton Councillor forced out because she exercised a religious freedom is a good example of intolerance taken too far. We must not become an intolerant society and as most people adhere to some form of belief system it is vital we respect diversity. The councillor in question was the victim of PC bullying in my view.

We must be careful not to allow our country to become so diverse that it flies apart. An overall consensus is essential to any nation and we may have to begin to address who we are in this country and even consider a more up to date Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of conscience and freedom from ever shifting aggressive PC or liberal bullying.

I recommend everyone read Orwell's "1984" and if you read it decades ago, please read it again. Orwell has written that the path to totalitarianism begins with the liberal left and enforced PC (http://www.freeradi

cal.co.nz/content/58

/Orwell.php )
"We must be careful not to allow...." Can a "libertarian" even say those words?
[quote][p][bold]Libertarian Patriot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience.[/p][/quote]The case of the Brighton Councillor forced out because she exercised a religious freedom is a good example of intolerance taken too far. We must not become an intolerant society and as most people adhere to some form of belief system it is vital we respect diversity. The councillor in question was the victim of PC bullying in my view. We must be careful not to allow our country to become so diverse that it flies apart. An overall consensus is essential to any nation and we may have to begin to address who we are in this country and even consider a more up to date Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of conscience and freedom from ever shifting aggressive PC or liberal bullying. I recommend everyone read Orwell's "1984" and if you read it decades ago, please read it again. Orwell has written that the path to totalitarianism begins with the liberal left and enforced PC (http://www.freeradi cal.co.nz/content/58 /Orwell.php )[/p][/quote]"We must be careful not to allow...." Can a "libertarian" even say those words? Andy R
  • Score: -6

3:37pm Wed 5 Mar 14

JollyJules1 says...

Should anyone refuse to serve me on the grounds that I am a woman I will sue! What an absolute load of rubbish she is speaking - that is one lost UKIP vote.
Should anyone refuse to serve me on the grounds that I am a woman I will sue! What an absolute load of rubbish she is speaking - that is one lost UKIP vote. JollyJules1
  • Score: 2

3:38pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Andy R says...

Dan Gleballs wrote:
“I believe that all business owners, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, should be allowed to withhold their services from whomever that choose whenever they choose.
“It’s their business. Why should they be forced to serve or sell to anyone?”

to this

"Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people"


PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!
What does it matter? What makes one position more acceptable than the other?

UKIP.....turning "don't like the look of you....not from round here are you" into public policy.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Gleballs[/bold] wrote: “I believe that all business owners, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, should be allowed to withhold their services from whomever that choose whenever they choose. “It’s their business. Why should they be forced to serve or sell to anyone?” to this "Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people" PATHETIC!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]What does it matter? What makes one position more acceptable than the other? UKIP.....turning "don't like the look of you....not from round here are you" into public policy. Andy R
  • Score: -5

3:40pm Wed 5 Mar 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

tinker111 wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train!

It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
UKIP Are the only hope this country has from the sick PC people and yes this is correct every BIZ person should be able to so NO to who ever they like and NO come backs ABOUT TIME WE BECAME " ENGLAND AGAIN " the COUNTRY OUR FATHER'S/Mothers/ Grandad's/ Grandmothers and all brave people who stood up and some died for.
Have been a conservative for a long time but now know have been "Conned" for a long time Leaders + others of this party + Plus all of Lab + Lib Dem etc are only want on gravy train when they are dummped
Why are UKIP supporters often bordering on the illiterate? I don't hold out much hope for education standards if they are elected. My dad fought in WWII and he doesn't share your views. Nor does my mum who survived the Blitz. Please don't tar them with your warped view of history.
[quote][p][bold]tinker111[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]UKIP Are the only hope this country has from the sick PC people and yes this is correct every BIZ person should be able to so NO to who ever they like and NO come backs ABOUT TIME WE BECAME " ENGLAND AGAIN " the COUNTRY OUR FATHER'S/Mothers/ Grandad's/ Grandmothers and all brave people who stood up and some died for. Have been a conservative for a long time but now know have been "Conned" for a long time Leaders + others of this party + Plus all of Lab + Lib Dem etc are only want on gravy train when they are dummped[/p][/quote]Why are UKIP supporters often bordering on the illiterate? I don't hold out much hope for education standards if they are elected. My dad fought in WWII and he doesn't share your views. Nor does my mum who survived the Blitz. Please don't tar them with your warped view of history. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: -3

4:09pm Wed 5 Mar 14

PorkyChopper says...

theidiotsarewinning.
..
wrote:
clubrob6 wrote:
PorkyChopper wrote:
Seems like it's only clubrob and the idiotsarewinning (and me) who have actually read the article properly and haven't reacted in an emotional knee-jerk fashion. UKIP are gaining popularity, there's elections coming up within the year, and all the media will be in smear campaign mode to discredit anyone who isn't part of the LibLabCon party. They daren't start slinging too many accusations at each other, as it will uncover some pretty vile goings on. Harriet Harman and Peter Rock are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Luckily for them, attention is diverted elsewhere at the moment, but these disgusting perverts will be exposed soon enough. They will get even more desperate and obvious in their attempts to keep a lid on it though.
Well said porky we will now see dirty tricks being played by all three so called main political parties and the controlled media of which the Argus is a part off.The argus is using the word gay to stir things up but it wont change the gay vote as we gays in brighton and hove remember when the Argus turned on us and was just a gutter paper that was very homophobic.They have one particular reporter at the moment who is very homophobic which we have complained about and only seems to be reporting on minor issues.
I studied linguistics as Sussex University, and from a purely linguistic point of view The Argus' language is highly emotive and manipulative in its articles.
To be fair to them though they are not alone in this, and they no doubt draw inspiration from the likes of The Daily Mail amongst many others...
They are just so transparent at it though, naive even - that it is often amusing to me when I read their nonsense, sometimes I really enjoy it it's so bad!
Using the words "gay" and "women" in this sense is so emotive it is off the clock - a rank and extremely crass attempt at manipulation. And it's worked!
They want a knee jerk response and, judging by the comments that's just what they've got..
C'mon people started reading things properly, look closely, - look at the details such as tone, emotive language, juxtaposing, jumping on bandwagons etc…
The devil is always in the detail…
The best self-defence in life, apart from knowing how to physically protect yourself, is intellectual self-defence - if you have this you are immune to twisted arguments, manipulations and falsehoods that rely on tampering with your emotions… Critical and analytical thinking will keep you safe….
The Daily Chimp has the same story, next to another two UKIP smear pieces.
[quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: Seems like it's only clubrob and the idiotsarewinning (and me) who have actually read the article properly and haven't reacted in an emotional knee-jerk fashion. UKIP are gaining popularity, there's elections coming up within the year, and all the media will be in smear campaign mode to discredit anyone who isn't part of the LibLabCon party. They daren't start slinging too many accusations at each other, as it will uncover some pretty vile goings on. Harriet Harman and Peter Rock are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Luckily for them, attention is diverted elsewhere at the moment, but these disgusting perverts will be exposed soon enough. They will get even more desperate and obvious in their attempts to keep a lid on it though.[/p][/quote]Well said porky we will now see dirty tricks being played by all three so called main political parties and the controlled media of which the Argus is a part off.The argus is using the word gay to stir things up but it wont change the gay vote as we gays in brighton and hove remember when the Argus turned on us and was just a gutter paper that was very homophobic.They have one particular reporter at the moment who is very homophobic which we have complained about and only seems to be reporting on minor issues.[/p][/quote]I studied linguistics as Sussex University, and from a purely linguistic point of view The Argus' language is highly emotive and manipulative in its articles. To be fair to them though they are not alone in this, and they no doubt draw inspiration from the likes of The Daily Mail amongst many others... They are just so transparent at it though, naive even - that it is often amusing to me when I read their nonsense, sometimes I really enjoy it it's so bad! Using the words "gay" and "women" in this sense is so emotive it is off the clock - a rank and extremely crass attempt at manipulation. And it's worked! They want a knee jerk response and, judging by the comments that's just what they've got.. C'mon people started reading things properly, look closely, - look at the details such as tone, emotive language, juxtaposing, jumping on bandwagons etc… The devil is always in the detail… The best self-defence in life, apart from knowing how to physically protect yourself, is intellectual self-defence - if you have this you are immune to twisted arguments, manipulations and falsehoods that rely on tampering with your emotions… Critical and analytical thinking will keep you safe….[/p][/quote]The Daily Chimp has the same story, next to another two UKIP smear pieces. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 4

4:51pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Monkeymoo1 says...

clubrob6 wrote:
Stoney33 wrote:
Im not a UKIP supporter, but cant help this continual witch hunt to try and out them as some heavily right wing, nazi party is getting a little tiresome

Is the country a little worried about their potential popularity?
Totally agree the controlled media are doing the predicted dirty tricks to turn voters away from UKIP,the argus is very controlled and have probably be told to concentrate on the word GAY as there are loads of us here but im voting UKIP as its the only party talking sense.
So who exactly is controlling this media then and were are you getting your info from
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stoney33[/bold] wrote: Im not a UKIP supporter, but cant help this continual witch hunt to try and out them as some heavily right wing, nazi party is getting a little tiresome Is the country a little worried about their potential popularity?[/p][/quote]Totally agree the controlled media are doing the predicted dirty tricks to turn voters away from UKIP,the argus is very controlled and have probably be told to concentrate on the word GAY as there are loads of us here but im voting UKIP as its the only party talking sense.[/p][/quote]So who exactly is controlling this media then and were are you getting your info from Monkeymoo1
  • Score: -4

4:52pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Libertarian Patriot says...

Andy R commented above: "We must be careful not to allow...." Can a "libertarian" even say those words?

_____________
A Libertine says anything they want to, no matter how outrageous, regardless of the consequences but a Libertarian will speak according to their conscience bearing in mind that the other person is also to be respected.

UKIP are a libertarian party and it will come into conflict with the PC of the liberal left which regards freedom of speech as something to be enjoyed only by those who follow their party line. Orwell wrote that the path to totalitarianism is created by PC and the enforcement thereof by the liberal left.

Voltaire said it best when he defended another's right to have an opinion even thought such opinion may not be agreed with. A stark contrast with the PC liberal left whose intolerance leads them to label all contrary opinion as "bigotry" or some form of mental disease (a "phobia).
Andy R commented above: "We must be careful not to allow...." Can a "libertarian" even say those words? _____________ A Libertine says anything they want to, no matter how outrageous, regardless of the consequences but a Libertarian will speak according to their conscience bearing in mind that the other person is also to be respected. UKIP are a libertarian party and it will come into conflict with the PC of the liberal left which regards freedom of speech as something to be enjoyed only by those who follow their party line. Orwell wrote that the path to totalitarianism is created by PC and the enforcement thereof by the liberal left. Voltaire said it best when he defended another's right to have an opinion even thought such opinion may not be agreed with. A stark contrast with the PC liberal left whose intolerance leads them to label all contrary opinion as "bigotry" or some form of mental disease (a "phobia). Libertarian Patriot
  • Score: 5

4:58pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Number Six says...

Monkeymoo1 wrote:
clubrob6 wrote:
Stoney33 wrote:
Im not a UKIP supporter, but cant help this continual witch hunt to try and out them as some heavily right wing, nazi party is getting a little tiresome

Is the country a little worried about their potential popularity?
Totally agree the controlled media are doing the predicted dirty tricks to turn voters away from UKIP,the argus is very controlled and have probably be told to concentrate on the word GAY as there are loads of us here but im voting UKIP as its the only party talking sense.
So who exactly is controlling this media then and were are you getting your info from
The Vatican, The |Freemasons and Prince Philip, who is really an alien from the planet Tharg.

Ridiculous isn't it. The idea that anyone cares about a parochial little paper based in a provincial seaside town is beyond belief
[quote][p][bold]Monkeymoo1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stoney33[/bold] wrote: Im not a UKIP supporter, but cant help this continual witch hunt to try and out them as some heavily right wing, nazi party is getting a little tiresome Is the country a little worried about their potential popularity?[/p][/quote]Totally agree the controlled media are doing the predicted dirty tricks to turn voters away from UKIP,the argus is very controlled and have probably be told to concentrate on the word GAY as there are loads of us here but im voting UKIP as its the only party talking sense.[/p][/quote]So who exactly is controlling this media then and were are you getting your info from[/p][/quote]The Vatican, The |Freemasons and Prince Philip, who is really an alien from the planet Tharg. Ridiculous isn't it. The idea that anyone cares about a parochial little paper based in a provincial seaside town is beyond belief Number Six
  • Score: 0

5:01pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Cyril Bolleaux says...

Andy R wrote:
Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
HJarrs wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience.
They were just exercising their right to say "we don't like your views, which you were very secretive about when you were seeking election under our party colours. We don't want you in our club anymore." A "libertarian" should approve......
What did your old guvnor say - "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others"
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience.[/p][/quote]They were just exercising their right to say "we don't like your views, which you were very secretive about when you were seeking election under our party colours. We don't want you in our club anymore." A "libertarian" should approve......[/p][/quote]What did your old guvnor say - "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" Cyril Bolleaux
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Wed 5 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

tinker111 wrote:
HJarrs wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
UKIP Are the only hope this country has from the sick PC people and yes this is correct every BIZ person should be able to so NO to who ever they like and NO come backs ABOUT TIME WE BECAME " ENGLAND AGAIN " the COUNTRY OUR FATHER'S/Mothers/ Grandad's/ Grandmothers and all brave people who stood up and some died for. Have been a conservative for a long time but now know have been "Conned" for a long time Leaders + others of this party + Plus all of Lab + Lib Dem etc are only want on gravy train when they are dummped
Definately my favorite comment.

You will notice that the vast majority of those brave people that fought in the second world war actually voted for a then socialist party, namely Labour as they were sick of many of the policies that UKIP espouses. They wanted a health service, a welfare state and control of much of industry that had treat them like skivvies before the war. They also did not just fight for England, but Britain and the empire. The great-grandparents of many of our Eastern European brothers and sisters fought bravely with us. They also formed a fair proportion of the voters that took us into the EU in the first place as I think they realised, that for all its faults, it was better be come together and end future military conflict.


However, I think you accurately mention only England as it is only in England that UKIP has any traction. I am sure you will join with me in suggesting it should more accurately called EIP not UKIP, even better LEIP. It is a party that would see Scotland leave the union should it ever get any real power.

As for the gravy train, I think you will find the biggest drinkers of gravy are your MEPs.
[quote][p][bold]tinker111[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]UKIP Are the only hope this country has from the sick PC people and yes this is correct every BIZ person should be able to so NO to who ever they like and NO come backs ABOUT TIME WE BECAME " ENGLAND AGAIN " the COUNTRY OUR FATHER'S/Mothers/ Grandad's/ Grandmothers and all brave people who stood up and some died for. Have been a conservative for a long time but now know have been "Conned" for a long time Leaders + others of this party + Plus all of Lab + Lib Dem etc are only want on gravy train when they are dummped[/p][/quote]Definately my favorite comment. You will notice that the vast majority of those brave people that fought in the second world war actually voted for a then socialist party, namely Labour as they were sick of many of the policies that UKIP espouses. They wanted a health service, a welfare state and control of much of industry that had treat them like skivvies before the war. They also did not just fight for England, but Britain and the empire. The great-grandparents of many of our Eastern European brothers and sisters fought bravely with us. They also formed a fair proportion of the voters that took us into the EU in the first place as I think they realised, that for all its faults, it was better be come together and end future military conflict. However, I think you accurately mention only England as it is only in England that UKIP has any traction. I am sure you will join with me in suggesting it should more accurately called EIP not UKIP, even better LEIP. It is a party that would see Scotland leave the union should it ever get any real power. As for the gravy train, I think you will find the biggest drinkers of gravy are your MEPs. HJarrs
  • Score: -2

5:31pm Wed 5 Mar 14

John60 says...

UKIP are the new British Movement/National Front, they just happen to have a nicer outfit.
UKIP are the new British Movement/National Front, they just happen to have a nicer outfit. John60
  • Score: 4

6:04pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ronrostog says...

What a non-story. Her opinion and one that many people most likely think but do not say for fear of being shouted down by self-righteous arseholes. Right, next false outrage..........
What a non-story. Her opinion and one that many people most likely think but do not say for fear of being shouted down by self-righteous arseholes. Right, next false outrage.......... ronrostog
  • Score: 5

6:12pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Durango_Splubb says...

This was an extremely ignorant comment for anybody to make!
Please don't vote for Donna Edmunds next time!
This was an extremely ignorant comment for anybody to make! Please don't vote for Donna Edmunds next time! Durango_Splubb
  • Score: -4

6:42pm Wed 5 Mar 14

inmegarden says...

So many intellectuals, so little sense.
Boys and girls, you who call upon Orwell's' masterpiece to validate your point,
you are barking up the wrong tree.
It is Aldous Huxley to whom you should be referring to.
Hence: http://www.juxtapoz.
com/current/huxley-v
s-orwell-in-graphic-
form
Enjoy!
So many intellectuals, so little sense. Boys and girls, you who call upon Orwell's' masterpiece to validate your point, you are barking up the wrong tree. It is Aldous Huxley to whom you should be referring to. Hence: http://www.juxtapoz. com/current/huxley-v s-orwell-in-graphic- form Enjoy! inmegarden
  • Score: 2

6:47pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Andy R says...

Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
Andy R wrote:
Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
HJarrs wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience.
They were just exercising their right to say "we don't like your views, which you were very secretive about when you were seeking election under our party colours. We don't want you in our club anymore." A "libertarian" should approve......
What did your old guvnor say - "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others"
Um......yeah..ok...i
f you say so....
[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience.[/p][/quote]They were just exercising their right to say "we don't like your views, which you were very secretive about when you were seeking election under our party colours. We don't want you in our club anymore." A "libertarian" should approve......[/p][/quote]What did your old guvnor say - "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others"[/p][/quote]Um......yeah..ok...i f you say so.... Andy R
  • Score: -2

6:54pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ARMANA says...

HJarrs wrote:
And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train!

It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
VOTE U.KIP, !!
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]VOTE U.KIP, !! ARMANA
  • Score: 3

6:56pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ARMANA says...

Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience.
NICE ONE, CYRILL, !!
[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]UKIP are decent people unlike the Brighton Greens who bullied and forced out a Christian councillor for voting with her conscience.[/p][/quote]NICE ONE, CYRILL, !! ARMANA
  • Score: 2

7:04pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ARMANA says...

tinker111 wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train!

It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
UKIP Are the only hope this country has from the sick PC people and yes this is correct every BIZ person should be able to so NO to who ever they like and NO come backs ABOUT TIME WE BECAME " ENGLAND AGAIN " the COUNTRY OUR FATHER'S/Mothers/ Grandad's/ Grandmothers and all brave people who stood up and some died for.
Have been a conservative for a long time but now know have been "Conned" for a long time Leaders + others of this party + Plus all of Lab + Lib Dem etc are only want on gravy train when they are dummped
Bravo, tinker, !!
[quote][p][bold]tinker111[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]UKIP Are the only hope this country has from the sick PC people and yes this is correct every BIZ person should be able to so NO to who ever they like and NO come backs ABOUT TIME WE BECAME " ENGLAND AGAIN " the COUNTRY OUR FATHER'S/Mothers/ Grandad's/ Grandmothers and all brave people who stood up and some died for. Have been a conservative for a long time but now know have been "Conned" for a long time Leaders + others of this party + Plus all of Lab + Lib Dem etc are only want on gravy train when they are dummped[/p][/quote]Bravo, tinker, !! ARMANA
  • Score: -1

7:08pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Now her face is in the paper she will probably be barred from all sorts of services without even knowing and if I was her I wouldn't eat in a restaurant for a few years, goodness knows what will make its way into her food.
Silly woman.
Now her face is in the paper she will probably be barred from all sorts of services without even knowing and if I was her I wouldn't eat in a restaurant for a few years, goodness knows what will make its way into her food. Silly woman. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 3

9:37pm Wed 5 Mar 14

her professional says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
I bet if someone refused to serve her, she would trot out that old line "Don't you know who I am?"
I suggest that's exactly what should happen, and it hope all decent tradesmen in Lewes refuse to conduct business with her, after all, it's their "right".
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: I bet if someone refused to serve her, she would trot out that old line "Don't you know who I am?"[/p][/quote]I suggest that's exactly what should happen, and it hope all decent tradesmen in Lewes refuse to conduct business with her, after all, it's their "right". her professional
  • Score: 3

9:46pm Wed 5 Mar 14

BlackRocker says...

Mooooooooooo!
Mooooooooooo! BlackRocker
  • Score: 0

9:59pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Ania Green says...

I find it amazing that some people would like her to represent us in Europe.

All aboard the gravy train for the loony UKIP MEPs.

UKIP are a dangerous party.
I find it amazing that some people would like her to represent us in Europe. All aboard the gravy train for the loony UKIP MEPs. UKIP are a dangerous party. Ania Green
  • Score: -6

11:01pm Wed 5 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

theidiotsarewinning.
..
wrote:
Hmmm… When I read the Argus' headline "Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people" I had a shocked "oh my worrrd reaction", and then I looked at the picture of the woman whom The Argus was attributing the comment to, and something didn't fit, the two feelings I had were incongruent...
I then read the article and what I 'heard' was someone arguing a case for personal freedom when it comes to whom one does business with: even stating that she is a "libertarian".
It did not seem like nasty right wing comment at all.
It was SO apparent to me that The Argus had deliberately misled me to a prejudiced mindset about her BEFORE I read the article i.e I was against the woman, before I had even read a word she had actually said.
The Argus had deliberately prejudiced my thinking… Hmmmmm….
And I read what 'Mimseycal' wrote:
"No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion.
Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement."
The thing is Mimseycal, The Argus by framing their headline the way they did they deliberately mislead the reader into believing this woman had SPECIFICALLY singled out gay people and women. Which is a VERY VERY different meaning to what she actually was saying. The Argus headline makes her a homophobe and a misogynist.
So it's not about reducing an argument to absurdity as Mimseycal says, it's about deliberately misleading to manipulate the consciousness of the reader.
Im not talking here about the rights and wrongs of the arguments in the piece, I am merely commenting on the Dirty tricks of The Argus' in it's reporting…
I do have a thought on the question at hand though…
What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop.
Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!"
Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?..
Where do all of these constant erosions on freedom lead to? 1984 perhaps...
The thing theidiotsarewinning, is that the headline is only the bait.

Look at it this way ... what is the advice given to women who are attacked when out alone in the street? Don't shout HELP!, yell FIRE!. There is a sound psychological reason for that. FIRE! is likely to affect everyone and therefore people are more likely to instinctively look for the source, whereas HELP! requires them to first consider whether they want to get involved.

Newspapers work on the same principle. They write the headlines that will grab the attention. Then you are supposed to read the article.

And yes, the article is exactly about reducing an argument to absurdity in this instance. If you take the libertarian precept of the right to serve or not to serve to its logical conclusion then people can indeed refuse to serve another for the most bigoted of reasons,

The fact is that businesses already have the legal right to refuse to serve a potential customer/service user. What they do not currently have is the legal right to refuse to serve on purely prejudicial/bigoted reasons. In other words, a refusal has to be based on more then a gut feeling. However if we apply the precept in its libertarian form then gut feeling would be enough to justify refusal.

I love the emotivism of your question. "What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop. Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!" Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?"

I won't argue the rather indefinite term recently as it is rather relative. However for the rest you have in a sense answered your own question. A released rapist is a rapist who has, according to the law of the land, paid the price society has deemed must be paid for the crime of rape. I would not invite a released rapist to dance at my daughters' wedding. I would not ask them to join us for a family picnic. But if a released rapist walked into a shop or business with the wherewithal to pay for the shirt/loaf of bread/internet surfing session/car insurance etcetera and so forth, then there is no legal reason for refusing to serve the released rapist.

Whilst I accept, and so would most reasonable people, that it is unreasonable to expect a rape survivor to serve the person who has recently been released from prison for raping them. They have the moral right to refuse to serve them and I am sure that a court of law would not deny them that right.

But say we buy the emotive context however. We agree that it is acceptable to refuse to serve a recently released rapist. There are other highly emotive crimes where the perpetrators have paid the price society has exacted and they are now released. Patricide, matricide, infanticide, child pornographers, drunk drivers ... for some it may be the abuse of animals that is highly emotive.

Where do you draw the line on emotive evokation though? Does it have to involve a physical element or is a purely psychological element enough? How about a recently released pension fund embezzler? Okay, no blood involved and no direct physical abuse but still it is not a victimless crime is it ...

To require a reason beyond a mere prejudice is not an erosion of freedom but to do otherwise is definitely a diminishing of the concept of redemption and atonement.
[quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: Hmmm… When I read the Argus' headline "Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people" I had a shocked "oh my worrrd reaction", and then I looked at the picture of the woman whom The Argus was attributing the comment to, and something didn't fit, the two feelings I had were incongruent... I then read the article and what I 'heard' was someone arguing a case for personal freedom when it comes to whom one does business with: even stating that she is a "libertarian". It did not seem like nasty right wing comment at all. It was SO apparent to me that The Argus had deliberately misled me to a prejudiced mindset about her BEFORE I read the article i.e I was against the woman, before I had even read a word she had actually said. The Argus had deliberately prejudiced my thinking… Hmmmmm…. And I read what 'Mimseycal' wrote: "No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion. Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement." The thing is Mimseycal, The Argus by framing their headline the way they did they deliberately mislead the reader into believing this woman had SPECIFICALLY singled out gay people and women. Which is a VERY VERY different meaning to what she actually was saying. The Argus headline makes her a homophobe and a misogynist. So it's not about reducing an argument to absurdity as Mimseycal says, it's about deliberately misleading to manipulate the consciousness of the reader. Im not talking here about the rights and wrongs of the arguments in the piece, I am merely commenting on the Dirty tricks of The Argus' in it's reporting… I do have a thought on the question at hand though… What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop. Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!" Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?.. Where do all of these constant erosions on freedom lead to? 1984 perhaps...[/p][/quote]The thing theidiotsarewinning, is that the headline is only the bait. Look at it this way ... what is the advice given to women who are attacked when out alone in the street? Don't shout HELP!, yell FIRE!. There is a sound psychological reason for that. FIRE! is likely to affect everyone and therefore people are more likely to instinctively look for the source, whereas HELP! requires them to first consider whether they want to get involved. Newspapers work on the same principle. They write the headlines that will grab the attention. Then you are supposed to read the article. And yes, the article is exactly about reducing an argument to absurdity in this instance. If you take the libertarian precept of the right to serve or not to serve to its logical conclusion then people can indeed refuse to serve another for the most bigoted of reasons, The fact is that businesses already have the legal right to refuse to serve a potential customer/service user. What they do not currently have is the legal right to refuse to serve on purely prejudicial/bigoted reasons. In other words, a refusal has to be based on more then a gut feeling. However if we apply the precept in its libertarian form then gut feeling would be enough to justify refusal. I love the emotivism of your question. "What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop. Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!" Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?" I won't argue the rather indefinite term recently as it is rather relative. However for the rest you have in a sense answered your own question. A released rapist is a rapist who has, according to the law of the land, paid the price society has deemed must be paid for the crime of rape. I would not invite a released rapist to dance at my daughters' wedding. I would not ask them to join us for a family picnic. But if a released rapist walked into a shop or business with the wherewithal to pay for the shirt/loaf of bread/internet surfing session/car insurance etcetera and so forth, then there is no legal reason for refusing to serve the released rapist. Whilst I accept, and so would most reasonable people, that it is unreasonable to expect a rape survivor to serve the person who has recently been released from prison for raping them. They have the moral right to refuse to serve them and I am sure that a court of law would not deny them that right. But say we buy the emotive context however. We agree that it is acceptable to refuse to serve a recently released rapist. There are other highly emotive crimes where the perpetrators have paid the price society has exacted and they are now released. Patricide, matricide, infanticide, child pornographers, drunk drivers ... for some it may be the abuse of animals that is highly emotive. Where do you draw the line on emotive evokation though? Does it have to involve a physical element or is a purely psychological element enough? How about a recently released pension fund embezzler? Okay, no blood involved and no direct physical abuse but still it is not a victimless crime is it ... To require a reason beyond a mere prejudice is not an erosion of freedom but to do otherwise is definitely a diminishing of the concept of redemption and atonement. mimseycal
  • Score: 1

11:26pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ARMANA says...

mimseycal wrote:
theidiotsarewinning.

..
wrote:
Hmmm… When I read the Argus' headline "Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people" I had a shocked "oh my worrrd reaction", and then I looked at the picture of the woman whom The Argus was attributing the comment to, and something didn't fit, the two feelings I had were incongruent...
I then read the article and what I 'heard' was someone arguing a case for personal freedom when it comes to whom one does business with: even stating that she is a "libertarian".
It did not seem like nasty right wing comment at all.
It was SO apparent to me that The Argus had deliberately misled me to a prejudiced mindset about her BEFORE I read the article i.e I was against the woman, before I had even read a word she had actually said.
The Argus had deliberately prejudiced my thinking… Hmmmmm….
And I read what 'Mimseycal' wrote:
"No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion.
Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement."
The thing is Mimseycal, The Argus by framing their headline the way they did they deliberately mislead the reader into believing this woman had SPECIFICALLY singled out gay people and women. Which is a VERY VERY different meaning to what she actually was saying. The Argus headline makes her a homophobe and a misogynist.
So it's not about reducing an argument to absurdity as Mimseycal says, it's about deliberately misleading to manipulate the consciousness of the reader.
Im not talking here about the rights and wrongs of the arguments in the piece, I am merely commenting on the Dirty tricks of The Argus' in it's reporting…
I do have a thought on the question at hand though…
What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop.
Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!"
Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?..
Where do all of these constant erosions on freedom lead to? 1984 perhaps...
The thing theidiotsarewinning, is that the headline is only the bait.

Look at it this way ... what is the advice given to women who are attacked when out alone in the street? Don't shout HELP!, yell FIRE!. There is a sound psychological reason for that. FIRE! is likely to affect everyone and therefore people are more likely to instinctively look for the source, whereas HELP! requires them to first consider whether they want to get involved.

Newspapers work on the same principle. They write the headlines that will grab the attention. Then you are supposed to read the article.

And yes, the article is exactly about reducing an argument to absurdity in this instance. If you take the libertarian precept of the right to serve or not to serve to its logical conclusion then people can indeed refuse to serve another for the most bigoted of reasons,

The fact is that businesses already have the legal right to refuse to serve a potential customer/service user. What they do not currently have is the legal right to refuse to serve on purely prejudicial/bigoted reasons. In other words, a refusal has to be based on more then a gut feeling. However if we apply the precept in its libertarian form then gut feeling would be enough to justify refusal.

I love the emotivism of your question. "What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop. Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!" Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?"

I won't argue the rather indefinite term recently as it is rather relative. However for the rest you have in a sense answered your own question. A released rapist is a rapist who has, according to the law of the land, paid the price society has deemed must be paid for the crime of rape. I would not invite a released rapist to dance at my daughters' wedding. I would not ask them to join us for a family picnic. But if a released rapist walked into a shop or business with the wherewithal to pay for the shirt/loaf of bread/internet surfing session/car insurance etcetera and so forth, then there is no legal reason for refusing to serve the released rapist.

Whilst I accept, and so would most reasonable people, that it is unreasonable to expect a rape survivor to serve the person who has recently been released from prison for raping them. They have the moral right to refuse to serve them and I am sure that a court of law would not deny them that right.

But say we buy the emotive context however. We agree that it is acceptable to refuse to serve a recently released rapist. There are other highly emotive crimes where the perpetrators have paid the price society has exacted and they are now released. Patricide, matricide, infanticide, child pornographers, drunk drivers ... for some it may be the abuse of animals that is highly emotive.

Where do you draw the line on emotive evokation though? Does it have to involve a physical element or is a purely psychological element enough? How about a recently released pension fund embezzler? Okay, no blood involved and no direct physical abuse but still it is not a victimless crime is it ...

To require a reason beyond a mere prejudice is not an erosion of freedom but to do otherwise is definitely a diminishing of the concept of redemption and atonement.
You best go & have a lie down after this lot,
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: Hmmm… When I read the Argus' headline "Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people" I had a shocked "oh my worrrd reaction", and then I looked at the picture of the woman whom The Argus was attributing the comment to, and something didn't fit, the two feelings I had were incongruent... I then read the article and what I 'heard' was someone arguing a case for personal freedom when it comes to whom one does business with: even stating that she is a "libertarian". It did not seem like nasty right wing comment at all. It was SO apparent to me that The Argus had deliberately misled me to a prejudiced mindset about her BEFORE I read the article i.e I was against the woman, before I had even read a word she had actually said. The Argus had deliberately prejudiced my thinking… Hmmmmm…. And I read what 'Mimseycal' wrote: "No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion. Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement." The thing is Mimseycal, The Argus by framing their headline the way they did they deliberately mislead the reader into believing this woman had SPECIFICALLY singled out gay people and women. Which is a VERY VERY different meaning to what she actually was saying. The Argus headline makes her a homophobe and a misogynist. So it's not about reducing an argument to absurdity as Mimseycal says, it's about deliberately misleading to manipulate the consciousness of the reader. Im not talking here about the rights and wrongs of the arguments in the piece, I am merely commenting on the Dirty tricks of The Argus' in it's reporting… I do have a thought on the question at hand though… What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop. Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!" Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?.. Where do all of these constant erosions on freedom lead to? 1984 perhaps...[/p][/quote]The thing theidiotsarewinning, is that the headline is only the bait. Look at it this way ... what is the advice given to women who are attacked when out alone in the street? Don't shout HELP!, yell FIRE!. There is a sound psychological reason for that. FIRE! is likely to affect everyone and therefore people are more likely to instinctively look for the source, whereas HELP! requires them to first consider whether they want to get involved. Newspapers work on the same principle. They write the headlines that will grab the attention. Then you are supposed to read the article. And yes, the article is exactly about reducing an argument to absurdity in this instance. If you take the libertarian precept of the right to serve or not to serve to its logical conclusion then people can indeed refuse to serve another for the most bigoted of reasons, The fact is that businesses already have the legal right to refuse to serve a potential customer/service user. What they do not currently have is the legal right to refuse to serve on purely prejudicial/bigoted reasons. In other words, a refusal has to be based on more then a gut feeling. However if we apply the precept in its libertarian form then gut feeling would be enough to justify refusal. I love the emotivism of your question. "What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop. Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!" Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?" I won't argue the rather indefinite term recently as it is rather relative. However for the rest you have in a sense answered your own question. A released rapist is a rapist who has, according to the law of the land, paid the price society has deemed must be paid for the crime of rape. I would not invite a released rapist to dance at my daughters' wedding. I would not ask them to join us for a family picnic. But if a released rapist walked into a shop or business with the wherewithal to pay for the shirt/loaf of bread/internet surfing session/car insurance etcetera and so forth, then there is no legal reason for refusing to serve the released rapist. Whilst I accept, and so would most reasonable people, that it is unreasonable to expect a rape survivor to serve the person who has recently been released from prison for raping them. They have the moral right to refuse to serve them and I am sure that a court of law would not deny them that right. But say we buy the emotive context however. We agree that it is acceptable to refuse to serve a recently released rapist. There are other highly emotive crimes where the perpetrators have paid the price society has exacted and they are now released. Patricide, matricide, infanticide, child pornographers, drunk drivers ... for some it may be the abuse of animals that is highly emotive. Where do you draw the line on emotive evokation though? Does it have to involve a physical element or is a purely psychological element enough? How about a recently released pension fund embezzler? Okay, no blood involved and no direct physical abuse but still it is not a victimless crime is it ... To require a reason beyond a mere prejudice is not an erosion of freedom but to do otherwise is definitely a diminishing of the concept of redemption and atonement.[/p][/quote]You best go & have a lie down after this lot, ARMANA
  • Score: 1

11:54pm Wed 5 Mar 14

tpaw22 says...

Reading the whole post, what she said was that shopkeepers should be allowed to refuse anyone. As far as I know they are and should. We used to ban people from our shop for bad language, threatening behaviour or theft, irrespective of gender, colour, sexual preferences etc.
It was the Argus that raised the issue of gays and if anyone thinks any shopkeeper who wishes to remain in business is going to refuse to serve people based on their sex or what they believe to be their sexual preferences, then that is an insult to shopkeepers. Even for suggesting that it could happen, I would suggest that newsagents in Brighton have words with The Argus and suggest a retraction unless they want to see some refusing to display the paper.
Reading the whole post, what she said was that shopkeepers should be allowed to refuse anyone. As far as I know they are and should. We used to ban people from our shop for bad language, threatening behaviour or theft, irrespective of gender, colour, sexual preferences etc. It was the Argus that raised the issue of gays and if anyone thinks any shopkeeper who wishes to remain in business is going to refuse to serve people based on their sex or what they believe to be their sexual preferences, then that is an insult to shopkeepers. Even for suggesting that it could happen, I would suggest that newsagents in Brighton have words with The Argus and suggest a retraction unless they want to see some refusing to display the paper. tpaw22
  • Score: 2

12:38am Thu 6 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

tpaw22 wrote:
Reading the whole post, what she said was that shopkeepers should be allowed to refuse anyone. As far as I know they are and should. We used to ban people from our shop for bad language, threatening behaviour or theft, irrespective of gender, colour, sexual preferences etc.
It was the Argus that raised the issue of gays and if anyone thinks any shopkeeper who wishes to remain in business is going to refuse to serve people based on their sex or what they believe to be their sexual preferences, then that is an insult to shopkeepers. Even for suggesting that it could happen, I would suggest that newsagents in Brighton have words with The Argus and suggest a retraction unless they want to see some refusing to display the paper.
Thank you for your concern for my wellbeing ARMANA. It is entirely unecessary but your concern is noted.
[quote][p][bold]tpaw22[/bold] wrote: Reading the whole post, what she said was that shopkeepers should be allowed to refuse anyone. As far as I know they are and should. We used to ban people from our shop for bad language, threatening behaviour or theft, irrespective of gender, colour, sexual preferences etc. It was the Argus that raised the issue of gays and if anyone thinks any shopkeeper who wishes to remain in business is going to refuse to serve people based on their sex or what they believe to be their sexual preferences, then that is an insult to shopkeepers. Even for suggesting that it could happen, I would suggest that newsagents in Brighton have words with The Argus and suggest a retraction unless they want to see some refusing to display the paper.[/p][/quote]Thank you for your concern for my wellbeing ARMANA. It is entirely unecessary but your concern is noted. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

3:46am Thu 6 Mar 14

Zeta Function says...

WHY are women supporting UKIP?

Time to understand the dangers of small minded conservative nationalism.
WHY are women supporting UKIP? Time to understand the dangers of small minded conservative nationalism. Zeta Function
  • Score: -1

7:45am Thu 6 Mar 14

John Steed says...

ROAR printed on most gig tickets Right of admission reserved. she is right any owner of any business should have the right of refusal with out explaination, however more than enough anti discrimaitary laws are in place already to protect and uphold those rights enshrined in law
ROAR printed on most gig tickets Right of admission reserved. she is right any owner of any business should have the right of refusal with out explaination, however more than enough anti discrimaitary laws are in place already to protect and uphold those rights enshrined in law John Steed
  • Score: 0

7:55am Thu 6 Mar 14

hoveguyactually says...

She is absolutely right. It is infuriating the way we are all being forced into relationships with people against our wishes. We should be able to make up our own minds and decisions, and not be led, like sheep, by political correctness.
She is absolutely right. It is infuriating the way we are all being forced into relationships with people against our wishes. We should be able to make up our own minds and decisions, and not be led, like sheep, by political correctness. hoveguyactually
  • Score: 0

8:14am Thu 6 Mar 14

LB says...

"political correctness"

In this case I'd see serving whoever walked into a shop as being polite.

Or is that not the sort of old fashioned value that UKIP like the look of?
"political correctness" In this case I'd see serving whoever walked into a shop as being polite. Or is that not the sort of old fashioned value that UKIP like the look of? LB
  • Score: -3

8:36am Thu 6 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

hoveguyactually wrote:
She is absolutely right. It is infuriating the way we are all being forced into relationships with people against our wishes. We should be able to make up our own minds and decisions, and not be led, like sheep, by political correctness.
You don't have a relationship with a customer who walks into your shop, or the bus driver you purchase a ticket from ... you don't have a relationship with the person you sit next to whilst awaiting your dental appointment.

You may exchange a few words. You may even swap stories about your respective grandchildren/childr
en/dogs/cats/mad neighbours/budgeriga
rd in the case of the latter - if you arrived early enough for your appointment. However none of that makes it a relationship ... it will be an exchange and no more then that.
[quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: She is absolutely right. It is infuriating the way we are all being forced into relationships with people against our wishes. We should be able to make up our own minds and decisions, and not be led, like sheep, by political correctness.[/p][/quote]You don't have a relationship with a customer who walks into your shop, or the bus driver you purchase a ticket from ... you don't have a relationship with the person you sit next to whilst awaiting your dental appointment. You may exchange a few words. You may even swap stories about your respective grandchildren/childr en/dogs/cats/mad neighbours/budgeriga rd in the case of the latter - if you arrived early enough for your appointment. However none of that makes it a relationship ... it will be an exchange and no more then that. mimseycal
  • Score: 3

10:28am Thu 6 Mar 14

Durango_Splubb says...

We seem to have strayed quite seriously off the message here. This unsavoury Ukip twit says something stupid & extrapolations of all kinds spring forth. It was a stupid comment which no business could or should take seriously without first announcing their imminent closure! Don't let them fool you, there are enough REAL problems to concern us. This vacuous twit's short-sighted waffle isn't one of them!
We seem to have strayed quite seriously off the message here. This unsavoury Ukip twit says something stupid & extrapolations of all kinds spring forth. It was a stupid comment which no business could or should take seriously without first announcing their imminent closure! Don't let them fool you, there are enough REAL problems to concern us. This vacuous twit's short-sighted waffle isn't one of them! Durango_Splubb
  • Score: 0

10:37am Thu 6 Mar 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

hoveguyactually wrote:
She is absolutely right. It is infuriating the way we are all being forced into relationships with people against our wishes. We should be able to make up our own minds and decisions, and not be led, like sheep, by political correctness.
Who is being forced into relationships against their wishes? I certainly am not, so I'm not sure who this royal "we" is. It has nothing to do with political correctness. Personally, I find political correctness deeply irritating, but this is about refusing to serve someone because they are black, gay, disabled, a muslim, or any other spurious reason based on your own prejudices.
[quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: She is absolutely right. It is infuriating the way we are all being forced into relationships with people against our wishes. We should be able to make up our own minds and decisions, and not be led, like sheep, by political correctness.[/p][/quote]Who is being forced into relationships against their wishes? I certainly am not, so I'm not sure who this royal "we" is. It has nothing to do with political correctness. Personally, I find political correctness deeply irritating, but this is about refusing to serve someone because they are black, gay, disabled, a muslim, or any other spurious reason based on your own prejudices. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 3

10:43am Thu 6 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Durango_Splubb wrote:
We seem to have strayed quite seriously off the message here. This unsavoury Ukip twit says something stupid & extrapolations of all kinds spring forth. It was a stupid comment which no business could or should take seriously without first announcing their imminent closure! Don't let them fool you, there are enough REAL problems to concern us. This vacuous twit's short-sighted waffle isn't one of them!
It would seem so wouldn't it. The thing is though that nothing is quite as simple and straightforward as 'just a statement' especially in politics.

There are ramifications, consequences and precepts behind every statement. Unless we consider them while contemplating the statement, we really are allowing ourselves to be led blindly.

I am not looking to sway anyone towards one party or another. Support, and voting, for any candidate, regardless of which party they are backed by, is a matter for each individual and should be between them and their conscience only.
[quote][p][bold]Durango_Splubb[/bold] wrote: We seem to have strayed quite seriously off the message here. This unsavoury Ukip twit says something stupid & extrapolations of all kinds spring forth. It was a stupid comment which no business could or should take seriously without first announcing their imminent closure! Don't let them fool you, there are enough REAL problems to concern us. This vacuous twit's short-sighted waffle isn't one of them![/p][/quote]It would seem so wouldn't it. The thing is though that nothing is quite as simple and straightforward as 'just a statement' especially in politics. There are ramifications, consequences and precepts behind every statement. Unless we consider them while contemplating the statement, we really are allowing ourselves to be led blindly. I am not looking to sway anyone towards one party or another. Support, and voting, for any candidate, regardless of which party they are backed by, is a matter for each individual and should be between them and their conscience only. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

10:45am Thu 6 Mar 14

theargusissoinformative says...

HJarrs wrote:
tinker111 wrote:
HJarrs wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.
UKIP Are the only hope this country has from the sick PC people and yes this is correct every BIZ person should be able to so NO to who ever they like and NO come backs ABOUT TIME WE BECAME " ENGLAND AGAIN " the COUNTRY OUR FATHER'S/Mothers/ Grandad's/ Grandmothers and all brave people who stood up and some died for. Have been a conservative for a long time but now know have been "Conned" for a long time Leaders + others of this party + Plus all of Lab + Lib Dem etc are only want on gravy train when they are dummped
Definately my favorite comment. You will notice that the vast majority of those brave people that fought in the second world war actually voted for a then socialist party, namely Labour as they were sick of many of the policies that UKIP espouses. They wanted a health service, a welfare state and control of much of industry that had treat them like skivvies before the war. They also did not just fight for England, but Britain and the empire. The great-grandparents of many of our Eastern European brothers and sisters fought bravely with us. They also formed a fair proportion of the voters that took us into the EU in the first place as I think they realised, that for all its faults, it was better be come together and end future military conflict. However, I think you accurately mention only England as it is only in England that UKIP has any traction. I am sure you will join with me in suggesting it should more accurately called EIP not UKIP, even better LEIP. It is a party that would see Scotland leave the union should it ever get any real power. As for the gravy train, I think you will find the biggest drinkers of gravy are your MEPs.
I think that you're getting confused with the specific narrative that was the world as it then was in 1945. The Government at the time was able to make outlandish promises about welfare provision, because the reality then, was that most men would retire at 65, and obligingly die before they were 70. Roll on seventy years, and we still have a good country that holds its own on the world stage, except for the fact that we have an ageing population (the notorious 'demographic timebomb), skills shortages, and a low birth rate. Taking too much issue with Europe is a bit of a red herring, because most of the EU face a more acute and desperate set of circumstances than even the UK. But I will definitely be voting UKIP because I believe we should be facing up to these issues with our own shoulders, rather than letting relevant policies be set around the narrative needs of the EU.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinker111[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: And some people would want her to represent us in Europe! Like her current UKIP MEP colleagues, she would treat the EU parliament as a holiday camp and max out on expenses while complaining of the EU gravy train! It's about time people woke up to what a dangerous party UKIP are.[/p][/quote]UKIP Are the only hope this country has from the sick PC people and yes this is correct every BIZ person should be able to so NO to who ever they like and NO come backs ABOUT TIME WE BECAME " ENGLAND AGAIN " the COUNTRY OUR FATHER'S/Mothers/ Grandad's/ Grandmothers and all brave people who stood up and some died for. Have been a conservative for a long time but now know have been "Conned" for a long time Leaders + others of this party + Plus all of Lab + Lib Dem etc are only want on gravy train when they are dummped[/p][/quote]Definately my favorite comment. You will notice that the vast majority of those brave people that fought in the second world war actually voted for a then socialist party, namely Labour as they were sick of many of the policies that UKIP espouses. They wanted a health service, a welfare state and control of much of industry that had treat them like skivvies before the war. They also did not just fight for England, but Britain and the empire. The great-grandparents of many of our Eastern European brothers and sisters fought bravely with us. They also formed a fair proportion of the voters that took us into the EU in the first place as I think they realised, that for all its faults, it was better be come together and end future military conflict. However, I think you accurately mention only England as it is only in England that UKIP has any traction. I am sure you will join with me in suggesting it should more accurately called EIP not UKIP, even better LEIP. It is a party that would see Scotland leave the union should it ever get any real power. As for the gravy train, I think you will find the biggest drinkers of gravy are your MEPs.[/p][/quote]I think that you're getting confused with the specific narrative that was the world as it then was in 1945. The Government at the time was able to make outlandish promises about welfare provision, because the reality then, was that most men would retire at 65, and obligingly die before they were 70. Roll on seventy years, and we still have a good country that holds its own on the world stage, except for the fact that we have an ageing population (the notorious 'demographic timebomb), skills shortages, and a low birth rate. Taking too much issue with Europe is a bit of a red herring, because most of the EU face a more acute and desperate set of circumstances than even the UK. But I will definitely be voting UKIP because I believe we should be facing up to these issues with our own shoulders, rather than letting relevant policies be set around the narrative needs of the EU. theargusissoinformative
  • Score: 2

12:45pm Thu 6 Mar 14

theidiotsarewinning... says...

mimseycal wrote:
theidiotsarewinning.

..
wrote:
Hmmm… When I read the Argus' headline "Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people" I had a shocked "oh my worrrd reaction", and then I looked at the picture of the woman whom The Argus was attributing the comment to, and something didn't fit, the two feelings I had were incongruent...
I then read the article and what I 'heard' was someone arguing a case for personal freedom when it comes to whom one does business with: even stating that she is a "libertarian".
It did not seem like nasty right wing comment at all.
It was SO apparent to me that The Argus had deliberately misled me to a prejudiced mindset about her BEFORE I read the article i.e I was against the woman, before I had even read a word she had actually said.
The Argus had deliberately prejudiced my thinking… Hmmmmm….
And I read what 'Mimseycal' wrote:
"No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion.
Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement."
The thing is Mimseycal, The Argus by framing their headline the way they did they deliberately mislead the reader into believing this woman had SPECIFICALLY singled out gay people and women. Which is a VERY VERY different meaning to what she actually was saying. The Argus headline makes her a homophobe and a misogynist.
So it's not about reducing an argument to absurdity as Mimseycal says, it's about deliberately misleading to manipulate the consciousness of the reader.
Im not talking here about the rights and wrongs of the arguments in the piece, I am merely commenting on the Dirty tricks of The Argus' in it's reporting…
I do have a thought on the question at hand though…
What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop.
Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!"
Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?..
Where do all of these constant erosions on freedom lead to? 1984 perhaps...
The thing theidiotsarewinning, is that the headline is only the bait.

Look at it this way ... what is the advice given to women who are attacked when out alone in the street? Don't shout HELP!, yell FIRE!. There is a sound psychological reason for that. FIRE! is likely to affect everyone and therefore people are more likely to instinctively look for the source, whereas HELP! requires them to first consider whether they want to get involved.

Newspapers work on the same principle. They write the headlines that will grab the attention. Then you are supposed to read the article.

And yes, the article is exactly about reducing an argument to absurdity in this instance. If you take the libertarian precept of the right to serve or not to serve to its logical conclusion then people can indeed refuse to serve another for the most bigoted of reasons,

The fact is that businesses already have the legal right to refuse to serve a potential customer/service user. What they do not currently have is the legal right to refuse to serve on purely prejudicial/bigoted reasons. In other words, a refusal has to be based on more then a gut feeling. However if we apply the precept in its libertarian form then gut feeling would be enough to justify refusal.

I love the emotivism of your question. "What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop. Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!" Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?"

I won't argue the rather indefinite term recently as it is rather relative. However for the rest you have in a sense answered your own question. A released rapist is a rapist who has, according to the law of the land, paid the price society has deemed must be paid for the crime of rape. I would not invite a released rapist to dance at my daughters' wedding. I would not ask them to join us for a family picnic. But if a released rapist walked into a shop or business with the wherewithal to pay for the shirt/loaf of bread/internet surfing session/car insurance etcetera and so forth, then there is no legal reason for refusing to serve the released rapist.

Whilst I accept, and so would most reasonable people, that it is unreasonable to expect a rape survivor to serve the person who has recently been released from prison for raping them. They have the moral right to refuse to serve them and I am sure that a court of law would not deny them that right.

But say we buy the emotive context however. We agree that it is acceptable to refuse to serve a recently released rapist. There are other highly emotive crimes where the perpetrators have paid the price society has exacted and they are now released. Patricide, matricide, infanticide, child pornographers, drunk drivers ... for some it may be the abuse of animals that is highly emotive.

Where do you draw the line on emotive evokation though? Does it have to involve a physical element or is a purely psychological element enough? How about a recently released pension fund embezzler? Okay, no blood involved and no direct physical abuse but still it is not a victimless crime is it ...

To require a reason beyond a mere prejudice is not an erosion of freedom but to do otherwise is definitely a diminishing of the concept of redemption and atonement.
I like to drop in a 'what if' scenario, when I hear people talking in absolutes.
Such as, saying a shopkeeper never has grounds other than criminal, or safety etc.. for ever excluding anyone.
Hence the deliberately crass emotive question - I can pitch at a higher level my friend, - it was meant to be simplistic and basic, making a basic point.
You list many examples of people who cause harm to others, including people who cause financial harm.
Any of these would fit with the question I asked.
Essentially, the question was 'what if the person is nasty goods and has harmed or harms others, should the shopkeeper be permitted to decide for themselves whom they trade with, even if the wrongdoer has done their time?'.
My essential question being: Is it a bit of a grey area? Are things always so black and white, cut and dried, good and bad, right and wrong?….
It wasn't said in support of the bigoted exclusion of others whom have hurt no one e.g the examples used were gay people and women - excluding on these grounds is qualitatively different...
I believe that much of this type of legislation that comes from well meaning people, is actually harmful to all of us collectively - as we are being penned in, bit by bit for our own good, to protect our freedom. It's Orwellian.
And, you are right the newspaper headline is bait - AND it is more than that - it is misleading, has a clear agenda and therefore is dishonest manipulative reporting.
Yes this is THE model than many publications use in their reporting, and no that does not make it the right or indeed, the only way to report news...
And no by writing any of this - I'm not supporting bigots, I don't support UKIP, or sexism, or racism, or homophobia, or bullying cruel nasty behaviour.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: Hmmm… When I read the Argus' headline "Lewes UKIP councillor says businesses should have power to turn away women and gay people" I had a shocked "oh my worrrd reaction", and then I looked at the picture of the woman whom The Argus was attributing the comment to, and something didn't fit, the two feelings I had were incongruent... I then read the article and what I 'heard' was someone arguing a case for personal freedom when it comes to whom one does business with: even stating that she is a "libertarian". It did not seem like nasty right wing comment at all. It was SO apparent to me that The Argus had deliberately misled me to a prejudiced mindset about her BEFORE I read the article i.e I was against the woman, before I had even read a word she had actually said. The Argus had deliberately prejudiced my thinking… Hmmmmm…. And I read what 'Mimseycal' wrote: "No Cave Johnson, the Argus in this instance is not putting words in anyones' mouth. They are merely highlighting the consequences of taking a given ideological precept to its logical conclusion. Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum or, in plain English reducing an argument to absurdity is a very valid debating technique for showing the flaws in a statement." The thing is Mimseycal, The Argus by framing their headline the way they did they deliberately mislead the reader into believing this woman had SPECIFICALLY singled out gay people and women. Which is a VERY VERY different meaning to what she actually was saying. The Argus headline makes her a homophobe and a misogynist. So it's not about reducing an argument to absurdity as Mimseycal says, it's about deliberately misleading to manipulate the consciousness of the reader. Im not talking here about the rights and wrongs of the arguments in the piece, I am merely commenting on the Dirty tricks of The Argus' in it's reporting… I do have a thought on the question at hand though… What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop. Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!" Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?.. Where do all of these constant erosions on freedom lead to? 1984 perhaps...[/p][/quote]The thing theidiotsarewinning, is that the headline is only the bait. Look at it this way ... what is the advice given to women who are attacked when out alone in the street? Don't shout HELP!, yell FIRE!. There is a sound psychological reason for that. FIRE! is likely to affect everyone and therefore people are more likely to instinctively look for the source, whereas HELP! requires them to first consider whether they want to get involved. Newspapers work on the same principle. They write the headlines that will grab the attention. Then you are supposed to read the article. And yes, the article is exactly about reducing an argument to absurdity in this instance. If you take the libertarian precept of the right to serve or not to serve to its logical conclusion then people can indeed refuse to serve another for the most bigoted of reasons, The fact is that businesses already have the legal right to refuse to serve a potential customer/service user. What they do not currently have is the legal right to refuse to serve on purely prejudicial/bigoted reasons. In other words, a refusal has to be based on more then a gut feeling. However if we apply the precept in its libertarian form then gut feeling would be enough to justify refusal. I love the emotivism of your question. "What if someone owned a shop and they recognised a recently released rapist who had entered their shop. Their personal view is 'I don't care that you've done 3 years in prison, the woman you raped has it for life, I don't forgive you now get out!" Is that shopkeeper wrong?.. Should they have the right to do that?" I won't argue the rather indefinite term recently as it is rather relative. However for the rest you have in a sense answered your own question. A released rapist is a rapist who has, according to the law of the land, paid the price society has deemed must be paid for the crime of rape. I would not invite a released rapist to dance at my daughters' wedding. I would not ask them to join us for a family picnic. But if a released rapist walked into a shop or business with the wherewithal to pay for the shirt/loaf of bread/internet surfing session/car insurance etcetera and so forth, then there is no legal reason for refusing to serve the released rapist. Whilst I accept, and so would most reasonable people, that it is unreasonable to expect a rape survivor to serve the person who has recently been released from prison for raping them. They have the moral right to refuse to serve them and I am sure that a court of law would not deny them that right. But say we buy the emotive context however. We agree that it is acceptable to refuse to serve a recently released rapist. There are other highly emotive crimes where the perpetrators have paid the price society has exacted and they are now released. Patricide, matricide, infanticide, child pornographers, drunk drivers ... for some it may be the abuse of animals that is highly emotive. Where do you draw the line on emotive evokation though? Does it have to involve a physical element or is a purely psychological element enough? How about a recently released pension fund embezzler? Okay, no blood involved and no direct physical abuse but still it is not a victimless crime is it ... To require a reason beyond a mere prejudice is not an erosion of freedom but to do otherwise is definitely a diminishing of the concept of redemption and atonement.[/p][/quote]I like to drop in a 'what if' scenario, when I hear people talking in absolutes. Such as, saying a shopkeeper never has grounds other than criminal, or safety etc.. for ever excluding anyone. Hence the deliberately crass emotive question - I can pitch at a higher level my friend, - it was meant to be simplistic and basic, making a basic point. You list many examples of people who cause harm to others, including people who cause financial harm. Any of these would fit with the question I asked. Essentially, the question was 'what if the person is nasty goods and has harmed or harms others, should the shopkeeper be permitted to decide for themselves whom they trade with, even if the wrongdoer has done their time?'. My essential question being: Is it a bit of a grey area? Are things always so black and white, cut and dried, good and bad, right and wrong?…. It wasn't said in support of the bigoted exclusion of others whom have hurt no one e.g the examples used were gay people and women - excluding on these grounds is qualitatively different... I believe that much of this type of legislation that comes from well meaning people, is actually harmful to all of us collectively - as we are being penned in, bit by bit for our own good, to protect our freedom. It's Orwellian. And, you are right the newspaper headline is bait - AND it is more than that - it is misleading, has a clear agenda and therefore is dishonest manipulative reporting. Yes this is THE model than many publications use in their reporting, and no that does not make it the right or indeed, the only way to report news... And no by writing any of this - I'm not supporting bigots, I don't support UKIP, or sexism, or racism, or homophobia, or bullying cruel nasty behaviour. theidiotsarewinning...
  • Score: 1

1:24pm Thu 6 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

No, the headline is not deliberately misleading anymore then the article is. Like other issues that attract our attention the onus is on us, the reader/audience/acto
r, to put the matter in context. It is not the reponsibility of either the journalist, the media at large or any other individual or organisation to assume the duty of decision for us, individually or collectively. The average man and woman is neither a dolt, a congenital idiot nor incapable of judgement.

This specific article for instance addresses some likely consequences inherent in a 'simple statement'. It is for the reader to cross the 'T's and dot the 'I's. For anyone to presume that we all need to have our hands held while we struggle with the implications is patronising not to say demeaning to every adult.

A newspaper is not an educational tome. I expect the news to report facts. I expect some journalists to expand some on possible ramifications. I do not expect, nor should anyone who values their own judgement, to be put in leading strings and led up the path like a toddling infant.

And yes, there are many grey areas in all arenas of human interaction. That is not something to be wary of or try to eliminate. It is after all one of the very few highlights of being human ... the grey areas that allow us to exercise judgement.
No, the headline is not deliberately misleading anymore then the article is. Like other issues that attract our attention the onus is on us, the reader/audience/acto r, to put the matter in context. It is not the reponsibility of either the journalist, the media at large or any other individual or organisation to assume the duty of decision for us, individually or collectively. The average man and woman is neither a dolt, a congenital idiot nor incapable of judgement. This specific article for instance addresses some likely consequences inherent in a 'simple statement'. It is for the reader to cross the 'T's and dot the 'I's. For anyone to presume that we all need to have our hands held while we struggle with the implications is patronising not to say demeaning to every adult. A newspaper is not an educational tome. I expect the news to report facts. I expect some journalists to expand some on possible ramifications. I do not expect, nor should anyone who values their own judgement, to be put in leading strings and led up the path like a toddling infant. And yes, there are many grey areas in all arenas of human interaction. That is not something to be wary of or try to eliminate. It is after all one of the very few highlights of being human ... the grey areas that allow us to exercise judgement. mimseycal
  • Score: -1

1:53pm Thu 6 Mar 14

theidiotsarewinning... says...

mimseycal wrote:
No, the headline is not deliberately misleading anymore then the article is. Like other issues that attract our attention the onus is on us, the reader/audience/acto

r, to put the matter in context. It is not the reponsibility of either the journalist, the media at large or any other individual or organisation to assume the duty of decision for us, individually or collectively. The average man and woman is neither a dolt, a congenital idiot nor incapable of judgement.

This specific article for instance addresses some likely consequences inherent in a 'simple statement'. It is for the reader to cross the 'T's and dot the 'I's. For anyone to presume that we all need to have our hands held while we struggle with the implications is patronising not to say demeaning to every adult.

A newspaper is not an educational tome. I expect the news to report facts. I expect some journalists to expand some on possible ramifications. I do not expect, nor should anyone who values their own judgement, to be put in leading strings and led up the path like a toddling infant.

And yes, there are many grey areas in all arenas of human interaction. That is not something to be wary of or try to eliminate. It is after all one of the very few highlights of being human ... the grey areas that allow us to exercise judgement.
Noam Chomsky wrote a book called "Manufacturing Consent, The Political Economy of the Mass Media".
Which discusses the linguistic analysis of newspaper manipulation, the strategies they use and the reasons why it is done.
Also, Roger Fowler "Language in the News: Discourse and ideology" has some interesting work..
I studied linguistics and English Language at Sussex University, and I must say that the general view of the linguists I discussed this with, is that the media are indeed very manipulative, and that they use a whole range of devices to influence people in the way they see things.
And, no I'm not going to go into why they might want to do that, as frankly that list is toooo long..
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: No, the headline is not deliberately misleading anymore then the article is. Like other issues that attract our attention the onus is on us, the reader/audience/acto r, to put the matter in context. It is not the reponsibility of either the journalist, the media at large or any other individual or organisation to assume the duty of decision for us, individually or collectively. The average man and woman is neither a dolt, a congenital idiot nor incapable of judgement. This specific article for instance addresses some likely consequences inherent in a 'simple statement'. It is for the reader to cross the 'T's and dot the 'I's. For anyone to presume that we all need to have our hands held while we struggle with the implications is patronising not to say demeaning to every adult. A newspaper is not an educational tome. I expect the news to report facts. I expect some journalists to expand some on possible ramifications. I do not expect, nor should anyone who values their own judgement, to be put in leading strings and led up the path like a toddling infant. And yes, there are many grey areas in all arenas of human interaction. That is not something to be wary of or try to eliminate. It is after all one of the very few highlights of being human ... the grey areas that allow us to exercise judgement.[/p][/quote]Noam Chomsky wrote a book called "Manufacturing Consent, The Political Economy of the Mass Media". Which discusses the linguistic analysis of newspaper manipulation, the strategies they use and the reasons why it is done. Also, Roger Fowler "Language in the News: Discourse and ideology" has some interesting work.. I studied linguistics and English Language at Sussex University, and I must say that the general view of the linguists I discussed this with, is that the media are indeed very manipulative, and that they use a whole range of devices to influence people in the way they see things. And, no I'm not going to go into why they might want to do that, as frankly that list is toooo long.. theidiotsarewinning...
  • Score: 3

3:22pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Ania Green says...

You just need to look at UKIP's blatant racist views on Eastern Europeans coming to work in the UK to see what a thoroughly nasty lot they are.
You just need to look at UKIP's blatant racist views on Eastern Europeans coming to work in the UK to see what a thoroughly nasty lot they are. Ania Green
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Thu 6 Mar 14

theargusissoinformative says...

Ania Green wrote:
You just need to look at UKIP's blatant racist views on Eastern Europeans coming to work in the UK to see what a thoroughly nasty lot they are.
This is a comment that opens up a delicate can of worms. To a UK cynic, the motive for relaxing immigration restrictions to ten Eastern European countries all at once did seem to be partly a game by the political powers that be to dilute Russia's influence on the European stage, in a battle for hearts and minds.

Please also bear in mind the UK's recent immigration history, where many of us have only recently come to terms with different names, accents and cultures in a sense of community (a sense of guilt with the British Empire probably helped). The result does seem to be a kind of 'competition for the right to be considered english' by ethnicities from all over the world, in a scramble for the limited immigration/citizens
hip options.

I have also often heard the criticism from black, Chinese and Indian nurses that Eastern Europeans (or anyone from the EU) doesn't have to demonstrate proficiency with english at any turn, before being able to set foot in such an important and critical workplace as healthcare.

Please also bear in mind the make up of towns like Worthing and Eastbourne, which seem to be mainly populated by people of a certain age, who consider themselves to be refugees in their own country, in that they felt obliged to move there in response to their own communities having been 'taken over'. This scenario has now come to be accepted, but now please bear in mind the body of younger english people who feel that their employment options are being limited by keener and flexible Eastern Europeans. Free trade at work you might say, but the knock on effect to social mobility and housing options in the UK cannot be denied to have been disastrous for some young people.

Please also consider the impact of 'outsourcing knowledge work' to cheaper, foreign, english speaking shores. Much has been made of 'reshoring' recently, but I don't really believe this will have that much of an impact.

I have had conversations with many European people over the years, and when our conversations have turned to immigration, there seems to be a natural belief in 'fortress Europe', which some english people would consider to be inherently racist. Please also consider the fact that we have an immigration system unlike most of Europe, in that much of our economy seems to get by with a large number of people who are 'not meant to be here' from the third world. You can do a lot in this country without your papers being checked by anybody for anything.

Please also consider the paradox that many UK immigration staff are themselves from the third world, but consider themselves to be english. They really do work hard to keep out what some of us would consider to be their 'own kind'.

Eastern Europe and the UK do have something in common: a demographic timebomb. The solution to this is obviously more nuanced ties with the developing world.

You can call UKIP a 'thoroughly nasty lot' if you want, but given that all of the above is going on, I think that they have things about right. I think it is fair that David Cameron etc. are genuinely held to be directly accountable by the UK electorate in determining appropriate policies for the challenges that lie ahead. I'd say the same thing about Eastern European politicians, instead of keeping on looking for a ridiculous EU panacea.
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: You just need to look at UKIP's blatant racist views on Eastern Europeans coming to work in the UK to see what a thoroughly nasty lot they are.[/p][/quote]This is a comment that opens up a delicate can of worms. To a UK cynic, the motive for relaxing immigration restrictions to ten Eastern European countries all at once did seem to be partly a game by the political powers that be to dilute Russia's influence on the European stage, in a battle for hearts and minds. Please also bear in mind the UK's recent immigration history, where many of us have only recently come to terms with different names, accents and cultures in a sense of community (a sense of guilt with the British Empire probably helped). The result does seem to be a kind of 'competition for the right to be considered english' by ethnicities from all over the world, in a scramble for the limited immigration/citizens hip options. I have also often heard the criticism from black, Chinese and Indian nurses that Eastern Europeans (or anyone from the EU) doesn't have to demonstrate proficiency with english at any turn, before being able to set foot in such an important and critical workplace as healthcare. Please also bear in mind the make up of towns like Worthing and Eastbourne, which seem to be mainly populated by people of a certain age, who consider themselves to be refugees in their own country, in that they felt obliged to move there in response to their own communities having been 'taken over'. This scenario has now come to be accepted, but now please bear in mind the body of younger english people who feel that their employment options are being limited by keener and flexible Eastern Europeans. Free trade at work you might say, but the knock on effect to social mobility and housing options in the UK cannot be denied to have been disastrous for some young people. Please also consider the impact of 'outsourcing knowledge work' to cheaper, foreign, english speaking shores. Much has been made of 'reshoring' recently, but I don't really believe this will have that much of an impact. I have had conversations with many European people over the years, and when our conversations have turned to immigration, there seems to be a natural belief in 'fortress Europe', which some english people would consider to be inherently racist. Please also consider the fact that we have an immigration system unlike most of Europe, in that much of our economy seems to get by with a large number of people who are 'not meant to be here' from the third world. You can do a lot in this country without your papers being checked by anybody for anything. Please also consider the paradox that many UK immigration staff are themselves from the third world, but consider themselves to be english. They really do work hard to keep out what some of us would consider to be their 'own kind'. Eastern Europe and the UK do have something in common: a demographic timebomb. The solution to this is obviously more nuanced ties with the developing world. You can call UKIP a 'thoroughly nasty lot' if you want, but given that all of the above is going on, I think that they have things about right. I think it is fair that David Cameron etc. are genuinely held to be directly accountable by the UK electorate in determining appropriate policies for the challenges that lie ahead. I'd say the same thing about Eastern European politicians, instead of keeping on looking for a ridiculous EU panacea. theargusissoinformative
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Libertarian Patriot says...

After reviewing some of the above comments and the many articles in the local and national press on Donna, I have come to the conclusion that what she said has been embellished and largely misunderstood. Donna has made it clear that she does not support discrimination against anyone. She also said that she believes others may have a different point of view and may not necessarily deserve persecution for their choice.

Donna is clearly a libertarian and I respect her for that, naturally. If she made a mistake, and that is all it was in my view, it was insufficiently prefacing her remarks with a caveat along the lines of: this is what I believe but other may believe this......

The liberal leaning press are quick to jump on anything UKIP people say despite the very fragile glass houses they live in themselves as recent news has so painfully made clear with pie and **** at the highest levels of the old establishment parties.

I like what Jesus said--do not judge others because the measure you use against them will be measured back to you.
After reviewing some of the above comments and the many articles in the local and national press on Donna, I have come to the conclusion that what she said has been embellished and largely misunderstood. Donna has made it clear that she does not support discrimination against anyone. She also said that she believes others may have a different point of view and may not necessarily deserve persecution for their choice. Donna is clearly a libertarian and I respect her for that, naturally. If she made a mistake, and that is all it was in my view, it was insufficiently prefacing her remarks with a caveat along the lines of: this is what I believe but other may believe this...... The liberal leaning press are quick to jump on anything UKIP people say despite the very fragile glass houses they live in themselves as recent news has so painfully made clear with pie and **** at the highest levels of the old establishment parties. I like what Jesus said--do not judge others because the measure you use against them will be measured back to you. Libertarian Patriot
  • Score: 3

4:44pm Thu 6 Mar 14

theargusissoinformative says...

Ania Green wrote:
You just need to look at UKIP's blatant racist views on Eastern Europeans coming to work in the UK to see what a thoroughly nasty lot they are.
I missed one out Ania. Let's not forget the phenomenon where one ethnic group that has integrated itself into UK society, is usually among the first to insist that the same opportunities for integration should not be extended to other ethnicities. Also note the pride displayed by many young black and asian men when it comes to an excuse to wave the Union Flag or the English Flag with pride. Some of them are making their presence felt in the Conservative Party. Still others have even joined UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: You just need to look at UKIP's blatant racist views on Eastern Europeans coming to work in the UK to see what a thoroughly nasty lot they are.[/p][/quote]I missed one out Ania. Let's not forget the phenomenon where one ethnic group that has integrated itself into UK society, is usually among the first to insist that the same opportunities for integration should not be extended to other ethnicities. Also note the pride displayed by many young black and asian men when it comes to an excuse to wave the Union Flag or the English Flag with pride. Some of them are making their presence felt in the Conservative Party. Still others have even joined UKIP. theargusissoinformative
  • Score: 0

6:36pm Thu 6 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

theidiotsarewinning.
..
wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
No, the headline is not deliberately misleading anymore then the article is. Like other issues that attract our attention the onus is on us, the reader/audience/acto


r, to put the matter in context. It is not the reponsibility of either the journalist, the media at large or any other individual or organisation to assume the duty of decision for us, individually or collectively. The average man and woman is neither a dolt, a congenital idiot nor incapable of judgement.

This specific article for instance addresses some likely consequences inherent in a 'simple statement'. It is for the reader to cross the 'T's and dot the 'I's. For anyone to presume that we all need to have our hands held while we struggle with the implications is patronising not to say demeaning to every adult.

A newspaper is not an educational tome. I expect the news to report facts. I expect some journalists to expand some on possible ramifications. I do not expect, nor should anyone who values their own judgement, to be put in leading strings and led up the path like a toddling infant.

And yes, there are many grey areas in all arenas of human interaction. That is not something to be wary of or try to eliminate. It is after all one of the very few highlights of being human ... the grey areas that allow us to exercise judgement.
Noam Chomsky wrote a book called "Manufacturing Consent, The Political Economy of the Mass Media".
Which discusses the linguistic analysis of newspaper manipulation, the strategies they use and the reasons why it is done.
Also, Roger Fowler "Language in the News: Discourse and ideology" has some interesting work..
I studied linguistics and English Language at Sussex University, and I must say that the general view of the linguists I discussed this with, is that the media are indeed very manipulative, and that they use a whole range of devices to influence people in the way they see things.
And, no I'm not going to go into why they might want to do that, as frankly that list is toooo long..
I studied Linguistics as well. And Sussex is my old alma mater. Which school did you attend ... was it Cogs by any chance?

Noam Chomsky has a political agenda of his own. In particular his 'Manufacturing Consent (Pantheon, 1988) in particular is a lengthy book talking about his political activism. He is generally held to be a anarchist/marxist. During an interview with David Dobereiner, John Hess, Doug Richardson & Tom Woodhull in when he was asked whether he though anarchy as relevant to the social problems of the 20th century he is quoted as saying " ...it seems to me entirely possible, in fact, essential , to move toward these social forms so very much appropriate to advanced industrial society."

I didn't think much of his "language acquisition device" (LAD) and am even less impressed with his political activism.
[quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: No, the headline is not deliberately misleading anymore then the article is. Like other issues that attract our attention the onus is on us, the reader/audience/acto r, to put the matter in context. It is not the reponsibility of either the journalist, the media at large or any other individual or organisation to assume the duty of decision for us, individually or collectively. The average man and woman is neither a dolt, a congenital idiot nor incapable of judgement. This specific article for instance addresses some likely consequences inherent in a 'simple statement'. It is for the reader to cross the 'T's and dot the 'I's. For anyone to presume that we all need to have our hands held while we struggle with the implications is patronising not to say demeaning to every adult. A newspaper is not an educational tome. I expect the news to report facts. I expect some journalists to expand some on possible ramifications. I do not expect, nor should anyone who values their own judgement, to be put in leading strings and led up the path like a toddling infant. And yes, there are many grey areas in all arenas of human interaction. That is not something to be wary of or try to eliminate. It is after all one of the very few highlights of being human ... the grey areas that allow us to exercise judgement.[/p][/quote]Noam Chomsky wrote a book called "Manufacturing Consent, The Political Economy of the Mass Media". Which discusses the linguistic analysis of newspaper manipulation, the strategies they use and the reasons why it is done. Also, Roger Fowler "Language in the News: Discourse and ideology" has some interesting work.. I studied linguistics and English Language at Sussex University, and I must say that the general view of the linguists I discussed this with, is that the media are indeed very manipulative, and that they use a whole range of devices to influence people in the way they see things. And, no I'm not going to go into why they might want to do that, as frankly that list is toooo long..[/p][/quote]I studied Linguistics as well. And Sussex is my old alma mater. Which school did you attend ... was it Cogs by any chance? Noam Chomsky has a political agenda of his own. In particular his 'Manufacturing Consent (Pantheon, 1988) in particular is a lengthy book talking about his political activism. He is generally held to be a anarchist/marxist. During an interview with David Dobereiner, John Hess, Doug Richardson & Tom Woodhull in when he was asked whether he though anarchy as relevant to the social problems of the 20th century he is quoted as saying " ...it seems to me entirely possible, in fact, essential , to move toward these social forms so very much appropriate to advanced industrial society." I didn't think much of his "language acquisition device" (LAD) and am even less impressed with his political activism. mimseycal
  • Score: -1

12:01am Fri 7 Mar 14

theidiotsarewinning... says...

mimseycal wrote:
theidiotsarewinning.

..
wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
No, the headline is not deliberately misleading anymore then the article is. Like other issues that attract our attention the onus is on us, the reader/audience/acto



r, to put the matter in context. It is not the reponsibility of either the journalist, the media at large or any other individual or organisation to assume the duty of decision for us, individually or collectively. The average man and woman is neither a dolt, a congenital idiot nor incapable of judgement.

This specific article for instance addresses some likely consequences inherent in a 'simple statement'. It is for the reader to cross the 'T's and dot the 'I's. For anyone to presume that we all need to have our hands held while we struggle with the implications is patronising not to say demeaning to every adult.

A newspaper is not an educational tome. I expect the news to report facts. I expect some journalists to expand some on possible ramifications. I do not expect, nor should anyone who values their own judgement, to be put in leading strings and led up the path like a toddling infant.

And yes, there are many grey areas in all arenas of human interaction. That is not something to be wary of or try to eliminate. It is after all one of the very few highlights of being human ... the grey areas that allow us to exercise judgement.
Noam Chomsky wrote a book called "Manufacturing Consent, The Political Economy of the Mass Media".
Which discusses the linguistic analysis of newspaper manipulation, the strategies they use and the reasons why it is done.
Also, Roger Fowler "Language in the News: Discourse and ideology" has some interesting work..
I studied linguistics and English Language at Sussex University, and I must say that the general view of the linguists I discussed this with, is that the media are indeed very manipulative, and that they use a whole range of devices to influence people in the way they see things.
And, no I'm not going to go into why they might want to do that, as frankly that list is toooo long..
I studied Linguistics as well. And Sussex is my old alma mater. Which school did you attend ... was it Cogs by any chance?

Noam Chomsky has a political agenda of his own. In particular his 'Manufacturing Consent (Pantheon, 1988) in particular is a lengthy book talking about his political activism. He is generally held to be a anarchist/marxist. During an interview with David Dobereiner, John Hess, Doug Richardson & Tom Woodhull in when he was asked whether he though anarchy as relevant to the social problems of the 20th century he is quoted as saying " ...it seems to me entirely possible, in fact, essential , to move toward these social forms so very much appropriate to advanced industrial society."

I didn't think much of his "language acquisition device" (LAD) and am even less impressed with his political activism.
With respect, have you actually read Manufacturing Consent or did you just google it?
Because to say "Manufacturing Consent is a lengthy book talking about his political activism" is an extraordinarily narrow and very limited definition of what is actually covered and the way it is done.
He discusses political issues/stories and shows clearly how the outcomes were manipulated by the media.
And the book isn't that lengthy, its a paperback..
The book is:
About the deconstruction of the American mass media and what they are up to. Laying it bare for all to see just how the news industry and news pool works. He demonstrates and discusses the agenda setting of the media.
The ways in which the media conditions society by manipulating emotions.
And the ways in which the media control the public consciousness and the devices and linguistic techniques used to do this - and just how subtle and insidious they can be.
How emotions and opinions are instilled/installed in us without us even realising, and how we then condition others and reinforce the messages promulgated by the media, usually again without us realising.
And its not about intelligence either, the manipulation operates at all levels in our society.
He discusses the filters that are created for us and how they then colour our perception and judgement.
And he breaks down and demonstrates how and why it all works.
And you don't need to be an academic to understand it. Most of the explanations and demonstrations in the book are self-evidently true.
Once you see the manipulations laid bare its impossible to not notice them when reading news stories, it doesn't guarantee immunity though, as some of it is so subtle that it can slip under ones radar..
The television news is even slicker and is almost convincing as this bastion of truth and journalistic integrity - ha ha ha ha ha!!!
The best policy to stay safe is to not believe a freaking word they say either in the papers or on the T.V news - other than meaningless news stories like 'cat gets stuck up tree'..
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: No, the headline is not deliberately misleading anymore then the article is. Like other issues that attract our attention the onus is on us, the reader/audience/acto r, to put the matter in context. It is not the reponsibility of either the journalist, the media at large or any other individual or organisation to assume the duty of decision for us, individually or collectively. The average man and woman is neither a dolt, a congenital idiot nor incapable of judgement. This specific article for instance addresses some likely consequences inherent in a 'simple statement'. It is for the reader to cross the 'T's and dot the 'I's. For anyone to presume that we all need to have our hands held while we struggle with the implications is patronising not to say demeaning to every adult. A newspaper is not an educational tome. I expect the news to report facts. I expect some journalists to expand some on possible ramifications. I do not expect, nor should anyone who values their own judgement, to be put in leading strings and led up the path like a toddling infant. And yes, there are many grey areas in all arenas of human interaction. That is not something to be wary of or try to eliminate. It is after all one of the very few highlights of being human ... the grey areas that allow us to exercise judgement.[/p][/quote]Noam Chomsky wrote a book called "Manufacturing Consent, The Political Economy of the Mass Media". Which discusses the linguistic analysis of newspaper manipulation, the strategies they use and the reasons why it is done. Also, Roger Fowler "Language in the News: Discourse and ideology" has some interesting work.. I studied linguistics and English Language at Sussex University, and I must say that the general view of the linguists I discussed this with, is that the media are indeed very manipulative, and that they use a whole range of devices to influence people in the way they see things. And, no I'm not going to go into why they might want to do that, as frankly that list is toooo long..[/p][/quote]I studied Linguistics as well. And Sussex is my old alma mater. Which school did you attend ... was it Cogs by any chance? Noam Chomsky has a political agenda of his own. In particular his 'Manufacturing Consent (Pantheon, 1988) in particular is a lengthy book talking about his political activism. He is generally held to be a anarchist/marxist. During an interview with David Dobereiner, John Hess, Doug Richardson & Tom Woodhull in when he was asked whether he though anarchy as relevant to the social problems of the 20th century he is quoted as saying " ...it seems to me entirely possible, in fact, essential , to move toward these social forms so very much appropriate to advanced industrial society." I didn't think much of his "language acquisition device" (LAD) and am even less impressed with his political activism.[/p][/quote]With respect, have you actually read Manufacturing Consent or did you just google it? Because to say "Manufacturing Consent is a lengthy book talking about his political activism" is an extraordinarily narrow and very limited definition of what is actually covered and the way it is done. He discusses political issues/stories and shows clearly how the outcomes were manipulated by the media. And the book isn't that lengthy, its a paperback.. The book is: About the deconstruction of the American mass media and what they are up to. Laying it bare for all to see just how the news industry and news pool works. He demonstrates and discusses the agenda setting of the media. The ways in which the media conditions society by manipulating emotions. And the ways in which the media control the public consciousness and the devices and linguistic techniques used to do this - and just how subtle and insidious they can be. How emotions and opinions are instilled/installed in us without us even realising, and how we then condition others and reinforce the messages promulgated by the media, usually again without us realising. And its not about intelligence either, the manipulation operates at all levels in our society. He discusses the filters that are created for us and how they then colour our perception and judgement. And he breaks down and demonstrates how and why it all works. And you don't need to be an academic to understand it. Most of the explanations and demonstrations in the book are self-evidently true. Once you see the manipulations laid bare its impossible to not notice them when reading news stories, it doesn't guarantee immunity though, as some of it is so subtle that it can slip under ones radar.. The television news is even slicker and is almost convincing as this bastion of truth and journalistic integrity - ha ha ha ha ha!!! The best policy to stay safe is to not believe a freaking word they say either in the papers or on the T.V news - other than meaningless news stories like 'cat gets stuck up tree'.. theidiotsarewinning...
  • Score: 2

6:13am Fri 7 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

With respect? Well, m'dear ... I've seen crasser ways of questioning a commenters' veracity I suppose. But then, it seems I've probably had far more experience and am certainly far less naive, or gullible if you prefer, then you appear to be.

Enjoy your isolation in your self imposed bastion of paranoia liefling.
With respect? Well, m'dear ... I've seen crasser ways of questioning a commenters' veracity I suppose. But then, it seems I've probably had far more experience and am certainly far less naive, or gullible if you prefer, then you appear to be. Enjoy your isolation in your self imposed bastion of paranoia liefling. mimseycal
  • Score: -1

9:33am Fri 7 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

tpaw22 wrote:
Reading the whole post, what she said was that shopkeepers should be allowed to refuse anyone. As far as I know they are and should. We used to ban people from our shop for bad language, threatening behaviour or theft, irrespective of gender, colour, sexual preferences etc.
It was the Argus that raised the issue of gays and if anyone thinks any shopkeeper who wishes to remain in business is going to refuse to serve people based on their sex or what they believe to be their sexual preferences, then that is an insult to shopkeepers. Even for suggesting that it could happen, I would suggest that newsagents in Brighton have words with The Argus and suggest a retraction unless they want to see some refusing to display the paper.
The argus is following the predicted track of the media to follow the three main parties and to use every dirty trick in the book to turn voters away from the UKIP.The argus uses the word GAY as we have a large gay community it is just taking the words out of context and trying to show UKIP as an extreme party which it is not.
[quote][p][bold]tpaw22[/bold] wrote: Reading the whole post, what she said was that shopkeepers should be allowed to refuse anyone. As far as I know they are and should. We used to ban people from our shop for bad language, threatening behaviour or theft, irrespective of gender, colour, sexual preferences etc. It was the Argus that raised the issue of gays and if anyone thinks any shopkeeper who wishes to remain in business is going to refuse to serve people based on their sex or what they believe to be their sexual preferences, then that is an insult to shopkeepers. Even for suggesting that it could happen, I would suggest that newsagents in Brighton have words with The Argus and suggest a retraction unless they want to see some refusing to display the paper.[/p][/quote]The argus is following the predicted track of the media to follow the three main parties and to use every dirty trick in the book to turn voters away from the UKIP.The argus uses the word GAY as we have a large gay community it is just taking the words out of context and trying to show UKIP as an extreme party which it is not. clubrob6
  • Score: 3

10:11am Fri 7 Mar 14

Number Six says...

Extreme? Of course not. It's not like referring to Bongo Bongo land, or calling women ****, or blaming the floods on gay marriage is anything but reasonable and rationable behaviour, is it?
Extreme? Of course not. It's not like referring to Bongo Bongo land, or calling women ****, or blaming the floods on gay marriage is anything but reasonable and rationable behaviour, is it? Number Six
  • Score: 1

10:32am Fri 7 Mar 14

theargusissoinformative says...

theidiotsarewinning.
..
wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
theidiotsarewinning. .. wrote:
mimseycal wrote: No, the headline is not deliberately misleading anymore then the article is. Like other issues that attract our attention the onus is on us, the reader/audience/acto r, to put the matter in context. It is not the reponsibility of either the journalist, the media at large or any other individual or organisation to assume the duty of decision for us, individually or collectively. The average man and woman is neither a dolt, a congenital idiot nor incapable of judgement. This specific article for instance addresses some likely consequences inherent in a 'simple statement'. It is for the reader to cross the 'T's and dot the 'I's. For anyone to presume that we all need to have our hands held while we struggle with the implications is patronising not to say demeaning to every adult. A newspaper is not an educational tome. I expect the news to report facts. I expect some journalists to expand some on possible ramifications. I do not expect, nor should anyone who values their own judgement, to be put in leading strings and led up the path like a toddling infant. And yes, there are many grey areas in all arenas of human interaction. That is not something to be wary of or try to eliminate. It is after all one of the very few highlights of being human ... the grey areas that allow us to exercise judgement.
Noam Chomsky wrote a book called "Manufacturing Consent, The Political Economy of the Mass Media". Which discusses the linguistic analysis of newspaper manipulation, the strategies they use and the reasons why it is done. Also, Roger Fowler "Language in the News: Discourse and ideology" has some interesting work.. I studied linguistics and English Language at Sussex University, and I must say that the general view of the linguists I discussed this with, is that the media are indeed very manipulative, and that they use a whole range of devices to influence people in the way they see things. And, no I'm not going to go into why they might want to do that, as frankly that list is toooo long..
I studied Linguistics as well. And Sussex is my old alma mater. Which school did you attend ... was it Cogs by any chance? Noam Chomsky has a political agenda of his own. In particular his 'Manufacturing Consent (Pantheon, 1988) in particular is a lengthy book talking about his political activism. He is generally held to be a anarchist/marxist. During an interview with David Dobereiner, John Hess, Doug Richardson & Tom Woodhull in when he was asked whether he though anarchy as relevant to the social problems of the 20th century he is quoted as saying " ...it seems to me entirely possible, in fact, essential , to move toward these social forms so very much appropriate to advanced industrial society." I didn't think much of his "language acquisition device" (LAD) and am even less impressed with his political activism.
With respect, have you actually read Manufacturing Consent or did you just google it? Because to say "Manufacturing Consent is a lengthy book talking about his political activism" is an extraordinarily narrow and very limited definition of what is actually covered and the way it is done. He discusses political issues/stories and shows clearly how the outcomes were manipulated by the media. And the book isn't that lengthy, its a paperback.. The book is: About the deconstruction of the American mass media and what they are up to. Laying it bare for all to see just how the news industry and news pool works. He demonstrates and discusses the agenda setting of the media. The ways in which the media conditions society by manipulating emotions. And the ways in which the media control the public consciousness and the devices and linguistic techniques used to do this - and just how subtle and insidious they can be. How emotions and opinions are instilled/installed in us without us even realising, and how we then condition others and reinforce the messages promulgated by the media, usually again without us realising. And its not about intelligence either, the manipulation operates at all levels in our society. He discusses the filters that are created for us and how they then colour our perception and judgement. And he breaks down and demonstrates how and why it all works. And you don't need to be an academic to understand it. Most of the explanations and demonstrations in the book are self-evidently true. Once you see the manipulations laid bare its impossible to not notice them when reading news stories, it doesn't guarantee immunity though, as some of it is so subtle that it can slip under ones radar.. The television news is even slicker and is almost convincing as this bastion of truth and journalistic integrity - ha ha ha ha ha!!! The best policy to stay safe is to not believe a freaking word they say either in the papers or on the T.V news - other than meaningless news stories like 'cat gets stuck up tree'..
We all have an innate need need for local, national and global narratives to make sense of the choices and options in our day to day lives. Like it or not, the people that provide us this information have to earn a crust as well (although I always felt that Rupert Murdoch and The Sun took this to an extreme). I'd recognise the manipulation of perception and judgement (as you judge it) to be a need for cultures to bond socially around common themes. The talk about 'American media' has come to be an example of 'soft power' that appeals to a wider audience (but it isn't my cup of tea. I can't stand the accent). Some of us in the UK seem to take the choices and freedoms that we have for granted, and don't seem to be sure how to use them with confidence. Going by some of these postings, I also sense a shyness affecting abilities to be able to engage with the challenges and opportunities offered by the developing world, to ensure our continued freedom. Does 'BRICS' and 'Next 11' mean nothing to you?
[quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: No, the headline is not deliberately misleading anymore then the article is. Like other issues that attract our attention the onus is on us, the reader/audience/acto r, to put the matter in context. It is not the reponsibility of either the journalist, the media at large or any other individual or organisation to assume the duty of decision for us, individually or collectively. The average man and woman is neither a dolt, a congenital idiot nor incapable of judgement. This specific article for instance addresses some likely consequences inherent in a 'simple statement'. It is for the reader to cross the 'T's and dot the 'I's. For anyone to presume that we all need to have our hands held while we struggle with the implications is patronising not to say demeaning to every adult. A newspaper is not an educational tome. I expect the news to report facts. I expect some journalists to expand some on possible ramifications. I do not expect, nor should anyone who values their own judgement, to be put in leading strings and led up the path like a toddling infant. And yes, there are many grey areas in all arenas of human interaction. That is not something to be wary of or try to eliminate. It is after all one of the very few highlights of being human ... the grey areas that allow us to exercise judgement.[/p][/quote]Noam Chomsky wrote a book called "Manufacturing Consent, The Political Economy of the Mass Media". Which discusses the linguistic analysis of newspaper manipulation, the strategies they use and the reasons why it is done. Also, Roger Fowler "Language in the News: Discourse and ideology" has some interesting work.. I studied linguistics and English Language at Sussex University, and I must say that the general view of the linguists I discussed this with, is that the media are indeed very manipulative, and that they use a whole range of devices to influence people in the way they see things. And, no I'm not going to go into why they might want to do that, as frankly that list is toooo long..[/p][/quote]I studied Linguistics as well. And Sussex is my old alma mater. Which school did you attend ... was it Cogs by any chance? Noam Chomsky has a political agenda of his own. In particular his 'Manufacturing Consent (Pantheon, 1988) in particular is a lengthy book talking about his political activism. He is generally held to be a anarchist/marxist. During an interview with David Dobereiner, John Hess, Doug Richardson & Tom Woodhull in when he was asked whether he though anarchy as relevant to the social problems of the 20th century he is quoted as saying " ...it seems to me entirely possible, in fact, essential , to move toward these social forms so very much appropriate to advanced industrial society." I didn't think much of his "language acquisition device" (LAD) and am even less impressed with his political activism.[/p][/quote]With respect, have you actually read Manufacturing Consent or did you just google it? Because to say "Manufacturing Consent is a lengthy book talking about his political activism" is an extraordinarily narrow and very limited definition of what is actually covered and the way it is done. He discusses political issues/stories and shows clearly how the outcomes were manipulated by the media. And the book isn't that lengthy, its a paperback.. The book is: About the deconstruction of the American mass media and what they are up to. Laying it bare for all to see just how the news industry and news pool works. He demonstrates and discusses the agenda setting of the media. The ways in which the media conditions society by manipulating emotions. And the ways in which the media control the public consciousness and the devices and linguistic techniques used to do this - and just how subtle and insidious they can be. How emotions and opinions are instilled/installed in us without us even realising, and how we then condition others and reinforce the messages promulgated by the media, usually again without us realising. And its not about intelligence either, the manipulation operates at all levels in our society. He discusses the filters that are created for us and how they then colour our perception and judgement. And he breaks down and demonstrates how and why it all works. And you don't need to be an academic to understand it. Most of the explanations and demonstrations in the book are self-evidently true. Once you see the manipulations laid bare its impossible to not notice them when reading news stories, it doesn't guarantee immunity though, as some of it is so subtle that it can slip under ones radar.. The television news is even slicker and is almost convincing as this bastion of truth and journalistic integrity - ha ha ha ha ha!!! The best policy to stay safe is to not believe a freaking word they say either in the papers or on the T.V news - other than meaningless news stories like 'cat gets stuck up tree'..[/p][/quote]We all have an innate need need for local, national and global narratives to make sense of the choices and options in our day to day lives. Like it or not, the people that provide us this information have to earn a crust as well (although I always felt that Rupert Murdoch and The Sun took this to an extreme). I'd recognise the manipulation of perception and judgement (as you judge it) to be a need for cultures to bond socially around common themes. The talk about 'American media' has come to be an example of 'soft power' that appeals to a wider audience (but it isn't my cup of tea. I can't stand the accent). Some of us in the UK seem to take the choices and freedoms that we have for granted, and don't seem to be sure how to use them with confidence. Going by some of these postings, I also sense a shyness affecting abilities to be able to engage with the challenges and opportunities offered by the developing world, to ensure our continued freedom. Does 'BRICS' and 'Next 11' mean nothing to you? theargusissoinformative
  • Score: 0

10:32am Fri 7 Mar 14

Libertarian Patriot says...

Zeta Function wrote:
WHY are women supporting UKIP?

Time to understand the dangers of small minded conservative nationalism.
Because women are not inferior to men and can make up their own minds. UKIP have plenty of female candidates and are actively encouraging more to join. UKIP is for the family and does not attack those women who CHOOSE to stay at home to raise their family as it the responsibility where trifling and not to be compared with having a job outside the home.
[quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: WHY are women supporting UKIP? Time to understand the dangers of small minded conservative nationalism.[/p][/quote]Because women are not inferior to men and can make up their own minds. UKIP have plenty of female candidates and are actively encouraging more to join. UKIP is for the family and does not attack those women who CHOOSE to stay at home to raise their family as it the responsibility where trifling and not to be compared with having a job outside the home. Libertarian Patriot
  • Score: 3

10:36am Fri 7 Mar 14

Libertarian Patriot says...

Number Six wrote:
Extreme? Of course not. It's not like referring to Bongo Bongo land, or calling women ****, or blaming the floods on gay marriage is anything but reasonable and rationable behaviour, is it?
There is rumour circulating, and I am NOT saying it is true, that there are some people in the Liblabcon party that are extreme in their views as we have seen very recently. Google the long list of MPs and racist remarks or convictions for one thing or another. Glass houses are not a good place from which to cast stones.
[quote][p][bold]Number Six[/bold] wrote: Extreme? Of course not. It's not like referring to Bongo Bongo land, or calling women ****, or blaming the floods on gay marriage is anything but reasonable and rationable behaviour, is it?[/p][/quote]There is rumour circulating, and I am NOT saying it is true, that there are some people in the Liblabcon party that are extreme in their views as we have seen very recently. Google the long list of MPs and racist remarks or convictions for one thing or another. Glass houses are not a good place from which to cast stones. Libertarian Patriot
  • Score: 3

4:15pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Fairfax Aches says...

I think they SHOULd have the power to turn away people!
I think they SHOULd have the power to turn away people! Fairfax Aches
  • Score: 1

5:41pm Fri 7 Mar 14

theidiotsarewinning... says...

theargusissoinformat
ive
wrote:
theidiotsarewinning.

..
wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
theidiotsarewinning. .. wrote:
mimseycal wrote: No, the headline is not deliberately misleading anymore then the article is. Like other issues that attract our attention the onus is on us, the reader/audience/acto r, to put the matter in context. It is not the reponsibility of either the journalist, the media at large or any other individual or organisation to assume the duty of decision for us, individually or collectively. The average man and woman is neither a dolt, a congenital idiot nor incapable of judgement. This specific article for instance addresses some likely consequences inherent in a 'simple statement'. It is for the reader to cross the 'T's and dot the 'I's. For anyone to presume that we all need to have our hands held while we struggle with the implications is patronising not to say demeaning to every adult. A newspaper is not an educational tome. I expect the news to report facts. I expect some journalists to expand some on possible ramifications. I do not expect, nor should anyone who values their own judgement, to be put in leading strings and led up the path like a toddling infant. And yes, there are many grey areas in all arenas of human interaction. That is not something to be wary of or try to eliminate. It is after all one of the very few highlights of being human ... the grey areas that allow us to exercise judgement.
Noam Chomsky wrote a book called "Manufacturing Consent, The Political Economy of the Mass Media". Which discusses the linguistic analysis of newspaper manipulation, the strategies they use and the reasons why it is done. Also, Roger Fowler "Language in the News: Discourse and ideology" has some interesting work.. I studied linguistics and English Language at Sussex University, and I must say that the general view of the linguists I discussed this with, is that the media are indeed very manipulative, and that they use a whole range of devices to influence people in the way they see things. And, no I'm not going to go into why they might want to do that, as frankly that list is toooo long..
I studied Linguistics as well. And Sussex is my old alma mater. Which school did you attend ... was it Cogs by any chance? Noam Chomsky has a political agenda of his own. In particular his 'Manufacturing Consent (Pantheon, 1988) in particular is a lengthy book talking about his political activism. He is generally held to be a anarchist/marxist. During an interview with David Dobereiner, John Hess, Doug Richardson & Tom Woodhull in when he was asked whether he though anarchy as relevant to the social problems of the 20th century he is quoted as saying " ...it seems to me entirely possible, in fact, essential , to move toward these social forms so very much appropriate to advanced industrial society." I didn't think much of his "language acquisition device" (LAD) and am even less impressed with his political activism.
With respect, have you actually read Manufacturing Consent or did you just google it? Because to say "Manufacturing Consent is a lengthy book talking about his political activism" is an extraordinarily narrow and very limited definition of what is actually covered and the way it is done. He discusses political issues/stories and shows clearly how the outcomes were manipulated by the media. And the book isn't that lengthy, its a paperback.. The book is: About the deconstruction of the American mass media and what they are up to. Laying it bare for all to see just how the news industry and news pool works. He demonstrates and discusses the agenda setting of the media. The ways in which the media conditions society by manipulating emotions. And the ways in which the media control the public consciousness and the devices and linguistic techniques used to do this - and just how subtle and insidious they can be. How emotions and opinions are instilled/installed in us without us even realising, and how we then condition others and reinforce the messages promulgated by the media, usually again without us realising. And its not about intelligence either, the manipulation operates at all levels in our society. He discusses the filters that are created for us and how they then colour our perception and judgement. And he breaks down and demonstrates how and why it all works. And you don't need to be an academic to understand it. Most of the explanations and demonstrations in the book are self-evidently true. Once you see the manipulations laid bare its impossible to not notice them when reading news stories, it doesn't guarantee immunity though, as some of it is so subtle that it can slip under ones radar.. The television news is even slicker and is almost convincing as this bastion of truth and journalistic integrity - ha ha ha ha ha!!! The best policy to stay safe is to not believe a freaking word they say either in the papers or on the T.V news - other than meaningless news stories like 'cat gets stuck up tree'..
We all have an innate need need for local, national and global narratives to make sense of the choices and options in our day to day lives. Like it or not, the people that provide us this information have to earn a crust as well (although I always felt that Rupert Murdoch and The Sun took this to an extreme). I'd recognise the manipulation of perception and judgement (as you judge it) to be a need for cultures to bond socially around common themes. The talk about 'American media' has come to be an example of 'soft power' that appeals to a wider audience (but it isn't my cup of tea. I can't stand the accent). Some of us in the UK seem to take the choices and freedoms that we have for granted, and don't seem to be sure how to use them with confidence. Going by some of these postings, I also sense a shyness affecting abilities to be able to engage with the challenges and opportunities offered by the developing world, to ensure our continued freedom. Does 'BRICS' and 'Next 11' mean nothing to you?
Stay asleep or wake up, it's a choice.
Shalom
[quote][p][bold]theargusissoinformat ive[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: No, the headline is not deliberately misleading anymore then the article is. Like other issues that attract our attention the onus is on us, the reader/audience/acto r, to put the matter in context. It is not the reponsibility of either the journalist, the media at large or any other individual or organisation to assume the duty of decision for us, individually or collectively. The average man and woman is neither a dolt, a congenital idiot nor incapable of judgement. This specific article for instance addresses some likely consequences inherent in a 'simple statement'. It is for the reader to cross the 'T's and dot the 'I's. For anyone to presume that we all need to have our hands held while we struggle with the implications is patronising not to say demeaning to every adult. A newspaper is not an educational tome. I expect the news to report facts. I expect some journalists to expand some on possible ramifications. I do not expect, nor should anyone who values their own judgement, to be put in leading strings and led up the path like a toddling infant. And yes, there are many grey areas in all arenas of human interaction. That is not something to be wary of or try to eliminate. It is after all one of the very few highlights of being human ... the grey areas that allow us to exercise judgement.[/p][/quote]Noam Chomsky wrote a book called "Manufacturing Consent, The Political Economy of the Mass Media". Which discusses the linguistic analysis of newspaper manipulation, the strategies they use and the reasons why it is done. Also, Roger Fowler "Language in the News: Discourse and ideology" has some interesting work.. I studied linguistics and English Language at Sussex University, and I must say that the general view of the linguists I discussed this with, is that the media are indeed very manipulative, and that they use a whole range of devices to influence people in the way they see things. And, no I'm not going to go into why they might want to do that, as frankly that list is toooo long..[/p][/quote]I studied Linguistics as well. And Sussex is my old alma mater. Which school did you attend ... was it Cogs by any chance? Noam Chomsky has a political agenda of his own. In particular his 'Manufacturing Consent (Pantheon, 1988) in particular is a lengthy book talking about his political activism. He is generally held to be a anarchist/marxist. During an interview with David Dobereiner, John Hess, Doug Richardson & Tom Woodhull in when he was asked whether he though anarchy as relevant to the social problems of the 20th century he is quoted as saying " ...it seems to me entirely possible, in fact, essential , to move toward these social forms so very much appropriate to advanced industrial society." I didn't think much of his "language acquisition device" (LAD) and am even less impressed with his political activism.[/p][/quote]With respect, have you actually read Manufacturing Consent or did you just google it? Because to say "Manufacturing Consent is a lengthy book talking about his political activism" is an extraordinarily narrow and very limited definition of what is actually covered and the way it is done. He discusses political issues/stories and shows clearly how the outcomes were manipulated by the media. And the book isn't that lengthy, its a paperback.. The book is: About the deconstruction of the American mass media and what they are up to. Laying it bare for all to see just how the news industry and news pool works. He demonstrates and discusses the agenda setting of the media. The ways in which the media conditions society by manipulating emotions. And the ways in which the media control the public consciousness and the devices and linguistic techniques used to do this - and just how subtle and insidious they can be. How emotions and opinions are instilled/installed in us without us even realising, and how we then condition others and reinforce the messages promulgated by the media, usually again without us realising. And its not about intelligence either, the manipulation operates at all levels in our society. He discusses the filters that are created for us and how they then colour our perception and judgement. And he breaks down and demonstrates how and why it all works. And you don't need to be an academic to understand it. Most of the explanations and demonstrations in the book are self-evidently true. Once you see the manipulations laid bare its impossible to not notice them when reading news stories, it doesn't guarantee immunity though, as some of it is so subtle that it can slip under ones radar.. The television news is even slicker and is almost convincing as this bastion of truth and journalistic integrity - ha ha ha ha ha!!! The best policy to stay safe is to not believe a freaking word they say either in the papers or on the T.V news - other than meaningless news stories like 'cat gets stuck up tree'..[/p][/quote]We all have an innate need need for local, national and global narratives to make sense of the choices and options in our day to day lives. Like it or not, the people that provide us this information have to earn a crust as well (although I always felt that Rupert Murdoch and The Sun took this to an extreme). I'd recognise the manipulation of perception and judgement (as you judge it) to be a need for cultures to bond socially around common themes. The talk about 'American media' has come to be an example of 'soft power' that appeals to a wider audience (but it isn't my cup of tea. I can't stand the accent). Some of us in the UK seem to take the choices and freedoms that we have for granted, and don't seem to be sure how to use them with confidence. Going by some of these postings, I also sense a shyness affecting abilities to be able to engage with the challenges and opportunities offered by the developing world, to ensure our continued freedom. Does 'BRICS' and 'Next 11' mean nothing to you?[/p][/quote]Stay asleep or wake up, it's a choice. Shalom theidiotsarewinning...
  • Score: 1

5:47pm Fri 7 Mar 14

theidiotsarewinning... says...

mimseycal wrote:
With respect? Well, m'dear ... I've seen crasser ways of questioning a commenters' veracity I suppose. But then, it seems I've probably had far more experience and am certainly far less naive, or gullible if you prefer, then you appear to be.

Enjoy your isolation in your self imposed bastion of paranoia liefling.
So the answer is 'no' you haven't read the book then!
Very amusing assumptions about me too, really enjoyed reading em thanks!
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: With respect? Well, m'dear ... I've seen crasser ways of questioning a commenters' veracity I suppose. But then, it seems I've probably had far more experience and am certainly far less naive, or gullible if you prefer, then you appear to be. Enjoy your isolation in your self imposed bastion of paranoia liefling.[/p][/quote]So the answer is 'no' you haven't read the book then! Very amusing assumptions about me too, really enjoyed reading em thanks! theidiotsarewinning...
  • Score: 1

5:48pm Fri 7 Mar 14

theidiotsarewinning... says...

mimseycal wrote:
With respect? Well, m'dear ... I've seen crasser ways of questioning a commenters' veracity I suppose. But then, it seems I've probably had far more experience and am certainly far less naive, or gullible if you prefer, then you appear to be.

Enjoy your isolation in your self imposed bastion of paranoia liefling.
So the answer is 'no' you haven't read the book then!
Very amusing assumptions about me too, really enjoyed reading em thanks!
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: With respect? Well, m'dear ... I've seen crasser ways of questioning a commenters' veracity I suppose. But then, it seems I've probably had far more experience and am certainly far less naive, or gullible if you prefer, then you appear to be. Enjoy your isolation in your self imposed bastion of paranoia liefling.[/p][/quote]So the answer is 'no' you haven't read the book then! Very amusing assumptions about me too, really enjoyed reading em thanks! theidiotsarewinning...
  • Score: 0

6:38pm Fri 7 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

If you need to believe I haven't read something to validate your sense of self worth ... go for it m'dear.
If you need to believe I haven't read something to validate your sense of self worth ... go for it m'dear. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

10:05pm Fri 7 Mar 14

ghost bus driver says...

Libertarian Patriot wrote:
We must be careful not to be too quick to judge Donna. In our country we must treat everyone with respect and not discriminate on the basis of religion, ethnicity or any other form of association provided such association is not harmful or violates the rights of others.

There is a balance to be struck and perhaps in our overly liberal society we have gone too far in forcing others to accept the politics of the day. For example, a Christian Magistrate was fired because he requested a facility to sit out on cases involving the adoption of children by homosexual couples. This was based on an exercise of religious belief that would be shared by many faiths in addition to the Christian one. The Magistrate pointed out that there was a large pool of magistrates who would be able to sit on such cases without violating their belief system. Thus, the rights of homosexual couples were not violated as they were free to achieve their objective quite easily. The right to refuse services may, in some cases, be a liberty we in a free society must learn to tolerate.

If someone offers a service to the public the right to refuse to serve someone must be based on clear grounds. Tolerance is key and it is the case that in a free society liberty must cut both ways. It gets complicated because religious freedom must encompass the right to practise that religion to the exclusion of certain practises. I include in this all belief systems in our wonderfully diverse culture, not just established faiths such as Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian etc.

In a culturally diverse nation we are going to have to accept culturally diverse freedoms and it is not fair to decide what one group must accept based on the beliefs of another. Its going to take a lot of work to come to the point of agreeing to be tolerant--both ways.

So lets not judge Donna too quickly. Libertarians believe in the fundamental human right to make choices based on freedom of conscience provided others are not harmed. And hurt feelings or violation of "PC" may not always be a good ground to reject another's freedom. We may cast our thoughts back to the apartheid in South Africa or the civil rights movement in the USA where black people were refused service based on colour. Very few people would find such discrimination acceptable and we should never allow such discrimination in our country. However, in a free society we are going to have to make room for the right to be different in many areas. Let us all agree to practise more understanding and toleration of diverse views even though we may not all agree with all of them.
In other words open a shop and refuse to serve anyone.

This is a local shop for local people, there is nothing for you here.
[quote][p][bold]Libertarian Patriot[/bold] wrote: We must be careful not to be too quick to judge Donna. In our country we must treat everyone with respect and not discriminate on the basis of religion, ethnicity or any other form of association provided such association is not harmful or violates the rights of others. There is a balance to be struck and perhaps in our overly liberal society we have gone too far in forcing others to accept the politics of the day. For example, a Christian Magistrate was fired because he requested a facility to sit out on cases involving the adoption of children by homosexual couples. This was based on an exercise of religious belief that would be shared by many faiths in addition to the Christian one. The Magistrate pointed out that there was a large pool of magistrates who would be able to sit on such cases without violating their belief system. Thus, the rights of homosexual couples were not violated as they were free to achieve their objective quite easily. The right to refuse services may, in some cases, be a liberty we in a free society must learn to tolerate. If someone offers a service to the public the right to refuse to serve someone must be based on clear grounds. Tolerance is key and it is the case that in a free society liberty must cut both ways. It gets complicated because religious freedom must encompass the right to practise that religion to the exclusion of certain practises. I include in this all belief systems in our wonderfully diverse culture, not just established faiths such as Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian etc. In a culturally diverse nation we are going to have to accept culturally diverse freedoms and it is not fair to decide what one group must accept based on the beliefs of another. Its going to take a lot of work to come to the point of agreeing to be tolerant--both ways. So lets not judge Donna too quickly. Libertarians believe in the fundamental human right to make choices based on freedom of conscience provided others are not harmed. And hurt feelings or violation of "PC" may not always be a good ground to reject another's freedom. We may cast our thoughts back to the apartheid in South Africa or the civil rights movement in the USA where black people were refused service based on colour. Very few people would find such discrimination acceptable and we should never allow such discrimination in our country. However, in a free society we are going to have to make room for the right to be different in many areas. Let us all agree to practise more understanding and toleration of diverse views even though we may not all agree with all of them.[/p][/quote]In other words open a shop and refuse to serve anyone. This is a local shop for local people, there is nothing for you here. ghost bus driver
  • Score: 0

11:59pm Fri 7 Mar 14

theidiotsarewinning... says...

mimseycal wrote:
If you need to believe I haven't read something to validate your sense of self worth ... go for it m'dear.
Are you ill?
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: If you need to believe I haven't read something to validate your sense of self worth ... go for it m'dear.[/p][/quote]Are you ill? theidiotsarewinning...
  • Score: 3

10:40am Sat 8 Mar 14

theargusissoinformative says...

theidiotsarewinning.
..
wrote:
mimseycal wrote: If you need to believe I haven't read something to validate your sense of self worth ... go for it m'dear.
Are you ill?
What do you do for your day job, and where do you plan to be in twenty years' time?
[quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: If you need to believe I haven't read something to validate your sense of self worth ... go for it m'dear.[/p][/quote]Are you ill?[/p][/quote]What do you do for your day job, and where do you plan to be in twenty years' time? theargusissoinformative
  • Score: -1

8:10pm Sat 8 Mar 14

theidiotsarewinning... says...

theargusissoinformat
ive
wrote:
theidiotsarewinning.

..
wrote:
mimseycal wrote: If you need to believe I haven't read something to validate your sense of self worth ... go for it m'dear.
Are you ill?
What do you do for your day job, and where do you plan to be in twenty years' time?
Random..
I love it!
[quote][p][bold]theargusissoinformat ive[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: If you need to believe I haven't read something to validate your sense of self worth ... go for it m'dear.[/p][/quote]Are you ill?[/p][/quote]What do you do for your day job, and where do you plan to be in twenty years' time?[/p][/quote]Random.. I love it! theidiotsarewinning...
  • Score: 0

8:17pm Sat 8 Mar 14

theidiotsarewinning... says...

theargusissoinformat
ive
wrote:
theidiotsarewinning.

..
wrote:
mimseycal wrote: If you need to believe I haven't read something to validate your sense of self worth ... go for it m'dear.
Are you ill?
What do you do for your day job, and where do you plan to be in twenty years' time?
And your name "theargusisoinformat
ive" - is that a joke?
I'm not trying to be rude, but it really tickles me - very amusing indeed - unless, perhaps you mean the sports pages or something???
[quote][p][bold]theargusissoinformat ive[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: If you need to believe I haven't read something to validate your sense of self worth ... go for it m'dear.[/p][/quote]Are you ill?[/p][/quote]What do you do for your day job, and where do you plan to be in twenty years' time?[/p][/quote]And your name "theargusisoinformat ive" - is that a joke? I'm not trying to be rude, but it really tickles me - very amusing indeed - unless, perhaps you mean the sports pages or something??? theidiotsarewinning...
  • Score: 1

8:39pm Sat 8 Mar 14

theidiotsarewinning... says...

theidiotsarewinning.
..
wrote:
theargusissoinformat

ive
wrote:
theidiotsarewinning.


..
wrote:
mimseycal wrote: If you need to believe I haven't read something to validate your sense of self worth ... go for it m'dear.
Are you ill?
What do you do for your day job, and where do you plan to be in twenty years' time?
And your name "theargusisoinf
ormat
ive" - is that a joke?
I'm not trying to be rude, but it really tickles me - very amusing indeed - unless, perhaps you mean the sports pages or something???
Seriously, though I'm not 100% sure - "theargusissoinforma
tive" do work for The Argus or something, or is your moniker ironic?…
[quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theargusissoinformat ive[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: If you need to believe I haven't read something to validate your sense of self worth ... go for it m'dear.[/p][/quote]Are you ill?[/p][/quote]What do you do for your day job, and where do you plan to be in twenty years' time?[/p][/quote]And your name "theargusisoinf ormat ive" - is that a joke? I'm not trying to be rude, but it really tickles me - very amusing indeed - unless, perhaps you mean the sports pages or something???[/p][/quote]Seriously, though I'm not 100% sure - "theargusissoinforma tive" do work for The Argus or something, or is your moniker ironic?… theidiotsarewinning...
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Tue 11 Mar 14

theargusissoinformative says...

theidiotsarewinning.
..
wrote:
theidiotsarewinning. .. wrote:
theargusissoinformat ive wrote:
theidiotsarewinning. .. wrote:
mimseycal wrote: If you need to believe I haven't read something to validate your sense of self worth ... go for it m'dear.
Are you ill?
What do you do for your day job, and where do you plan to be in twenty years' time?
And your name "theargusisoinf ormat ive" - is that a joke? I'm not trying to be rude, but it really tickles me - very amusing indeed - unless, perhaps you mean the sports pages or something???
Seriously, though I'm not 100% sure - "theargusissoinforma tive" do work for The Argus or something, or is your moniker ironic?…
If the Argus wasn't informative, I don't think anyone would bother reading it. Brighton and Hove is pretty unusual, in that the local politics can sometimes be more interesting than national things. If say you were to ever move to Winchester or Haringey, these two places have a lot in common, in that it doesn't matter who you vote for there, because the local politics are just really for 'client groups'. In this respect, UKIP (and the Greens to some extent in Brighton and Hove) are a breath of fresh air.
[quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theargusissoinformat ive[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theidiotsarewinning. ..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: If you need to believe I haven't read something to validate your sense of self worth ... go for it m'dear.[/p][/quote]Are you ill?[/p][/quote]What do you do for your day job, and where do you plan to be in twenty years' time?[/p][/quote]And your name "theargusisoinf ormat ive" - is that a joke? I'm not trying to be rude, but it really tickles me - very amusing indeed - unless, perhaps you mean the sports pages or something???[/p][/quote]Seriously, though I'm not 100% sure - "theargusissoinforma tive" do work for The Argus or something, or is your moniker ironic?…[/p][/quote]If the Argus wasn't informative, I don't think anyone would bother reading it. Brighton and Hove is pretty unusual, in that the local politics can sometimes be more interesting than national things. If say you were to ever move to Winchester or Haringey, these two places have a lot in common, in that it doesn't matter who you vote for there, because the local politics are just really for 'client groups'. In this respect, UKIP (and the Greens to some extent in Brighton and Hove) are a breath of fresh air. theargusissoinformative
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree