The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[blandy]

On 8/15/2017 at 20:13, darrenm said:

the UK was always quite socialist and still is to an extent

No, It wasn't and no it isn't. That's not really a supportable thing to claim.

The UK has been for nearly all of its history in the hands of a small group of rich people - landowners, "aristocracy" Royals -= various kings and Queens and Feifs, etc.

Maybe the last 100 years or so, there's been more of an element of some social provision and ownership, sure. And there are some good bits, but no we're not quite socialist, and nor have we ever been in reality. 

[meregreen]

43 minutes ago, blandy said:

No, It wasn't and no it isn't. That's not really a supportable thing to claim.

The UK has been for nearly all of its history in the hands of a small group of rich people - landowners, "aristocracy" Royals -= various kings and Queens and Feifs, etc.

Maybe the last 100 years or so, there's been more of an element of some social provision and ownership, sure. And there are some good bits, but no we're not quite socialist, and nor have we ever been in reality. 

Depends wether you equate the nation as the particular ruling elite of the time, or its general populace. The general mass of this countries population had no say in the countries governance. Once they were politically empowered then Socialism did become a big player politically. We have swung from right to left, but I do think that most people in this country favour public ownership of the great utilities, most of which were built up by massive public investment before being plundered by the Tories. 

[meregreen]

On 12/08/2017 at 11:34, magnkarl said:

In my eyes selling arms is way worse, however if a friend of mine murdered hundreds of people and I was in a position to influence that or distance myself from it I'd certainly do that. I would definitely not be silent like Corbyn is, because at the end of the day he's gone on and on about Venezuela being a "great example" of socialism working well before. Now when it's gone horribly down the drain (like most other socialist states) the silence speaks a thousand words really.

I wonder how many countries have gone sour under socialism while Corbyn has been a grown up, the number must be considerable.  Off the top of my head.

• Yugoslavia - Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Kosovo
• Afghanistan
• Albania
• Angola
• All ex-Soviet states (15 states at the time, more countries in modern terms)
• All states not part of the Soviet union but under Soviet control (Poland, East Germany, Czech, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Albania)
• Benin
• Burma
• Cambodia
• Congo
• Cape Verde
• Ethiopia
• Egypt
• Grenada
• Iraq
• Libya
• Mozambique
• Somalia
• Syria
• Sudan
• North Vietnam
• Yemen
• Venezuela

The list for current active socialist states is meanwhile getting shorter and shorter.

Marxist-Leninist: 

• China (doing a soft landing - converting to market driven economics)
• Cuba
• Laos
• Vietnam
• North Korea (although scrubbed their country of the words Marx and Lenin in the 90's)

Variants of socialism:

• Bangladesh
• Guinea-Bissau
• Guyana
• India (albeit also moving away from socialism)
• Nepal
• Portugal
• Sri Lanka
• Tanzania

Something is not going right for socialism..

They were hardly utopias to live in before Socialism either.

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

No, It wasn't and no it isn't. That's not really a supportable thing to claim.

The UK has been for nearly all of its history in the hands of a small group of rich people - landowners, "aristocracy" Royals -= various kings and Queens and Feifs, etc.

Maybe the last 100 years or so, there's been more of an element of some social provision and ownership, sure. And there are some good bits, but no we're not quite socialist, and nor have we ever been in reality. 

Agreed. New age socialists seem to think that any country that has any sort of taxation system that feeds perks back to society is socialist. That is clearly not the case. A country can invest in infrastructure and goods for all without subscribing to the mantra of controlling everything. In fact the states that work best in the world do it like this. Tax, build for everyone, develop skills and infrastructure = profit.

Edited August 17, 2017 by magnkarl

[magnkarl]

44 minutes ago, meregreen said:

They were hardly utopias to live in before Socialism either.

I'd say that quite a lot of the Eastern-European countries on the list were a lot better off before socialism. Hungary, Czech Republic, Germany, Croatia and so on all had fairly good lives before WW2 (except for Germany after Versailles).

[meregreen]

4 hours ago, magnkarl said:

I'd say that quite a lot of the Eastern-European countries on the list were a lot better off before socialism. Hungary, Czech Republic, Germany, Croatia and so on all had fairly good lives before WW2 (except for Germany after Versailles).

Don't confuse Democratic Socialism with totalitarian one Party Communism. They are not the same. 

[blandy]

13 hours ago, meregreen said:

Depends wether you equate the nation as the particular ruling elite of the time, or its general populace. The general mass of this countries population had no say in the countries governance. Once they were politically empowered then Socialism did become a big player politically. We have swung from right to left, but I do think that most people in this country favour public ownership of the great utilities, most of which were built up by massive public investment before being plundered by the Tories. 

You're maybe right about people favouring public ownership of utilities, but I dunno about the rest of your post, in terms of whether the country is or ever was socialist. Even once politically empowered, we've mostly had centre right govts. It's (socialism) not, for me, about either the ruling elite or the general population, it's what is the system?  Our system has over the past 50 years moved further away from anything that could remotely be considered socialism.

[magnkarl]

11 hours ago, meregreen said:

Don't confuse Democratic Socialism with totalitarian one Party Communism. They are not the same. 

Okay just out of interest. Name me one democratic socialistic country in the world. Portugal is probably the only country with a socialistic constitution that isn't run by either 1) ruling party or 2) totalitarian leader. Albeit they are one of the poorest countries in Europe.

There is no such thing as a democratic socialist. It's not democratic that the state owns everything.

Edited August 18, 2017 by magnkarl

[blandy]

On 5/12/2017 at 13:06, dAVe80 said:

Check out his interview with Sarah Champion, where she absolutely wipes the floor with him.

I see that Jezza has got rid of her for saying there's a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls. She also said that the vast majority of convictions are against white men acting alone and that for gang-related child sexual exploitation, the convictions have largely been against British Pakistani men.

I have no idea why she should be got rid of, sorry "resigned" for saying that. Particulalry in light of all the effort she's put in to address the problem and get victims better help and support.

Nice one Corbs, you clueless muppet.

 

[darrenm]

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

I see that Jezza has got rid of her for saying there's a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls. She also said that the vast majority of convictions are against white men acting alone and that for gang-related child sexual exploitation, the convictions have largely been against British Pakistani men.

I have no idea why she should be got rid of, sorry "resigned" for saying that. Particulalry in light of all the effort she's put in to address the problem and get victims better help and support.

Nice one Corbs, you clueless muppet.

 

Seriously?

She wrote it in the S*n. That was enough to be sacked in the first place.

She said 

"Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping white girls"

No. Rape and sexual violence is a problem anywhere. You can't do dog whistle racism, and you can't do it in a reviled rag.

[blandy]

Just now, darrenm said:

Seriously?

She wrote it in the S*n. That was enough to be sacked in the first place.

She said 

No. Rape and sexual violence is a problem anywhere. You can't do dog whistle racism, and you can't do it in a reviled rag.

I share your distaste for the S*n, Darren. Have you read the article? in full, rather than taken one line from it?

Quote

SARAH CHAMPION British Pakistani men ARE raping and exploiting white girls… and it’s time we faced up to it
Labour MP for Rotherham and Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities comments on a horrific trend in grooming and sexual abuse by gangs.
COMMENT
By Sarah Champion

BRITAIN has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls. There. I said it. Does that make me a racist? Or am I just prepared to call out this horrifying problem for what it is?

For too long we have ignored the race of these abusers and, worse, tried to cover it up. No more. These people are predators and the common denominator is their ethnic heritage. We have to have grown-up conversations, however unpalatable, or in six months’ time we will be having this same scenario all over again.

 The irony of all of this is that, by not dealing with the ethnicity of the abusers as a fact, political correctness has actually made the situation about race. The perpetrators are criminals and we need to deal with them as such, not shy away from doing the right thing by fearing being called a racist. I’m writing this as I don’t know what else to do to try and protect our children from grooming and sexual abuse by gangs. I became the Member of Parliament for Rotherham in November 2012 and, within a month, I heard the abbreviation CSE (child sexual exploitation) for the first time. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council had been hauled in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee to justify their failure to protect young girls who were victims of this vile crime. I sat stunned in the committee room, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

It was shocking. Mainly white pubescent girls were being sexually groomed and exploited by gangs of mainly British Pakistani men. I had to do something. I would not be another person who turned a blind eye to these crimes. Working with the children’s charity Barnardo’s, I launched a cross-party parliamentary inquiry into child sexual exploitation. We found that the judges were not properly supporting the victims in court. Police weren’t always aware of the crime and the law needed changing so that police could act swiftly to prosecute on the first whiff of sexual grooming. Most importantly, victims and survivors were not being believed or given the support they needed to rebuild their lives. This had to change.

Following my inquiry, judges and the police receive better training and are now more aware of the crime. I changed the law on grooming. However, victims did not — and still do not — get better support.

Jump to August 2014. Professor Alexis Jay releases her report into the failings in Rotherham. She conservatively estimates that there are 1,400 victims of child sexual exploitation in the town by British Pakistani men. There is international outrage and the Government commissions a report by Dame Louise Casey. She confirms Alexis Jay’s report to be accurate. February 2015. I spend four hours at 10 Downing Street with David Cameron and his cabinet. I present a simple five-point plan outlining how to prevent child sexual exploitation:

Set up a task force of experts
Give primary school children education on healthy/unhealthy relationships
Launch a national CSE awareness campaign
Supply mandatory training for professionals in the field
Provide support for victims and survivors.
Two-and-a-half years later we have warm words and still no action.

In fact, it is worse as we have less police, cuts to social workers, education, children’s services, courts and the Crown Prosecution Service. Child abuse is massive in this country. Children’s charities estimate that one in four girls and one in six boys will experience some form of sexual abuse before the age of 18. More than 90 per cent of abused children know their abuser — it is usually someone from within the extended family — and the vast majority of convictions are against white men acting alone. However, as the latest case in Newcastle proves, we must accept that for gang-related child sexual exploitation, the convictions have largely been against British Pakistani men. The Government must act now to understand why this is.

We have a large group of men behind bars, let’s do some research and find out why these monsters think it is acceptable to abuse children in this way. Unless we know why they do, we can’t prevent it. Our children deserve better.

Because to lose your job for that is ridiculous. There's no dog whistle racism in there. Failure to address problems which lead to child abiuse and rape because of fear of causing racial offence is a pathetic, wrong headed, cop out.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

There is no such thing as a democratic socialist. It's not democratic that the state owns everything.

 

What has State Ownership go to do with democracy, they aren't connected

[tonyh29]

4 hours ago, darrenm said:

Seriously?

She wrote it in the S*n. That was enough to be sacked in the first place.

She said 

 

 

No. Rape and sexual violence is a problem anywhere. You can't do dog whistle racism, and you can't do it in a reviled rag.

fwiw I don't fully understand why Corbyn sacked her , she's addressing an issue that needs to be addressed , it isn't racist to anyone who read past the headline of the article (which showed no context )

by sacking her Corbyn has played right into the racists hands , it's a huge Liam Ridgewell own goal moment by him 

 

 

 

[magnkarl]

6 hours ago, blandy said:

I share your distaste for the S*n, Darren. Have you read the article? in full, rather than taken one line from it?

Because to lose your job for that is ridiculous. There's no dog whistle racism in there. Failure to address problems which lead to child abiuse and rape because of fear of causing racial offence is a pathetic, wrong headed, cop out.

It's easier to brush a problem like this under the carpet. That is the only reason Corbyn did this. The fact that she's made great progress and to be fair called out the fact that when it comes to gang-related grooming Pakistani men are statistically more likely to commit said acts makes this a terrible own goal. I guess Corbyn will have a pint with his mates and toast to political correctness tonight - because I can't see how this is anything else than an extremely overblown reaction to someone who spoke the truth.

[peterms]

6 hours ago, blandy said:

I share your distaste for the S*n, Darren. Have you read the article? in full, rather than taken one line from it?

Because to lose your job for that is ridiculous. There's no dog whistle racism in there. Failure to address problems which lead to child abiuse and rape because of fear of causing racial offence is a pathetic, wrong headed, cop out.

The first para, for example, is a classic of dog-whistle racism.

There is a serious point to be made, which is that child (and other) sex abuse takes different forms which will reflect both the values and attitudes, and the material circumstances, of the perpetrators.

So for example, if you are someone who wishes to inflict sexual abuse on someone, then the way in which you do that will reflect the circumstances you are in and the type of power you are able to exert.  A catholic priest, a police officer, and a taxi driver will have very different opportunities and levels of power.

As well as that, cultural issues come into play, for example the degree of respect afforded to the perpetrators.  The respect the perpetrators afford the victims is similar, ie none at all.

There is a discussion to be had about the emergence of a culturally specific phenomenon of grooming and sex abuse of mainly white girls by mainly Asian men in some areas of the UK, and the similarities and differences between this and other patterns of sex abuse, and how we can counter this.

Writing an article for the Sun,  focussing on only one cultural manifestation of sex abuse, and framing it as an issue to do with one community and therefore allowing rsaders to elide the distinction between one form of sex abuse, and sex abuse in general, implying that sex abuse is a specifically Pakistani phenomenon despite all the contrary evidence, with the added twist of claiming that people dare not speak out about it, is disingenuous and misleading.  For a serving politician to do this cannot be explained by naivete.

What on earth was she thinking?  That it would play well locally?  I have no idea.  But as a serious contribution to an important debate that needs to be had, it's less than useless, it actually gets in the way and allows people to retreat to trite cliches.

This is not the kind of contribution an MP should choose to make.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

The first para, for example, is a classic of dog-whistle racism.

There is a serious point to be made, which is that child (and other) sex abuse takes different forms which will reflect both the values and attitudes, and the material circumstances, of the perpetrators.

So for example, if you are someone who wishes to inflict sexual abuse on someone, then the way in which you do that will reflect the circumstances you are in and the type of power you are able to exert.  A catholic priest, a police officer, and a taxi driver will have very different opportunities and levels of power.

As well as that, cultural issues come into play, for example the degree of respect afforded to the perpetrators.  The respect the perpetrators afford the victims is similar, ie none at all.

There is a discussion to be had about the emergence of a culturally specific phenomenon of grooming and sex abuse of mainly white girls by mainly Asian men in some areas of the UK, and the similarities and differences between this and other patterns of sex abuse, and how we can counter this.

Writing an article for the Sun,  focussing on only one cultural manifestation of sex abuse, and framing it as an issue to do with one community and therefore allowing rsaders to elide the distinction between one form of sex abuse, and sex abuse in general, implying that sex abuse is a specifically Pakistani phenomenon despite all the contrary evidence, with the added twist of claiming that people dare not speak out about it, is disingenuous and misleading.  For a serving politician to do this cannot be explained by naivete.

What on earth was she thinking?  That it would play well locally?  I have no idea.  But as a serious contribution to an important debate that needs to be had, it's less than useless, it actually gets in the way and allows people to retreat to trite cliches.

This is not the kind of contribution an MP should choose to make.

I get where you are coming from. Yet she's dealt with Rotherham and the fall out and has actively worked to make things better. There was, it was found, a problem with people from the pakistan community there not being acted upon, victims not being believed and the whole issue if not swept under the carpet certainly dealt with inadequately. There is a problem. It's not racist to say so.

Unfortunately, within that community, there's an issue with some men holding views on white women which are massively problematic and leading in part to these horrible acts, and a fear of addressing it by the then council and services because it involved a minority community. It can't be left unaddressed and untalked about if it's to be changed.

In my view she should not have been "resigned" for saying what she said. She hasn't implied that the abuse is a specifically Pakistani phenomenon, she said the opposite. Racists will take whatever they want from the Sun and such like, and it's a rag. Sometimes stuff needs saying, and there's no way not to cause some people to be annoyed, but its importance and value overrides the offence that is apparently taken.

 

[tonyh29]

there were 1400 instances of child abuse predominantly by British Pakistanis in an area where minority's only make up 8% of the population pointing that out isn't racist  or indeed any different from saying Catholic priests abuse children as other articles have done , I don't recall you saying that's not fair on Catholic priests , British Pakistanis abuse children as well ....

 

airbrushing over this fact is not going to help solve the problem , people like Champion should be applauded not silenced

Edited August 18, 2017 by tonyh29

[peterms]

31 minutes ago, blandy said:

I get where you are coming from. Yet she's dealt with Rotherham and the fall out and has actively worked to make things better. There was, it was found, a problem with people from the pakistan community there not being acted upon, victims not being believed and the whole issue if not swept under the carpet certainly dealt with inadequately. There is a problem. It's not racist to say so.

Victims of sex abuse tend not to be believed, within families, schools, religious institutions, colleges, society in general...that is starting to change, zlowly.  I struggle to see why someone would single out one set of instances where victims haven't been believed, and say that it is because of PC gorn mad.  Why not recognise that there is a very long history and well established tradition of silencing the victims, which takes the form of persuading them not to report it, suggesting they caused it, asking what they were wearing or had been drinking, demanding details of their past sex life in an open courtroom if they had the temerity to force a prosecution...why suggest, by talking about one and only one situation, that failing to act to defend the victims or tackle the offenders is an issue specific to that one situation?  Why would anyone do that?

31 minutes ago, blandy said:

Unfortunately, within that community, there's an issue with some men holding views on white women which are massively problematic and leading in part to these horrible acts, and a fear of addressing it by the then council and services because it involved a minority community. It can't be left unaddressed and untalked about if it's to be changed.

Yes, there is an issue within that community.  It needs dealing with.  One way of dealing with it is working with influencers in that community, and you don't do that by alienating them.  Suggesting that it is that community, and by implication only that community, that harbours sex offenders is a pretty good way of alienating them.  It's patently untrue,  and it also gets in the way of taking effective action.  Why do it, then?

Councils and social workers have decades of experience of ignoring rampant and evident sex abuse, in families, in childrens' homes, with children in care.  Why present their failure to deal with this issue as motivated by fear of being called racist?  It seems to me that there's another agenda going on here, for people to wilfully ignore the evident fact that social work generally, like society, has too often shied away from recognising and tackling sex abuse.

31 minutes ago, blandy said:

In my view she should not have been "resigned" for saying what she said. She hasn't implied that the abuse is a specifically Pakistani phenomenon, she said the opposite. Racists will take whatever they want from the Sun and such like, and it's a rag. Sometimes stuff needs saying, and there's no way not to cause some people to be annoyed, but its importance and value overrides the offence that is apparently taken.

She managed to express herself in a way which needlessly caused offence, suggested that she had utterly misunderstood the wider issue, reinforced racist tropes, and gave succour to a bunch of racist numpties.

I have no problem with annoying people (no comments, please), and sex offenders are about on the lowest rung of my list of people not to annoy.  Gratuitously offending entire communities by a partial and inaccurate representation of a real problem, and doing so in the columns of a paper which has done more than pretty much any other to embolden sexists, mock women who stand up against exploitation, and reinforce the attitudes which underpin rape, is unhelpful to the point of appearing like an act of sabotage.

I'd have sacked her.  On grounds of competence and undermining the efforts of people who are trying to tackle this.

To portray her as some sort of brave person who tackles the difficult issues, and is being silenced by "PC", as some seem to be doing, is delusional nonsense.  She wrote a very clumsy and massively unhelpful piece, took attention away from the real issues, and allowed people who don't give a damn about sex abuse to present themselves as defenders.  A failure of judgement on a monumental scale.

[El Zen]

9 hours ago, magnkarl said:

There is no such thing as a democratic socialist. It's not democratic that the state owns everything.

You really need to stop it with your pointlessly narrow (and wrong) definition of socialism. 

I'm a democratic socialist. I know several others. It's a thing. 

I believe in a state monopoly for education, health care, transportation and utilities. I believe in significant state regulation of financial activities and active state ownership in certain key industries. Most of all, I believe in strict social, economic and political egalitarianism. All of the above are, in my opinion, means to that end. My egalitarianism is the very core of my socialism. State monopoly is not a goal in itself, it does not define my ideology. 

I believe my egalitarian goals, my idea of a socialist ideal, can (and must) be achieved through democratic institutions and the rule of law, including fundamental individual rights such as the right to property. 

Other socialists may share my goals but disagree that they are achievable in a parliamentary democracy. Some of them again lean towards authoritarian or totalitarian ways to achieve their idea of perfect egalitarianism, while others are of a more anarchist persuation and are sceptical of any political authority other than strictly direct and local democracy. 

Socialism takes so many different shapes depending on historical, cultural and geographical context. To say that socialism equals authoritarian state monopoly on economic activity, and only that, ignores the concept's etymology, history and diversity, not to mention commonly accepted usage in your own cultural context. 

By any reasonable understanding of the word, the history of socialism in Western Europe is a wildly succesful one. Be thankful for that history and get over it. 

[tonyh29]

34 minutes ago, peterms said:

and is being silenced by "PC", as some seem to be doing, is delusional nonsense.  

Do you have evidence of this ?  i did a quick Google and didn't see any mention of PC gone mad type stuff