UKIP/Reform NF Ltd and their non-racist well informed supporters

[bickster]

3 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

He's still guilty of a crime; he may just get a less harsh sentence.

On the other hand, he may actually get a longer sentence.

[tonyh29]

58 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

FWIW I think this is nonsense.

Calling someone out for having a shitty opinion is not intolerance.

what about calling out half the population as thicker than yer average thick person  ?

It was more that kinda thing I had in mind as I'd literally just read it in another post  ... that comment was nothing to do with anyone having a shitty opinion ...  though I suppose tbf it was in the things that piss you off thread and thus should be taken with a pinch of salt 

calling out a racist is a no brainer .. calling out,oh  I don't know someone who voted to leave , is wrong (unless they voted because they don't like xxx race of people ) , that is intolerance and intellectual superiority ... imo of course

[bickster]

2 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

what about calling out half the population as thicker than yer average thick person  ?

It was more that kinda thing I had in mind as I'd literally just read it in another post  ... that comment was nothing to do with anyone having a shitty opinion ...  though I suppose tbf it was in the things that piss you off thread and thus should be taken with a pinch of salt 

calling out a racist is a no brainer .. calling out,oh  I don't know someone who voted to leave , is wrong (unless they voted because they don't like xxx race of people ) , that is intolerance and intellectual superiority ... imo of course

6

Hmm. The problem comes when people can’t back their argument up with well you know.... evidence. By and large, an awful lot of leavers fall into this category, they aren't capable of debate because they can’t actually back up their standpoint.

below is an example of something I’ve seen time and time again.

Q: Why did you vote to leave?

A: To regain our sovereignty.

Q: Is this the sovereignty that all the people that told you you'd already lost are now telling you that you’ll lose if we go with May's Chequers plan? So you see we actually still have our sovereignty and the people that told you we’d lost it are now telling you we still have it but could lose it if we go through with May's version of Brexit.

A: erm I'm taking my ball and going home because I want to paint it red, white and blue so I'm not answering your silly trick questions.

Are we supposed to take these people seriously?

is that intolerance or exasperation? We’ve even seen examples of it on here very recently. People stating their opinion and then when the opinion gets challenged with you know... facts and tiresome things like that, there's nothing coming back in terms of debate because .... (answers on a postcard please)

 

 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

what about calling out half the population as thicker than yer average thick person  ?

What if we called out 49.9% because that would be statistically true if your definition of thick was below average intelligence using the median as your measure of central tendency

[blandy]

33 minutes ago, bickster said:

What if we called out 49.9% because that would be statistically true if your definition of thick was below average intelligence using the median as your measure of central tendency

I was going to post something along similar lines, talking about assumptions of even distribution..blah blah...and then try and fit in a gag about a"Bell Curve". But I couldn't quite get it to work, though I'm confident in an intellectually superior and condescending way, that the UKIPs are toward the extremes of any bell curve.

[StefanAVFC]

24 minutes ago, blandy said:

I was going to post something along similar lines, talking about assumptions of even distribution..blah blah...and then try and fit in a gag about a"Bell Curve". But I couldn't quite get it to work, though I'm confident in an intellectually superior and condescending way, that the UKIPs are toward the extremes of any bell curve.

The bell end, so to speak? 

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

What if we called out 49.9% because that would be statistically true if your definition of thick was below average intelligence using the median as your measure of central tendency

the OP stated thicker than yer average thick person  , not thicker than yer average person  .. so you'd (and blandy) would be wrong

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

the OP stated thicker than yer average thick person  , not thicker than yer average person  .. so you'd (and blandy) would be wrong

Ah but if you used the mode as your measure of central tendency in the thick people and assuming the aforementioned Bell Curve then we'd be absolutely correct 

[tonyh29]

8 minutes ago, bickster said:

Ah but if you used the mode as your measure of central tendency in the thick people and assuming the aforementioned Bell Curve then we'd be absolutely correct 

you'd both still be in the 49.9 % though .....

 

[snowychap]

 

3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

what about calling out half the population as thicker than yer average thick person  ?

It was more that kinda thing I had in mind as I'd literally just read it in another post

You didn't literally read it, though, did you?

[VILLAMARV]

 

35 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

the OP stated thicker than yer average thick person  , not thicker than yer average person  .. so you'd (and blandy) would be wrong

No it didn't.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

The bell end, so to speak? 

Yes, that was my thought line exactly, but it doesn't work statistically...hence my confession

[snowychap]

7 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

They won't actually read the facts.

This isn't directed at you, Stefan (I was just quoting your point so as to introduce the linked blog), but to everyone who may be interested in what has gone on (and who hasn't read through the full judgment - like me as I've only read the summary as yet), I suggest a read of the Secret Barrister blog on the findings of the Court of Appeal which can be read here, especially the end bits:

Quote

...

13. So Tommy is free. This is a victory for free speech, right?

No. It is a victory for the procedural rules, and a sharp reminder to the courts of the need to follow them. But certain key takeaways remain:

1. Robinson admitted that he was in contempt of court at Canterbury, through racially charged and aggressive hounding of defendants which risked derailing a serious sex trial and denying justice to victims of sexual offending;
2. Robinson admitted through his barrister that he was in breach of the reporting restrictions at Leeds Crown Court. It was never suggested, by his barrister or anyone else, that the reporting restrictions were inappropriate. It was agreed by all that they were necessary to ensure the fairness of serious trials.
3. “Free speech” has nothing to do with this decision. This was not a case of Robinson “exposing” something the state was trying to cover up. At both Canterbury and Leeds, he was interfering in a live criminal trial in defiance of laws designed to ensure the trial was fair. The cases would have been reported in full by journalists once the postponement order was over. The only thing added to the sum of human experience by Robinson’s “citizen journalism” was the very real risk of serious criminal cases collapsing.

 

14. This shows that you know NOTHING, fake barrister. You were wrong, weren’t you?

Yes. My initial impression, based on the limited information available, was that the summary procedure was appropriate in the Leeds case. As the Court of Appeal explained, it was not. There were alternatives open to the judge which should have been explored. There were also obvious failings to abide by the procedural rules, although I would plead in mitigation that none of that information was available at the time that the story was first reported. As a result, the hearing was not fair. Whether the sentence was appropriate was not decided by the Court of Appeal and may perhaps be best assessed by what the freshly-constituted Crown Court decides to do, (although my position on that was neutral – I observed simply that the sentence was not out of the ordinary for serious contempts of court.)

So I hold my hands up – imperfect information makes for imperfect predictions. But is there a wider issue here, among me and other legal commentators? Were we too quick to dismiss the case with a “nothing to see here” wave of the hand, blinded by the unappealing nature of Robinson’s supporters and the organised maelstrom of fake news stirred up here and abroad? Maybe we were. Maybe we could have – should have – cleared our ears and browsers of the white (pride) noise and paid greater heed to the arguments of due process. Maybe a little more humility is required in these difficult cases. I am normally conscious in all legal blogging to couch in terms of conditionals – if this report is accurate, then the explanation might be X. Was I too quick to assume, wrongly, that the judge had acted correctly?

I think I may have been. But looking back over the litany of plainly false statements circulated between May and now – that Robinson’s “reporting” was nothing more than the BBC had done; that he was targeted by the deep state; that Robinson’s original barrister was an “unqualified duty solicitor”; that TR was never in contempt of court as the trial was over; that the courts were “covering up” serious crimes by certain racial groups; the dishonest framing of the debate as one of “free speech” rather than interfering with justice; and the other hundreds of fantastical theories clogging my Twitter notifications today – I’d suggest, self-servingly, that an inaccurate but well-meaning prediction – such as we all make in the courts every day – is lesser a social evil than the deliberate, racially-tinged misinformation campaign that we do our best to counter.

 

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

7 hours ago, blandy said:

That explains part of my confusion, thanks. But not all of it.

See, I don't think the narrative is true (for me). I don't think the Country has become [worse]. In the 60s 70s and 80s in particular, there was far more racism, tolderance of racism - even Tory candidates using slogans like "if you want a [N-word] for a neighbour, Vote Labour" Enoch Powell, Race Riots, mainstream TV having racist programming, The BNP, NF etc. etc. There was also on the flip side, Rock against Racism and a whole bunch of anti racist protesting.

Speed forwards to today and there's widespread condemnation and ridicule of the Bell, Yaxley-Lennon, and his idiot supporters. He's widely help up as a far right dingbat in the media.

I think by 'speeding forwards to today' you've ignored that things were, I would argue, significantly better ten years ago. It can both be true that there is less racism today than there was in the 1970s, that there is more today than there was a decade ago, and that the latter fact is more important and more pressing. Newsnight have fascists on every other night these days. They're mainstream now. 

[StefanAVFC]

22 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think by 'speeding forwards to today' you've ignored that things were, I would argue, significantly better ten years ago. It can both be true that there is less racism today than there was in the 1970s, that there is more today than there was a decade ago, and that the latter fact is more important and more pressing. Newsnight have fascists on every other night these days. They're mainstream now. 

Spot on and stated much less clumsily than myself. 

And blandy, remember. I'm 26. My point of reference is fairly narrow. A decade ago for me, I was still a kid. 

Edited August 1, 2018 by StefanAVFC

[tonyh29]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think by 'speeding forwards to today' you've ignored that things were, I would argue, significantly better ten years ago. It can both be true that there is less racism today than there was in the 1970s, that there is more today than there was a decade ago, and that the latter fact is more important and more pressing. Newsnight have fascists on every other night these days. They're mainstream now. 

Depends 

we might have more reported racism  than 10 years ago possibly but then that could come down to more people inventing stuff on Twitter more people posting on social media and so on

10 years ago a racist slur might have met a shrug of the shoulder a right handed or something else .... now it’s recorded ( by someone who hasn’t turned their phone into landscape mode grrrrr)  posted on the internet and seen a million times ... it’s not evidence in itself that people are more racist imo

 

[tonyh29]

3 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

 

No it didn't.

Just went and had another look ...Turns out it didn’t ... sorry @StefanAVFC

3 hours ago, snowychap said:

 

You didn't literally read it, though, did you?

As it turns out , no .... seems I transposed different posts , more haste less speed required ....

[HanoiVillan]

15 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Depends 

we might have more reported racism  than 10 years ago possibly but then that could come down to more people inventing stuff on Twitter more people posting on social media and so on

10 years ago a racist slur might have met a shrug of the shoulder a right handed or something else .... now it’s recorded ( by someone who hasn’t turned their phone into landscape mode grrrrr)  posted on the internet and seen a million times ... it’s not evidence in itself that people are more racist imo

 

I'm not really arguing whether the nation, as a whole, is more racist or not. That would need more detailed polling than I have to hand. However, it is clear that the political far right has become more active in the last decade, and at the same time, whether causally related or not I don't know, it has become increasingly commonplace for people representing 'alt-right', far right or fascist points of view to appear on major news programs (often ineptly questioned by badly-prepared presenters I might add). 

[bickster]

14 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Depends 

we might have more reported racism  than 10 years ago possibly but then that could come down to more people inventing stuff on Twitter more people posting on social media and so on

10 years ago a racist slur might have met a shrug of the shoulder a right handed or something else .... now it’s recorded ( by someone who hasn’t turned their phone into landscape mode grrrrr)  posted on the internet and seen a million times ... it’s not evidence in itself that people are more racist imo

 

I'm without a shadow of a doubt experiencing more racist dickheads on a daily basis than I have any time in the last 20 years.

However, I’d also say I’m encountering more enlightened non racist people than ever before too.

Just like everything else recently, the world appears to be very polarised.

I also think that racism was always there, it hasn't just developed but what has happened in the last few years is that where previously the racists knew their opinions weren't deemed acceptable they now feel like they are able to voice their vile opinions without feeling they are saying something wrong.

We've gone back decades to the 70's and 80's in terms of what is deemed acceptable. Maybe not quite as bad as that but it’s getting there.

Just my observations, nothing scientific but I do generally meet quite a broad section of society on a weekly basis and that’s how I currently see it

 

[snowychap]

23 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Just went and had another look ...Turns out it didn’t ... sorry @StefanAVFC

As it turns out , no .... seems I transposed different posts , more haste less speed required ....

Fair dos, Tony.

Edit: Is it 'dos' or 'does'?

Edited August 1, 2018 by snowychap