Bolitics The New Condem Government

[blandy]

she was arrested for "Attempted" criminal damage , how does plod know what her intentions were ? how do we for that matter ?...

If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear....[except arrest, obviously]

[tonyh29]

Your argument is becoming increasingly desperate and far-fetched, Tony.

One could argue that your attempts to find the police guilty without knowing the full facts are equally as desperate but lets try and avoid going down the slanging match route shall we ?

fine you don't want to consider the fact that the protester may have been in the process of breaking the law , that's your prerogative but based on the video evidence provided one cannot come to any clear conclusion ..

it could indeed be exactly as it looks but that doesn't mean one cant rule out that there is more to it which is why i'm trying to keep an open opinion

you started by saying she did nothing more than push a leaflet through a door , you later appeared to conceded that yes she had caused some damage to the door .. ( can you see the difference ??) whether that damage was nothing more than bending some rubber is not conclusive from the video , what is clear is that one can see a door that appears to have been tampered with , indeed you could say it appears damaged ..

so is that or is that not "attempted criminal damage ?

As i pointed out the video doesn't show any leaflets have been posted through the gap she created so how can we say for sure based on the video evidence (which is all we can go on for the purpose of our discussion here on VT) what her actual intention was ..

and when you come to the conclusion that actually we cannot , then one has to reach the conclusion that maybe just maybe the police were not acting like fascist bully boys as the original article paints them to be ( neglecting pepper pig of course) maybe they saw a woman , a door being damaged and thought we'd best do something about this ..it's certainly no more far fetched than a woman saying all I was doing was trying to post a leaflet

overlooking the obvious that criminal damage is also an crime , In my example the person is in the act of breaking into the car , which seems to be the point you are overlooking , we are not talking about Minority report here and arresting people for thought crimes so your argument / example is a tad silly tbh ..

[Gringo]

[edit]///////[/edit]

[drat01]

There are some reports that a couple of officers from the DPG (diplomatic protection group) turned up, too. (Possibly tooled up)

With the tools they could have fixed the damage? - Hey we all need to make cuts and savings you know

[peterms]

you started by saying she did nothing more than push a leaflet through a door , you later appeared to conceded that yes she had caused some damage to the door .. ( can you see the difference ??) whether that damage was nothing more than bending some rubber is not conclusive from the video , what is clear is that one can see a door that appears to have been tampered with , indeed you could say it appears damaged ..

so is that or is that not "attempted criminal damage ?

What I said was that she had been reported as bending some rubber seals to put leaflets through the door. Thing about rubber, Tony, is it bends. That's one of its main qualities. If she had been reported as trying to bend the plate glass windows or the reinforced anti-burglar door to put leaflets through, then you might have a case. But the rubbery thingies that fit between sliding doors because the fire brigade require them to be fitted? I don't really think so. Being able to be flexed without being damaged is one of their main qualities, which is why they are fitted in between doors, where they can expect to receive quite a bit of friction each day, without breaking. If she tore them off, which perhaps she did, that would constitutute criminal damage. If she inserted something between the flaps (ooh-er, missus), then not.

As i pointed out the video doesn't show any leaflets have been posted through the gap she created so how can we say for sure based on the video evidence (which is all we can go on for the purpose of our discussion here on VT) what her actual intention was ..

and when you come to the conclusion that actually we cannot , then one has to reach the conclusion that maybe just maybe the police were not acting like fascist bully boys as the original article paints them to be ( neglecting pepper pig of course) maybe they saw a woman , a door being damaged and thought we'd best do something about this ..it's certainly no more far fetched than a woman saying all I was doing was trying to post a leaflet

overlooking the obvious that criminal damage is also an crime , In my example the person is in the act of breaking into the car , which seems to be the point you are overlooking , we are not talking about Minority report here and arresting people for thought crimes so your argument / example is a tad silly tbh ..

It is uncontested, by anyone but you, as far as I know, that her intention was to deliver a leaflet. There seems to be evidence that she was trying to do so (you seem to be contesting this, when you say no leaflets were visible).

It is contested that her intention was to commit criminal damage. You have stated twice now that we can't know what her intentions were, as though that is a basis for arrest; and you mockingly quote Minority Report, though you don't seem to realise that your own argument is exactly the position of deciding guilt before the act, though in this case without the science to back it up, just prejudice.

If there were grounds to think a door had been damaged, and the damage was so slight or dubious that we're still unclear about it after seeing a video and stillshots, and if you are policing a demonstration which has been peaceful and goodnatured, should you

a) have a quiet word with the person concerned, suggesting that they calm down a little, as no-one wants any trouble, now do we ma'am?

take the name and address of the person concerned, informing them that you will pass it on to the company, who may decide to make a claim against you?

c) haul off an innocent-looking young woman in front of the whole crowd while CS-gassing those who object?

d) invite the cheeky young things into the shop in order to trash it, providing they dress up in dinner jackets and live in the Home Counties and have well-heeled daddies, in which case you will call a discreet taxi firm to get them home and use the Official Secrets Act to suppress any photos of the event?

[tonyh29]

they hardly hauled her off , the police woman even said I'm just doing my job ( cue the Nazi solider defence ) as she walked off with them

the CS gas bit i already condemned

I'm not deciding guilt before the act , she was caught in the act so to speak ..

I'm curious though , Where is your proof that all she was doing was trying to deliver a leaflet ? the only proof to hand appears to be the arrested lady saying "i was trying to deliver a leaflet" , isn't that like someone caught shoplifting saying "but i was going to pay"

it could be events happened exactly as they appear i'm just saying maybe there is more to it

here is a video , look at it from the blokes perspective , what conclusion does he come to ?

http://quedateaki.com/en/videos/video.php?cod=837

is it the right conclusion ?

[peterms]

they hardly hauled her off , the police woman even said I'm just doing my job ( cue the Nazi solider defence ) as she walked off with them

the CS gas bit i already condemned

I'm not deciding guilt before the act , she was caught in the act so to speak ..

I'm curious though , Where is your proof that all she was doing was trying to deliver a leaflet ? the only proof to hand appears to be the arrested lady saying "i was trying to deliver a leaflet" , isn't that like someone caught shoplifting saying "but i was going to pay"

it could be events happened exactly as they appear i'm just saying maybe there is more to it

Yes, they hauled her off. The video shows her absolute disbelief, and also he complete, if unwilling, compliance when told she has been arrested. Do you think I meant she resisted arrest?

Why should she, or I, need to "prove" she was trying to deliver a leaflet? The absolute burden of proof is on those arresting her to prove she was committing an offence. She hasn't been "caught" doing anything, as far as I can see. No doubt if the police have other evidence they will produce it. More likely, they'll let it drop and assume the accused will quietly fade away, or else they will pay large amounts of compensation for acting illegally, as they increasingly seem to do, with your money and mine.

here is a video , look at it from the blokes perspective , what conclusion does he come to ?

http://quedateaki.com/en/videos/video.php?cod=837

is it the right conclusion ?

I imagine he comes to the conclusion that he's been paid to appear in a professionally-produced video, planned, scripted, cast and edited, aimed at promoting something or other, god knows what.

I very much doubt he would think he'd been filmed in a slice of real life, unscripted, unplanned, filmed as it happened, and broadcast sans censors.

[snowychap]

Oh dear: Big society tsar Lord Wei 'doesn't have enough time to perform role'.

It could become the allegory of the "big society" age. The man appointed by the prime minister to kickstart a revolution in citizen activism is to scale back his hours after discovering that working for free three days a week is incompatible with "having a life".

Lord Wei of Shoreditch, who was given a Tory peerage last year and a desk in the Cabinet Office as the "big society tsar", is to reduce his hours on the project from three days a week to two, to allow him to see his family more and to take on other jobs to pay the bills.

A common criticism of the plans, under which the government hopes that communities will take over the running of local services such as schools and charity projects, is that people don't have time to run a public service on top of holding down a job and seeing their families.

Wei has told friends he is cutting his hours to allow him to earn more money and "have more of a life". He originally worked three full days a week and will now work two days, with the hours split over three, while taking on more non-executive directorships with private companies.

The role is voluntary and Wei had to to give up jobs in the charitable sector when he was appointed to avoid a conflict of interest. Whitehall sources said that when he was invited to take the role he had expected it to be remunerated but was told only the night before that it was a voluntary post and there would be no salary. Other unpaid coalition advisers include Lord Heseltine and the "digital champion" Martha Lane Fox – both millionaires.

Much of Wei's work has focused on how to free ordinary people from the daily grind to give them more time to do voluntary work and involve themselves in their communities under the big society plans. Since taking the post, Wei has had a relatively low profile and there have been suggestions that he has not made enough impact on the public understanding of 'big society'. The scheme is reported to be facing Whitehall resistance and the stretched capacities of local authorities.

Wei, 34, is a former management consultant who has no private income to fall back on. He was one of the founders of the Teach First scheme, then worked for Ark, one of the biggest sponsors of academies, before setting up the Shaftesbury Partnership, a social entrepreneurial company.

A Cabinet Office spokesman suggested that Wei had worked extra hours in the early phase of the programme. "The government remains committed to devolving power to citizens and supporting a big society," he said.

[blandy]

England's Forest sell-off will cost more than it saves

Selling off England's public forests could cost the nation more than it would save, according to an official government document that emerged last night.

The Coalition Government's own impact assessment cast doubt over claims by ministers that the controversial sale would raise between £140m and £250m, helping the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) meet its spending cuts target.

Labour, which has called a Commons debate on the issue today, claimed the document should force ministers to think again. Mary Creagh, the shadow Environment Secretary, said: "The devil is in the detail of these proposals. Defra's own impact assessment reveals that every option for selling the forests costs the taxpayer more than keeping them in public ownership. This shows that the Government's proposals are economic as well as environmental madness."

According to the Defra report, the proposal to transfer heritage forests – including the New Forest in Hampshire and the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire – to a conservation charity would cost £507.9m but yield benefits of only £495.9m. Although the value of these woodlands on the open market is estimated at £220m, the report describes them as "unsellable at a political and practical level" and says the option is therefore "unviable".

Selling or leasing the large-scale commercial woodlands would cost between £579.1m and £748.7m but yield benefits of between £573.1m and £737.8m, the document says. Selling the other "community woodlands", valued at £50m, would involve costs of £234.1m and bring in benefits amounting to only £231.9m.

Ministers confirmed the raw figures but disputed Labour's interpretation of them. They said the cost-benefit analysis included short-term transitional costs of transferring forests but could not at this stage estimate long-term benefits such as private-sector operators running them more efficiently than the Forestry Commission.

A Whitehall source said last night: "This is another example of Labour deliberately putting misinformation out there. The impact assessment has always been freely available alongside our consultation.

"It is simply not true to say costs outweigh benefit – as an explanation of the up-front transitional costs involved and additional economic benefits down the line makes clear."

According to online campaign group 38 Degrees, more than 367,000 people have signed a petition to save the forests, with more than 51,000 writing to their MP demanding woodlands remain in public ownership.

Ms Creagh appealed to the 37 Tory and five Liberal Democrat MPs with more than 1,000 hectares of public forest in their constituency to listen to public opinion by voting with Labour at the close of today's debate. She told them: "The wholesale sell-off of England's forests now proposed by your Government was not mentioned in either your general election manifesto, or the Coalition Agreement. There is no political mandate for such a sale."

In Wales, Elin Jones, the Rural Affairs minister, has asked the Forestry Commission to adopt a "more commercial" approach but ruled out a widespread sell-off. She plans to "compensate" the public by buying new land for planting or management if any forest is sold off.

Ideology - don't you just love it. Only ideology can lead to stupidity on such a scale

[blandy]

"This is an absolutely disgraceful abnegation of government responsibility," he said. "There's no other civilised government in the world which doesn't acknowledge the responsibility it has for nature conservation."

The wardens of England's 140 state-run national nature reserves want to form their own mutual company to save these "wildlife jewels in the crown" from the consequences of government proposals to dispose of them.

In a policy closely echoing its much-criticised sell-off of the public forests, the Government is seeking to abandon the responsibility of running the official nature reserves system which has existed for 60 years, and holds some of England's most precious wildlife sites.

For several months, ministers and officials have been negotiating with wildlife charities from the National Trust to the RSPB to try to persuade them to take over the reserves, which are currently managed by the Government's wildlife agency, Natural England, and range from Lindisfarne in Northumberland to The Lizard in Cornwall, and in size from the three-quarters of an acre of Horn Park Quarry in Dorset to the 22,000 acres of The Wash....

more on link

[drat01]

They have totally and utterly lost the plot.

[markavfc40]

They have totally and utterly lost the plot.

I don't think they have. This is their dream ticket. They can use the deficit as an excuse to do the things they have wanted to for years.

I also think they thought people would be stupid enough to not see through it as well.

[Awol]

They have totally and utterly lost the plot.

For once I agree, this is simply disgraceful. The forests belong to the people and not to any smegging government.

[snowychap]

Citizens Advice cuts could be devastating, warns chief

The Citizens Advice Bureau service could be devastated because of budget cuts, its chief has warned.

A number of centres are set to close as councils in England and Wales decide their funding for local CAB services.

CAB chief executive Gillian Guy said the service could be looking at a 45% drop in funding as a result of cuts in local and central government support.

The government said current funding for the CAB was haphazard but such services were important and should be supported.

Bureaux shutting

Local authorities provide the core of funding for the CAB and there will be average cuts of 10%.

Some channels of central government money will be stopping as well, and Ms Guy believes such a scenario would be "devastating".

All the citizen advice bureaux in Birmingham are set to shut this month after the council cut its support.

The CAB service provides legal, welfare and debt advice, and BBC political correspondent Ben Wright says that demand is likely to increase as public spending is squeezed.

The majority of CAB staff are volunteers and Ms Guy believes there is a "big danger" there will not be the voluntary sector capacity the government needs for its Big Society idea.

Birmingham Citizens Advice to close all five centres

Country's largest CAB has lost 'the spine of its funding' and 45 jobs will go

Birmingham Citizens Advice Bureau is expected to shut down all five of its advice centres after the city council decided to withdraw all its funding, worth £600,000 a year.

The CAB, the largest in the country, said it would have to close all of its advice centres on 11 February with the loss of 45 jobs, unless replacement funding could be found.

"The funding provided by Birmingham City Council allows us to lever in another £2.4m in funding from other sources," said Yvonne Davies, chief executive of Birmingham CAB. "It's the spine of our funding. We can't operate without it.

"Other funders fund us to provide more specialist services based on the basic services that the council money allows us to operate. We are now looking for alternative sources of funding."

She said the council had told her that its own advice centres could provide the same services for the people of Birmingham.

"However, we feel that many people are reluctant to approach the council," she said. "We also have 150 volunteers who provide high-quality advice, and their services will be lost."

The council said it would continue to commission advice services on a smaller scale, but would not begin the commissioning process until August.

A city council spokeswoman said that the council had announced the funding cut on 31 December. She added that the council had made it clear that the CAB should not rely on it for funding.

Slightly different slant: Birmingham Citizens' Advice Bureau set to close

Birmingham's Citizens' Advice Bureau (CAB) offices will close in three weeks unless it can raise £50,000 per month to continue.

The centre says that without the money its five "open door" offices, which provide drop-in advice sessions to the public, will shut on 11 February.

A CAB spokesman said the city council had decided to end its funding, worth £600,000 per year.

The council said it had made it clear funding could not be guaranteed.

Last year, the service helped 56,000 people.

Yvonne Davies, chief executive officer for Birmingham's CAB said: "We simply cannot operate the service without funding."

Ms Davies said Birmingham was the largest Citizens' Advice Bureau in the country, also delivering a hospital outreach service, outlets in children centres and offering specialist advice about debt and welfare benefits.

"Many of the areas serviced by our Bureaux rank as the most deprived in the country," she said.

The CAB's open door service is maintained by money from the city council, she said.

She added the council had decided to cut all funding used to support free and independent advice services.

Instead, the authority is to designate a smaller pot of money open to bids from the organisations which will be allocated in £50,000 blocks. These will not be available until at least August, she said.

'Increased homelessness'

She added the CAB's "only option" was to close the open door service unless it can urgently secure other donations.

"The forced withdrawal of service will result in as many as 56,000 people in Birmingham facing increasing problems without access to independent advice.

"This will include increased homelessness, redundancy, non-payment of benefits, bailiff action, coping with serious illness, social injustice and bankruptcy - with nowhere to go for free, independent confidential advice and advocacy," she said.

The CAB has offices in Birmingham's city centre, Handsworth, Kingstanding, Northfield and Tyseley.

A city council spokesman said the council's Conservative/Lib Dem coalition cabinet had always made it clear that funding was not guaranteed beyond any single year, up to a maximum of three years.

"It was never our intention for agencies to become dependent upon this source of funding, or that it form their sole source of income," he said.

He added the council's contracts with current providers ended in March 2010 but was rolled over until 31 December.

"From 31 December a funded notice period of 90 days was in place to provide some protection for the providers and CAB was paid £150,000 notice payment to enable them to continue to offer services in the interim period."

Meetings are being held with the CAB, he said.

[peterms]

It's great to see the economy's on the upturn. Never mind all that stuff about insolvencies being at a record high, all that unemployment even before the cuts start, and the moaning about CABx closing down. That's all froth.

The real story is that the engine of the British economy, ie spending by the rich, is at an all-time high. My reading of the trickle-down effect tells me that some day, in some way, this must be good for all of us.

Oh, and it's good to see that Mr Mubarak has been valued at £70bn. He'll be wanting a new base very soon, and if we're very lucky and offer his tax-exempt status through one of our little dodges, he might do us the enormous favour of choosing to reside here.

Wait! There's even more good news! The bankers have told Cameron to **** right off in his efforts to get them to accept smaller bonuses. That means even more lovely lolly spent by these splendid chaps, some of which might come your way if you're a taxi driver or seller of the Evening Standard somewhere within 50 yards of a bank HQ. Excellent! Let joy be unconfined!

I'm so glad the country is being run by firm and decisive chaps who understand the importance of sound money and a stable economy. I'll sleep sound in my bed tonight, and no mistake.

[Condimentalist]

Independent

David Cameron launches a devastating attack today on 30 years of multiculturalism in Britain, warning it is fostering extremist ideology and directly contributing to home-grown Islamic terrorism.

Signalling a radical departure from the strategies of previous governments, Mr Cameron says that Britain must adopt a policy of "muscular liberalism" to enforce the values of equality, law and freedom of speech across all parts of society.

He warns Muslim groups that if they fail to endorse women's rights or promote integration, they will lose all government funding. All immigrants to Britain must speak English and schools will be expected to teach the country's common culture.

Related articles

Paul Vallely: How monocultural does the Prime Minister want us to be?

Leading article: The Big Society will never be built on the cheap

Search the news archive for more stories

The new policy will be outlined today in a speech to an international security conference in Munich and will form the basis of the Government's new anti-terrorism strategy to be published later this year.

But his remarks have already infuriated Muslim groups, as they come on the day of what is expected to be the largest demonstration so far of anti-Muslim sentiment being planned by the English Defence League. They accused Mr Cameron of placing an unfair onus on minority communities to integrate, while failing to emphasise how the wider community can help immigrants feel more welcome in Britain. They suggested his speech was part of a concerted attack on multiculturalism from centre-right European governments and pointed out he was making it in Germany – where Chancellor Angela Merkel recently made a similar attack.

In his speech, Mr Cameron rejects suggestions that a change in Western foreign policy could stop the Islamic terrorist threat and says Britain needs to tackle the home-grown causes of extremist ideology. "We have failed to provide a vision of society [to young Muslims] to which they feel they want to belong," he will say. "We have even tolerated segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values. All this leaves some young Muslims feeling rootless. And the search for something to belong to and believe in can lead them to extremist ideology."

Mr Cameron blames a doctrine of "state multiculturalism" which encourages different cultures to live separate lives. This, he says, has led to the "failure of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage". But he adds it is also the root cause of radicalisation which can lead to terrorism.

"As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called 'non-violent extremists' and then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence. This is an indictment of our approach to these issues in the past. And if we are to defeat this threat, I believe it's time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past.

"Instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we – as governments and societies – have got to confront it. Instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity, open to everyone."

Mr Cameron goes on to suggest a radically new government approach which Downing Street said would form the basis of a review of the "Prevent Strategy", launched under Labour in 2007. "We need to think much harder about who it's in the public interest to work with," he will say. "Some organisations that seek to present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community are showered with public money despite doing little to combat extremism. This is like turning to a right-wing fascist party to fight a violent white supremacist movement."

He adds, that in future, only organisations which believe in universal human rights – particularly for women – and promote integration will be supported with public money. "Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism," he will say.

But Muslim groups said Mr Cameron's approach was simplistic and would not succeed in tackling extremism. "Communities are not static entities and there are those who see being British as their identity and there are those who do not feel that it is an overriding part of their identity," said Fiyaz Mughal, founder of interfaith group Faith Matters. "Finger-pointing at communities and then cutting social investment into projects is a sure-fire way of causing greater resentment. It blames some communities while his Government slashes social investment."

Inayat Bunglawala, chairman of Muslims4UK, described the speech as "deeply patronising". He said: "The overwhelming majority of UK Muslims are proud to be British and are appalled by the antics of a tiny group of extremists."

In its latest annual survey of immigration attitudes, the German Marshall Fund found that 23 per cent of Britons believed immigration was the country's largest problem. In Canada and the US, where the number of foreign-born people is considerably higher, the figure is closer to 10 per cent.

Cameron's rules

What he said

"Young white men are told, 'The blacks are all criminals. Young Afro-Caribbean men are told, 'The Asian shopkeepers are ripping you off'. Young Muslim men are told, 'The British want to destroy Islam'. The best answer to ignorance like this is a good education. We've got to make sure that people learn English, and we've got to make sure that kids are taught British history properly at school." 29 January 2007

"We wouldn't be half the country we are without immigration. But you can't have a situation where a country doesn't know – and can't control – who is coming in and out, and who is settling here. The government needs to be in control of the situation." 29 January 2007

"For too long we've caved in to more extreme elements by hiding under the cloak of cultural sensitivity. For too long we've given in to the loudest voices from each community, without listening to what the majority want. And for too long, we've come to ignore differences – even if they fly in the face of human rights, notions of equality and child protection – with a hapless shrug of the shoulders, saying, 'It's their culture isn't it? Let them do what they want'." 26 February 2008

"Whether it's making sure that imams coming over to this country can speak English properly, whether it's making sure we deradicalise our universities, I think we do have to take a range of further steps and I'm going to be working hard to make sure that we do this. Yes, we have got to have the policing in place, yes, we've got to make sure we invest in our intelligence services, yes, we've got to co-operate with other countries. But we've also got to ask why it is that so many young men in our own country get radicalised in this completely unacceptable way." 15 December 2010

:shock:

[Awol]

The bankers have told Cameron to **** right off in his efforts to get them to accept smaller bonuses.

1) The Government have no business telling private banks what they can or cannot pay their staff.

2) The Government have no business bailing out reckless private banks with public money.

[Awol]

Highlights:

Mr Cameron blames a doctrine of "state multiculturalism" which encourages different cultures to live separate lives.

"Instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we – as governments and societies – have got to confront it. Instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity, open to everyone."

"We need to think much harder about who it's in the public interest to work with," he will say. "Some organisations that seek to present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community are showered with public money despite doing little to combat extremism. This is like turning to a right-wing fascist party to fight a violent white supremacist movement."

:shock:

It is surprising, (not least that they got this past the lib dems) but these are hard truths that need to be faced. Some figures to support what he's saying - before the VT woolies ( :winkold: ) start throwing their virtual sandals at me..

opinion poll of British muslims from 2006 and here

24 per cent agreed or tended to agree that the 7/7 bombings were justified.

45 per cent think 9/11 was carried out by the US or Israel.

36 percent said they wanted Sharia law in the UK.

Half said British people who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted.

Almost 80 per cent said those who published cartoons of the prophet Mohammed should be punished.

LIVING APART TOGETHER – British Muslims and the paradox of multiculturalism

37 percent of young British Muslims want Sharia law in Britain.

36 percent of young British Muslims think apostates should be killed.

13 percent of young British Muslims said they "admired" Al Qaeda.

Unless those feelings have substantially changed since 2007 then it does illustrate that the UK is going to have a long term problem which current policy is clearly failing to influence/reverse. Facing up to that is the first step towards trying to put it right.

Shrugging one's shoulders at illiberality does not a liberal make.

[drat01]

Cameron's remarks are times perfectly to show a support for those that support people like the EDL. Absolutely disgusting but not unexpected. Borderline racism

And before those who hide behind their "Britishness" get on their high horse I notice that Cameron makes no mention of removing support for other groups like the Catholic church that discriminate against Women?

EDIT: and Jon I realise you are happy to pay for Murdoch's internet with FT, but as most of us are not quoting articles that require us to pay to read is not a good idea. And really to quote a 2006 article as some sort of justification when the world has changed massively

[Awol]

Cameron's remarks are times perfectly to show a support for those that support people like the EDL. Absolutely disgusting but not unexpected. Borderline racism

Racist how exactly Ian? I'm interested in how you reach that conclusion.

EDIT: and Jon I realise you are happy to pay for Murdoch's internet with FT, but as most of us are not quoting articles that require us to pay to read is not a good idea.

Er, I don't pay. Just sign up and you get 10 articles a month free. That is a good idea, unless the FT is a bit too low brow for you now?

And really to quote a 2006 article as some sort of justification when the world has changed massively

The second study by Populous is from 2007, I'm not sure much has massively changed since then? If you are able to find a more current study however I'd be interested to compare the numbers.