Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bickster

UKIP Nutters

Recommended Posts

 

 

Churchill quotes

 

He is an interesting character. Can't be faulted on winning the war and therefore we owe pretty much all we have to him (slightly sweeping). But definitely a 'character'.

I guess you have to accept the past is a foreign place and all that. 

 

See if you can spot the Farage style quote on the list...

 

we all have flaws ....  had Ghandi been alive today he'd currently be under investigation by Yewtree officers (or their Indian equivalent ) whilst being shunned for his views on Africans

Churchill came from an era very much in the past , his blunders in Gallipoli were as much down to supremacy arrogance ( though the Anzacs soldiers capturing the key piece of high ground and then walking off and abandoning it as they didn't grasp it's strategic importance also played a huge part in this defeat) … it doesn’t necessarily excuse Churchill , but there is always a concern when you judge people of the past from our enlightened times

 

I don't think there is any judgement beyond an affectionate acknowledgement that he was very much a man of his time. A Victorian by birth with views to match.

 

 

It is possible to reach an entirely different view of the man, depending on your sources.

 

I thought Roy Jenkins' biography erred on the side of hagiography and Pat Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler and Unnecessary War, went the other way.

 

The conclusion in the latter that the British have been stuck in a Churchill cult since the end of WW2, seemed to explain our leaders' apparent enthusiasm for military adventures.

Edited by MakemineVanilla
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to be neutral so as not to divert the debate off on to Churchill.

I did say it was a different time.

 

 

That worked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't really taking any issue with Chris'sss post more a general observation ( see another  thread and Cromwell )

 

people know what they know ..but sadly it' isn't necessary correct  , Schools give you a text book and a version of events , it just isn't always the correct version of events

 

I'm no history scholar , but i do enjoy history and thus it's one of those subjects that interests me ( well some of it not all ..nobody cares about the French revolution of course )  and thus like to comment on , off topic or not :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Churchill quotes

 

He is an interesting character. Can't be faulted on winning the war and therefore we owe pretty much all we have to him (slightly sweeping). But definitely a 'character'.

I guess you have to accept the past is a foreign place and all that. 

 

See if you can spot the Farage style quote on the list...

 

I am surprised that a Welshman would have such a high opinion of Churchill.

 

After all he did cause the General Strike by putting the country back on the gold standard, which led to the miners having their wages cut and their hours increased, and then sent in the troops when they went on strike.

 

 

If you're going to generalise by random country of birth, I think everyone accepts we're rarely chippy or bitter about the arrogance of others and always ready to move on.

Anyway, you know me, no sense in holding a long term grudge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Churchill quotes

 

He is an interesting character. Can't be faulted on winning the war and therefore we owe pretty much all we have to him (slightly sweeping). But definitely a 'character'.

I guess you have to accept the past is a foreign place and all that. 

 

See if you can spot the Farage style quote on the list...

 

I am surprised that a Welshman would have such a high opinion of Churchill.

 

After all he did cause the General Strike by putting the country back on the gold standard, which led to the miners having their wages cut and their hours increased, and then sent in the troops when they went on strike.

 

 

If you're going to generalise by random country of birth, I think everyone accepts we're rarely chippy or bitter about the arrogance of others and always ready to move on.

Anyway, you know me, no sense in holding a long term grudge.

 

so you'll be voting for the Tory bloke in May then :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Churchill quotes

 

He is an interesting character. Can't be faulted on winning the war and therefore we owe pretty much all we have to him (slightly sweeping). But definitely a 'character'.

I guess you have to accept the past is a foreign place and all that. 

 

See if you can spot the Farage style quote on the list...

 

I am surprised that a Welshman would have such a high opinion of Churchill.

 

After all he did cause the General Strike by putting the country back on the gold standard, which led to the miners having their wages cut and their hours increased, and then sent in the troops when they went on strike.

 

 

If you're going to generalise by random country of birth, I think everyone accepts we're rarely chippy or bitter :) about the arrogance of others and always ready to move on.

Anyway, you know me, no sense in holding a long term grudge.

 

 

Holding a grudge is futile but the predicament of modern Wales, which has some of the poorest areas of the UK, is an instructive lesson in the problems of capitalism, in that it doesn't always create jobs where the people are.

 

It was Welsh steam coal which fuelled the Industrial age and the cost in life and limb to the miners was no small one, and it is indicative of free-market capitalism that once coal could be bought cheaper elsewhere, the whole community was abandoned and the nation's moral debt was conveniently forgotten.

 

To overcome this inherent structural problem of free-market capitalism the government should build infrastructure to enable Welsh workers and businesses to get easier access to the markets of the more prosperous parts of the UK.

 

Here comes the UKIP bit to bring it back on topic.

 

If they can use UK EU contributions to build infrastructure for the new members of the EU in the east, then, using the exact same economic logic, they should be building infrastructure for the poor areas of the UK, like Wales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately that's what you put up with in a democratic society. I don't particularly like hearing the Greens spout their crap (I don't like listening to UKIP either for the record) but that doesn't mean I think they should be denied a platform. I definitely think they deserve to be in the debates for example.

 

 

You sound American to me.

 

Based on...?

 

Don't take it as an insult by the way, just curious. :P

 

 

You sound like a free-speechy sort. America has a deeper commitment to free speech as a value worthy in and of itself. People can flame away at me in protest, but your UK libel laws are fugged up. 

 

 

When it comes to free speech, I don't think it is all down to just liable laws, the Brits have just got a lower outrage threshold than Americans, especially when it comes to what can be said on television or radio these days.

 

When it comes to politics we just have a much narrower spectrum of opinion than America.

 

We don't have a Bill O'Reilly or an Ann Coulter but we don't have a Bill Maher or a Chomsky either.

 

What is notable is that just about every right-wing or left-wing intellectual we produce ends up in America, e.g. Chris Hitchens and Niall Ferguson of the Right and David Harvey the Marxist.

 

 

Well, this is all tricky and perfectly gray -- a can of gray worms.  And I'm veering off topic!

 

 Libel law isn't the whole story, but it does set the tone in the UK media. Your editors labour under a burden of legal warnings, injunctions, gag orders, etc. that their US counterparts don't. That may be changing, but when I worked in the media in Britain, I saw many restrictions I'd never encountered Stateside.

 

I don't know if I quite agree with you about the range of opinions here. It's apples and quinces. And in the States of course, Hichens -- whom I never liked -- was more a kind of anarchist leftist than a Tory toff. And very "Americanly" (quite the adverb), I feel sorry that he died with such contempt for the idea of God. I wish he had been saved, frankly. How's that for an American perspective lol!?!

 

I think this all goes deeper than the law, too. It's also about the two journalistic cultures and class "systems." To me, Mantis was sounding more like people here in his desire to allow all a platform. But we're talking about a matter of degrees, not either/or.

 

The reporters were very good whom I knew in the UK and always understood their subjects encyclopedically (the specialist "niche" reporters are truly second to none worldwide) but they also seemed to have internalised what I considered a subtle arrogance in writing stories with a certain viewpoint that "they knew best." I really grew to hate that! The constructed idea of "objectivity" was far far less common. The "vox pop" would be offered only in the most patronising tones. I feel American reporters are more in touch with everyday people. They're less likely to think they're superior to the greasy dude at the car garage. (I can almost feel the flames of response about to come now!) In way, Britain has both too much and too little respect for its journalists.

 

As I understand it, there has been a slight liberalisation of UK speech laws in the recent years.

 

As a matter of fact, there's a case to be made now that in some ways Britain's understanding of free speech is  something we in the US ought to be pay more attention to:

 

 

Does Europe Understand the First Amendment Better Than We Do?
JONATHAN PETERS JUL 24 2012, 10:30 AM ET
 

Lord Anthony Lester, a British member of parliament who helped make free speech law relevant overseas, explains why America is losing at its own game.

Edited by Plastic Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The deputy dickhead of UKIP, Paul Nuttall tried to hold a rally / speech in Porthmadog yesterday. As a bit of background, Porthmadog as a town is majority Welsh speaking (75% use it as their first language).

When asked if there was any UKIP literature in Welsh, posters, any UKIP representative that could speak Welsh or the chance to ask questions in Welsh, Nuttall told the locals 'if you come here you should learn to speak English'.

Where exactly he thought the Welsh speaking people of Porthmadog had come from I'm not sure. Bongo Bongo Valley probably.

The meeting deteriorated from that point and had to be abandoned with police called to remove 'protestors'.

 

Paul Nuttall, absolute prize arsehole of the highest order.

Edited by chrisp65
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Paul Nuttall, absolute prize arsehole of the highest order.

 

Do you think it was deliberate? Or just stupid? I can't tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The deputy dickhead of UKIP, Paul Nuttall tried to hold a rally / speech in Porthmadog yesterday. As a bit of background, Porthmadog as a town is majority Welsh speaking (75% use it as their first language).

When asked if there was any UKIP literature in Welsh, posters, any UKIP representative that could speak Welsh or the chance to ask questions in Welsh, Nuttall told the locals 'if you come here you should learn to speak English'.

Where exactly he thought the Welsh speaking people of Porthmadog had come from I'm not sure. Bongo Bongo Valley probably.

The meeting deteriorated from that point and had to be abandoned with police called to remove 'protestors'.

 

Paul Nuttall, absolute prize arsehole of the highest order.

 

Nuttall is right , Llywelyn was beaten fairly and squarely by Edward I , therefore they should all speak English in Wales ..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that it was a subtle blend of idiotic ignorant arrogance, combined with the knowledge that some people in their core areas (home counties comedy nazis) will like it as they are all scared of 'other'. Be that gay, disabled, funny sounding or whatever.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately that's what you put up with in a democratic society. I don't particularly like hearing the Greens spout their crap (I don't like listening to UKIP either for the record) but that doesn't mean I think they should be denied a platform. I definitely think they deserve to be in the debates for example.

 

 

You sound American to me.

 

Based on...?

 

Don't take it as an insult by the way, just curious. :P

 

 

You sound like a free-speechy sort. America has a deeper commitment to free speech as a value worthy in and of itself. People can flame away at me in protest, but your UK libel laws are fugged up. 

 

 

When it comes to free speech, I don't think it is all down to just liable laws, the Brits have just got a lower outrage threshold than Americans, especially when it comes to what can be said on television or radio these days.

 

When it comes to politics we just have a much narrower spectrum of opinion than America.

 

We don't have a Bill O'Reilly or an Ann Coulter but we don't have a Bill Maher or a Chomsky either.

 

What is notable is that just about every right-wing or left-wing intellectual we produce ends up in America, e.g. Chris Hitchens and Niall Ferguson of the Right and David Harvey the Marxist.

 

 

Well, this is all tricky and perfectly gray -- a can of gray worms.  And I'm veering off topic!

 

 Libel law isn't the whole story, but it does set the tone in the UK media. Your editors labour under a burden of legal warnings, injunctions, gag orders, etc. that their US counterparts don't. That may be changing, but when I worked in the media in Britain, I saw many restrictions I'd never encountered Stateside.

 

I don't know if I quite agree with you about the range of opinions here. It's apples and quinces. And in the States of course, Hichens -- whom I never liked -- was more a kind of anarchist leftist than a Tory toff. And very "Americanly" (quite the adverb), I feel sorry that he died with such contempt for the idea of God. I wish he had been saved, frankly. How's that for an American perspective lol!?!

 

I think this all goes deeper than the law, too. It's also about the two journalistic cultures and class "systems." To me, Mantis was sounding more like people here in his desire to allow all a platform. But we're talking about a matter of degrees, not either/or.

 

The reporters were very good whom I knew in the UK and always understood their subjects encyclopedically (the specialist "niche" reporters are truly second to none worldwide) but they also seemed to have internalised what I considered a subtle arrogance in writing stories with a certain viewpoint that "they knew best." I really grew to hate that! The constructed idea of "objectivity" was far far less common. The "vox pop" would be offered only in the most patronising tones. I feel American reporters are more in touch with everyday people. They're less likely to think they're superior to the greasy dude at the car garage. (I can almost feel the flames of response about to come now!) In way, Britain has both too much and too little respect for its journalists.

 

As I understand it, there has been a slight liberalisation of UK speech laws in the recent years.

 

As a matter of fact, there's a case to be made now that in some ways Britain's understanding of free speech is  something we in the US ought to be pay more attention to:

 

 

Does Europe Understand the First Amendment Better Than We Do?
JONATHAN PETERS JUL 24 2012, 10:30 AM ET
 

Lord Anthony Lester, a British member of parliament who helped make free speech law relevant overseas, explains why America is losing at its own game.

 

 

I can't claim to know much about the laws which apply to freedom of speech in the UK, but the recent case involving some public servant selling information to the papers seems to illustrate how we muddle through without a 1st amendment.

 

A public employee was jailed according to a law specifically outlawing the sale of such information but found the journalists not guilty for bribing a public official.

 

This did not seem quite right because the journalists were as guilty as hell.

 

It seemed like a very typical British way of doing things, by finding someone to be made an example of, but avoiding the accusation that the state is in the habit of jailing noble journalists by pretending that exploiting the misery of the parents of dead soldiers was somehow in the public interest and that corrupting a public servant wasn't such a bad thing really.

 

I think having a proper constitution would prevent this sort of legal of sleight of hand but heigh-ho.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 I feel sorry that he died with such contempt for the idea of God. I wish he had been saved, frankly. How's that for an American perspective lol!?!

 

Well, that's the worst thing I've read on here in quite a while.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 I feel sorry that he died with such contempt for the idea of God. I wish he had been saved, frankly. How's that for an American perspective lol!?!

 

Well, that's the worst thing I've read on here in quite a while.

 

 

Worst in what sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately that's what you put up with in a democratic society. I don't particularly like hearing the Greens spout their crap (I don't like listening to UKIP either for the record) but that doesn't mean I think they should be denied a platform. I definitely think they deserve to be in the debates for example.

 

 

You sound American to me.

 

Based on...?

 

Don't take it as an insult by the way, just curious. :P

 

 

You sound like a free-speechy sort. America has a deeper commitment to free speech as a value worthy in and of itself. People can flame away at me in protest, but your UK libel laws are fugged up. 

 

 

When it comes to free speech, I don't think it is all down to just liable laws, the Brits have just got a lower outrage threshold than Americans, especially when it comes to what can be said on television or radio these days.

 

When it comes to politics we just have a much narrower spectrum of opinion than America.

 

We don't have a Bill O'Reilly or an Ann Coulter but we don't have a Bill Maher or a Chomsky either.

 

What is notable is that just about every right-wing or left-wing intellectual we produce ends up in America, e.g. Chris Hitchens and Niall Ferguson of the Right and David Harvey the Marxist.

 

 

Well, this is all tricky and perfectly gray -- a can of gray worms.  And I'm veering off topic!

 

 Libel law isn't the whole story, but it does set the tone in the UK media. Your editors labour under a burden of legal warnings, injunctions, gag orders, etc. that their US counterparts don't. That may be changing, but when I worked in the media in Britain, I saw many restrictions I'd never encountered Stateside.

 

I don't know if I quite agree with you about the range of opinions here. It's apples and quinces. And in the States of course, Hichens -- whom I never liked -- was more a kind of anarchist leftist than a Tory toff. And very "Americanly" (quite the adverb), I feel sorry that he died with such contempt for the idea of God. I wish he had been saved, frankly. How's that for an American perspective lol!?!

 

I think this all goes deeper than the law, too. It's also about the two journalistic cultures and class "systems." To me, Mantis was sounding more like people here in his desire to allow all a platform. But we're talking about a matter of degrees, not either/or.

 

The reporters were very good whom I knew in the UK and always understood their subjects encyclopedically (the specialist "niche" reporters are truly second to none worldwide) but they also seemed to have internalised what I considered a subtle arrogance in writing stories with a certain viewpoint that "they knew best." I really grew to hate that! The constructed idea of "objectivity" was far far less common. The "vox pop" would be offered only in the most patronising tones. I feel American reporters are more in touch with everyday people. They're less likely to think they're superior to the greasy dude at the car garage. (I can almost feel the flames of response about to come now!) In way, Britain has both too much and too little respect for its journalists.

 

As I understand it, there has been a slight liberalisation of UK speech laws in the recent years.

 

As a matter of fact, there's a case to be made now that in some ways Britain's understanding of free speech is  something we in the US ought to be pay more attention to:

 

 

Does Europe Understand the First Amendment Better Than We Do?
JONATHAN PETERS JUL 24 2012, 10:30 AM ET
 

Lord Anthony Lester, a British member of parliament who helped make free speech law relevant overseas, explains why America is losing at its own game.

 

 

I can't claim to know much about the laws which apply to freedom of speech in the UK, but the recent case involving some public servant selling information to the papers seems to illustrate how we muddle through without a 1st amendment.

 

A public employee was jailed according to a law specifically outlawing the sale of such information but found the journalists not guilty for bribing a public official.

 

This did not seem quite right because the journalists were as guilty as hell.

 

It seemed like a very typical British way of doing things, by finding someone to be made an example of, but avoiding the accusation that the state is in the habit of jailing noble journalists by pretending that exploiting the misery of the parents of dead soldiers was somehow in the public interest and that corrupting a public servant wasn't such a bad thing really.

 

I think having a proper constitution would prevent this sort of legal of sleight of hand but heigh-ho.

 

 

Again, part of the journo culture in London, along with not identifying sources for the most trivial of stories because, alas, we must trust the noble journalist.

Edited by Plastic Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that it was a subtle blend of idiotic ignorant arrogance, combined with the knowledge that some people in their core areas (home counties comedy nazis) will like it as they are all scared of 'other'. Be that gay, disabled, funny sounding or whatever.

 

It's stunning. People must have almost felt sorry for him for his foolishness. Almost.

Edited by Plastic Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's stunning. People must have almost felt sorry for him for his foolishness. Almost.

 

 

Nah - He's a total cocksucker.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's stunning. People must have almost felt sorry for him for his foolishness. Almost.

 

 

Nah - He's a total cocksucker.

 

 

Really? I don't think that would, erm, work? Whatever the opposite of inspiring a hard-on is, this face, I aver, only produces that.

 

_67501164_67501162.jpg

Edited by Plastic Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  


×
×
  • Create New...
Â