Election Year or Fear!

[Andy_Faber]

Well I’ve described both as ‘unacceptable’ and I have more details of what Connolly said than Jones simply because the former has already gone to court and the latter hasn’t (as a result of their different pleas). I’ve also already said it’s difficult to see how, from what we currently know, Jones won’t get a similar sentence, so not sure how you can accuse me of bias.

I accused you of bias, you?ve refuted it, that?s fine we?ve both made our point.

I?m not one for conspiracy theories and usually trust the law to be fair but Connolly?s trial, sentencing and failed appeal smell of late night phone calls, nudges and winks and arms twisted to me, its too much of an outlier to to be ?pukka? in my mind. Not sure why she pleaded guilty though, others (clearly, see TTRs example) have trusted in the trial process

[ramAnag]

It's easy to accuse you of bias because it's as plain as the nose on your face

Fair enough. Bit silly though. You accuse me of bias because I make no secret of my support for causes which are generally a little left of centre.
Equally the views of you, Andy and TTR range from equally right of centre to far right.
You are, of course, entitled to your views - as I am to mine - but does it not occur to any of you that you are likely to be being just as guilty of ‘bias’ as you suggest me to be?

We all have our viewpoints and we are all entitled to voice them. Surely though the free speech line is crossed when those (on the left or the right) use their voice to encourage violence, hatred and, in the case we have been largely concerned with here, arson and murder…or do you disagree on that point too?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Nope, and I don't deny my personal biases either. It just read as if you were in denial of bias (opinion). You will be aware of my views on sinking a few boats pour encourager les autres, but once they've got here I don't think burning them out is wise.

[ramAnag]

Nope, and I don't deny my personal biases either. It just read as if you were in denial of bias (opinion). You will be aware of my views on sinking a few boats pour encourager les autres, but once they've got here I don't think burning them out is wise.

Bias and opinion are not the same thing, GP.
As regards your ‘views on sinking a few boats’, I’m aware that you once suggested it, but put it down to your tendency to sometimes talk mischievous shock bollux. If you meant it…not much more to say is there?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Bias and opinion are not the same thing, GP.
As regards your ‘views on sinking a few boats’, I’m aware that you once suggested it, but put it down to your tendency to sometimes talk mischievous shock bollux. If you meant it…not much more to say is there?

I guess not then

[SithHappens]

Well that's one way to stop a conversation.

So what's next, Ban the burka?

[ramAnag]

Well that's one way to stop a conversation.

So what's next, Ban the burka?

Sorry Sith but there are times when the absence of morality and decency makes me question the point of continuing with any sort of ‘debate’.

There is, of course, a serious discussion to be had regarding immigration in all its forms and people will hold different opinions however once they begin to try and justify arson with the ultimate purpose of murdering asylum seekers and sinking boats with the aim of drowning would be migrants then I believe any hope of reasoned debate is gone.

I expect it from TTR, he has ‘history’ and a reputation for outspoken, unthinking bigotry that has led to a number on here no longer conversing with him.
GP is different. He used to be, imo, a valuable contributor. We often disagreed but he is an intelligent and educated man who had a knowledge and perspective - particularly where economic matters are concerned - that I respected.
I’m aware that sometimes his posts are just attention seeking silliness but he has now suggested, on three occasions, that he would be in favour of sinking ‘a few boats’ as an example to other would be migrants/asylum seekers.

In effect he is actually advocating the drowning of maybe around 300 people to make a point.
I can no more argue with that mindset than I can with p*********s, child killers or wife beaters. It is beyond reason/decency and - like those who would burn asylum seekers to death in a hotel - too callous, cruel and depraved to waste more time arguing with.

[SithHappens]

I'd assumed GP wasn't really being serious.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Ban the Burka is an interesting debate. The Swiss have now enforced it and I can see more following.

I'm not convinced I'm not convinced that we should impose our values on other religions any more so than the reverse would be true with the adoption of Sharia Law.

However there is an argument on security grounds although I don't think it's that strong a one.

On balance I'd say no ban on basis that some other form of ID may be required (for all) eg a picture ID card. That can't be a problem as (I assume) Burka wearers have no problem showing faces for eg passports.

On a side note I once saw a Burka wearer walking down the street with a pair of sunglasses perched atop her head. To this day I've never worked out the logic of that.

[SithHappens]

In the the UK the eyes aren't covered are they? So the sunglasses may have some value.

You are right security shouldn't be an issue, for airport travel etc all passengers are required to show their face when asked, but can be done privately

I wouldn't vote to ban. I'll be honest when I've been away I've struggled to understand it, especially when you see men in shorts on a beach with their wives covered, but it's also none of my business either.

[Trickytreesreds]

I accused you of bias, you?ve refuted it, that?s fine we?ve both made our point.

I?m not one for conspiracy theories and usually trust the law to be fair but Connolly?s trial, sentencing and failed appeal smell of late night phone calls, nudges and winks and arms twisted to me, its too much of an outlier to to be ?pukka? in my mind. Not sure why she pleaded guilty though, others (clearly, see TTRs example) have trusted in the trial process

Because Andy she accepted what she did was wrong. By pleading guilty you have dpne away with the prosecution formalities and saved lots of money it is supposed to stand you in good stead in the court room that your remorse and apology are real. Yet an immigrant who hounded a pensioner for weeks then torched his house killing him, gets less jail time. No matter how much RA denies it, that smacks of a stitch up for political reasons. The sentence was excessive considering no one was hurt and as proven, the far right werent even involved. Again sonething that obviously irritates RA. She thought she was doing the right thing. But obviously the politcal elite decides whether that is true or not. Two tier Starmer started this and it rages on. He needs to apologise as well.

Ps seems being a mother didnt help her either. So much for compassion. Yet a foreign criminal who was to be deported, successfully argues against deportation on the grounds his son orefers the chicken nuggets here. You couldnt dream up the judicial **** here, you really couldnt.

[Geoff Parkstone]

"In the the UK the eyes aren't covered are they? So the sunglasses may have some value."

Perhaps not, but this was in Istanbul Turkey!!

[Trickytreesreds]

Ban the Burka is an interesting debate. The Swiss have now enforced it and I can see more following.

I'm not convinced I'm not convinced that we should impose our values on other religions any more so than the reverse would be true with the adoption of Sharia Law.

However there is an argument on security grounds although I don't think it's that strong a one.

On balance I'd say no ban on basis that some other form of ID may be required (for all) eg a picture ID card. That can't be a problem as (I assume) Burka wearers have no problem showing faces for eg passports.

On a side note I once saw a Burka wearer walking down the street with a pair of sunglasses perched atop her head. To this day I've never worked out the logic of that.

The burqa should be banned, along with all forms of face covering , unless medical or work related. Too many use it to evade being identified either in person or by facial recognition. Its a security breech. I remember a few years ago, a terror suspect got away by hiding in one. You mentioned the swiss but many countries in Europe are doing so. There are even islamic countries that have banned it as well. There is no religious requirement to wear one, the Qur’an simply says dress modestly. Its more a form of female oppression by males

[SithHappens]

"In the the UK the eyes aren't covered are they? So the sunglasses may have some value."

Perhaps not, but this was in Istanbul Turkey!!

Even full face coverings must let a fair amount of light in , otherwise I imagine navigation would be somewhat problematic.

[Geoff Parkstone]

have you not seen the guide rogs - the female ones themselves wearing face masks!!