Election Year or Fear!

[Geoff Parkstone]

"At this point those, like me, have a choice…ignore it (‘put a sock in it’) which allows him/GBNews to perpetuate his/their (imo) usually foolish and often offensive views"

I used to think this way on the subject of posts that I disagreed with. Then it occurred to me, so what if GBN (or anyone else) perpetuate anything on here? There are maybe 10 people who see it on this site, several of whom are so polarized in their views nothing would change them. The remainder are old enough and ugly enough to make up their own minds. Who are you "protecting" from a view that you disagree with?

So I now ignore a lot of the crap I see on here but don't agree with - not always, sometimes a good argument can be stimulating or alleviate boredom! But there are easy wins: eg ignore TTR videos!

"We few, we happy few" can make our own minds up. If you really want to take issue, take issue at source where there is a much bigger audience up for grabs.

Just a tip I've found useful when eg thinking TTR, you or Swale have "gone too far'" 😄

[Trickytreesreds]

Understand your concerns, mac and indeed there have been times when MA and I have exchanged PM’s about whether it’s worth remaining on a forum where the atmosphere is sometimes so toxic.

I suspect that during ‘international breaks’ the situation worsens because there are essentially two weeks of no domestic football, no potential signings to speak of and no one seems remotely interested in international football, even with the ‘Carsley factor’ this time around.

You’ve been on here long enough to know that this isn’t the first time there’s been such toxicity, it’s been around for years, but I have to say that if the likes of you and MA call it a day I won’t be far behind.

In the meantime, and as an example, consider TTR’s latest offering. He posts a link from GBNews with the simple comment ‘Hilarious’. At this point those, like me, have a choice…ignore it (‘put a sock in it’) which allows him/GBNews to perpetuate his/their (imo) usually foolish and often offensive views…challenge it, which will inevitably lead to a row…or simply ask ‘why hilarious’? because, to me, it’s a well reasoned stance with anything but ‘hilarious’ implications. I’ll go for the last one and see what happens.

So, because its a GB news article, you don't like it?
You use the comment offensive/ foolish? Is it foolish, to call out Tony Blair (again) for his meddling lies?

Its hilarious purely in the audacity of this demon, to blame Bexit. He was the start of immigration nightmare, that has spiralled out of control.

Perhaps this, from the Telegraph, offends you as well? Starmer at the moment, is the most Gullbile European leader going. Orban has told the EU, that if they try fining Hungary over its sovereign rights, he'll bus them all to Brussels. he knows the well being of its economy and citiizens come first.

Any way-

Has Keir Starmer’s Britain become the softest touch in the West for illegal migrants? In a week when another 12 people drowned in the Channel and ministers squirmed under scrutiny about their still leaderless Border Command, attention turned to the Continent. “Rwanda’s back – but it’s Germany planning to use it,” screamed a tabloid headline on Friday. Tory leadership candidates fell over one another to claim German endorsement for their now defunct scheme.

Joachim Stamp, Berlin’s migration commissioner, had indeed floated the idea of processing asylum seekers in Rwanda, using facilities now sitting idle since Labour abandoned the policy as their first act in office. The irony of this turn of events will not be lost on British taxpayers, who paid hundreds of millions of pounds for these facilities in Kigali. And if the Germans are so eager to go ahead, where does that leave all the legal objections and moral outrage of our own liberal establishment?

In a further twist, Germany’s London ambassador, Miguel Berger, denied the story. “Let’s be clear,” he tweeted, “there is no plan of the German Government to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda.” But this official denial was a classic piece of diplomatic distraction. The ambassador added: “The discussion is about processing asylum applications in third countries under international humanitarian law and with the support of the United Nations.”

So Germany is considering sending asylum seekers to Rwanda. The only difference is that Stamp wants to put the scheme under UN supervision and target migrants entering the EU across its eastern borders — a tactic used by Putin’s Russia to destabilise Europe.

In Germany, the politics of migration is even more incendiary than in Britain. Last month a deadly terrorist attack in Solingen, allegedly by a Syrian asylum seeker, helped the Alternative for Germany (AfD) to become the first Right-wing nationalist party to win a state election since 1945. Olaf Scholz’s embattled centre-Left government responded by speeding up deportations. True, there has been no popular unrest in Germany to compare with this summer’s riots in Britain. Over recent years, however, there have been hundreds of arson attacks on refugee hostels in the former East Germany. In some of these incidents, crowds of onlookers have cheered on the arsonists. Many blame Angela Merkel’s decision to admit more than a million migrants from Syria in 2015 for the rise of the AfD.

Friedrich Merz, her successor as leader of the Christian Democrats, has moved his party to the Right to head off the populist challenge. He wants to exclude all asylum seekers from Syria and Afghanistan. Expect more of this if he replaces Scholz as Chancellor after next year’s federal elections.

The migration debate is, of course, highly charged not only in Britain and Germany but also in France. There Michel Barnier, President Macron’s choice as Prime Minister, has a reputation as a hardliner on immigration. The direction of travel in France and Germany is therefore clear: on migration, both countries have had enough of the liberal policies that are still championed here by the Labour Government.

[macstheman]

As I say I have no problems with 'discussion' but the 'toxicity' quickly appears when initial arguments seem, to some posters, to have not had the desired effect. Your replies are always sensible, well informed, sometimes 'pointed' but never toxic.
As you know I avoid these threads because they always deteriorate into banality where aggression replaces an exchange of viewpoints. IMO that toxicity has driven some away and that is self defeating. No offence to anyone but if they can't disagree without the use of derogatory terminology then that is, quite simply, pathetic. What it does do is tell me a lot about their character.

[ramAnag]

As I say I have no problems with 'discussion' but the 'toxicity' quickly appears when initial arguments seem, to some posters, to have not had the desired effect. Your replies are always sensible, well informed, sometimes 'pointed' but never toxic.
As you know I avoid these threads because they always deteriorate into banality where aggression replaces an exchange of viewpoints. IMO that toxicity has driven some away and that is self defeating. No offence to anyone but if they can't disagree without the use of derogatory terminology then that is, quite simply, pathetic. What it does do is tell me a lot about their character.

Thanks mac…genuinely appreciate that comment.

GP…the Election thread has had 52,000 views…the Brexit thread nearly 1 million! That’s why, besides which I have a bit of a habit of calling out prejudice and bigotry when I see it.

TTR…it’s not because I ‘don’t like GB News’…it’s because I happened to make a similar comment last week and agree with Blair. I also find the consequences of what he is saying anything but ‘hilarious’.

[Geoff Parkstone]

GP…the Election thread has had 52,000 views…the Brexit thread nearly 1 million! That’s why, besides which I have a bit of a habit of calling out prejudice and bigotry when I see it.

The election thread may have had 52,000 views but I'd be prepared to bet maybe 10,000 of those are you! Its still a tiny audience even if looked at a lot by some members. A million views on Brexit - well maybe 50 individual contributors on that thread over the years and perhaps a few more casual viewers. If you want to change the world, this isnt the place to do it!

[ramAnag]

The election thread may have had 52,000 views but I'd be prepared to bet maybe 10,000 of those are you! Its still a tiny audience even if looked at a lot by some members. A million views on Brexit - well maybe 50 individual contributors on that thread over the years and perhaps a few more casual viewers. If you want to change the world, this isnt the place to do it!

Lol…for 10,000 of them to be me wouldn’t I have needed to visit the thread around 40 times per day every day? Seems highly unlikely you’d win that bet…and who mentioned changing the world?

[Trickytreesreds]

oh dear, this could come back to haunt them.
Like I said, no difference between this lot and the last.

https://inews.co.uk/news/labour-pens...-check-3267416

[MadAmster]

oh dear, this could come back to haunt them.
Like I said, no difference between this lot and the last.

https://inews.co.uk/news/labour-pens...-check-3267416

not read the article but thanks for agreeing with something I've posted in loads of posts/threads on here over the past 2 years. You can, indeed, just about get a Rizla paper between the two.

[Andy_Faber]

not read the article but thanks for agreeing with something I've posted in loads of posts/threads on here over the past 2 years. You can, indeed, just about get a Rizla paper between the two.

So that’s three of us agree on a subject. Consensus breaks out!

Its interesting to watch/listen to the dynamics of HMG/HM Opposition communications with the change in administration. Labour appear well briefed on what to say when stating the case for policies, but are in some cases pretty poor (to useless) in defending the indefensible or even the defensible, I think some HMG spokesmen are making a complete Horlicks of responding to probing about the winter fuel allowance. The Conservatives reached the stage of being difficult to believe even when telling an obvious truth, it'll be interesting to see if Labour descend to the same depths

[ramAnag]

There’s a whole lot of mischief making going on about the winter fuel allowance imo. Those in the greatest need will still receive help.
Speaking as someone previously in receipt of the allowance I have to say I don’t actually need it and I doubt very much that I’m amongst the wealthiest 35% of pensioners.
Amongst my friendship group are those who donate the money to charity, give it to their children, add it to the grandkids’ present fund or buy the Christmas booze with it. That’s not what taxpayers’ money should be spent on is it?
Amongst our local community are pensioners living in properties worth a million pounds or more. Why, in such circumstances, shouldn’t it be means tested. As long as those in the greatest need continue to receive the allowance what’s the problem?