The Politics Thread

[William the White]

I'm a strong supporter of the rights of Roma people to live according to their culture provided it doesn't transgress the rights of others.

Is there a better example of contradiction? How do thay not transgress the rights of others by pitching up on land commonly owned. Also, if you don't have this lot down as being anything other than a bunch of lawless, thieving bunch of trespassing tossers then you want to try owning a field that they've decided to set up camp on. Then go through the rigmarole of having them moved, only to see them move on to someone else who'd then be landed with the same problem. You'd soon find yourself in the real world. It's easy to support them from your 'this'll-never-actually-affect-me' Roma people supporting idealogical highground.

Bruce - did you actually read the bit where I said i didn't approve of their illegal occupation of land? If so, why are you ignoring it?

I'd like to talk more about it but you clearly are so angry that there isn't much point. Another time, maybe.

[Bruce Rioja]

I'm a strong supporter of the rights of Roma people to live according to their culture provided it doesn't transgress the rights of others.

Is there a better example of contradiction? How do thay not transgress the rights of others by pitching up on land commonly owned. Also, if you don't have this lot down as being anything other than a bunch of lawless, thieving bunch of trespassing tossers then you want to try owning a field that they've decided to set up camp on. Then go through the rigmarole of having them moved, only to see them move on to someone else who'd then be landed with the same problem. You'd soon find yourself in the real world. It's easy to support them from your 'this'll-never-actually-affect-me' Roma people supporting idealogical highground.

Bruce - did you actually read the bit where I said i didn't approve of their illegal occupation of land? If so, why are you ignoring it?

I'd like to talk more about it but you clearly are so angry that there isn't much point. Another time, maybe.

Sorry, Chap.

I was going to send you a PM saying that I'll go through your post, point by point, tomorrow, as I'd like to address the various points individually.

The illegal occupation of another's land is one that is very, very close to my heart.

Sorry if I flared up, but it really is.

[thebish]

can I try a third time then - with no flourishes or additions. could you please explain what on earth this means?

If all the homeless were re-housed, would the streets clear of drug-addicts and alcholics?

(I'm not sure I have ever "accused you of being victimised" - what kind of an accusation would that be for anyone to make - can you give me an example of where i ever made that "accusation"? - I suspect not - but if it is true to form and typical it shouldn't be too hard to find.)

.

Did you actually bother reading the post Bish? Are you deliberately ignoring the rest of it?

Okay then: Have you ever been down Manchester's Oxford Road and seen the beggars (some women with babies in tow) who get money and then some guy comes along and collects it? Have you ever seen the winos and the guys wearing new trainers with a dog in tow who always seem to have cigarettes going despite their poverty?
Have you seen the white-faced addicts out there? 'm sure you've seen similar, maybe even worse in our own area, so what can't you understand in me saying if they were all offered homes would they all change and become model citizens?

Ref the "accusations" of victimisation. If I looked hard enough I'd find some post or other where you claimed I was claiming being so because I had the audacity to indicate you were talking a load of bollox. I don't intend looking, but it isn't an idle claim. I never feel or claim to be victimised. I've been a big lad for a long time. I just argue back, which is anyone's right....Erm, I think? Now calm down Bish.

yes Tango - I read all of your post, and the previous ones.

yes Tango - I have worked with the street-homeless, I have met many hundreds of homeless people - I have fed them - I have given the cigarettes - I have given them tea and coffee and soup - i have worked in night shelters where they can get a bed for the night and made them breakfast in the morning - I have worked with some of them intensively to help them find their feet in a new flat.

My experience has taught me...

1. not all homeless people are workshy or drug addicts or alcoholics. some of them are - but many are not. quite a lot are homeless because their marriage has broken up and they have dropped throught the b&b net - their ex-wife having been given the house with the kids - and ended up on the street. many others are ex-army people who were used to having everything done for them and after discharge could not cope with organising their lives. many many more - perhaps the majority - are simply mentally ill.

2. many people who are not homeless are alcoholics

3. many people who are not homeless are drug addicts

I believe those three things from my experience.

they are not easily reconcilable with what you write: "If all the homeless were re-housed, would the streets clear of drug-addicts and alcholics?" - clearly not - and it is preposterous to imagine that there is such a 1-1 link between homelessness and drug addiction and alcoholism to make the question even worth asking.


(on the other point - I would go so far as to claim that I have in fact NEVER accused you of "being victimised". Unless you can back it up - as you seem reluctant to do - I'd ask you to withdraw your ridiculous allegation - I don't even know what such an accusation would mean - it doesn't even make sense to me. Why would anyone "accuse" someone of being victimised? when I ask you a question or "accuse" you of a particular view - I always quote you directly. You make random accusations about me - but never back them up - and often claim you would but can't be bothered to find where I said it. That's not good enough if you are going to make sweeping statements about me.)

[William the White]

I'm a strong supporter of the rights of Roma people to live according to their culture provided it doesn't transgress the rights of others.

Is there a better example of contradiction? How do thay not transgress the rights of others by pitching up on land commonly owned. Also, if you don't have this lot down as being anything other than a bunch of lawless, thieving bunch of trespassing tossers then you want to try owning a field that they've decided to set up camp on. Then go through the rigmarole of having them moved, only to see them move on to someone else who'd then be landed with the same problem. You'd soon find yourself in the real world. It's easy to support them from your 'this'll-never-actually-affect-me' Roma people supporting idealogical highground.

Bruce - did you actually read the bit where I said i didn't approve of their illegal occupation of land? If so, why are you ignoring it?

I'd like to talk more about it but you clearly are so angry that there isn't much point. Another time, maybe.

Sorry, Chap.

I was going to send you a PM saying that I'll go through your post, point by point, tomorrow, as I'd like to address the various points individually.

The illegal occupation of another's land is one that is very, very close to my heart.

Sorry if I flared up, but it really is.

Apology accepted immediately, no probs. Look forward to the PM discussion - but, just to point out, I don't think I've ever said I support it... in Parliament Square, a farmer's field, anywhere... I have said I don't think it's difficult to understand it and i'm happy to enter discussion on this...

[TANGODANCER]

I think I'm getting a headache.

I am aware of what you do for a living Bish,, and I really do admire you for it. That's absolutely genuine. Neither am I looking for fights on any of my issues. That said, you have taken the whole thing out of context by trying to isolate an issue of your choosing from my post. Where on earth did I say all homeless were drug addicts or alcholics? There's no such thing as all everything, but a mixture of good and bad in all walks of life. That was not the issue of the post. You, not me jumped on the word homeless and went defensive, ignoring the main items. The message as a whole is what I posted. It's what I said, and meant. It asks questions which you don't answer, yet you leap on something and tear the ass out of it without making any attempt to accept the theme of the post at all. Try addressing that if you will....

[William the White]

I think I'm getting a headache.

I am aware of what you do for a living Bish,, and I really do admire you for it. That's absolutely genuine. Neither am I looking for fights on any of my issues. That said, you have taken the whole thing out of context by trying to isolate an issue of your choosing from my post. Where on earth did I say all homeless were drug addicts or alcholics? There's no such thing as all everything, but a mixture of good and bad in all walks of life. That was not the issue of the post. You, not me jumped on the word homeless and went defensive, ignoring the main items. The message as a whole is what I posted. It's what I said, and meant. It asks questions which you don't answer, yet you leap on something and tear the ass out of it without making any attempt to accept the theme of the post at all. Try addressing that if you will....

What is the theme of the post? I've read it several times and it isn't quite hitting me.

[TANGODANCER]

I think I'm getting a headache.

I am aware of what you do for a living Bish,, and I really do admire you for it. That's absolutely genuine. Neither am I looking for fights on any of my issues. That said, you have taken the whole thing out of context by trying to isolate an issue of your choosing from my post. Where on earth did I say all homeless were drug addicts or alcholics? There's no such thing as all everything, but a mixture of good and bad in all walks of life. That was not the issue of the post. You, not me jumped on the word homeless and went defensive, ignoring the main items. The message as a whole is what I posted. It's what I said, and meant. It asks questions which you don't answer, yet you leap on something and tear the ass out of it without making any attempt to accept the theme of the post at all. Try addressing that if you will....

What is the theme of the post? I've read it several times and it isn't quite hitting me.

How about if 'd just said the line I finished with: "What is all this protesting about?" You see WTW, without any offence meant, we're on differnt wavelengths where justifying it is concerned. You seem to back all forms of protest as being right and fair, whereas I see a lot of it as just an excuse to contibute nothing to the community and protest about everything. I'm sure there's a middle gound somewhere, but it's somewhat clouded by idiocy in lots of cases. Surely that isn't hard to understand?

[thebish]

morning Tango...

working with the homeless was nothing to do with what I do for a living, I don't know why you make that assumption, it was something I did looooooong before I became a Minister. You asked me if i had seen homeless people - so I gave you a description of my experience with homeless people. I have got plenty of experience nowadays with homeless people - but not at anything like such depth or intensity, and much of it involves them knocking on my door and asking me for money.

I picked out one of your questions because I didn't understand it - to ask if there would be no alcoholism or drug taking if all homeless people were homed DOES make the assumption that all the alscoholics and drug-takers are homeless - I can see no other way of understanding that - and despite being asked, you have not clarified it. (and you don't HAVE to if you don't want to - I just thought that you wanted to make a contribution to the discussion - and in order to do so - it is best that you are properly understood)

but - OK - you want me to respond to the theme of the post.

I have read what you wrote several times...

is the theme of the post this:

"Protesting is just for those who can't be arsed to work 11 hour shifts" / "Protesting is a waste of time for those with too much time on their hands"

or is it:

"There is nothing worth protesting about - we should all just accept our fate like my parents did"

or is it:

"All protesting is basically pointless because if you give them what they want they will just protest about something else"

despite you telling me how clear it all it - it really isn't.


your last line - "what is all this protesting about" - how could anyone answer that??? every protest is unique and invloves a unique set of people and issues - they are not all about one thing or the same thing and don't involve the same people or the same motivations.

[thebish]

back to the tories...

I have to say it is amusing to listen to Tories try to get their head around the idea that the message is no longer "throw them all in prison then hang them". After years of successive Tory shadow home secretaries telling us prison works - and after years of Cameron bleating at rthe govt that they were not locking enough people up - that they were not locking them up for long enough - and that we should be building more prisons and bringing back prison-ships and we should lock up anyone automatically for life if they ever handle a knife......

now the poor Tory lambs have to go on the radio and say they were actually mistaken and we should be using more community sentencing initiatives and NOT locking people up and they never really meant the prison stuff in the first place - it was all a big misunderstanding...

some, of course, just can't hack it. Michael Howard, for one. He was on the radio telling us all he was right and Clarke is wrong - but even then it is amusing to hear him pronounce the word "criminals".....

and alongside that they have to swallow the idea of massive cuts in the police force - less bobbies on the beat - and the words just stick in their poor little tory throats....

[Gravedigger]

Oh!
Is that all Tories, only some Tories, Blairite Tories, Lib Dem Tories or just Tories who protest. And does being a Tory mean no deviation? Don't know if you're winding us up, sitting on the fence or being controversial simply for effect. But then I've always been Tory and believe that first time offenders get 20 years first time with time off for good behaviour and the balance served should another transgression occur. Wonder what the collective noun is for Tories

[thebish]

Wonder what the collective noun is for Tories

don't tempt me!!!!!

by "tories" in this case - I mean any one of them who has been asked to comment on t'radio about what the new Tory stance seems to be on prisons....

[Gravedigger]

[thebish]

Cleggy's "Your Freedom" website...

1. Giant red-herring
2. Pathetic waste of time
3. Obvious distraction technique
4. Childish stupidness
5. Unworkable publicity stunt


I just can't decide!

[thebish]

currently on offer in this great ideas generator...

Question

Which offences do you think we should remove or change, and why?

1. Decent doorstep rubbish collections with no petty rules, charges or penalties (READ THE QUESTION THICKO!)
2. Human Rights Act 1998 (That is hardly an "offence")
3. Change Countryside Rights of Way Act (CROW) to allow responsible river access
4. Bring back the Death Sentence


ok Cleggy - what next??

[Puskas]

currently on offer in this great ideas generator...

Question

Which offences do you think we should remove or change, and why?

1. Decent doorstep rubbish collections with no petty rules, charges or penalties (READ THE QUESTION THICKO!)
2. Human Rights Act 1998 (That is hardly an "offence")
3. Change Countryside Rights of Way Act (CROW) to allow responsible river access
4. Bring back the Death Sentence


ok Cleggy - what next??

I say abolish the laws against murder.

For too long, do-gooders have been telling me I can't murder people. Well, enough is enough. As a true-born Englishman, I want the right returned to me to murder whoever I want.

I can't stand do-gooders. I have strived to do nothing but evil all my life. They're the first on my murder list.

[TANGODANCER]

Good morning your Bishopsness.

I give up. Long live the protestors.

On with the politics.

[William the White]

Good morning your Bishopsness.

I give up. Long live the protestors.

On with the politics.

Bet you haven't!

[Puskas]

So, Gravedigger, do you really dig graves?

"yeah, they're alright"

[TANGODANCER]

Good morning your Bishopsness.

I give up. Long live the protestors.

On with the politics.

Bet you haven't!

I have WTW, honest. There are walls here at home in more need of my head banging on them. I'll just read and be educated.

[thebish]

Good morning your Bishopsness.

I give up. Long live the protestors.

On with the politics.

the theme of your post was none of those things then?