Here we go (aka UK riots thread)

[bobo the clown]

I'd like you to demonstrate some cognitive reasoning. So I guess we're both at a loss.

I would like to to state, categorically, whether or not you believe me to be a racist and if so show your evidence from over 6,000 posts on here.

It is your prerogative to withdraw. If, however you do not then I hope you have a ggood lawyer as to make that accusation of someone in my profession would be very damaging.

Put up, or shut up.

[Worthy4England]

Just the blacks?

This thread is still about uppity blacks right?

Just I'd hate my liberalism to get in the way of a good lynching.

I see that now I've posted some figures for you to have a pop at, as requested, you've completely changed tack, to a post that I'm guessing was made on page 1.

Well done. Even using liberal thinking that's inventive. You'll be heading back to page one on the transfer thread next to tell us we're going to try and keep Dainel Sturridge this season, in the hope one of us discounts it as bollocks and you can suggest everyone's a racist.

Just for the record, I don't care what colour the scrotes are. Lock 'em up. They're scrotes.

[Lord Kangana]

I'd like you to demonstrate some cognitive reasoning. So I guess we're both at a loss.

I would like to to state, categorically, whether or not you believe me to be a racist and if so show your evidence from over 6,000 posts on here.

It is your prerogative to withdraw. If, however you do not then I hope you have a ggood lawyer as to make that accusation of someone in my profession would be very damaging.

Put up, or shut up.

Anyone who uses phrases like Liberal Fascists has forfeited the right to righteous indignation.

Not nice when everyone joins you down at your illiberal level, is it?

[bobo the clown]

Not man enough to answer the question then. Or do you need W-t-W to hold your hand. I can defend Liberal Fascism as it is being recognised as a phenomenon at last. Whether you fit the bill or not only you can say or demonstate.

But you need to reply to my question. As I said, my job can be damaged by suggestions like that. It's not like the main stress of my day is whether the veg is properly cooked or not.

So, am I, or am I not ... In your view, a racist. If you feel so, as we only know each other from here, do point out where you have, even the faintest indication of that from here.

You can, as I said, simly withdraw the implication.

You cannot however leave it said & then dash for cover.

[William the White]

Not man enough to answer the question then. Or do you need W-t-W to hold your hand. I can defend Liberal Fascism as it is being recognised as a phenomenon at last. Whether you fit the bill or not only you can say or demonstate.

But you need to reply to my question. As I said, my job can be damaged by suggestions like that. It's not like the main stress of my day is whether the veg is properly cooked or not.

So, am I, or am I not ... In your view, a racist. If you feel so, as we only know each other from here, do point out where you have, even the faintest indication of that from here.

You can, as I said, simly withdraw the implication.

You cannot however leave it said & then dash for cover.

Woah, bobo, keep the arguments separate, please... Shout at LK as much as you want, or me as much as you want, but do not conflate us...

Speaking as one graduate to another...

[Prufrock]

Well this has got catty.

My own view is that despite this liberal attitude towards justice which has developed a system that executed people for trivialities, and important rights, such as challenging governments, legalised people's rights to control their own lives, saw the illegality of homosexuality got rid of, and all in all introduced a much more humane aspect to the justice system while serious crime has gone down, yeah, bring back flogging. It is all well and good to point out that crime goes down when more people are locked up, but the experts say the key is rehabilitation to stop re-offending, which isn't going to happen if you start flogging folk for nicking biscuits. Therefore you reduce crime while folk are in the nick, but then increase it massively when they get out. To do some logic, the only option then is to lock up biscuit stealers for life, and in that case, feel free to foot the bill. Or you could kill them and go back to a barbaric system, where the crime rate was higher. All options there sound good to me.

As it happens I don't know the answer, other than solving the social problems behind it. The idea that any of these yoofs have the thought of how shit prison might be (and despite xbox jibes, prison is still shitter than not being in it, by quite a distance) whilst doing whatever they do seems laughable to me.

[William the White]

Ah, the usual response of the liberal minded, to try to undermine any alternative view by appearing to be above it all. That if you disagree with them you're a bad person whose views are to be dismissed at the wave of a contemptuous hand. Liberal Fascism in other words.

Yes, Will, I have a degree. From a proper Uni at that (you know the sort, the ones that take some effort to get to and whose qualifications count for something). In fact it's a Joint Hon's. I also have an MSc. But let's not hide behind qualifications. The simple facts are that the liberati have dragged the country down by their over-bearing approach and their 'we are bright & caring and you plebs simply don't get it, so back in your box while we clever ones do the thinking' manner. It hasn't worked, nor will it.

The general public do not wish to be told their views don't count. Hence the, far too late, revisionism of the former Govt.

We have in Britain an underclass of scrotes, failed by society ? The education system ? The benefits process ? Poor parenting ? Anything but failed by themselves. They are protected by a complex web of liberal thinking, benefits and Human Rights. It's vital to realise that these very Scrotes could not give a monkey's shit about the hand that feeds them. When they go on a spree, inevitably, it's not their fault. Well it fckg is.

Sorry if it upsets you to see this actually expressed now & again, but attempt to see it through other eyes for once instead of tut-tutting and trying to look like the considered intellectual who is just too developed to know where to start.

People in general don't agree with you. That, in a democracy, can't be tutted away.

I've been away from the site today, football and stuff, but I've now got round to reading this.

So - your 'analysis' amounts to 'there are bad people'?

That's it?

Two degrees from impressive university and that's what you come up with?

[Worthy4England]

The experts need to explain then, why when we have a lower prision population, the crime rate increases dramatically.

That would suggest that the experts only have a limited grasp of how to do rehabilitation. Don't confuse two issues here. I'd be delighted if rehabilitation worked. I'd be delighted, if we could "educate" out of everyone, the desire to commit crime - although I expect some liberal minded thinker would accuse me of brainwashing. Until the experts come up with a workable alternative, I'll stick with the demonstrable thanks. Whilst not discounting other possible approaches and giving them a try. The two shouldn't be exclusive either. Serve the punishment element, then if we think we can rehabilitate you, we'll give it a go. Once. If you then come back to us, there's probably little point in trying it again as it clearly didn't work.

I'm glad we've trotted out the "foot the bill" mantra again. Costs us somewhere around £7 Bn to keep people locked up at current levels. The tangible cost of crime in the UK - increased insurance, repairing/replacing what's been lost without insurance, NHS bills for crime related incidents, cost of police having to arrest the same scrotes over and over again etc. is estimated to be in the order of £60 Bn. If I can drive the cost of crime down by £10 Bn, by increasing the cost of locking people up by another £7 Bn, I'll settle for keeping the £3 Bn loose change.

The reason Governments don't like the idea, is that it would directly impact everyone within the taxation system, whereas leaving the people who are victims of crime to pick up the pieces, it's sort of lost in the system somewhere. Either by householders having to foot the bill of an insurance excess, or increased insurance premiums. etc. etc.

[BWFC_Insane]

I think there are too many people on both sides of the argument who think that there are simple answers and simple boxes to put them in.

Locking people up, will of course reduce the crime rate as W4E points out. And its probably the only sensible method for doing so.

In the long run though, you simply cannot keep locking more and more and more people up. You have to look at the societal issues behind things and why certain groups are turning to crime, and do some of what I guess people call "the liberal stuff".

You won't fix a "broken society" if that is what we have, by simply locking people up, nor by failing to understand what is going on root and branch and fixing it.

Not just on here though, the number of overly simplistic answers to stop future riots, I've heard from folk though are ridiculous. Walloping kids is the most common one. If it really was that simple, then most of the rioters wouldn't have been rioting!

[William the White]

The experts need to explain then, why when we have a lower prision population, the crime rate increases dramatically.

That would suggest that the experts only have a limited grasp of how to do rehabilitation. Don't confuse two issues here. I'd be delighted if rehabilitation worked. I'd be delighted, if we could "educate" out of everyone, the desire to commit crime - although I expect some liberal minded thinker would accuse me of brainwashing. Until the experts come up with a workable alternative, I'll stick with the demonstrable thanks. Whilst not discounting other possible approaches and giving them a try. The two shouldn't be exclusive either. Serve the punishment element, then if we think we can rehabilitate you, we'll give it a go. Once. If you then come back to us, there's probably little point in trying it again as it clearly didn't work.

I'm glad we've trotted out the "foot the bill" mantra again. Costs us somewhere around £7 Bn to keep people locked up at current levels. The tangible cost of crime in the UK - increased insurance, repairing/replacing what's been lost without insurance, NHS bills for crime related incidents, cost of police having to arrest the same scrotes over and over again etc. is estimated to be in the order of £60 Bn. If I can drive the cost of crime down by £10 Bn, by increasing the cost of locking people up by another £7 Bn, I'll settle for keeping the £3 Bn loose change.

The reason Governments don't like the idea, is that it would directly impact everyone within the taxation system, whereas leaving the people who are victims of crime to pick up the pieces, it's sort of lost in the system somewhere. Either by householders having to foot the bill of an insurance excess, or increased insurance premiums. etc. etc.

Statto extraordinaire as ever.

Would you mind giving your sources though - I'm sure they are impeccable - but it would be interesting to know who is putting out these numbers with this twist... I'm particularly interested in the prison/crime ones you offered earlier...

[Lord Kangana]

Not man enough to answer the question then. Or do you need W-t-W to hold your hand. I can defend Liberal Fascism as it is being recognised as a phenomenon at last. Whether you fit the bill or not only you can say or demonstate.

But you need to reply to my question. As I said, my job can be damaged by suggestions like that. It's not like the main stress of my day is whether the veg is properly cooked or not.

So, am I, or am I not ... In your view, a racist. If you feel so, as we only know each other from here, do point out where you have, even the faintest indication of that from here.

You can, as I said, simly withdraw the implication.

You cannot however leave it said & then dash for cover.

You're absolutely right. The main stress of my day doesn't involve getting upset with the internet either. But rest assured, I am glad to hear how important you are.

Just goes to show that supposed intellect proves f*ck all. Liberal Fascism is recognised by people like Melanie Phillips. Seems about your level. And your source material.

[Worthy4England]

The experts need to explain then, why when we have a lower prision population, the crime rate increases dramatically.

That would suggest that the experts only have a limited grasp of how to do rehabilitation. Don't confuse two issues here. I'd be delighted if rehabilitation worked. I'd be delighted, if we could "educate" out of everyone, the desire to commit crime - although I expect some liberal minded thinker would accuse me of brainwashing. Until the experts come up with a workable alternative, I'll stick with the demonstrable thanks. Whilst not discounting other possible approaches and giving them a try. The two shouldn't be exclusive either. Serve the punishment element, then if we think we can rehabilitate you, we'll give it a go. Once. If you then come back to us, there's probably little point in trying it again as it clearly didn't work.

I'm glad we've trotted out the "foot the bill" mantra again. Costs us somewhere around £7 Bn to keep people locked up at current levels. The tangible cost of crime in the UK - increased insurance, repairing/replacing what's been lost without insurance, NHS bills for crime related incidents, cost of police having to arrest the same scrotes over and over again etc. is estimated to be in the order of £60 Bn. If I can drive the cost of crime down by £10 Bn, by increasing the cost of locking people up by another £7 Bn, I'll settle for keeping the £3 Bn loose change.

The reason Governments don't like the idea, is that it would directly impact everyone within the taxation system, whereas leaving the people who are victims of crime to pick up the pieces, it's sort of lost in the system somewhere. Either by householders having to foot the bill of an insurance excess, or increased insurance premiums. etc. etc.

Statto extraordinaire as ever.

Would you mind giving your sources though - I'm sure they are impeccable - but it would be interesting to know who is putting out these numbers with this twist... I'm particularly interested in the prison/crime ones you offered earlier...

Not a problem at all.

The statistics regarding prisioner ratio / recorded crime come from Eurostat. The European Union's statistics bureau.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal ... troduction" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The "cost of crime" (the £60 Bn figure) came from Home Office Research Study 217.

The figures for how much it costs to lock our inmates up might have been overstated some. The figure of nearer £5 Bn seems to be the most recent (rather than £7 Bn as previously suggested), although a couple of years out of date which could account for some of the difference.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10649722" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hoboh]

Not man enough to answer the question then. Or do you need W-t-W to hold your hand. I can defend Liberal Fascism as it is being recognised as a phenomenon at last. Whether you fit the bill or not only you can say or demonstate.

But you need to reply to my question. As I said, my job can be damaged by suggestions like that. It's not like the main stress of my day is whether the veg is properly cooked or not.

So, am I, or am I not ... In your view, a racist. If you feel so, as we only know each other from here, do point out where you have, even the faintest indication of that from here.

You can, as I said, simly withdraw the implication.

You cannot however leave it said & then dash for cover.

You're absolutely right. The main stress of my day doesn't involve getting upset with the internet either. But rest assured, I am glad to hear how important you are.

Just goes to show that supposed intellect proves f*ck all. Liberal Fascism is recognised by people like Melanie Phillips. Seems about your level. And your source material.

Errr chaps I'd kinda like to carry on reading posts from both of you

[Worthy4England]

Errr chaps I'd kinda like to carry on reading posts from both of you

Sssssshhhh!

They'll be rioting next and I'll be able to try my new water cannon out!

[Hoboh]

Errr chaps I'd kinda like to carry on reading posts from both of you

Sssssshhhh!

They'll be rioting next and I'll be able to try my new water cannon out!

I'm trying a softly Softly approach to keep BWFCI and his motley crew off me back for a while.

[Lofthouse Lower]

Yes, Will, I have a degree. From a proper Uni.

I note that last year Bolton 'Uni' came in at 116th out of 118. Having grasped the nettle, this year they came in at 117th. Well done to all involved

I have a degree, I have a degree!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

There are more than two universities?

Anyway, I just want to know which branch of Clowns International is monitoring Bobo's activity on here...

[bobo the clown]

Yes, Will, I have a degree. From a proper Uni.

I note that last year Bolton 'Uni' came in at 116th out of 118. Having grasped the nettle, this year they came in at 117th. Well done to all involved

I have a degree, I have a degree!

Well, in fact, you haven't have you !!??

Anyway, it was mentioned in passing & response to W-t-W's assetion that I have one so how can I possibly be so wrong.

[bobo the clown]

Not man enough to answer the question then. Or do you need W-t-W to hold your hand. I can defend Liberal Fascism as it is being recognised as a phenomenon at last. Whether you fit the bill or not only you can say or demonstate.

But you need to reply to my question. As I said, my job can be damaged by suggestions like that. It's not like the main stress of my day is whether the veg is properly cooked or not.

So, am I, or am I not ... In your view, a racist. If you feel so, as we only know each other from here, do point out where you have, even the faintest indication of that from here.

You can, as I said, simly withdraw the implication.

You cannot however leave it said & then dash for cover.

You're absolutely right. The main stress of my day doesn't involve getting upset with the internet either. But rest assured, I am glad to hear how important you are.

Just goes to show that supposed intellect proves f*ck all. Liberal Fascism is recognised by people like Melanie Phillips. Seems about your level. And your source material.

I had to look up Melanie Phillips. Seems a sound enough woman though.

Indeed, you prove my point ; “agree with my position or you are a bad person” and I will hurl unfounded and damaging accusations at you.”

It was not I, by the way, who raised qualifications. I merely responded.

Fascism is too often seen as a case of extreme ‘right wing’ views, a sort of counterpoint to communism. That is in fact a description of a symptom, not of the actual disease. Fascism is when the state abuses its power, usually via populism, and ensures that debate, disagreement or and contrary view is squashed. So, in fact, Communist Governments actually follow fascist processes in their steps to prevent debate or opposition.

That practice converts from being unreasonable to fascism when it develops into “… and as you are a bad person I will ensure you are ostracised, your views are made unacceptable and it will affect your social standing and employability”.

It is ‘Liberal’ Fascism when this is done on the basis of liberal values being forced upon people. This has been happening steadily over the past 15 years, probably more. Imagine a teacher now who disagrees with the Green agenda. Imagine a BBC journalist who questions whether the Libyan exploits were fair & reasonable against a sovereign Govt. We see Michael MacIntyre semi ostracised coz he’s not ‘right-on’ enough. Imagine any public figure saying that Unions are negative rather than positive institutions. David Starkey last week espoused some views on the riots which many people disagreed with. Instead of any debate the immediate view was that his career was over and he should never be allowed to air those views again ! Disagree with him, by all means. But at least allow the discussion.

A vacuum results where fear prevents proper discussion and the void is filled by those pushing forward the accepted agenda. Have you ever wondered how is it that BNP/EDL/Nat Front views get people dismissed &/or vilified … yet communist views are seen as part of the mainstream ? It is due to this process. I have no problem in the cutting off, I just think it should be even handed.

That is what has happened over the past 15 years. The trend of the past Labour Govts., now admitted by Ed Milliband, Jack Straw et al, was to stifle debate and hence an under-current of suppressed views developed. To simply mention certain things has become unacceptable and was a career killer.

At last we have Chris Patten, now in charge at the BBC stating that the BBC policies, enacted by a largely left-leaning Labour supporting, often Labour appointed senior managers ensured positions were awarded contingent on people having particular views. So no REAL debate is permitted about race, multi-culturalism, discrimination, environmental issues, unionisation, Human Rights laws, Comprehensive education, social issues …. .

This can be extreme and quite open, it can also be done less obviously. To stop debate and to curtail careers of those who attempt to have it is, indeed, fascistic.

This allows you to carelessly fling forward accusations of people being racist for simply raising a question. It also allows you to believe that merely making that statement wins the argument. It appears to allow you to believe you can hurl that suggestion forward at people who plainly are not and without the faintest evidence … yet feel free to avoid retracting it.

I am happy to discuss toasting machines with you. Your expertise is probably high there. However, I am utterly, utterly appalled that you fling that accusation at me and are lacking the moral fibre to say “OK, maybe that was out of order”.

Anyway, back to the day job. I doubt we'll ever agree on anything. So let's not bother trying.

[Lofthouse Lower]

Yes, Will, I have a degree. From a proper Uni.

I note that last year Bolton 'Uni' came in at 116th out of 118. Having grasped the nettle, this year they came in at 117th. Well done to all involved

I have a degree, I have a degree!

Well, in fact, you haven't have you !!??

In fact I have two