What Do You Think Today?

Free, open, general chat on any topic.

Moderator: Orlion

User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 12209
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 10 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

Bit of a Tory Party leadership contest update.

Right wing Conservative ex Home Secretary Priti Patel has now declared her intention to run,with quite a canny move to improve her chances.

She's said that if elected, she will give the membership a say in the formation of Conservative Party policy.

This, along with her right leaning views (especially on immigration) might be the one thing that could get the membership to overlook the fact that she is an Indian woman. They'd jump at the chance to have an input into the Party's policy making.

Can you imagine it. Government by referendum of the Conservative Party membership!

:hairs:
President of Peace? You fucking idiots!

"I know what America is. America is a thing that you can move very easily. Move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." (Benjamin Netenyahu 2001.)

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 12209
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 10 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

"US urges restraint after attack on Israelis kills twelve children."

So runs the headline in this morning's Times, and terrible as the death of the children is, I want to rather question the article and its presentation itself, rather than the horrible tragedy/crime it reports on.

Because as always in this affair nothing is as it seems and everything is as clear as mud.

Let's first go through the article and pick out some salient points.

Firstly, the children killed were not Jewish children, they were Druse children living in the small town of Majdal Shams, situated in territory seized by the Israelis in 1967 and occupied by them henceforth to this day. Of all the international community only the USA recognises the territory as Israeli owned, the common position being that Israel is an occupying force, illegally administering territory that rightfully belongs to Syria.

So this attack did not fall on "Israelis" as the headline implies: certainly not in the eyes of the international community, and probably not even in the eyes of the British state who no doubt sit on the fence "lying low and saying 'nuffin' " with respect to the status of the Golan. So why would the Times headline imply that it did?

Let's look at the article - dig a bit deeper into its claims and presentation. The first part goes into saying that the US concurs with Israel that Iran backed militant organisation Hezbollah was responsible for the attack. It goes on to report the US's urging of restraint on Israel in its response, and to report their claims (the US's) that they are working on a diplomatic solution to "end all attacks [between Israel and Lebanon] once and for all." Nothing overly ambitious there then. Still we haven't had mention of either Israel's occupation of the territory or the fact that the children were Druse (an offshoot of Ismali Islam).

We go on to read of the us condemnation of the attack and hear Anthony Blinken's reminding us - he emphasizes it - that Israel has a right to "defend its citizens." No comment is made questioning the contested right of Israel to call these people Israeli citizens. Some percentage of the Druse population do accept Israeli citizenship, but the larger majority do not.

At last the article mentions that the territory has been occupied by Israel since 1967,and that the "town's residents are mostly from the Druse", but it still fails to say that the children killed were of this grouping. We hear how "many Druse are loyal to the state", presumably the state of Israel, and "have a distinguished service record" in its army- but this before the secondary point that the bulk of the population reject Israeli citizenship.

Now lastly, we come on to the attack itself and we are told that "Hezbollah denied responsibility, but the Israelis said that the missile was clearly an Iranian supplied Falaq-1 rocket. The Whitehouse said it was launched from southern Lebanon."

Now let's analyse this.

How, firstly would the Whitehouse know? They might be capable of such intelligence, but we are neither told whether this was home gathered, or whether it has come simply from the Israelis.

And the rocket's origin in Iran. Again we have only the Israelis account of this, and sadly, there has been many and varied examples of their being less than reliable in their accounting of events on the ground in the last twelve months. This, not exactly scepticism, but at least reservation about accepting these facts as gospel, must apply also to the claim that the attack came from the Lebanon.

Why would Hezbollah attack this small community of Druse? What would they gain? They have denied doing so, and one commentator on Sky News yesterday said he couldn't quite understand why they would do this, as it didn't run with their normal practice of not denying any attacks that they carry out (and there have been large numbers of them since October 7th). The suggestion has been made that the strike was accidentally made on the community, a misfire if you will, which is possible.

But this notwithstanding, we still need to consider the old chestnut question, "Who stands to gain?"

And I'm afraid that the unequivocal answer to this has to be Netenyahu. The Israeli Prime Minister is almost to the point of being dependant upon an escalation of this conflict in order to survive. He is under huge pressure at home to get this wrapped up, get the hostages returned home, and he faces criminal corruption charges, quite possibly an extended jail term, once Israel has elections. He also desperately needs America to remain fully behind the Israeli cause. Nothing is more conducive to this than the possibility of the conflict expanding to draw in the wider region, and especially Iran. And so it is entirely feasible to at least speculate that anything that brings the situation to the brink of broader regional conflict, without actually tipping it over the edge, is in Mr Netenyahu's interest.

The deliberate killing of people in Majdal Shams, especially of children, is an accusation that is beyond the pale, and certainly not one that I'd make. I prefer the accidental strike hypothesis, which terrible as it is, still allows for a scrap of humanity to survive in the situation. But the incongruities of the situation, the greater stakes at play, demand that one considers all possibilities, and this is what I've tried to do.
President of Peace? You fucking idiots!

"I know what America is. America is a thing that you can move very easily. Move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." (Benjamin Netenyahu 2001.)

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 12209
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 10 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

Today it's the Telegraph's turn as in its report that the UK is poised to halt arms sales to Israel,it explains that the move is to be postponed due to rising tensions "afetr 12 Israeli children were killed in a Hezbollah strike on Saturday.

Again it's necessary to point out that these were Druse children, strictly regarded as Syrian even by the UK, as only America under the Trump presidency ever recognised the territory they were living in as being Israeli. This is simply blatant propoganda, twisting of the facts to give a particular slant to the reportage - turning a tragedy that most people now accept was a mistake resulting from a misfire or irregular landing of a 'defensive dome' missile, into a tool for swaying public opinion and propping up the government's untenable position of support for Israel in its inhumane activities in Gaza.

On the Stamer about face over sales of arms, again it's not all it seems to be. We sell so few arms to Israel that it is nothing other than a symbolic gesture to halt them: our support in provision of intelligence, allowing UK territory to be used as staging posts for deliveries to Israel of arms etc from other sources, and refusal to call them out for what they are doing is of far more significance. The statement of the government in respect of halting arms sales is purely made as a result of self interest insofar as the Labour Party position on Israeli activities in Gaza has cost it significant support in the country, especially (but not exclusively) within the large Muslim minority. It undoubtedly cost them some seats in the recent election and they are very conscious of how thin their majority is in terms of depth, if not in terms of the broad numbers of seats. Large numbers of those seats are held on very thin majorities.

So make no mistake, any actions in terms of making symbolic gestures will be well explained to the Netenyahu government in advance, with assurance that UK support remains steadfast in all places where it makes a material difference. This is what will bother the Israeli administration at this point: they are long beyond the point where they care what outward appearances, what gestures are made. Or indeed what anyone thinks, or says they think of them. It's material help that counts, not symbolic words,and they know it.

It's also worth pointing out that while the media has been concentrating on the situation in the Golan and Lebanon, the horrendous killing in Gaza has been going on apace. Yesterday I believe - maybe the day before - a scool was hit and terrible casualties resulting therefrom. It had been being used as a refuge shelter and the death and casualty numbers are horrific. Upwards of 30 killed and many more injured. They were rushed to hospitals that have no medical equipment or medicines to deal with them: there is virtually no food or medicines of any quality entering Gaza whatsoever, and the people are fleeing to and fro, like rats in a trap, as they are subjected to areal bombardment and shelling from which there is neither effective shelter nor safe zones to find refuge. An ex CIA analyst said that taken in the round, it was impossible to conclude that Netenyahu, in his wording of "finishing the job," to the American senate the other day, meant anything other than the eradication of the entire Palestinian population from Gaza, by any means - bombing, starvation, disease (polio is reported as beginning to appear in the territory) - possible. In other words genocide. How can we seriously be a part of this? How can our politicians sleep at night. A government spokesperson reported in the Telegraph said, "A review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law is ongoing." Compliance with international humanitarian law? What world is he living in?

(Edit; in fairness there does seem to be a shift in Labour's position on Israel. They have restarted payments to Unwra, dropped the Conservative plans to object to the ICC issuing of arrest warrants for Netenyahu et al, and now this announcement on stopping arms sales. I must try to be balanced in this, even though I remain aghast that we have supported Israel thus far in its shocking actions in Gaza. )

-----0-----

Tory leadership election update: Suella Braverman, who was widely reported as being in the race but had not yet declared, has announced that she will not be running.

She's been moving ever further from her party's position of lafe, and gave her reasons for not running as the Party not wanting to hear the reasons why it lost so badly in the recent election. Reform Party spokesman and MP Lee Anderson has said that Braverman is more than welcome to join his party and it remains to be seen as to whether she will take him up on the offer.

Reform leader Nigel Farage on the other hand, must be eyeing the Conservative Party leadership contest with interest. Priti Patel, who announced her intention to run recently, probably influenced Braverman's decision not to stand, by stealing the march from her by announcing that she (Patel) would allow the membership a say in formation of Conservative Party policies. It would have looked silly for her (Braverman) to also offer this, and there would be very little else she could offer to tempt the membership to vote for her rather than Patel. They are much of a likeness in most other respects. Were Patel to actually win the leadership (not likely, but now more possible than prior to her offer), she would undoubtedly hold out the offer to Farage that he join the Conservative Party. This would have to be tempting for him - to have a ready made party with hundreds of potential seats already in the bag, as opposed to building up his Reform Party effectively from scratch. He'd easily win the Tory leadership at whatever point she stepped down (or was pushed out): her leading of the Party would effectively prepare the ground for him, and this would be beautiful revenge for their having excluded him from front line politics for so long (think Boris Johnson not offering him a place in cabinet when he (Farage) had effectively brought Brexit about single handedly). Certainly it would piss off Reform, but with a Patel led Conservative Party, there'd be little need for the Reform Party to exist anyway, so it's conceivable that the whole lot of them could reenter the Conservative ranks, where they effectively stem from anyway.
President of Peace? You fucking idiots!

"I know what America is. America is a thing that you can move very easily. Move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." (Benjamin Netenyahu 2001.)

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 12209
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 10 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

The fatal stabbing of three small girls and critical injuring of a number of others (not least two teachers) who were attending a Taylor Swift themed dance event at a local antenatal center in Stockport, has left the community reeling.

The incident happened on Monday gone, when a masked youth exited a taxi outside the venue, and refusing to pay for his ride, walked away and into the hall and proceeded to indiscriminately attack the attendees of the event, in brutal and ferocious manner with his chosen blade.

The police are questioning an unnamed 17 year old youth in connection with the attack - not I believe arrested at the scene, but later some miles away - and presumably given their statement that they are "not looking for anyone else", we may assume that they are happy that they have the true culprit in hand. They have been at pains to state that they are not treating the incident as terrorism related, implying that this was just a tragic occurrence of violence with a mental illness or personal background, rather than any ideologically or religiously motivated cause.

But nothing is ever simple.

The first signs that something was amiss (other than the horrific tragedy of the attack itself) occurred when Kier Stamer visited the scene yesterday, and was loudly berated by a woman shouting (I believe) something about a cover up.

It turns out that speculation had been running rife online, suggesting that this was not a simple random attack, or just motivated by some unknown personal grievance, but that it had some underlying religious motive, of which we were not being informed. Clearly as the individual arrested was a minor, no names or information would supplied to the media, but this in itself only fuelled speculation that a full disclosure of the facts was being withheld.

To make matters worse, a Russian newspaper suggested that the individual being held was a recent illegal immigrant of Islamic faith, who was already on a MI-6 watch list. I believe he was even named.

A vigil was held yesterday, but shortly thereafter (as occurred last year following a similar event in Dublin) trouble began. It appears that far-right activists had formed into a mob, possibly encouraged or even organised by ultra-nationalist organisations of that stamp, and had flocked to the area, intent on violence.

In the ensuing battle, some 30 plus police officers were injured and a mosque was set on fire.

This morning's Telegraph reports on the violence, but steers a strangely middle course between rubbishing the accusations that there is a religious fanaticism angle to the original attack (when reporting the Russian media contribution at least), but then ever so slightly suggesting that there might be something in it when talking about the UK political side of the affair.

Nigel Farage, for example is reported as saying that there are legitimate questions about the attack remain unanswered, and that he wondered if the truth was being withheld from us. Elsewhere in the report we were told of "unsubstantiated claims" that the attacker had cried "Allahu akbar" as he had carried out his attack. Evette Cooper, they said, had said that those "peddling misinformation" about the attack risked undermining the criminal investigation - but they then went on to specifically point out that she had not ruled out that the investigation "could become a terror inquiry".

All in all it's a rather confusing report, which leads one to suspect that either they are as much in the dark as the rest of us, ot that they know something that we do not.

As for the 'peddling of misinformation', if the decision has been made to withhold information from the public out of fear of the consequences of releasing it, then the folly of this course has been demonstrated. If it now comes out that this fellow was indeed a recent boat arrival (last year) as the Russian report said, or was 'home grown' but known to security and mental health services, then it was always going to come out sooner or later, and withholding the information from the public just makes the police authority and Home Office look duplicitous. How would it look if it turns out that we the British public, must rely on Russian media to supply us with true information on what is transpiring in our own country? Do not the people in power think about these things?

The risks of being honest with the public were clear, most certainly (and I fully get why the idea of withholding the full facts until the emotion of the event had subsided, would seem like a good idea) - but the idea that such information as to the nationality or religion of the individual held could be kept from the public is ludicrous. Policemen and women are people: they talk. To their families, their friends, their colleagues. They would be traumatised after such an event, struggling to understand what had occurred. It is inconceivable that the nature of the man held's broader identity could be concealed. To have been honest and open from the start (assuming these rumours have some veracity to them) would have been an infinity wiser course. As things stand, people are confused and angry. Angry that such horror could be perpetrated on our streets, but also angry that they feel betrayed by their own police and leaders. The first part is unavoidable. The second both foolish and unnecessary.

Let's just hope that there is no truth in the rumours and speculation, the Russian reportage. If it turns out there is so, then the standing of our government and service spokespeople will be much diminished, and trust in our state to deliver us with accurate information following crises such as this, sorely damaged.
President of Peace? You fucking idiots!

"I know what America is. America is a thing that you can move very easily. Move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." (Benjamin Netenyahu 2001.)

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 12209
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 10 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

I'm not sure that killing the chief negotiator for the release of the Israeli hostages on the Hamas side, was the best thing to do. Doesn't exactly send out the best message to the group holding your people captive, to kill the guy upon who's word their release depends.

Killing him in a state guesthouse while he was under the 'protection' of the Iranian government, visiting for the inauguration of the new president Mazoud Pezeshkian, who - fair play to him - it has to be said, was less than happy, was perhaps even less wise.

Anybody would think that Netenyahu didn't want the hostages returned and a ceasefire negotiated.

To add insult to injury, one of the leading Hezbollah figures was also hit in a separate missile strike, also while on a state visit to Theran.

Sheesh! They ain't doing it by halves!

Just imagine. Important individuals from different countries are visiting our countries, and while they are here, a third country (who we are not at war with, but who we don't like and consider an effective enemy) fires missiles that land in our country and kill those visitors. Like Putin authorising missile strikes that kill Zelensky and the Polish PM while they are in London to attend the swearing in of Kier Stamer. This would be grounds for all-out war.

And this is what Israel has done, while at the same time saying to their people that they are negotiating the release of their family members from the very people who they have killed.

Has this action brought those hostages one inch towards being returned home? What do you think? Is it non-escalatory - working to reduce tensions already stretched to breaking point, in a region balanced on the very edge of wider regional conflict?

Someone should rein this madman in. The world cannot be brought into potential large-state conflict by the actions of one rogue state, acting in the purely domestic interest of essentially a single politicians and a small cohort of his associates. This is madness and both Biden and Stamer must know this, together with the other Western beneficiaries of the Israeli largesse, which keeps them onside, and buys Israel any amount of leeway to commit breaches of international law that would see any other state hauled before the ICJ or similar international tribunal.

This situation is untenable, never mind the inhumane slaughter that is going on every day in Gaza under the very eyes of the Western media (despite the blocking of all reporters from the Strip), and which there is little argument now that it amounts to genocide or the next 'best' thing.

This is madness and it must stop. Time for our leaderships to start doing their jobs. To take Netenyahu to one side and tell him it's game over.

-----0-----

Yet another nail in the BBC's coffin as news breaks that veteran news presenter Huw Edwards has pleaded guilty to the receipt and possession of pornographic images of children, some as young as 7 years old.

Originally Edwards was suspended from the BBC following revelations in the Sun newspaper that he'd been soliciting images from adolescents online, without however the suggestion that the youths involved were underage.

At this point there was something of a discussion going on suggesting that Edwards' media pillory was unfair, and that his private life was his own business. Most were sensitive to the slightly unpalatable nature of the idea of a rich and powerful media personality, effectively using their power to abuse the position they were fortunate enough to hold, and particularly in this way. But the argument they used was that the law was the law, and that there was no suggestion (at that point) that Edwards had broken it.

If they but knew.

Now that the full extent of the presenters crimes has been laid bare and he has accepted his guilt, the questions are being asked. Why was Edwards kept on the BBC books following his arrest (which the corporation knew about) last November? Why was he paid two hundred thousand pounds of license fee payers money after this point? Why was he even allocated a pay rise after this? Not very wholesome is it? In fact, downright dirty. The UK printed media are now scenting blood and the director general Tim Davie is in their sights. He's to be carpeted by Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy later today and although he'll probably hang on for a while, I'd guess his goose is cooked.

On the broader front, this is terrible timing for the BBC who only a week or so ago were reeling under the release of figures showing that half a million people in the last year have decided they no longer need the service and have revoked their licences. There is already an ongoing debate as to where the future of the organisation should lie - perhaps moving to an advertising mode of financing with the scrapping of the licence fee, or even becoming a pay-to-view service like Apple TV or Sky.

The BBC News was at pains last night (during its 6pm broadcast) to stress its independence from the BBC proper, and to say that it had no knowledge of the Edwards arrest prior to the release of the information that he was being charged a few days ago. Well okay, thousands would believe you. I on the other hand, have been watching the way the news is manipulated and twisted by the outlet for years. When it comes to fair and balanced news, I'm afraid to say that the BBC News service is not the one I turn to. It might be that the service had no knowledge of their own head presenters fall from grace, but it stretches belief to no small extent to think so.

I'm no fan of the corporation and would shed no tears to see its charter ripped up and thrown in the bin. If I trusted the state I live in, then I might trust them to run an unbiased organ for the dissemination of accurate reportage. My experience of the last few years, starting with Bexit, then the political assassination of Corbyn followed by the pandemic.....

Nah. I'm stupid, but I'm not that stupid!
President of Peace? You fucking idiots!

"I know what America is. America is a thing that you can move very easily. Move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." (Benjamin Netenyahu 2001.)

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 12209
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 10 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

Our authorities and police have been incredibly stupid. They have created exactly the circumstances in which the kind of misinformation they claim has been circulating about the Southport attack could flourish, by their own failure to provide details that the public desperately need, if they are to make sense of this awful and brutal event.

I absolutely get that when minors are involved, a degree of circumspection is required in how much information is released. But in an event of this level of shocking severity, people need detail and reassurance to understand. To be told "a seventeen year old boy is being held" - end of - just isn't going to cut it. It just made for the perfect circumstances for the spawning of false narratives, conjured up from half known snippets of glimpsed and overheard rumour. Chinese whispers of a deadly kind.

Claims that people heard the killer shouting, "Allahu akbar". True or false? Nobody knows: the authorities have been silent on this. Claims that the kid was a recent boat arrival, known to the security service and of questionable mental health. Denied as misinformation but without being informed that he was a home born kid of Rwandan parentage. Not until much later when the damage had been done. Time in which anger could build, speculation could run rife, and those half glimpsed snippets could fester and bloom into the outbursts of anger we have seen in what, three or four cities now (I haven't even looked at this morning's news yet - gosh knows what happened overnight).

What about the kid's religion. Was he a practicing Muslim. Again the police are silent, the Home Secretary saying neither yes nor no. Known to MI-6, ditto. Mental health?, same again. Nobody wants to know his name, but people are thirsting to understand what has happened here. Three children lie dead and more are fighting for their lives. The witholding of relevant information is absolutely not what is needed here. Here. What about this?
In a shocking attacking a dance event [etc,etc]. The details as to what caused the attack are as yet unknown, but terrorism, though not being ruled out is not at this point thought to have been the primary cause. A 17 year old boy of Rwandan parentage is being held, following an arrest made at a site some distance from the tragic attack. Known to the security service and mental health services, it seems more likely at this point that it was health issues rather than any radicalisation or third party influence that lay behind his actions. People are asked to be calm and patient while the police do their job of finding out the background to this horrific event.
Something like this, and all of this trouble could have been avoided.

And now that it's too late, now that the anger has erupted, spilling out at police, at mosques, at corner shops owned by Muslims, let's look at the coverage. It's all "far right troublemakers, bussed in for the event." Tommy Robinson supporters and people with no interest in the events at Southport itself, making capital out of the opportunity to get out and fight the police, to cause trouble and run amok. Pour scorn on them and claim, "they are not the true spirit of Southport, as shown by the ones who turned out to clear up the mess, to repair the damage done in the rage fuelled riots."

Well let's look at this.

Because what we're talking about here is young white working class males. The most disparaged and looked down upon group in our society. Chavs. White van man. Essex Boys. The kind that listen to "notorious misogynistic influencer" Andrew Tate and far right radical Tommy Robinson.

And is it any wonder that they would.

Every time there is any mention of their kind by Fiona Bruce on the news, we see that condescending sneer just below the surface. While the seven o'clock Today show (or whatever it is called) always has a place for the cool dreadlocked black kids doing their "fing", the go-ahead asians, the enterprising girls and upwardly mobile kids of the educated classes, what do you ever see of the white working class male? The sweaty boys of the building sites and low grade delivery jobs? These sit at the bottom of the woke pile. No-one wants them and nothing good is said of them. Our educated liberal establishment, our woke media and chattering classes would simply rather that they didn't exist. Is it really any wonder that they turn to Tommy Robinson, to Andrew Tate and the like: people who are prepared to talk to them, show that they understand and respect what they are feeling.

The riots and fights with the police are just a great big "Fuck You!" to a society that spurns them, that has no time for them, no interest in what they think. These are the lost generation, the kids who have little or no future that doesn't involve doing jobs of mindless drudgery for wages that barely cover the cost of survival. Looked down on and spurned, out they come, ready for the chance to kick back. They see their communities changing (because none of the immigrants coming into the country finish up in the areas lived in by the wealthy commentators, the liberal establishment - they are all shipped up to the North, where services and living space is already stretched to breaking point) and themselves always pushed to the back of the queue.

And then something like this happens. And they see our own authorities not being prepared to be open with the public about what has gone down. And boom, it goes off. The police don't help, and neither do the government. Kier Stamer saying that "Peaceful protest will be allowed, but insurrection will not be tolerated!"

But Peaceful protest doesn't mean being told the times when, the places where, you can protest. That's up to the protesters (obviously within limits: private property etc is obviously out). But heavy handed policing has played its part in the troubles of the past couple of nights. The clever money should be, if the protests are peacefully going on, let them continue until whatever time the protesters are ready to pack up and go home. Not to whale in at 6pm ordering everybody off the streets. That's just asking for trouble, and trouble is what resulted. I've no doubt that there were elements in these protests that were bent on trouble. But the police has its elements spoiling for a fight as well.

But the one thing that Kier Stamer, Evette Cooper and the rest of their ilk won't get - and this is an absolute banker - is that this situation requires not just heavy handed authority to quell it, but also dialogue. Dialogue with the people, dialogue discussing their anger their wants, their needs. The bringing back of this much insulted group back into our national discussion. The dropping of the condescension and the sneering, the pretending they don't exist and the exclusion of any thought on how their lot must be bettered, their life chances improved. Without adoption of this approach, as opposed to 'martial law and cunts with guns', this situation is only going to get worse.

And now I'm going to go and look at what's been happening overnight. All the above is just my thinking from yesterday - I haven't even seen what today is going to bring.
President of Peace? You fucking idiots!

"I know what America is. America is a thing that you can move very easily. Move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." (Benjamin Netenyahu 2001.)

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 62038
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Contact:

What Do You Think Today?

Post by Avatar »

Little good no doubt. ;)

--A
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 12209
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 10 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

Hi Av!

Well at least the judge in the preliminary arraignment of this fellow that carried out the Stockport horror has shown some sense.

Recognising exactly what I said above - that the witholding of details is creating exactly the conditions for the proliferation and spread of false stories on social media - he has gone against the normal practice of maintaining the anonymity of 'juniors' being brought before the courts, and released the lad's name.

I put the word junior in inverted commas because Axel Rudakubana (for so he is called) is in fact just one week away from his eighteenth birthday, at which point his legal right to anonymity would have ended anyway. Aside from this, no other information about him or his background has emerged. Kier Stamer, so keen to get before the cameras to 'speak to the nation' (didn't I say he'd do it before Valentines Day of next year; even I didn't expect it this soon after his election) to brand the protesting and clashes with the police as exclusively the work of the far-right, has seen no reason to confirm or deny the Allahu Akbar claims, or indeed to comment on whether this clown was or was not on the MI-6 radar as a potential radical.

The narrative in the media is that the trouble on the streets is 'top down', that is it's being coordinated by far-right organisations, spreading flyers (fliers?) on social media calling for people to attend this or that venue for a protest. The truth seems rather different however; this morning's press seems to acknowledge that the organisation, such as it is, is going on at a more local level, the implication being that this is more grassroots up than top down.

This has to be more worrying for the police and the government. It suggests that this violence on the streets is just an extreme expression of what millions of people are feeling in themselves, but not speaking out about. Kemi Badenoch at least recognises this and speaks of the need for a "national conversation" about the failure of integration of the immigrant community into the main body of the UK population. Why multiculturalism has or is failing before our eyes. The media and liberal establishment don't want to hold this conversation, she says, but it is a very necessary one for us to have.

I must say that I agree with her. One area that perhaps we should address is that no-one asked the British public if they wanted their society transformed from what they knew, into a multi ethnic one that they didn't recognise. It was imposed on the people by government from above, by policy decisions regarding immigration and asylum processes, about which the people themselves were not consulted and even the formulators themselves seemed barely cognisant of what it was they were doing. Tony Blair famously predicted that his opening of the borders to Eastern Europeans would bring in numbers of around ten thousand, , but where hundreds of thousands arrived instead.

The blaming and labeling of this post-Southport trouble as simply "far right extremism" might be useful for a Prime Minister who would rather not publicly accept that the state has misjudged the mood of the people - and doesn't want the extent of this anger and dissatisfaction to be recognised - but it isn't going to solve the problems. Neither is this morning's veiled threat of imprisonment, with ministerial comments that "we have ample space in prisons to detain people convicted of carrying out public disorder offences" (funny - last week the service was about to break down completely, so overcrowded were our prisons; thousands of criminals were about to be released onto the streets if I recall correctly). Kier Stamer has announced the creation of a new security force for the controlling of public disorder and coordination of information at a national level, including the movement of police officers themselves around the country, to places where trouble is expected.

I think if you read an earlier post of mine, you'll see that I predicted he'd always take the most authoritarian route he could in dealing with any potential problem. Well pat on the back Peter - ten out of ten for stating the obvious. And welcome to Stamer's Britain. Well here's another prediction. If the unrest gets worse, it'll be regional curfews next. They'll dress it up as lock downs ala the covid era, but curfews is what it'll be.

And hundreds of protesters have been arrested, so we are told. Yes indeed they have. One was a 71 year old woman with a pacemaker, who'd turned up to Downing Street and was loudly protesting as they 'clapped the darbies' on her that she'd, "Come here for the children!", and that she'd, "Never been arrested before." In another sweeping arrest occurrence a TV presenter was hooked into a van, such was the police's zeal to scoop up anyone and everyone there.

But none of this is helping. Stamer can be as authoritarian as he likes, but the trouble will just keep breaking out. Without the discussion that Badenoch is calling for, without the dialogue I'm calling for with the disenfranchised and cast aside, none of it matters. It's all piss and wind and won't stop anything.

They planted the wind with all of the anti-immigration drip feed in the printed media, the same in the Brexit referendum campaign. Now they are reaping the whirlwind and they don't like it.
President of Peace? You fucking idiots!

"I know what America is. America is a thing that you can move very easily. Move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." (Benjamin Netenyahu 2001.)

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 12209
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 10 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

In coverage of the ongoing riots engulfing the streets of towns and cities across the UK, the media persists in saying that the mobs are acting in the belief that the perpetrator of the Southport killings was a Muslim immigrant, recently arrived on our shores from the small boats that wash up almost daily on the east coast.

This is nonsense. Everyone and his mother knows by now he was home bred, born in Cardiff of Rwandan parents. In respect of the Muslim bit, certainly speculation exists, but the police investigating his background have neither confirmed nor denied this to be the case.

And while the deaths of the girls do also remain a significant factor, their remains a large part of the frustration and anger engendering these outbreaks of disorder, that stems from a wider belief that they, the rioters, represent a section of society in which our political and chattering classes has no interest in - no desire to better their lot, when set against looking after the interests of the various diverse groups of our atomised society that seemingly are more worthy in their eyes of attention. A commentator observed yesterday that in the eyes of our polity and media, far-right has effectively become synonymous with white working class. There is truth in this.

Indeed there is truth in this. I'm a big fan of Novara Media in most instances, but founder Aron Bastani was saying yesterday that the rioters had nothing in common with the working people he spoke with on a regular basis, did not represent any type of thinking he encountered on his daily forays out into communities.

Hardly surprising. He spoke of talking to doctors and teachers, but no mention of builders, garbage collectors or shelf stackers in our supermarkets. This element of society might as well not exist from his London-centric field of view: if he passes them on his way to work each day from the suburbs, I doubt he even notices them. And this guy considers himself a Marxist. Such Marxism is entirely an intellectual exercise and has no interest in the day to day gut wrenching existence of a bypassed generation grubbing out an existence in the Northern towns and cities of our country.

And I listened to our new Home Secretary Evette Cooper on the news last night. Pinched little face furrowed in appropriate expression, alternation between cod-anger and overstated gravitas, she hammed her way through an interview. "Such violent disorder and thuggery will not be tolerated on our streets. The police have our full support and backing. The courts and prisons stand ready to convict and imprison those taking part in these events." If she said it once she said it a dozen times. Like a stuck record, she answered every question put to her with the same prepared stock cliche. It became almost embarrassing to listen to. Even the Sunday Mail comments in its subheading that, "All we are getting is shiny new Ministers spouting student platitudes."

Commentators less bought in to the 'right-wing activists' narrative being wrung for all its value by our politicians still failed to get the game. Talk Radio commentator Isabelle Oakshot said that Kier Stamer with his pigeon-holing of the rioters as far-right extremists was still failing to get it - that the unrest was a visible and destruvtive form of the frustration and anger felt by large numbers of the population. I agree with the latter but not that Stamer doesn't understand this. He's perfectly cognisant of it. It's just a reality he'd rather not express openly.

There is no sign whatsoever that the government have any intention of addressing the issues resulting in this disorder, other than via authoritarian crackdowns and custodial sentencing. As if this will do anything other than throw fuel on the fire of the already out of the bag dissent. Certainly, in a period, this behaviour will burn itself out. Once these idiots out on the streets have burned up the fuel of their anger (or have grown bored of the 'fun' in many cases) the mobs will dissipate. Drift back to their place, out of site, out of mind to the establishment and media, but not forgotten by Stamer's behind the scenes minions. Here work will proceed to put mechanisms in place for dealing with such outbursts. Cross-country coordination between police forces; units to sweep into areas of insurrection to rapidly disperse and put down such dissenting behaviour, to nip it in the bud and make the perpetrators dissapear. New laws will be formulated, organisations proscribed, forms of communication and messaging outlawed, and things generally tightened up. As the Home Secretary says, disagreement will not be tolerated! (Well, that's what she'd like to say anyway.)

But anyway, here we are. Summer in Stalin's - sorry Stamer's England. Summer it might be, but sunny it ain't.

-----0-----

I'm glad that questions are being raised about the conviction of Lucy Letby, the nurse who was jailed for the murder of 7 babies in the neonatal ward she was employed in over a number of years.

I don't necessarily believe in her innocence, but at the time of her trial I was certainly uncomfortable with the media coverage and the presumption of guilt that seemed to pervade it. How, I wondered, is this woman supposed to get a fair trial in the face of this daily almost relishing presentation of the details being considered. The jury might or might not be influenced by such coverage, but even judges are human and this guy must know what is expected of him.

She was duly convicted, but on largely circumstantial evidence presented by the pediatric colleagues she had worked with - doctors who, it never seemed to be considered, might have been less than impartial when considering the cause of deaths of babies that were supposedly under their medical care.

It has slowly emerged that I was not alone in my misgivings and now this morning we read that the deaths of the babies under consideration fall within a time period when there was a particular risk of pseudomonas infection, causing spikes of deaths in neonatal wards across the country.

I really hope that there hasn't been a miscarriage of justice here, because if there has been, then an innocent woman will have been to Hell and back for no purpose. To be presented by a voyeuristic media, slavering at every detail, as being the next thing to the antichrist is not a thing that could be easily overcome, let alone being caged in a prison for heinous crimes against babies (with all the punishment from other prisoners that that would entail) that you did not commit....the consequences to ones mind would be unthinkable, and unlikely to be recoverable from.

But given these considerations, if a shred of doubt exists that a miscarriage has occurred, it must be investigated. It would be less than human to do anything other.
President of Peace? You fucking idiots!

"I know what America is. America is a thing that you can move very easily. Move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." (Benjamin Netenyahu 2001.)

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 12209
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 10 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

"STOKING RACE RIOTS FROM HIS SUNBED!, screams the Daily Mail. "Former EDL leader Tommy Robinson ralaxes on sunbed in Cyprus while fuelling violence across UK with inflammatory posts."

Funny how they seem to have forgotten the years of drip, drip, feed against immigration, boat people, Muslim clerics and mosque leaders, from the pages of their own huge circulation nationalist rag.

But suddenly it's all the fault of the 'far right'.

Only a clown would say that the extreme right of the UK political spectrum have not played their part in stoking - even organising - the wave of deplorable violence that has swept across the country in the wake of the Southport killings, but my god, the right wing media has played its role too.

And neither does the state itself escape responsibility. We've had Rishi Sunak and his erstwhile Home Secretary Suella Braverman almost obsessed with 'stopping the boats' (it was a really useful bit of misdirection from the fuck up that your governments had made of country wasn't it Rishi), hammering on about it day after day and even putting it into their top five pledges list. Then we had the Brexit leave campaign, which essentially rested upon the basis of nothing but a racist desire to 'get them foreigners out of here'. (People today still deny this. I was roundly disagreed with in this very thread for saying so - but we all now acknowledge in our hearts the truth of it.)

We've had Theresa May with her "Go Home!" billboard vans circulating the areas of our cities most lived in by the immigrant communities: she even said as Home Secretary that she intended to make this country an "unwelcoming place" for immigrants to live in.

Then we've had the quieter, more insidious behind the scenes influences, like the Michael Gove inspired 'Prevent' program, which made great capital explaining how its purpose was to identify and pull in individuals at risk of 'radicalisation' by extreme elements both within and without our society. It might have been the case that this applied to the far right indoctrination that was also being peddled online - but the emphasis was clearly understood to be against radical Islamist influences rather than this now so extremely evident threat, given what we are witnessing today. Gosh - we all had so much to fear from those Islamists didn't we?

And what about the petty actors in this ongoing play? The Robert Jenrick's with his scrubbing murals off the walls of children's refugee centers (Too welcoming!), the Farage's with his posters of lines of immigrants queuing up to enter the country? Damn it, if I haven't convinced you yet of the establishment role in all of this, go and read The Fate of Abraham bt Peter Obourne. He's written a whole damn book about it.

So when Kier Stamer steps up to the podium in Downing Street once again to blame the far right (we've had two of his 'adress the nation' talks already and the bugger's only been PM for three weeks - talk about a 'honeymoon period'), remember the state and media role in all of this as well. They don't get to walk away with clean slates from this either. Not so long ago they were tearing the pro-Palestinian protesters to shreds. It was all pictures of scarf wrapped protesters waving Palestinian flags that were the focus of the political class and media's ire. Didn't hear Kier Stamer throwing his support in behind the immigrants who have been driven out of their homelands, or even the Palestinians being murdered in Gaza, at that point did we? Or shrewy Evette Cooper throwing her support behind those people. But anyway - we Brits have showed them pro-Palestinian marchers how to do a protest haven't we. Burning terrified people in their refugee hotels, smashing windows and tearing up flagstones - that's how we do it! Forget peacefully marching down the road waving a flag, won't you!


As for the scenes we've witnessed, they've been horrendous. Mindless idiots who are besides themselves in their glee to be 'out there sticking it to them'. They wouldn't recognise a cause if it was in a bag held before their eyes. If they ever get their wishes and 'take their streets back' then God help us all. But the trite commentary of Stamer and Evette Cooper that, "These people do not represent the British public," is simply not true (or not simply true). They are of us. They are a part of us. We made them, but more specifically you made them. They are a product, honed and sharpened by the far right for sure, but made by years of state sanctioned and promoted Islamophobia, for now which, they would rather we forget all about.

(Ps. How long before the army is out on the streets. Not long if this carries on. They are preparing us for it. And at least something of what I'm saying above is being recognised in the media. The Guardian has a piece in which Dame Sarah Khan, Rishi Sunak's advisor on cultural cohesion, accuses the Conservatives of ignoring the red-flags of warning and (more significantly, I think) actively "stoking the fires with a culture war agenda." Funny thing is that today, of the chief footsoldiers of this, of Suella Braverman, of Nigel Farage, of Robert Jenrick and 30p Lee Anderson, we are hearing nothing.)
President of Peace? You fucking idiots!

"I know what America is. America is a thing that you can move very easily. Move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." (Benjamin Netenyahu 2001.)

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 12209
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 10 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

In 1991 I attended the Rugby Union County Championships final at Twickenham.

Acknowledged by the Wikipedia page as being "the greatest match in the history of the competition", attendance at 56,000 was a record turnout in the over a hundred years history of the competition.

As we made our way up the motorway to London from Cornwall, every vehicle you could see was flying Cornish flag and every filling station was athrong with the yellow and black striped shirts of the team.

Spirits were high and they built to a crescendo within the famous rugby stadium itself, where the yellow and black en masse transformed itself in the stands to a veritable facsimile of the Cornish gorse hedges and clifftops so familiar to residents of the county.

The Cornish crowd outnumbered the Yorkshire supporters 3 to 1 and it is said that some large proportion of the county's men had made the journey, to witness a final that had not been taken by their team for 90 years.

The Cornish songs were issuing out from the crowd at full volume and Mexican waves ran round the stadium alongside the cheers that went with them.

The match itself, was unbelievable. By half time Yorkshire were 16 points in the lead and Cornwall were done for. They came out of the dressing rooms to a cheer that was almost savage in its intensity and somehow it must have spurred them on. They scored. And then they scored again. And again. And suddenly they were in with a shout. As the final whistle approached they were one try behind and the impossible happened. They equalised in the final 30 seconds of the match and the crowd went wild.

Yorkshire came out for extra time, but it seemed that they were broken. I'm not sure they scored again and Cornwall finally took the game after the short period of extra time by a score of 29-20. The crowd erupted, grown men wept while others shouted themselves horse. The yellow and black surged into the air with a shout of triumph the like of which few people ever get to hear. One of my travelling companions from the coach I was on, turned to me. "This is your first rugby match, isn't it?", he asked me. I acknowledged this. "Don't bother to go and see any more," he said, "You'll never see a better one than that."

In fact not only was it the first rugby or football event I'd attended, it was the one and only sporting event, before or since, I've been to in my life. When I occasionally tell this story, I can always tell that people think that no doubt this was a terrific event - but equally I can see that they don't really get the significance of it. I guess in this case, you really did have to be there.

But for any doubters, I'd refer you to the coverage in the Sunday Times sport section of the following morning. The words have been emblazoned into my soul from that day onwards. The report began, "You'd have to be dead from the neck upwards not to realise that what happened at Twickenham yesterday afternoon was one of the greatest turnarounds in the history of sport." The report went on to speak of the words of the Yorkshire captain, interviewed following the final result. "It was almost frightening," he said, "to run out onto a field with a crowd like that." He went on to say that Yorkshire knew they were beaten, even as they filed out following the half-time break when they were 16 points in the lead. "There was no way you could win against a crowd like that!"

Needless to say, the weekend continued in great spirits and I could write a book on how it went (the Japanese tourists incident, the humming bag, Scotland Yard....the story goes on) but enough for this thread.

Just to observe that there is reason as to why I tell this tale today. Because I read in today's Telegraph that they're changing the name of the stadium to the Allianz Stadium. OK, no doubt the RFU has its reasons for doing so, but the question has to remain - why would you do this? Twickenham is like Wembley, like Aintree, like the Oval. It's history, it's cheers and tears, it means something. Sure you can make some sponsorship money or whatever from doing it, but come on! Some things you just don't mess with!
President of Peace? You fucking idiots!

"I know what America is. America is a thing that you can move very easily. Move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." (Benjamin Netenyahu 2001.)

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 62038
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Contact:

What Do You Think Today?

Post by Avatar »

What? Changing the name of Twickenham? That's...just...wrong...
David Kramer wrote:Ja ons ouens was rof in die ou dae [Yes, we fellows were rough in the old days], but we played a gentleman’s game,
Now it’s all been spoiled by politics, it’s never going to be the same...
On the main topic though, while I certainly agree that the state is far from blameless in the stoking of anti-immigrant etc. feelings, I do sorta feel that this is the state (haha) of affairs that the state has largely inherited. So...calling it "Stamer's Britain" is perhaps a touch disingenuous. ;) (Not that you didn't make clear the role of the previous admin in this.)

Also, of course it is easier to characterise it as right-wing extremism...while it may not capture the full extent (or spread) of dissatisfaction, it also gives people a way out, and makes it easier for them (regardless of who they are) to disavow it.

Anyway, very messy all round, quite surprised that it has come to this, which only goes to show the depth and extent of that dissatisfaction, fear, and of course, the deep undercurrent of nostalgic conservatism that is a true (if subtle) reflection of the British psyche.

--A
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 12209
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 10 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

Fair points Av, and yes, you are pretty much nailing it.

But there is nil attempt at the government level to adress the very real concerns of people at the sharp edge of policies that have huge effects in their lives - just a single minded focus on right wing adventurism, the influence of social media and misinformation. Not a word spoken on the pressure on social housing, school places, NHS and social service resources all of which play into the everyday lives of millions of people, are hugely effecting on the lives they live, but never for a moment make the slightest impact on the political class who made the decisions that have brought us to this place. We must go back certainly to the Blair government, whose actions disrupted the fragile balance of the 1990's in respect of immigration into the country and public acceptance thereof. (nb. You have to go back to the (what?) late 70's for the previous 'wave' of high anti-immigrant feeling. I remember the National Front marches and poster campaigns in London at that time. By the 90's things had settled into a relatively harmonious acceptance.)

But yesterday's response from the right, was of 'two tier policing'. It was all over the right wing press and eagerly jumped on by politicians and commentators of the right, as mitigation for the scenes we were seeing.

"Why was it," they asked, "that the pro-Palestinian marchers had been handled with such a soft touch, but the protests of the previous days had been faced with a much more confrontational type of policing - coppers in armoured gear banging batons against riot shields and the like." Had this not played into the violence that we had witnessed?

While there is truth in this, I'm not convinced it represents the type of two-tier policing the right would have us believe. For starters, the pro-Palestinian marchers were concerned with peace. Yes of course there were a tiny militant fragment who shouted hostile comments against Israel, but these were a minority. The marchers of the post-Southport killings have been far more aggressive, whipped up by the emotion of the killings and stirred by social media into a boiling overspill of resentment and anger. The police are, I think, just responding to the facts they encounter on the ground. And yes, this in turn feeds back in a viscous cycle of escalating violence.

But now there is talk moving the charges being brought against those arrested, from the 'creation of a public disorder' level, into that of terrorism, which carries significantly higher penalties up to and including life imprisonment.

This is, I feel, taking it too far. To charge the average individual arrested in these protests, thugs waving Union Jack's and throwing stuff at the police, with terrorism, is not a fair representation of their offence. Certainly where individuals are seen to have set fires in buildings in which they know refugees are being housed, these individuals should feel the force of the law in the form of attempted murder charges. But the charges must be reflective of the crime, not knee-jerk reactions to the circumstances of the day.

But, but, but.....

In rejecting the arguments of the right about two-tier policing, I am slightly uncomfortable. I've known a number of horribly racist policemen in my time and a student who went to the bar (as in he became a barrister) I was acquainted with in my youth, and who rose to high position in the profession, was simply the most racist individual I have ever encountered. If his was the prevailing belief of the social class he represented (he came from a legal family and such beliefs must have been drilled into him as he grew up in his extremely privileged background), then the operation of the judicial system would certainly have been two-tier and this would seep across into government policy and downward into policing practices at the level of the street. More than this I cannot say.

But to go back, for the government to deny out of hand that there's anything other than right wing extremism behind the disorder we have seen is disingenuous. The policies on dealing with immigration have been cack-handed, the impacts on communities ill thought through, and the resultant frictions and resentment entirely predictable. Put these feelings of anger on top of those engendered by a longstanding ignoring of their social class by a liberal establishment media and polity, more,even a condescension by the same, and the mix becomes explosive.
President of Peace? You fucking idiots!

"I know what America is. America is a thing that you can move very easily. Move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." (Benjamin Netenyahu 2001.)

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 62038
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Contact:

What Do You Think Today?

Post by Avatar »

peter wrote: Not a word spoken on the pressure on social housing, school places, NHS and social service resources all of which play into the everyday lives of millions of people, are hugely effecting on the lives they live, but never for a moment make the slightest impact on the political class who made the decisions that have brought us to this place. We must go back certainly to the Blair government, whose actions disrupted the fragile balance of the 1990's in respect of immigration into the country and public acceptance thereof. (nb. You have to go back to the (what?) late 70's for the previous 'wave' of high anti-immigrant feeling. I remember the National Front marches and poster campaigns in London at that time. By the 90's things had settled into a relatively harmonious acceptance.)
Since most of my experience of the country was from the mid-90's to the very early 2000's, it probably helps explain why I was so surprised. I remember that harmonious acceptance. (For the most part.) But yes, the social / civil landscape has changed significantly from then, and people are looking for outlets or people to blame etc.

And I certainly agree that the two-tier thing seems unlikely to play out the way that the...uh...instigators(?) are claiming...if anything, I would expect it the other way around...I mean...just look at the climate protestors etc. and the recent legal changes around protesting which I recall you yourself decrying.

That said...the terrorism thing is definitely a bridge too far...It is certainly becoming a bit of a catch-all (all over the world) that excuses whatever oppressive thing the government feels like carrying out. If y'all aren't careful, you'll lose your sense of humour entirely the way the Americans have done...

--A
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 12209
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 10 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

My bugger is getting a bit worn round the edges already Av.

It's barely past 7 o'clock in the morning and already I'm angry!

The UK Supreme Court judges have ruled that the lass who was recruited to go and join the Islamic State in Syria as a teenager, Shamima Begum, has lost the right to appeal the stripping of her UK citizenship.

This may seem fair to lots of people - I have little doubt that she has done, or been party to terrible things being done in the course of her period abroad - but none of these things alter two significant facts.

She was born in the UK to Bangladeshi immigrant parents, which as far as I'm aware gives her status as a UK citizen. Secondly, she was a minor when she was convinced to make the journey to join Daesh, which effectively makes her a victim of trafficking rather than a cognisant adult aware of the likely consequences of what she was doing.

If Ms Begum has commited crimes while abroad, then let her answer for them in a British court. But don't turn her into a stateless individual because she made a mistake as a girl. If Shamima Begum can be stripped of her citizenship, then so can any British person walking the streets of the UK today.

I thought these guys in the Supreme Court were supposed to be Judges - not lackeys working to effect the petty vindictiveness of the politicians who are calling the shots on this.

Shame on them.

-----0-----

And today we're all touchy-feely in the press because the good protesters are out. Not those horrid far right ones, or those jihadi screaming, keffiyeh wearing pro-Palestinian activists. But rather those nice hug-a-hoodie anti-racism protesters, coming out in force to put a protective arm around the Muslim community that is feeling scared and threatened by the things that have been going on in the last few days.

Not that I blame them. It's been fucking shameful what we have seen, and thankfully it seems to be going back into its box again, ready for the next time it is called out by this tragedy or that horrific event.

But make no mistake, the media will be back to its usual tricks before long. It won't take long before the Telegraph has a new spread on the boat people "invading" our shores. The Mail will find themselves a new 'hate preacher' in a mosque somewhere or a Muslim family in receipt of benefits with twelve kids and a hotel being given to them to live in. Take it from me, it'll be back to business as usual in the blink of an eye, as sure as night follows day. Already Conservative leadership hopeful Robert Jenrick has said that the shouting of Allahu Akbar (God is Great) should be an arrestable offence: no doubt that will play well with the Conservative membership.

No, years of state sponsored Islamophobia isn't going to be dropped overnight. They've been a bit taken aback by the ferocity of the response in the last few days - suddenly they love the Muslim community.....they are 'part of us'.....but the truth of the establishment position towards Islam is far more accurately depicted by their vindictive treatment of Shamima Begum, than by today's softie love in with the anti hate protesters (who's motives in getting out there I absolutely get on board with, seeing them as far more genuine than anything issuing from our media or political class).
President of Peace? You fucking idiots!

"I know what America is. America is a thing that you can move very easily. Move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." (Benjamin Netenyahu 2001.)

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 62038
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Contact:

What Do You Think Today?

Post by Avatar »

Agree on the citizenship thing.

Also, thought the "good" protestors were indeed a good thing...if nothing else, it's the kind of protest I prefer to see.

That said, you are of course right about how quickly the press will go back to the "immigrants bad" narrative. :roll:

--A
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 12209
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 10 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

Yea - agree about the protesters Av.

My sarcasm was reserved entirely for the media with its paper-thin schmaltzy coverage that will morph back into its nasty anti-islamic undertones in a matter of days (in fact it's creeping back in already).

I agree with Neil Oliver - we're being played like violins throughout the whole of this situation: group set against group, this tribe against that, ramp it up, then pull it back down. The whole thing is media orchestrated (be it social or legacy) and those pulling the strings will win, choose what the results are.

He observes that to undergo the level of compressed demographic change that this country has since 2001 (probably the greatest experienced by any single country outside of conquest in the history of the world) cannot come without consequence. This is a given irrespective of which side of the fence you sit on. The country of mine and his earlier life is gone - and it isn't coming back. London has now (as an example) an ethnic minority population that outnumbers the historically 'indigenous' one. And no-one asked the people if they wanted this. It was foist on them from above with no consultation or explanation as to what would result.

These things have consequences and it is being wilfully disingenuous not to acknowledge this. These are not things dependant upon your position upon this - you might feel that the change in demographic is the best thing in the world - but the facts remain. Unlike America, we are not and never have been an immigrant population. Yes, there has been small influxes of immigrants over periods in the past, but since the conquest at least, the population has remained very static. We are not 'made up' for this type of compressed change.

Oliver goes on to point out that each year,on average, a new population the size of Newcastle is entering the country. With no concurrent increase in infrastructure to accommodate this additional burden, the situation (it isn't difficult to see) becomes untenable. Short of people sleeping on the streets it simply doesn't work. The health service, the education facilities, the medical and housing infrastructure has simply been ignored in the face of this increase in population. And people are asking why there is trouble? Those who have made these demographic changes come about have never for one day had to live at the sharp edge of them.

This was all entirely predictable, but to do so was to risk being called out as racist, nazi and to have every vile epitaph under the sun attached to your name.

And now, in consequence, here we are sitting on a tinderbox of 80 million people waiting for some fucking idiot to provide the spark. It could be someone like that c**t in Southport, or it could be a cack-handed mismanagement of the situation from the top down. But like it or not, the policy that has been followed by the people we have elected to provide for our best interests has led us to a pretty dark place.

I have no idea how this resolves itself. But I'm absolutely sure that it isn't by taking to the streets and smashing things up. I'm also sure that turning upon ourselves in the 'civil war' that Elon Musk and others keep going on about is something that nobody in their right mind wants to see. I've no desire to see the country of my birth go up in flames and don't think anything good could emerge on the other side of it. To buy into the xenophobia of hatred of those who have come to our country is misjudged in the extreme. We are the people - all of us - who together have been let down by our supposed betters. United, our ire should be directed upwards at those whose mismanagement has brought this about. To buy into the divisive rhetoric that they have used to drive a wedge between the groups that make up our collective society is to play into their hands. They thrive on this division because it deflects the rightful anger of the people away from them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We don't need Kier Stamer and his authoritarian focus on crushing the dissent on the one side, while wilfully ignoring the causes on the other. We need a the softer approach of Jeremy Corbyn (or whoever could take up his mantle), in which immediately the money is raised via a fair and proper progressive tax system, to make good on the failings of previous governments of the right and left, to provide adequate services for the millions of newcomers who like it or not (and I do like it) are here to stay.

And this can only be achieved via the ballot box - and most certainly not by turning upon each other in the streets.
President of Peace? You fucking idiots!

"I know what America is. America is a thing that you can move very easily. Move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." (Benjamin Netenyahu 2001.)

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 12209
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 10 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

I've been watching the press coverage of the recent arrest of ex page 3 model and realty TV star Katie Price, aka Jordan, and have been cognisant of the 'sniffy' tone it has taken.

It's almost like there is an undertone of 'serves you right' or 'what else would you expect from her' about it.

Price had been summoned to appear before the court in a bankruptcy case (I assume she has declared bankruptcy - her financial woes have been another source of condescending coverage in the media), but had failed to appear due to apparently work commitments abroad (her own reason as given to the police who exercised the arrest warrant made out subsequent to her failure to show). She has appeared wearing a bandage, apparently due to facial surgery she has received while abroad filming, but her excuses have cut little ice with the sitting judge, who said her reasons for not showing up were evasive and not acceptable to the court.

It's easy to adopt a holier than thou attitude with Katie Price - she's an easy target. Painted as a chavy icon from day one of her career, she's catered to the lowest common denominator in terms of her cultural contribution and has made a fortune (and apparently lost it) on the back of it. Stories of her have abounded - the state of disrepair and dirt in her homes, her constantly changing toy-boy lovers, each more bovine in appearance and intellect than the last, her ridiculous penchant for pink Rolls Royce's or whatever 'glam' accessory she'd be seen with next. It's all been conducted under a media spotlight that has not spared showing her, warts and all, in every minute detail of her often difficult existence.

Well fair enough, that I guess, is what she does. And those who live by the sword etc etc.

But I've always had a grudging liking for her. As a young appearer on the I'm a Celebrity show (back in the early days, when I watched it) she struck me as rather lovely. Striking beautiful (before all of the surgery) she had a youthful simplicity about her that was becoming, and watching her form her relationship with her soon to be husband Peter Andre, one got the idea that she was actually a really nice lass.

She was certainly already a divisive figure even at that point in her career - her modelling and much visible augmentations made sure of that - but I was conscious that here was a girl that had made a serious career out of the one thing she had visibly been born with - her looks. And for all its tackyness in the eyes of her critics, it was a serious career that made her a serious pile of money. There's an old adage, 'get rich, get famous - by good means if you can, but by any means if you can't'. She seemed to epitomise it. And her work, love it or hate it, was working the oracle. It wasn't hurting anyone (except perhaps herself), and was maybe bringing many people a lot of happiness in an odd sort of way. Was it promoting disrespect of women in our society? Only if you already had that disrespect in you already, to my mind.

And then there was her disabled son, who she clearly loved with all her being, and who far from hiding away, she took with her all the way into her post modelling career as a reality TV star.

I'm not a watcher of reality TV - I prefer the other worlds of fantasy, having just as much reality of my own that I can cope with - but many people are. And they derive much pleasure from doing so. If you can provide this kind of entertainment, can stand the 24-7 scrutiny of the cameras documenting your every pratfall, then more power to your elbow. And for those who do watch the programs that result, I don't find that I can criticise them either (and what right would I have to anyway). Life is hard. You take your release from it where you can, the way that works for you. The transient sensation of watching someone else go through the grind, making all the same booboo's as you - that's okay too. And I'm guessing that the same underlying niceness that I saw in the jungle was, all these years and all these calamities later, still there. Otherwise people would not have watched her in the numbers that they have done. If there was no empathy, no liking for her, they'd watch for a bit and then turn away.

So let's cut the girl some slack. Sure - this latest episode in front of the courts and needless to say, the cameras as well, is probably as thought out, as scripted as the rest of it - designed keep her in the public eye (by those good means or otherwise), but it's what she does. The papers and media are still there, the public are still watching, and she's still doing what she's always done, spinning a living (and a very fat one) out of the one thing that life has granted her - her ability to keep people looking at her.

(Edit: And she of course is the female version of the 'white van man', the chavs that we can all look down on from our pedistal of liberal middle-class superiority. The type of attitude that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being out on the streets engaging in an orgy of destruction in the last few days. Let's not forget that. )
President of Peace? You fucking idiots!

"I know what America is. America is a thing that you can move very easily. Move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." (Benjamin Netenyahu 2001.)

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 12209
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 10 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

Let's just report on the story that didn't make the headlines today - presumably because, what, Ukraine's taking of a town inside Russia (Sunday Times) or access to PM Stamer being limited by his Chief of Staff Sue Gray (Sunday Mail) ot the NHS asking men if they are pregnant before scans (Sunday Telegraph) is more important.

That would be the killing of 80 people including many children in an Israeli missile strike on a school-mosque complex in Gaza that was serving as a refuge for some 6000 displaced people.

It was just prior to morning prayers that the 3 Israeli missiles struck the Tabeen Mosque-school complex, fired according to the IDF, on the basis of a number of key Hamas combatants operating a "command and control post" from the site. No corroborative evidence to support this has been provided.

The Israeli administration says that it does "not recognise" the death figures being given out by the Palestinian Health Authority, figures which some think could reach 100, but eyewitness accounts of Sky journalists on the site confirmed the presence of "dozens" of wrapped bodies laid in rows at the site,which was still strewn with bodies and body parts as they reported. Women, children and the elderly were among those killed as they gathered for the morning prayer, said Abu Anas, a rescue worker on the site.

The Egyptian foreign ministry condemned the strike and said the continued killing of civilians in the ongoing conflict was further evidence that Israel lacked the "political will" to find a route to a ceasefire in the ongoing conflict. America said it would be asking questions of its Israeli colleagues and UK foreign secretary David Lammy said that "Israel must abide by international law." Strong stuff eh, David - still, you were a vocal supporter of "Israel's right to defend itself," weren't you. Do you still think that this constitutes them defending themselves? Nearly what, forty thousand dead people with tens of thousands more missing and unaccounted for, later; do you still believe this?

Meanwhile the WHO has announced that it intends to supply large numbers of doses of polio vaccines to Gaza, in response to a rising threat of an upsurge in the disease due to lack of clean drinking water. Good luck with that mates: you can't get a cheese sandwich across the border into Gaza as we speak, let alone fifty thousand doses of polio vaccine. Why would the Israelis allow you to stymie the contribution of their old friend 'disease' to aiding them in the task at hand. Bullets or bacterium - same difference to them. A good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian in their eyes, and it matters not how it comes about.

But of course, none of this is newsworthy in our media's eyes. People aren't interested in this stuff; not with the Olympics ongoing and pictures of "Golden Keeley" sunning herself on the beach in her 850 pound sliders (whatever they are) to run. Oh no, no, no. It's Sunday morning for God's sake! Have a bit of respect for people's sensibilities why don't you!
President of Peace? You fucking idiots!

"I know what America is. America is a thing that you can move very easily. Move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." (Benjamin Netenyahu 2001.)

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 12209
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 10 times

What Do You Think Today?

Post by peter »

I'm not sure about what the Ukrainian forces hope to achieve by their concentrated attack onto Russian territory of recent days - but more to the point, neither do commentators at a much higher level of understanding, both inside Ukraine and out.

It seems that rather than resupply the faltering lines of the east, where their troops are being mauled by the Russian forces, they have elected to spend elite troops in an essentially PR exercise, designed to raise morale or convince the West that their dollars are not being wasted.

But the exercise comes at great risk. It is a nose snubbing at Putin that he will not be able to ignore. He'll have to win back this territory and when he does the Ukrainian forces (and government) will look ridiculous. Maybe they think that drawing Russian troops away from the eastern flank will weaken it to the point where territory can be won back, but this only looks like a temporary plus at best. And meanwhile the slaughter in the east goes on.

Another mooted suggestion is that it is Ukraine's attempt to show Putin and the West that when it goes to the negotiating table later this year (as it is predicted that it will do) it does not do so from a position of weakness wherefrom it must accept any and every term thrown at it.

And who knows, maybe this will work. But the liklihood is (if Professor John Mearsheimere is to be believed) that the conflict will end before the end of 2025, at which point the circumstances from which it resulted will be placed under scrutiny. At this point the part that America played in 2008 in declaring that Ukraine must accede to Nato membership (against the wishes of Merkel and Sarkozy) will be examined, along with its role in later failure of the Minsk agreement to be implemented.

History will cast a critical eye on Western interference in Ukrainian politics - but that of course won't be much consolation to the hundreds of thousands killed in the conflict that resulted from this failure of statecraft.
President of Peace? You fucking idiots!

"I know what America is. America is a thing that you can move very easily. Move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." (Benjamin Netenyahu 2001.)

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion Forum”