Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The Tories are going to lose this election fighting a culture war nobody else wants to participate in and I can't wait for it.
The trouble with right-wing populism is that you need to be popular to enact it, which they're not, and the policies need to be popular, which they aren't.
People care about the price of the shopping, mortgages, the NHS, and education, which Braverman and her cohort of other National Socialists Conservatives are wilfully ignoring. People rightfully couldn't care less about people rocking up on the south coast and then the government creating an artificial immigration problem by deliberately not processing claims fast enough.
She's targeting the very people she as Home Secretary is in charge of dealing with. If immigration is out of control she is either too incompetent to do her job or she's manufacturing a problem which doesn't exist. Either way she shouldn't be anywhere near government.
The problem, and I will concede that there is a problem (albeit far less than portrayed), may only be of concern to a noisy minority, but the Conservatives, with the assistance of certain parts of the media, are going to magnify it and ram it down everybody’s throats until enough people think it is a problem. Then they become the only ones to deal with the problem that most concerns the voters, or at least the selected sample that they push forward.
Saying it’s “cultural” when some men abuse children and not saying it’s “cultural” when other men do is a dog-whistle. Nothing more, nothing less.
The Rotherham gang were the same as Jeffrey Epstein or Jonathan King or Cyril Smith or Jimmy Savile or Fred Talbot or Greville Janner or Max Clifford or Gary Glitter in what they did and who they targeted.
I agree that there are individuals (and groups of individuals) in all cultures who view women and girls as second class citizens at best, and objects to abuse at worst. So yes there are parallels between the Rotherham, Oldham, Telford etc. grooming gangs and the kind of individuals you've mentioned above. They're all evil people who prey on the vulnerable.
There is however, at the very least, a serious question over whether in the case of the various grooming gangs the victims ethnicity was significant due to "cultural reasons". When you have people from within the Pakistani community saying that this almost certainly played a part we should really listen. The question is would these men have abused an Asian girl the same way given the opportunity? I don't know the answer obviously, but the inference is that they probably wouldn't have, which presents a slightly different issue.
Anyone who does not plan to remain here long-term should not have the vote and therefore be able to influence decisions affecting this country long after they have left
The problem, and I will concede that there is a problem (albeit far less than portrayed), may only be of concern to a noisy minority, but the Conservatives, with the assistance of certain parts of the media, are going to magnify it and ram it down everybody’s throats until enough people think it is a problem. Then they become the only ones to deal with the problem that most concerns the voters, or at least the selected sample that they push forward.
True, but all the political parties do this and it's one way they see to getting themselves elected. Although they should be representing the people as a whole, they end up representing the subset of people who vote for them based on their invented agenda which they push as hard as they can to get as many people as they can to sign up to it and vote for them. Leaving the EU was the one that worked for the Conservatives last time; next election it may be something pushed by a different party that gets them elected.
When you have people from within the Pakistani community saying that this almost certainly played a part we should really listen. The question is would these men have abused an Asian girl the same way given the opportunity?
I wouldn’t know the answer either. I suspect probably not, but that isn’t particularly surprising- one is less likely to get caught if you target people outside of your community, particularly in more tight-knit communities.
My point is to question whether these gangs’ behaviour is somehow intrinsically linked to their ethnicity. I don’t think it is, otherwise most sexual predators wouldn’t be white men. For Braverman to try and suggest it is, in my opinion, nothing more than a dog-whistle.
As for “culture”, I think it comes down to a sense of entitlement, and this is not something which is limited to certain ethnic backgrounds. They can, so they do, and bugger everyone else. I don’t think this is a peculiarly Pakistani problem.
I grew up in Bradford and there were, and are, plenty of vile gangs in that city. Some were Pakistani, some were Albanian, some were White British. I wouldn’t say one ethnicity was any worse, or better.
I think there are serious grown-up questions to ask about how society creates these men and how different societies create these men in different ways. But Braverman isn’t asking these questions, she isn’t asking why the likes of Andrew Tate are so popular with young white boys, she’s dog-whistling.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Are you seriously drawing a parallel between women being underpaid* in the UK and women being treated as actual second-class citizens in some cultures?
I’m saying I wouldn’t be throwing stones when I live in a glass house.
The girls in Rotherham and Rochdale were not believed because we have a society which routinely doesn’t believe women. A Tory councillor recently had the whip withdrawn when his reaction to a serious sexual assault in London was that “it was probably a punter who didn’t pay LOL”. What do you do with a mindset like that?
Actually, that was something which I considered unfair about the last referendum. EU citizens with long term residence were denied the vote, even though they were most directly affected by it.
I have heard that this was actually EU rules (!), but it's still wrong - even if the UK government cannot be directly blamed for it.
I do think it is somewhat bizarre that if an American and a Canadian move here on the same day, both settle, buy a house, start a family, pay lots of taxes etc. - for at least the first 5 years the Canadian can vote and the American cannot, as naturalisation takes *at least* 5 years. But for some reason Labour aren't proposing to deal with that anomaly.
I wouldn’t know the answer either. I suspect probably not, but that isn’t particularly surprising- one is less likely to get caught if you target people outside of your community, particularly in more tight-knit communities.
Or alternatively, the victims "worth" and therefore suitability (for want of a better word) was dictated by their ethnicity. In reality, I strongly suspect it's a combination of both factors to be honest.
My point is to question whether these gangs’ behaviour is somehow intrinsically linked to their ethnicity. I don’t think it is, otherwise most sexual predators wouldn’t be white men. For Braverman to try and suggest it is is nothing more than a dog-whistle.
I think it's difficult to say. The likes of Gary Glitter are out and out paedophiles, whereas as per above it's quite possible that these men were motivated by something slightly different.
As for “culture”, I think it comes down to a sense of entitlement, and this is not something which is limited to certain ethnic backgrounds. They can, so they do, and bugger everyone else.
I think there are serious grown-up questions to ask about how society creates these men and how different societies create these men in different ways.
I think I agree, which is why if this was a well-thought-through proposal to address such anomalies, I'd be likely to support it. But in its current form it appears more to do with cynicism and political gain, rather than a fair and reasonable policy.
Especially women (or really girls in those cases) who primarily come from deprived poor backgrounds and in the view of the police/council weren't worth protecting anyway.
Especially women (or really girls in those cases) who primarily come from deprived poor backgrounds and in the view of the police/council weren't worth protecting anyway.
I think I agree, which is why if this was a well-thought-through proposal to address such anomalies, I'd be likely to support it. But in its current form it appears more to do with cynicism and political gain, rather than a fair and reasonable policy.
Could just be experimenting with the idea on a small group and see how it works before extending it further. It does appear that Commonwealth citizens with long term residence already have full rights to vote in general elections (https://www.electoralcommission.org...vote/can-a-commonwealth-citizen-register-vote) so extending this right to EU citizens is just taking the idea a little bit further.
Interestingly Malta and Cyprus citizens can already vote due to being part of the Commonwealth (which I didn't know, I have to admit).
I do agree it should be extended more generally, though.
Or, (or perhaps in addition), it could be Labour trying to strike a balance with the EU in order to signal they want a better relationship. They believe that freedom of movement is too big an electoral risk at the moment, so believe they cannot do that, so are signalling their relative friendliness to the EU in other ways.
not an unreasonable idea given pensioners got 10.1% last year and i bet they will be bought off again this year with full CPI uplift which will be less than 10% come September but at least 5% so that will be a tidy 15% pay rise when majority of workers who they rely upon will end with 7-9% at best over same period. Oh and not forgetting all the other tops they can get on winter fuel allowance etc but no party will ever disregard them despite old people being very reliant upon a functioning health care system.
Or alternatively, the victims "worth" and therefore suitability (for want of a better word) was dictated by their ethnicity. In reality, I strongly suspect it's a combination of both factors to be honest
Absolutely. I think it is human nature to “other” people from other tribes, for want of a better way of describing it. The grooming gangs will argue English girls are all promiscuous anyway, the far-right (and, yes, I include Braverman- specifically her, not her colleagues- in that) will argue all Pakistani men are rapists anyway.
I think there are serious conversations to be had about how Rotherham and Rochdale happened. Blaming ethnicity is not such a conversation.
Especially women (or really girls in those cases) who primarily come from deprived poor backgrounds and in the view of the police/council weren't worth protecting anyway.
Social services and the police drove some of the girls back to their abusers. There’s a tendency to “adult” children in their mid-teens at the best of times, more so vulnerable children who will be going out all dolled up and getting drunk and associating with older people.
It *could* be, but the specific choice of this group, combined with the fact that the party is currently lead by one of its more enthusiastic remainers and author of the rather disastrous 2nd referendum policy at the 2019 election, causes some degree of (I'd suggest rather reasonable) suspicion.
It does appear that Commonwealth citizens with long term residence already have full rights to vote in general elections
Indeed - as above, I only actually learned that yesterday. Always more things to find out
Or, (or perhaps in addition), it could be Labour trying to strike a balance with the EU in order to signal they want a better relationship. They believe that freedom of movement is too big an electoral risk at the moment, so believe they cannot do that, so are signalling their relative friendliness to the EU in other ways.
Perhaps, but unless the EU countries reciprocate - which I'd imagine is unlikely - I'm not at all sure we should be going down the route of one-sided gestures.
Especially women (or really girls in those cases) who primarily come from deprived poor backgrounds and in the view of the police/council weren't worth protecting anyway.
I think it was more that they weren't seen as credible witnesses due to their chaotic lives etc, and that it was thought that the CPS wouldn't prosecute
I think it was more that they weren't seen as credible witnesses due to their chaotic lives etc, and that it was thought that the CPS wouldn't prosecute
I think it was more that they weren't seen as credible witnesses due to their chaotic lives etc, and that it was thought that the CPS wouldn't prosecute.
Quite possibly: I think it was more that they weren't seen as credible witnesses due to their perceived chaotic lives etc, and that it was thought that the CPS wouldn't prosecute.
Unfortunately, some members of the establishment interpret the lives of others against their own. There are people who have developed 'work-arounds', ways to survive, so they can cope when something unexpected turns up, the sort of thing that will floor most others; they are used to it, it is normality for them, it is not chaotic, although it appears to be, as they are in control. Not all have by any means, but some.
The girls in Rotherham and Rochdale were not believed because we have a society which routinely doesn’t believe women. A Tory councillor recently had the whip withdrawn when his reaction to a serious sexual assault in London was that “it was probably a punter who didn’t pay LOL”. What do you do with a mindset like that?
Yes that was an appalling comment (I assume intended as a joke, but nonetheless in incredibly poor taste). But surely the fact that he was as a result expelled from the Tory party once his comments came to light shows not how common his attitude was, but the extent to which his attitude is viewed as an unacceptable aberration, far from the norms of society.
If he'd made the comments he did, and then he'd remained a Tory councillor, with most of his fellows not bothered about what he'd said and the Tory party concluding it was all OK, then you'd have had a good point, but that's not what happened.
I think it was more that they weren't seen as credible witnesses due to their chaotic lives etc, and that it was thought that the CPS wouldn't prosecute
The Tories are going to lose this election fighting a culture war nobody else wants to participate in and I can't wait for it.
The trouble with right-wing populism is that you need to be popular to enact it, which they're not, and the policies need to be popular, which they aren't.
People care about the price of the shopping, mortgages, the NHS, and education, which Braverman and her cohort of other National Socialists Conservatives are wilfully ignoring. People rightfully couldn't care less about people rocking up on the south coast and then the government creating an artificial immigration problem by deliberately not processing claims fast enough.
While the price of essentials and priority services rank higher at least some also consider wasted public funds including paying for hotels as accommodation plus part of the pressure on housing and hence mortgage costs is from immigration. Additional demand and cost right across healtcare too doctors, hospitals, dentists, vaccination services ..... In 1950 the UK population was 50m. By it reached 55m in 1968 and 60m in 2004. Now 67.7m i.e. 6.7m up in under 20 years.
She's targeting the very people she as Home Secretary is in charge of dealing with. If immigration is out of control she is either too incompetent to do her job or she's manufacturing a problem which doesn't exist. Either way she shouldn't be anywhere near government.
I would say it's a deep part of the culture in many countries (And indeed, for much of history was part of British culture and laws too, but thankfully we've largely moved on from that).
Culture changes with time Actually I'd see the incel movement as a subculture rather than a culture: I don't believe it's part of any traditional culture: It's not for example, something that you'd routinely see parents passing on to their children in any part of the World; rather, it seems to be a recent phenomenon that's come about online very recently. But to the extent that it induces men to treat women badly or even abuse them, I'd regard it as a serious problem to be tackled, in much the same way as I'd regard comparable attitudes that have been imported to the UK from other cultures through immigration (such as the way women are commonly regarded in some Asian countries).
Any Tory politicians complaining about allowing EU citizens residing in the UK to vote, but turning a blind eye to the fact party members outside the UK, with no UK citizenship or right to vote in General Elections, can vote for a Tory party leader is being a hypocrite:
It *could* be, but the specific choice of this group, combined with the fact that the party is currently lead by one of its more enthusiastic remainers and author of the rather disastrous 2nd referendum policy at the 2019 election, causes some degree of (I'd suggest rather reasonable) suspicion.
I'm not sure Starmer is an "enthusiastic remainer". I'd regard him as "remain-leaning".
For example he voted for Article 50 (use the search facility at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883) a conviction remainer would not do that.
Someone like David Lammy I would consider a more ardent remainer. Or, changing parties, Ken Clarke.
Perhaps, but unless the EU countries reciprocate - which I'd imagine is unlikely - I'm not at all sure we should be going down the route of one-sided gestures.
I'm not sure Starmer is an "enthusiastic remainer". I'd regard him as "remain-leaning".
For example he voted for Article 50 (use the search facility at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883) a conviction remainer would not do that.
He was in the shadow cabinet at the time and Corbyn imposed a three-line whip to vote for it. He would have had to resign his position to vote against. And the one thing Starmer appears to like even more than the EU is power, so I'm not surprised he didn't do what would appear to have been the 'principled' thing at that point. If you read his speech on 31st January 2017 on the issue, he makes it quite clear what his personal opinions are ('When I was imploring people up and down the country to vote in the referendum and to vote to remain...', 'I wish the result had gone the other way—I campaigned passionately for that', etc. etc.)
Maybe but if the aim is better relations with the EU without (yet) re-introducing some form of FoM, there is perhaps no need for reciprocation.
I don't think anyone is likely to politically feel able to introduce any form of FoM for some time, especially if the current rumours are true that net (legal) migration to the UK is likely to be around 1 million for 2022 when the figures are reported soon. Most people will be demanding that to be lower in future, not higher. (Though I suspect if that does happen, it makes it even more likely that Tory voters will sit out the next general election because they're increasingly asking 'what's the point of voting Tory when they never do anything they say they'll do', which should cheer you up
Absolutely - in my case there is no way I can conceive of ever voting for a Conservative party led by Boris Johnson (or Liz Truss, for that matter), whereas I can conceive of voting for a Conservative party led by Rishi Sunak.
While the price of essentials and priority services rank higher at least some also consider wasted public funds including paying for hotels as accommodation plus part of the pressure on housing and hence mortgage costs is from immigration. In 1950 the UK population was 50m. By it reached 55m in 1968 and 60m in 2004. Now 67.7m i.e. 6.7m up in under 20 years.
Yet, despite talking tough on immigration, this government isn't doing anything meaningful to sort out the problems. For example, there is a huge backlog of asylum cases, meaning that a lot of people are stuck in limbo - unable to work while waiting on a decision.
We also don't do meaningful exit checks, so we have no way to know if/when someone has overstayed their permitted time, meaning that they can simply go "under the radar" and won't show up unless they happen to do something that brings them to the attention of the authorities.
I can't. I have nothing against Sunak himself and I'm sure he's a technically competent leader, however he is a political lightweight who has given no reason to have any confidence that he can keep the loony portion of the party under control.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
