Just where do we go from here?

[Chris Scott]

Well, I don't seem to have had an answer to my question about what constitutes the indigenous population, and hence why politicians fail to deliver....

And I have accused no one of anything.

Phil

That question was answered in #42 in this thread

[Smoking Joe]

How has anyone's opinion been stifled? Did I miss some posts being deleted by the moderator, or something like that?

You didn't assume when you started the thread that everyone would agree with you, did you?

You seem to always want the last word dont you?. But just for the nonce Ill answer this for the last time. Accusations of fanning the flames, sound bites and slogans .....I dont know precisely who those accusations were levelled at,but once that kind of thing starts,then any reasonable discussion or exchange of views quickly disappears.Two other posters took their leave .Because of that comment alone? I admit I dont know,but I doubt it helped a great deal. Now Im not against any show of passion ,any conversation would be the poorer without it. MAYBE it was your patronizing tone that did it,maybe it was being fed up with replies that flew in the face of reality,or perceived reality.
Were some posts deleted by Moderator? Why ask me? Better to ask the Moderator if you are so concerned.But yes when name calling starts (and that is what the earlier comments I mentioned amount to)opinions are stifled. Or some ,and I emphasize some,people think "Oh whats the bloody point?"You know ,if someone wanted to" fan the flames" of racial hatred (because that was what the phrase inferred) then why come to an obscure site like casebook (obscure at least in sense that it would hardly be a rallying point for the EDL for example) to stir up ,or incite a ""call to arms" against Allah. The statement/accusation/observation was preposterous ,but it served its purpose.It usually does.
OK ,then you say "well you didnt expect any one to agree with you ? did you?"To be frank I didnt post my statement to extract a great cheer from casebook members ,or to be presented with a laurel wreath for my contribution. I n short I couldnt care whether everyone agreed or no-one agreed.I wasnt looking for an orgy of adulation and mutual back slapping. Of course your question wasnt as straight forward as you try to make it seem ,but I cant be bothered to elaborate on that.

[Fleetwood Mac]

My instinct is to believe that there are bad apples in every barrel, and I think the practical experience confirms this.

The real question is this: what do we do with any person, of any background, who commits these types of barbaric acts?

Hang 'em.

In my view the law is there to serve the individual, and this must mean that we are all innocent until proven guilty and are all afforded due respect - background, preference being irrelevant.

But, when the law is broken, then there should be no mercy.

After all, there is no mercy where there's no justice.

[Phil H]

I would have thought that the term indigenous population was self explanatory - let me say I include in it those who have an emotional and cultural investment in this country but of course in the current Alice in Wonderland climate even a word like indigenous is interpreted to have a racist connotation.

With respect, that is not an answer.

It maybe self-explanatory to you but not to me and I'd like to ask you to spell out what you mean?

The post this came up in included the words:

I despair, I really do - do the political class really believe that you can treat the indigenous population with this dismissive contempt and still hope that they will vote for you?

Indigenous means (according to my Oxford dictionary) - occurring naturally in a particular place; native.

So in terms of population that must mean those born here, I guess - irrespective of religion, ethnic origin, colour, race, sex, sexual preference, height, language or any other characteristic. Those people are, by definition voters - even if some other groups might qualify - so do politicians show dismissive contempt for voters?

I'll agree that in some instances politicians do lead public opinion (something they are entitled to do as representatives not delegates) - hanging wiould be a prime example/gay marriage another. Maybe that, shows dismissive contempt for voters?

I have the Feeling that in the context of the quote above, the indigenous population refers to a specific group WITHIN the wider category of people born here - but I am probably wrong.

Maybe you'll enlighten me?

Phil

[Phil H]

Hang 'em.

The problem with that approach FM is that when we had hanging in the Uk, there were so many miscarriages of justice that the argument for it failed.

Since it was abolished there have been so many people freed who would have hanged that i would think it unsafe to bring back.

But I never much liked lynch-law.

In the C18th we hanged people for minor thefts against property - as a deterrent - should we revert to that too?

Phil

[Smoking Joe]

I thought the discussion had been very good until people suddenly seemed to decide to retire from the field. Excahnges have been frank but honest and on the whole polite, I'd say.

But there is plenty of scaope to exchange further views on whether name calling is used to "stifle" "any opinions on this issue that veer from the politically correct view that has been force fed to the general public."

Has a view been "force fed to the public?" I'd say not - that in Britain society has always been tolerant of minorities and shies away from anything that smacks of antipathy towards them.

In my experience there has been and continues to be a balanced discussion of racial and immigration issues - albeit in a measured way. Surely that is what all the recent focus on UKIP has been about?

What we cannot have is the bigots of the BNP and EDL running around able to spit their bile without check. But they are able to exist, stand for election and have some success - where is debate being stifled?

Its worked in the media ,and it seems its also worked here.

Has it, or have people moved on to deal with what are now the clear legal, and practical issues.

I asked a while back for a poster (I forget whom) to clarify what they meant by the indigenous population. Defining that is key to any debate - who are we talking about? There are differences between the 1950s black (Commonwealth?) immigration - where that community has now been largely integrated; and current EU/eastern European arrivals. The issues are specific and I hear them being aired all the time.

Please don't apologise for starting any thread. Free speech is our birthright and should be valued.

Phil

pHIL H....has a view been force fed to the public you ask? Force fed might be a wee bit harsh maybe.But nonetheless not far from the truth.It transcends the present issue being discussed here.The "force feeding" or denial of views held by the public majority or minority, on a range of issues Immigration, Islamification of Britain,and come to that of Western Europe,Gay marriage, To hold contrary views ,or to disagree has in the past ,the recent past, instantly labelled people as racists,homophobes,Islamophobic and the lord knows what else.It has led to some being dismissed from their places of employment,or being harassed in some form or another.Court cases ,in one case the owners of a B&B being prosecuted for not allowing a gay couple to rent a room for the night,and other absurdities.Crime figures as regards the ethnicity of criminals being distorted or excuses made for the reasons behind those figures. The technical term of course,as everyone knows is Political correctness.Its really just a weapon used by groups,be they politicians or pressure groups,to inflict their beliefs and opinions on others,and to have a ready made excuse or slur to put upon those who disagree. I.E "well yes you would disagree wouldnt you?you are a bloody racist!" which instantly conjures up images of stormtroopers and portable gas chambers. The last government used this weapon regularly to to destroy any murmur of dissent regarding their insane and damaging immigration policies. Recall Browns comment when asked by an old lady about Immigration?........... "shes obviously a bigot".Yes Quite!
The public has always welcomed immigrants to these shores,so goes the mantra.....has it really? Anewcomer might think the real name for immigrants is bloody,or F****** immigrants, because thats more often than not the way they are described.at least in the real world that most of us inhabit,rightly or wrongly.The way issues are put across in the media one would think that every boatload that arrives on these shores are welcomed by half the population ,standing on each others shoulders so as to shake their hands as they go through immigration. We have become a plastic society ,because of it, where everyone knows what they are supposed to say, can say it without difficulty, but in many cases dont believe a word of it.And the higher one goes in society ,the less one can say what they really think(if they want to stay in a job).
My stance is not against cult, creed or colour.Its not even about Muslims in general. Its about A vile idealogy that will,in time,if things are allowed to continue as they are,engulf us all. Its being allowed to flower and prosper in this Island ,to undermine our own way of life . .And really it needs not a great deal of effort on its behalf ,we doing it for them.All in the name of human rights,rights, which if this idealogy had its way ,would be denied to us.
Ive probabley strayed somewhat, but this thread ,or rather the issue which started it has sickened me.But what sickens me as much,if not more is the attitude whereby some might dismiss it as "street gang" crime,or try to equate it with us dropping atomic bomb on japan ,or similar. The cause ,reason , behind all this is plain to see ,if people wish to be blind to that ,I suppose its their right ..on their heads be it.
Thats my final post on this- the jeering can now begin.
regards

[Chris]

Of course your question wasnt as straight forward as you try to make it seem ,but I cant be bothered to elaborate on that.

The point of my question was surely obvious enough - you haven't been stifled in any way whatsoever - you are continuing to post your opinions quite freely, just as it should be.

[Smoking Joe]

QUOTE

The point of my question was surely obvious enough - you haven't been stifled in any way whatsoever - you are continuing to post your opinions quite freely, just as it should be.

UNQUOTE


You asked of me 3 questions.....did the moderator delete a post?.......did I think anyone would agree with me?......has anyones opinion been stifled?
So thats 3 questions not 1. Question 1 I told you I didnt know....Question 2 I said I didnt know....or care.....Question 3 I gave an outline on how methods are applied to stifle opinions though the answer was surely obvious enough as 2 people had allready pissed off.
Dont hesitate to knock if there is anything else you are unsure about.

[Chris]

Smoking Joe

Sorry, but if someone decides, for whatever reason, to stop participating in a discussion, that is quite different from them being 'stifled'. 'Stifled' would be when someone wanted to carry on participating, but they were prevented from doing so.

You continue to be living proof that your opinions have not been 'stifled'.

[Phil H]

Not an easy post to read, Smoking Joe - a bit tensely typed. but I'll try to respond.

The "force feeding" or denial of views held by the public majority or minority, on a range of issues Immigration, Islamification of Britain,and come to that of Western Europe,Gay marriage,

I see no "force feeding" of any kind. Where is ANy evidence of the "islamification of Britain. Most of the country has NO islamic residents. What form does islamification take? (Building mosques? Curry houses? Curry is Britain's favorite food now - I don't thnk people have to be forced to eat it!! Gay marriage - where is the harm in that? Homosexuality has been legal for 40years or so - why should not two people who love each other marry?

To hold contrary views ,or to disagree has in the past ,the recent past, instantly labelled people as racists,homophobes,Islamophobic and the lord knows what else.

Quite right too - discrimination is wrong, morally and legally. We should treat people as they are not by labels, and thiose who don't, deserve to be called what they are. Acting in ways that are different because of a persons, skin, sexuality, religion etc says more about the person discriminating than about the group targetted. We learned lessons from Hitler and the way he treated the Jews and we've made sure that such ideas can NEVER be put into practice again. that's common sense not force feeding!!

It has led to some being dismissed from their places of employment,or being harassed in some form or another.

Quite right - discriminating against someone because they are coloured or female, gay or handicapped is plain WRONG. No organisation can or should tolerate such behaviour. It has no place. Do it, and one day you'll find that the behaviour is reversed. Practicality is the issue. (Surely the deep South of the USA before the 60s, and the apartheid regime in S Africa should have taught us a few things.

We now live in a multicultural world, like it or not. We have to deal with it.

Court cases ,in one case the owners of a B&B being prosecuted for not allowing a gay couple to rent a room for the night,and other absurdities.

Not absurdities, practicalities - or we'll find people being turned away because of their religion or way of speaking, their dress or because they are old. People cannot play favorites with the law - we live in a democracy, people can lobby their MP to get it changed.

The public has always welcomed immigrants to these shores,so goes the mantra.....has it really?

The Hugenots, people fleeing the French Revolution - but England has always been multi-racial, we are all "mud-bloods" to use the Harry Potter analogy - there's bits of Roman, Norman, Viking, Saxon, Celtic in all of us.

In many cases immigrants do the jobs others will not do. I'd point to all the corner shops now run by those you call immigrants.

The other problem is what is an immigrant? Does one include all the Aussies, S Africans, New Zealanders etc to be found in the UK? Or just those of colour? How long must a family be in the UK before being "British"?

And if one sees a problem in "immigration" how does one resolve it? Send them home - they are "home" probably in the third generation. Make them second class citizens? Does one include those who are half-caste, a quarter immigrant; an eighth?

The film The Conference with Kenneth Branagh, about the 1942/3 Wansee Conference, showed the Nazis discussing that sort of issue. Have we learned nothing?

Phil

[Smoking Joe]

Chris,
No need to apologise.
The only thing,right now, that I am living proof of, is how easy it is to get involved in a sub topic that leads nowhere.
The word "stifle" in this sub topic can be interpreted to mean "To stifle" or "attempt to stifle".Both phrases have the word stifle. One phrase could mean to succeed in stifling ,the other could mean a failed attempt to stifle.
It is the intent that is important. And as Ive explained earlier the method used to "stifle" or "attempt to stifle" is/was usually the same. Now please dont confuse this stifle ,with the stifling of opinions used by jihadists which usually necessitates the use of a hacksaw blade applied to the neck somewhere amidst the stifling process. Equally dont mistake the stifling of which we speak with the stifling employed by such as Saddam which usually consisted of beating someone to death with their own leg. Im sure you wont,but I thought Id mention it just in case.
Sorry.....what was your question again?

[Chris]

Smoking Joe

Thanks for another very enlightening contribution. It's becoming clearer and clearer where you're "coming from". On the whole I think it's just as well you haven't been stifled.

[Smoking Joe]

No force feeding Phil? and no lies either? No islamization of Britain? you should live where I do. "Curry is now Britains favourite food" No surprise there. "Gay marriage? where is the harm in that?" I didnt say there was,There probabley isnt much harm in marrying a Horse either .


" Discrimination is wrong" IT IS wrong ,so why positive discrimination?Its discrimination isnt it?


"Quite right too anybody who discriminates should be sacked" So if a person is against gay marriage,prefers to mix with his own race, has a rebel sticker in his back window he should be sacked? Maybe we should have a referendum on your policies? Do your discrimination policies apply to those who discriminate against smokers,or are they exempt?


Is there any place in your brave new world and its dictats for personal preference, freedom to like /dislike any thing or anyone one chooses?

" The PUBLIC has always welcomed people to its shores" I doubt whether Julius Caesar got a warm welcome when he arrived, or the Norman invaders, or Irish RAiders ,or the Viking hordes.


For your peace of mind ,I WILL state I have never discriminated against any of the groups,or any other for that matter,never partaken in Ku Klux Klan activities, Paki -bashing ,Gay-baiting, Muslim persecution, communist hunting, pensioner -mugging,disabled teasing,or any other form of persecution.However ,I choose who,I associate with, where I live ,and IN Which community I wish. The people I like I mix with,The people or groups I dislike I ignore by and large,and as long as I have breath in my body I will continue to do just that,and no amount of preaching or brow beating by govts or pressure groups or petty officials will alter that.
Now you can hand over to your mate, It seems tag-teams are quite the rage.

[Smoking Joe]

Smoking Joe

Thanks for another very enlightening contribution. It's becoming clearer and clearer where you're "coming from". On the whole I think it's just as well you haven't been stifled.

No worries Cobber.....Ill put that on my C.V ,it will at the very least enable me to get a position in the Civil Service.
Only too Glad to have been of service.

[Errata]

Here's what I don't understand. Why is calling someone an Islamaphobe "stifling" the conversation if you are saying that you hate Muslims and they can't be trusted? I mean, it is bigotry. If you express a bigoted opinion, why on earth would it bother you if someone calls you a bigot? It's not like prejudice doesn't exist for a reason. Often not a good reason, but there is a reason. White people fear black people not because they are brain damaged, but because they have never been exposed to successful black people. It's bigotry to say that all Black people are addicts and criminals, but it may be factually correct for many people to say that all of the black people they know are addicts and criminals. Being a bigot doesn't mean the fear has no basis in fact. It simply means that a person is applying specifics to a general. It is not bigoted to say that there are Muslims who want us all dead. It is bigoted to say that all Muslims want us dead. So there's a logical error in the thinking, but it doesn't absolve the religion or culture of all wrongdoing. And I'm trying to understand the logic of feeling that we are all in imminent danger from a very real threat, but you're going to let everyone die without saying a word because you're afraid of being called a bigot. "Gee, I really should point out the logical fallacies in turning a blind eye towards certain behaviors, but I'm not going to because I am going to be accused of being a racist." Well, you are a racist. It doesn't mean you are incapable of a valid point or two. Although ratcheting down the gross over generalizations never hurt anyone.

On the other hand, I know not all Muslims are psychopathic terrorists because my best friend since 5th grade is Muslim. She is not terribly observant, but she does believe. She's also a "California bred artsy dyke" who teaches at Ivy League universities. She returns to Iran occasionally to try and get family out, but she is certainly no fan of Sharia Law. I mean, if she wanted Americans dead, or even Jews dead, she would have let me die when I got rammed by a drunk driver instead of sustaining second and third degree burns and a loss of hair pulling my Jewish American ass out of burning car. Nor would she have allowed me to give her away at her wedding. She and her family, and all my other Muslim friends have been better to me than their Christian counterparts, because Islam does not tolerate prejudice against the mentally ill, and recognizes the importance of supporting the mentally ill. The last time I was hospitalized a Muslim friend's mother came to see me every day, wrote letters for me, brought me cake, and every time she left she told me how strong I was, and that Allah rewarded women of courage. I will never be convinced that these men and women are evil and are plotting my destruction. They've had chances. They haven't taken them. So clearly it's not all Muslims. Or is the argument going to be that I know the only good Muslims on the planet?