Tory Lies, Corruption and Hypocrisy- Add Them Here

[Scott Steiner]

7 hours ago, DublinMagyar said:

He's a contrarian racist who does not understand how racism works. Why are some of you (very decent people) bothering?
He's a troll, and a poor one at that
 

If you can provide some substance to your assertions then go ahead.

[Scott Steiner]

9 hours ago, speckled tangerine said:

Oh, absolutely I do.

Be my guest. Load me up with your examples. 

Looking forward to this. I'll check in tomorrow to see what you've cobbled together. 

Well, knock me down with a feather!  You have actually done it!  No conditions, time limits, strings, parameters or loaded nonsense.  To say I'm shocked would be a huge understatement, given the bad-faith way in which you've conducted yourself throughout this discussion.

Anyway, I'll happily oblige.

First example that springs to mind is the freeing of slaves.  Britishness led to us going against the grain of the whole world with huge amounts of Brits sailing the oceans to free slaves, knowing that so many of our guys would die in the process.

Above is a picture of British blacksmith removing the leg irons off a slave off the coast of Oman, 1907.  The slave and others escaped in a canoe from a slave-trading village on the coast on hearing that a Royal Navy Ship was in the area.

These African slaves had escaped from their Arab slave masters.  The Arab slavers were the first, and last to ship millions of Africa out of the continent as slaves.

The whole world was 'at it' at the time, and Britain went against the grain.

The Royal Navy, which then controlled the world's seas, established the West Africa Squadron in 1808 to patrol the coast of West Africa, and between 1808 and 1860 they seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard.

17,000 Royal Navy sailors lost their lives in the fight against the slave trade, including many from disease.

That's right, Brits were literally sailing the oceans with the sole intention to give our our lives to free slaves.

No doubt you'll try to find some way to demean this in your usual twisting and turning fashion, but I'll leave it there.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Scott Steiner

[Benjamin_Nevis]

6 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

This is the constant cry of the daft wee Natter and @Scott Steiner is just your latest victim.

You support a pathetic policy of partition and berate those who take issue with you,

Shame on you.

Not quite, my jakeball friend. No one is asking for you to be banned, mainly because you are a continual source of point-and-laugh merriment. It's literally your only remaining function in this part of the forum. 

This "new", tedious c**t is just a spamming bore, absolutely desperate for attention.

Don't worry Kincs, I'm sure you'll be around to amuse us all for some time to come.

[Antlion]

8 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

This is the constant cry of the daft wee Natter and @Scott Steiner is just your latest victim.

 

You’re simping for an alias who is literally taking the piss out of you and who referred to you as “the Kincmeister troll”? Are you really that desperate for companionship?

 

Edited December 15, 2021 by Antlion

[Baxter Parp]

You’re simping for an alias who is literally taking the piss out of you and who referred to you as “the Kincmeister troll”? Are you really that desperate for companionship?

I think you've misread that.

[Antlion]

27 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

42 minutes ago, Antlion said:

You’re simping for an alias who is literally taking the piss out of you and who referred to you as “the Kincmeister troll”? Are you really that desperate for companionship?

I think you've misread that.

Fair enough. I find it difficult to believe anyone would state that the Kincmeister doesn’t troll. Still less do I find it possible to believe that anyone would use the name “Kincmeister” and not be taking the piss out of him…

[magic sign]

After catching up on this thread, it has become glaringly obvious that someone has no idea about the differences between an asylum seeker and a refugee, but still feels qualified to share their opinion. Honestly, if you don't know even the basic fundamentals of a subject, why wouldn't you just admit that and bow out of a conversation gracefully rather than doubling down.
There are many, many topics on this forum I'm happy to read about, but don't feel well enough informed to contribute an opinion. Have I got this wrong?

[Soapy FFC]

4 hours ago, Scott Steiner said:

The Guardian?

That'd me like me getting an 'objective' opinion on Global Jewry from Mein Kampf.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1536292/priti-patel-home-office-watchdog-rights-post-Brexit-eu-citizens-rights

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-government-faces-legal-action-over-treatment-of-eu-nationals/

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/home-office-facing-legal-action-over-rights-of-25-million-eu-nationals/ar-AARO3ry

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b913bb74-5d1c-11ec-9cd9-b6f698a4b9a5

 

Is that enough other reports of the same issue, or are they all as 'objective' as the Guardian?

Edited December 15, 2021 by Soapy FFC

[Salt n Vinegar]

26 minutes ago, magic sign said:

After catching up on this thread, it has become glaringly obvious that someone has no idea about the differences between an asylum seeker and a refugee, but still feels qualified to share their opinion. Honestly, if you don't know even the basic fundamentals of a subject, why wouldn't you just admit that and bow out of a conversation gracefully rather than doubling down.
There are many, many topics on this forum I'm happy to read about, but don't feel well enough informed to contribute an opinion. Have I got this wrong?

Don't be too hard on yourself. When I read some of the stuff on this forum, I remember that great unattributed quote - "I'm not a gynecologist, but I know a c**t when I see one." 

[Scott Steiner]

9 minutes ago, Soapy FFC said:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1536292/priti-patel-home-office-watchdog-rights-post-Brexit-eu-citizens-rights

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-government-faces-legal-action-over-treatment-of-eu-nationals/

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/home-office-facing-legal-action-over-rights-of-25-million-eu-nationals/ar-AARO3ry

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b913bb74-5d1c-11ec-9cd9-b6f698a4b9a5?shareToken=031bc4c20e7589efe4bf39a12dc19099

 

Is that enough other reports of the same issue, or are they all as 'objective' as the Guardian?

Those sources are a lot more objective than the Guardian.

Seriously, It's a self parody these days.  It actually manages to get worse all the time.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

36 minutes ago, Soapy FFC said:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1536292/priti-patel-home-office-watchdog-rights-post-Brexit-eu-citizens-rights

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-government-faces-legal-action-over-treatment-of-eu-nationals/

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/home-office-facing-legal-action-over-rights-of-25-million-eu-nationals/ar-AARO3ry

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b913bb74-5d1c-11ec-9cd9-b6f698a4b9a5

 

Is that enough other reports of the same issue, or are they all as 'objective' as the Guardian?

Ye can tell he never read the article ye posted from the Graun anyway. 

[Highlandmagar]

45 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

Those sources are a lot more objective than the Guardian.

Seriously, It's a self parody these days.  It actually manages to get worse all the time.

Daily Express objective? I suppose it is for your racist right wing views.

[Theyellowbox]

For me, the key issue re imigration into the UK that the government have is the perceptions driven by the base of the party's members and also fairly large chunks of its voters (usual voters and those who lent votes for brexit). Those perceptions are that the flood of imigration into the UK is watering down the Britishness of the UK, cloging up the NHS, commiting crimes and generally being a burden on the state and its peoples. If you are feeling negative about things, that is a convenient view to take as it is someone else's fault things are the way they are and that we don't all live in some sort of cozy 1950's father brown esque society.

What is uncomfortable for people of that view and by extension the government is that the view of Britian they want to preserve never existed or not in the way they think it did. The immigrants are younger and instead of a burden on NHS likely work there or certainly don't require the services anywhere as much as the 'average' brit, given the average age of inward migrants. That said, there is a higher portion of crime, but again given age etc, it's not surprising, but still a problem.

So, once both people opposed to migration and those who advocate it recognise the advantages and disadvantages, everyone will be able to have a proper debate about how and what to do about legal migration, asylum seekers and illegal migrants.

Unless people can have open, honest and frank debates about imigration without referring to stereotypes, the issues, which do exist, will never be addressed.

Where the government have a problem is that should thay in any way be seen to be soft of imigration, a large chunk of their voters will move towards UKIP/Brexit party. 

[Scott Steiner]

23 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

For me, the key issue re imigration into the UK that the government have is the perceptions driven by the base of the party's members and also fairly large chunks of its voters (usual voters and those who lent votes for brexit). Those perceptions are that the flood of imigration into the UK is watering down the Britishness of the UK, cloging up the NHS, commiting crimes and generally being a burden on the state and its peoples. If you are feeling negative about things, that is a convenient view to take as it is someone else's fault things are the way they are and that we don't all live in some sort of cozy 1950's father brown esque society.

What is uncomfortable for people of that view and by extension the government is that the view of Britian they want to preserve never existed or not in the way they think it did. The immigrants are younger and instead of a burden on NHS likely work there or certainly don't require the services anywhere as much as the 'average' brit, given the average age of inward migrants. That said, there is a higher portion of crime, but again given age etc, it's not surprising, but still a problem.

So, once both people opposed to migration and those who advocate it recognise the advantages and disadvantages, everyone will be able to have a proper debate about how and what to do about legal migration, asylum seekers and illegal migrants.

Unless people can have open, honest and frank debates about imigration without referring to stereotypes, the issues, which do exist, will never be addressed.

Where the government have a problem is that should thay in any way be seen to be soft of imigration, a large chunk of their voters will move towards UKIP/Brexit party. 

I agree with what you say about us having an open, honest and frank debate about immigration.  At the moment, all you get is name calling.  Pro-immigration?  Then you're woke.  Anti-immigration?  Then you're racist.  The truth is that it's a lot more complicated than that.

There are indeed, as you say, both advantages and disadvantages.

[Scott Steiner]

34 minutes ago, Highlandmagyar Tier 3 said:

Daily Express objective? I suppose it is for your racist right wing views.

Thanks for the kind and thoughtful words, HMT3 

[Florentine_Pogen]

Stormzy Steiner will enjoy the turning of the worms....................

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/15/rudderless-outfit-conservative-press-turn-on-boris-johnson

[welshbairn]

6 hours ago, Scott Steiner said:

No doubt you'll try to find some way to demean this in your usual twisting and turning fashion, but I'll leave it there.

Well, I'll have a go. Britain established the inter continental slave trade and it contributed massively to the industrial revolution, the City of London and the growth of cities like Liverpool, Bristol and Glasgow. Abolishing it at a time when Britain's share of the trade was diminishing to its competitors led to a huge reallocation of wealth to the domestic economy, supercharging infrastructure and industrial development and funding imperial expansion and conquest. Humanitarianism was the gloss painted for public consumption. Incidentally the US banned their ships taking part in the slave trade 13 years before Britain did.

Edited December 15, 2021 by welshbairn

[Dawson Park Boy]

1 hour ago, Theyellowbox said:

For me, the key issue re imigration into the UK that the government have is the perceptions driven by the base of the party's members and also fairly large chunks of its voters (usual voters and those who lent votes for brexit). Those perceptions are that the flood of imigration into the UK is watering down the Britishness of the UK, cloging up the NHS, commiting crimes and generally being a burden on the state and its peoples. If you are feeling negative about things, that is a convenient view to take as it is someone else's fault things are the way they are and that we don't all live in some sort of cozy 1950's father brown esque society.

What is uncomfortable for people of that view and by extension the government is that the view of Britian they want to preserve never existed or not in the way they think it did. The immigrants are younger and instead of a burden on NHS likely work there or certainly don't require the services anywhere as much as the 'average' brit, given the average age of inward migrants. That said, there is a higher portion of crime, but again given age etc, it's not surprising, but still a problem.

So, once both people opposed to migration and those who advocate it recognise the advantages and disadvantages, everyone will be able to have a proper debate about how and what to do about legal migration, asylum seekers and illegal migrants.

Unless people can have open, honest and frank debates about imigration without referring to stereotypes, the issues, which do exist, will never be addressed.

Where the government have a problem is that should thay in any way be seen to be soft of imigration, a large chunk of their voters will move towards UKIP/Brexit party. 

Very fair.

Maybe Scott’s appeal for civility and true debate is having some effect?

[Theyellowbox]

1 hour ago, Scott Steiner said:

I agree with what you say about us having an open, honest and frank debate about immigration.  At the moment, all you get is name calling.  Pro-immigration?  Then you're woke.  Anti-immigration?  Then you're racist.  The truth is that it's a lot more complicated than that.

There are indeed, as you say, both advantages and disadvantages.

I die inside a little everything someone in print, on TV or on radio uses the term 'woke'. It's really not the insult they think it is.

You could argue that the Tory MP's are 'woke' in that they are 'awoken' to the clusterf$Uckfield that is Boris.

In terms of grown up debate, unfortunately there is very few politicians of any stripes that are capable of grown up debates. Certainly the PM isn't. More concerningly is that I'm not sure large chunks of the country want grown ups as MP's either. As much as he has no redeeming features, Starmer is at least trying to be grown up in parliament and people see him as to weak because of it.

I hold the view and I see no evidence to suggest otherwise, that nearly all MP's are extremists. By that I mean, before you decide to become an MP for any party, you must be so indoctrinated into that party and its views, that you are unlikely to either listen to or even have opposing views. Your bog standard MP will have either worked within the party since school/uni or rose up through councils/welsh/scottish parliaments or been heavily involved in some other way. Because of this, when it comes to either fundamental issues such as imigration, you get a very party specific view... or on more ad hoc issues, such as covid response, you get very party specific views as often they cannot or will not form an independent view. The Tory (and some Labour) rebellion from yesterday is in a small part a function of MP's feeling they CAN develop a view away from the party given the weakness in leadership.

This is where the lies and hypocrisy come in. When you have a leader or a majority to hide behind, you lie and bend/break rules, all the while resting too much on laurels to get anything done. When there is risk of rebellion (or a smaller majority) which requires opposition support, co-operation develops and lies and hypocrisy diminish. If you have to listen to the voice opposite to get anything done, you realise they are not as different as you have always been told.

In a round about way, the cycle is that the lies and cheating lead to good government and a better parliament. That in turn leads to more open debates and better outcome for everyone. Shouldn't need the lies bit to make that happen. 

[Scott Steiner]

2 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Well, I'll have a go. Britain established the inter continental slave trade and it contributed massively to the industrial revolution, the City of London and the growth of cities like Liverpool, Bristol and Glasgow. Abolishing it at a time when Britain's share of the trade was diminishing to its competitors led to a huge reallocation of wealth to the domestic economy, supercharging infrastructure and industrial development and funding imperial expansion and conquest. Humanitarianism was the gloss painted for public consumption. Incidentally the US banned their ships taking part in the slave trade 13 years before Britain did.

This is why I was very particular in my language, choosing to express my firm belief that 'Britishness' can be a force for good in the world, rather than Britain itself, which still can be, but is more of a mixed bag.

By Britishness, I am referring primarily to the character and nature of the nation in general along with it's culture and customs.  The establishment of the intercontinental slave trade which (from memory) I believe was a deal between our government and the Spanish government.  Not 'the Brits' in general.  Those who made money off it were the higher classes.. not yer average Joe.

Not only that, but slavery was never ever really a big thing in Britain itself.

Let's not forget that at this time, the whole world was 'at it' with regards to slavery.  Arabs were by far the biggest culprits, and Blacks in Africa also enslaved each other.  As well as that they played an active part in the trans atlantic slave trade, enslaving their people not only to use themselves but to be sold to the Americans.  Reparations anyone?  Libyans even enslaved white Europeans for example.  They also have slavery over there right now.. in 2021.  Go as far back as you can in the history books and you'll find reports of slavery.  Britain's abolitionist movement started at the grassroots, by the people, and rose up.  It went against the grain of the global culture and our people suffered huge losses of life to do what was right.  And what was the driver I hear you cry?

A belief of British Protestant Quakers to do God's will as laid out in the bible. 

We used our influence to persuade much of the world to allow us into their waters and end the evil practice.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Scott Steiner