2022 Scottish Local Elections 5th May ** Official Match Thread**

[williemillersmoustache]

 

10 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkay said:

Define “lots”.

You weirdo.

The more self-aware walloper knows that to wallop aloud in public is to be called out and identified as a walloper. It is these silent wallopers who do their walloping in secret and behind close doors, that this party and this openly walloping walloper are doing their best to speak up for. And all their horrible little prejudices that might have been ironed out in school if only there was a more inclusive approach to education back then in the dark ages.

Also, is it not about time this incarnation got emptied? Just a thought. 

 

[Honest Saints Fan]

I went to an election hustings tonight. Offt. The calibre of candidate was horrendous.

SNP guy, sound. Ex head teacher. Been a Councillor for 10 years and is on a lot of committes so has the experience. Answered questions well and knows all the local issues.

Indepent who is a current Councillor. Nice lady. Passionate about the local area and does try hard but not that inspired. She does know what issues the area faces though.

Independent who used to lease The Mallard. Meh. Says what you want to hear about potholes, parks etc but probably won't be effective. Seemed like him and his mates were doing it for a laugh.

Labour guy was put in at the last minute. I don't even know if he is a local as he knew very little about the local issues raised. Talks more about independence and how much he hates all over social media so he can f**k off.

Tory. f**k me. I've now watched this guy try to be an MP, MSP and Councillor. His solution, bin the chief executive and anyone else in highland council earning over a £100k, because "no one needs to earn that much money" and use it for potholes. He's obviously not met Rishi Sunak if he thinks a £100k to run the largest council area in the UK is a lot of money. He also knew f**k all about the local issues. 

Lib Dem wasn't there as her father had passed away but they are a Lib Dem so won't be high on my list.

Green didn't come and I can't even find that much info about them from their social media.

 

[101]

2 hours ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

 

Looks like I was right.  He didn't call LGBT people controversial at all.

He spoke of the LGB aspect of the TIE campaign as being controversial, and it is.  Lots of parents don't want their children being exposed to their 'resources', especially those at primary school.

Okay I was just very uncomfortable with him using the work controversial and people who aren't heterosexual in the same sentence. Taking liberties as you have, I imagine lots of people find there to be no controversy whatsoever here.

And the other points he raises in the video that seemed fairly bigoted and the comment comparing or at the very least drawing parallels between the Nazi education syllabus and the Scottish Government's work? 

Do you think that the "promotion" of "LBGT issues" is "propaganda"? If it is propaganda as he states what is the desired outcome of this? How does it further the SNPs causes? And how do local government elections shape national government education policy?

Or is this just a shameless attempt by bigots to whip up hate and abuse of some of the most marginalised in out communities?

[Boo Khaki]

Well that bizarre video has just confirmed for me that the 'Family' party are exactly what I had suspected.

Education has always reflected the themes and zeitgeist of the day. My own education was entirely UK-centric and completely ignored Scottish history, Scottish contemporary issues, Scots culture and so on. No surprise since the agenda was being set by Westminster politicians entirely consumed with UK matters, the vast majority of whom had nothing more than a passing contempt for Scots and Scotland. 

I find it odd that he selectively edits an entire debate down to a few seconds, then posits that the fact the TIE proposals have universal and unequivocal approval across all parties is somehow reflective of an injustice or a political stitch up. If so many people are opposed to this, then where are the MSP's that these people elected to represent their views? This seems to be common amongst the most vocal of 'gender critical' personalities. They constantly claim that their views represent 'the majority', yet all the polling suggests GC views are very much still a minority, with the one group they claim is most outraged about GRC reform and so on, i.e. women, showing even greater approval for the policies they are complaining about than men. This, they then reduce down to "Ah, but if people knew what was actually going on they'd change their tune!!". Sure, because the only people who are broadly in favour of TIE, GRA reforms and actually understand what the hell you are talking about when they are mentioned, pay no actual attention to the matter at hand, right? Seems entirely arse-about-face to me.

I'm also continually confused at the haste with which they bring up the EHRC. It's self-evident the Tories cleaned house and installed specific people in the EHRC for the purpose of turning it into nothing more than a vehicle to promote Tory ideology, but that aside, there is the question of whether the EHRC and it's various prognostications should have any relevance whatsoever when it comes to devolved issues. We have the SHRC, and they have been making noises about EHRC having no competence on devolved matters and therefore it being wholly inappropriate for them to interfere.

Seems SFP is pretty much just a vehicle for people who can't accept that societal attitudes evolve and change. They are perfectly entitled to hold those views, but I don't see how they can complain when it leads to the inevitable accusations. 'Legitimate concerns' seems to be the new 'calling out bigotry is bigoted' line that certain parties trotted out with regards to blatant sectarian bias being challenged a few years back. I mean, if you don't like LGBTQ people and LGBTQ lifestyles, why not just come out and say so rather than using inanities like 'pupils with more traditional moral values'? What does that even mean anyway? He mentions children 'as young as 3', so are we to assume he actually believes 3 year olds have a firm grasp on the complexities of human sexuality and are perfectly capable of defining and justifying their own morality? 

"I don't want my kids being taught about the gays and the trans baddies" party seems to be the jist of it. I thought we'd seen the back of that when they did away with section 28.

[Duries Air Freshener]

7 hours ago, 101 said:

Okay I was just very uncomfortable with him using the work controversial and people who aren't heterosexual in the same sentence. Taking liberties as you have, I imagine lots of people find there to be no controversy whatsoever here.

And the other points he raises in the video that seemed fairly bigoted and the comment comparing or at the very least drawing parallels between the Nazi education syllabus and the Scottish Government's work? 

Do you think that the "promotion" of "LBGT issues" is "propaganda"? If it is propaganda as he states what is the desired outcome of this? How does it further the SNPs causes? And how do local government elections shape national government education policy?

Or is this just a shameless attempt by bigots to whip up hate and abuse of some of the most marginalised in out communities?

Opposing TIE campaign resources being taught in schools does not make one a bigot, and no liberties were taken by me.

[williemillersmoustache]

[Melanius Mullarkey]

And the walloping continues. 

[101]

1 hour ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

Opposing TIE campaign resources being taught in schools does not make one a bigot, and no liberties were taken by me.

Source please for the claim "lots of people find this controversial"

And perhaps in isolation it doesn't but your inability to answer any of the other questions point to the Scottish Family Party being vile bigots. I hope one day they seek professional help to address their issues and can live a happy life.

I think that's the end of this discussion.

[Clown Job]

[Duries Air Freshener]

28 minutes ago, 101 said:

Source please for the claim "lots of people find this controversial"

And perhaps in isolation it doesn't but your inability to answer any of the other questions point to the Scottish Family Party being vile bigots. I hope one day they seek professional help to address their issues and can live a happy life.

I think that's the end of this discussion.

You’ve just misrepresented me, much in the same way you initially represented the SFP.

Providing a source for something I didn’t say would be futile.

If you want to end the discussion then that’s fine by me.

My advice to you is to look up the meaning of ‘bigotry’, and you’ll find that it actually applies to some of the responders on here rather than the SFP.

[Boo Khaki]

2 hours ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

Opposing TIE campaign resources being taught in schools does not make one a bigot, and no liberties were taken by me.

So, on what grounds then do you object to resources that are reflective of the society at large that these very children are members of, that depict scenario and situations that the children themselves may well encounter in their own lives, being included as part of the teaching apparatus used to educate them?

It seems to me that the objections are based on nothing more than 'the children don't need to know about any of this stuff at their age', which I find completely bizarre given that some of the children will live with LGBTQ parents or relatives, and will undoubtedly encounter LGBTQ people within their wider families and participation in society. Some of the children, certainly by their teens, will be discovering that they themselves actually belong to part of the LGBTQ demographic, so what precisely are we protecting them from? Should we also ban any material that mentions or refers to single parent families? Those are also something that a large proportion of the children will have first-hand experience of, so do we just pretend those don't exist and refuse to acknowledge them for fear of validating 'untraditional' or 'unconventional' family units? Contextual settings have always been a part of learning, even when I was at school back in the year dot. We had typical 'dad puts x amount of fuel in the car then goes to the shops with mum and you and your sister' type questions so that the problem could be put to the students in a manner that they could understand. That's one example of a family unit, so why should we not do the same with  more up to date and representative examples included?

Bear in mind that all the examples provided are just that, examples, that may or may not be representative of what might be included in the curriculum, so even the 'no need to ram it down kids throats' objection seems to be jumping the gun just a bit. So far as the argument that parents should have the right to opt out - well sorry, but you have an implied contract with government, and by extension the LA, that the State will educate your children in a manner that best equips them to function in society as an adult. You might not personally agree with some of the things that entails educating them about, but it's what the government, LA, and actual teaching experts have agreed is necessary to teach them about. What if you don't 'believe' in Mathematics? Should you have the right to veto the teaching of Mathematics to your children?

'Leaving it to the parents' is just a laughable proposition. As any teacher will tell you, if you left educating children to parents then there are a significant number of children who would learn nothing whatsoever, likely the same children who have parents who can't get them to school, or send the children to school half-dressed and hungry. Just because some parents give a shit and would act in the best interests of their children doesn't mean that all would, and that would just be an inexcusable failure of duty of care.

Edited April 22, 2022 by Boo Khaki

[Duries Air Freshener]

9 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

So, on what grounds then do you object to resources that are reflective of the society at large that these very children are members of, that depict scenario and situations that the children themselves may well encounter in their own lives, being included as part of the teaching apparatus used to educate them?

It seems to me that the objections are based on nothing more than 'the children don't need to know about any of this stuff at their age', which I find completely bizarre given that some of the children will live with LGBTQ parents or relatives, and will undoubtedly encounter LGBTQ people within their wider families and participation in society. Some of the children, certainly by their teens, will be discovering that they themselves actually belong to part of the LGBTQ demographic, so what precisely are we protecting them from? Should we also ban any material that mentions or refers to single parent families? Those are also something that a large proportion of the children will have first-hand experience of, so do we just pretend those don't exist and refuse to acknowledge them for fear of validating 'untraditional' or 'unconventional' family units? Contextual settings have always been a part of learning, even when I was at school back in the year dot. We had typical 'dad puts x amount of fuel in the car then goes to the shops with mum and you and your sister' type questions so that the problem could be put to the students in a manner that they could understand. That's one example of a family unit, so why should we not do the same with  more up to date and representative examples included?

Bear in mind that all the examples provided are just that, examples, that may or may not be representative of what might be included in the curriculum, so even the 'no need to ram it down kids throats' objection seems to be jumping the gun just a bit. So far as the argument that parents should have the right to opt out - well sorry, but you have an implied contract with government, and by extension the LA, that the State will educate your children in a manner that best equips them to function in society as an adult. You might not personally agree with some of the things that entails educating them about, but it's what the government, LA, and actual teaching experts have agreed is necessary to teach them about. What if you don't 'believe' in Mathematics? Should you have the right to veto the teaching of Mathematics to your children?

'Leaving it to the parents' is just a laughable proposition. As any teacher will tell you, if you left educating children to parents then there are a significant number of children who would learn nothing whatsoever, likely the same children who have parents who can't get them to school, or send the children to school half-dressed and hungry. Just because some parents give a shit and would act in the best interests of their children doesn't mean that all would, and that would just be an inexcusable failure of duty of care.

Whilst I appreciate your non-abusive and well thought-out post, I can’t help but think that these questions would be better off being posed to the SFP, rather than myself.

It’s them who are being falsely accused of bigotry.

I don’t want to drag myself down to the level of those who have assumed certain things about them.

[Boo Khaki]

2 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

Whilst I appreciate your non-abusive and well thought-out post, I can’t help but think that these questions would be better off being posed to the SFP, rather than myself.

It’s them who are being falsely accused of bigotry.

I don’t want to drag myself down to the level of those who have assumed certain things about them.

Fair enough if you are not actually in agreement with them, I'd agree it's for the SFP to answer and not yourself, but from the general tone of your responses to other queries I'd rather taken the impression that you were actually agreeing with them.

Apologies if I've just read something that isn't actually there.

[Duries Air Freshener]

16 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Fair enough if you are not actually in agreement with them, I'd agree it's for the SFP to answer and not yourself, but from the general tone of your responses to other queries I'd rather taken the impression that you were actually agreeing with them.

Apologies if I've just read something that isn't actually there.

No problem mate.

I don't actually know the complete ins and outs of the TIE campaign so haven't expressed a view on it, but I do see myself as aligned with the SFP in terms of social and moral issues, broadly speaking.

My main point is that stances on the TIE campaign can be reached without one having a bigoted mindset.

Blindly labelling people as bigots for having such stances isn't just illogical and lazy, but, quite ironically, often bigoted itself.

Edited April 22, 2022 by Duries Air Freshener

[oneteaminglasgow]

This took me about 4 minutes to find. Get fucked you absolute cretin.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Yet another shit Stormzy alias being thoroughly rinsed. Truly a pathetic little c**t [emoji23]

[101]

31 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

This took me about 4 minutes to find. Get fucked you absolute cretin.

Basically they should rebrand to "Religious fundamentalists for adoption"

[Duries Air Freshener]

1 hour ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

This took me about 4 minutes to find. Get fucked you absolute cretin.

One wonders why a poster would consider name-calling a way to boost their argument’s credence.

One thing’s for sure; I won’t respond with similar vitriol.

If you’d like my opinion regarding the SFP’s points in your post, then feel free to state your case and I’ll respond in kind.

However, if you keep up the abuse, then you might find I don’t reply.  I’m afraid it’s just not a productive way of interacting.

The ball’s in your court  

Edited April 22, 2022 by Duries Air Freshener

[Salt n Vinegar]

Something tells me that if P&B introduced Marquess of Queensberry-type rules for discussions, it wouldn't end well. Pretty poor effort in declining to respond.... 'he was nasty to me, and used a bad word, so ah' m no playin' '.  

[Duries Air Freshener]

2 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Something tells me that if P&B introduced Marquess of Queensberry-type rules for discussions, it wouldn't end well. Pretty poor effort in declining to respond.... 'he was nasty to me, and used a bad word, so ah' m no playin' '.  

That's not quite the sequence of events though, S&V.

I'm literally inviting him to debate, but it must be sensibly.  Not only has he dished out abuse, but he hasn't made an actual point so far.

Edited April 22, 2022 by Duries Air Freshener