BLM

[bolton_blondie]

30 minutes ago, Zico said:

Apology in full 

Apparently there's an element of free speech to consider as well 

That just makes her look more of a prick. 

[Rudy]

4 minutes ago, bolton_blondie said:

That just makes her look more of a prick. 

Well she didn’t seem the brightest spark to begin with 

[Not in Crawley]

14 hours ago, paulhanley said:

Nobody on here. See previous answer.

I rather suspect your line of argument is based on seeking to say I over-react. As such ....

The Government's inclusion of extra protections for free speech and protection against no platforming and the like in the recent Queen's Speech were clearly plucked from thin air and had no context or rationale.

People like Peter Tatchell, JK Rowling, Germaine Greer, Jordan Peterson and others must have imagined being no-platformed/cancelled. The millions who were told they were racists and bigots for wanting to talk about immigration or for voting for Brexit must have imagined it. They can erase it from their brains and carry on as if nothing happened. 

Do you remember when Gordon Brown walked in to a house in 2010 in Rochdale and the lady who lived there (Gillian Duffy) said she wanted to discuss immigration? He dismissed her views as those of a "bigoted woman" and thus sought to marginalise them as unacceptable

You can narrow the definition of censorship down to one that gives you a chance of a momentary triumph on a footy forum. But you can't change the opinions of millions who have observed, become increasingly disgusted and voted accordingly. 

I need hardly add about the 17.4 million who endured two years of being patronised that they were a bit thick and racist and didn't understand what they'd voted for.

Can you begin to see the accumulation? Any chance you can start to see the extent of the hole that liberals have dug for themselves?

Liberals  sneeringly tried to marginalise opinion outside of their own world view. That's a form of censorship. Oh boy has it backfired. 

Never mind though - we're all over-reacting. I'm over-reacting. There's no problem with freedom of speech and liberal intolerance. You win.

Again, who is stopping you saying what you want, and what do you want to say? It's a long post and your still no clearer on explaining to me who is censoring what you want to say, and what is it you want to say that is being stopped.

My point is, a lot of your ire and worries are imagined, and it's you that is claiming your free speech is being stopped but you cannot point in a direction of who is stopping you, and stopping you voicing what opinion?

That's why I'm interested, I also don't agree with Kent that you can't discuss these issues, I do - at work, in the pub, with friends, with colleagues without fear or condemnation. As I say I'm part of the EDI working group at work and one of the issues that was raised was political views and freedom for them, that you never have to toe one line for fear of your job. Its written into our statement. However, by the same token freedom of expression does not mean freedom for abuse. 

So, again, unless you want to freely abuse someone under the guise of free speech, because they are different what do you wish to say in this country, that you can't and who is stopping you?

Because you can allude all you want, but unless you have a clear grievance, then again I believe it you Paul that has the issue here.

 

[Zico]

1 hour ago, Escobarp said:

Apparently that isn’t her and someone set the account up to take the piss

good job no national rags went with it as a story then

[Escobarp]

19 minutes ago, Zico said:

good job no national rags went with it as a story then

That account has like 100 followers apparently. She’s apparently boasting she’s now got over 35k followers of the back of this publicity and is now offering to do paid promo work off the back of her new found fame!

someone tell me the world isn’t broken 

[Rudy]

11 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

That account has like 100 followers apparently. She’s apparently boasting she’s now got over 35k followers of the back of this publicity and is now offering to do paid promo work off the back of her new found fame!

someone tell me the world isn’t broken 

At KKK rally’s?

[DavidLeesMullet]

2 hours ago, Rudy said:

Let’s not forget that Stan Collymore is a cunt

Brutal but justified takedown...

 

[gonzo]

If you actually read about the Ulrika incident and what happened and what Stan was going through at the time it’s not half as damming as him simply twatting a woman. 

Not condoning hitting females in anyway shape or form, but it’s not so cut and dry. 

 

[Ani]

4 hours ago, Not in Crawley said:

Again, who is stopping you saying what you want, and what do you want to say? It's a long post and your still no clearer on explaining to me who is censoring what you want to say, and what is it you want to say that is being stopped.

My point is, a lot of your ire and worries are imagined, and it's you that is claiming your free speech is being stopped but you cannot point in a direction of who is stopping you, and stopping you voicing what opinion?

That's why I'm interested, I also don't agree with Kent that you can't discuss these issues, I do - at work, in the pub, with friends, with colleagues without fear or condemnation. As I say I'm part of the EDI working group at work and one of the issues that was raised was political views and freedom for them, that you never have to toe one line for fear of your job. Its written into our statement. However, by the same token freedom of expression does not mean freedom for abuse. 

So, again, unless you want to freely abuse someone under the guise of free speech, because they are different what do you wish to say in this country, that you can't and who is stopping you?

Because you can allude all you want, but unless you have a clear grievance, then again I believe it you Paul that has the issue here.

 

But it all comes down to interpretation. There are comments made on here regarding Muslims and Arabs that I imagine would not be acceptable in most companies / organisations but the people making those comments are also expressing their view. 
People do chuck the racist card in and people get destroyed for using the wrong word rather than the intent. Is it racist to say there is a serious problem in this country with Packistani men running grooming gangs that target vulnerable white girls ? Or is it just something that the news channels are scared to address head on ? Because there is an issue imo and something that never gets discussed in such direct terms. 
So yes there are extremes that 99.8% of folk agree are wrong, that girl abusing the bouncer good example. But as you get less extreme it becomes more subjective and impossible to police. 

[paulhanley]

7 hours ago, Not in Crawley said:

Again, who is stopping you saying what you want, and what do you want to say? It's a long post and your still no clearer on explaining to me who is censoring what you want to say, and what is it you want to say that is being stopped.

My point is, a lot of your ire and worries are imagined, and it's you that is claiming your free speech is being stopped but you cannot point in a direction of who is stopping you, and stopping you voicing what opinion?

That's why I'm interested, I also don't agree with Kent that you can't discuss these issues, I do - at work, in the pub, with friends, with colleagues without fear or condemnation. As I say I'm part of the EDI working group at work and one of the issues that was raised was political views and freedom for them, that you never have to toe one line for fear of your job. Its written into our statement. However, by the same token freedom of expression does not mean freedom for abuse. 

So, again, unless you want to freely abuse someone under the guise of free speech, because they are different what do you wish to say in this country, that you can't and who is stopping you?

Because you can allude all you want, but unless you have a clear grievance, then again I believe it you Paul that has the issue here.

 

I can try to explain this until I am blue in the face. You are plainly not going to listen.

My previous posts gave many general examples of the sickness and hypocrisy at the centre of much of left wing thought over the last decade or more. It is up to you whether you accept them or not. My simple advice would be that if you want people with your world-view back in power via any future election you will need to listen to the electorate. Leigh, Hartlepool, Workington and scores of other red-wall places going blue has plainly not got you to sit up and take note, which in itself is remarkable.

There are two conclusions. Either you want to pretend it isn't happening. Or you really do think your view is superior and above that of the unwashed masses. You therefore don't need to listen because being left of centre automatically gives you divine rights. Whichever of those categories you fall in to it makes you desperately complacent in your Guardian reading superiority.

No doubt you are going to explain that it is all soooo much more complicated than we believe it is and our tiny minds cannot cope.

 

[RONNIE PHILLIPS]

5 hours ago, gonzo said:

If you actually read about the Ulrika incident and what happened and what Stan was going through at the time it’s not half as damming as him simply twatting a woman. 

Not condoning hitting females in anyway shape or form, but it’s not so cut and dry. 

 

Had she refused to go dogging with him? 

[Guest]

Bit of rough Lee chapman used to smash Leslie ash around during fun time 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

10 hours ago, Youri McAnespie said:

You do realise this is the forum of a Third Division football team, a forum that's had a thread called 'Battlenips' running for over a year now and featuring entries from pretty much every member?

Not sure where you're going with this, but I'd point out that those ladies will have chosen to remove their clothes and have their picture made public. Quite probably for a fair amount of money.

Freedom of choice.

[DavidLeesMullet]

1 minute ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Not sure where you're going with this, but I'd point out that those ladies will have chosen to remove their clothes and have their picture made public. Quite probably for a fair amount of money.

Freedom of choice.

Mounds for pounds, gash for cash, :lol:!!!

[Not in Crawley]

46 minutes ago, paulhanley said:

I can try to explain this until I am blue in the face. You are plainly not going to listen.

My previous posts gave many general examples of the sickness and hypocrisy at the centre of much of left wing thought over the last decade or more. It is up to you whether you accept them or not. My simple advice would be that if you want people with your world-view back in power via any future election you will need to listen to the electorate. Leigh, Hartlepool, Workington and scores of other red-wall places going blue has plainly not got you to sit up and take note, which in itself is remarkable.

There are two conclusions. Either you want to pretend it isn't happening. Or you really do think your view is superior and above that of the unwashed masses. You therefore don't need to listen because being left of centre automatically gives you divine rights. Whichever of those categories you fall in to it makes you desperately complacent in your Guardian reading superiority.

No doubt you are going to explain that it is all soooo much more complicated than we believe it is and our tiny minds cannot cope.

 

That's not really the answer to my question now, is it? Paul, if you care so much about being silenced, about some invisible, insidious moral metrocentric minority gagging you,  it really shouldn't be all that difficult.

I'm not in anyway claiming superiority, either moral or intellectually. I've not denied that Hartlepool voted for the Conservatives. I've not closed you down, disavowed your position or in someway looked down on your points.  I've not claimed divine rights nor have I claimed I have a significantly enlightened view.

I've just kept asking two questions, what are you not allowed to say that you would like to, and who is stopping you voicing this opinion?

As I said yesterday, I'm interested because I do keep getting the same response from you, almost word for word and whilst being no psychologist, a lot of the language you use is one of the victim, of rising up against a tide of oppression; its attack as defense. In many ways its really not too dissimilar from some of the protest groups you have railed against yourself on here. That, I do find interesting. So I'm really keen to understand this feeling of oppression - and I get that you didn't agree with the liberal consensus that held sway from the mid 90s , which is understandable but this anger seems really rooted and so I ask myself, if Paul feels he hasn't been allowed to voice an opinion for 10 years, and now he feels he can and he styles and then sets himself against an opposition in the 'woke', what is the opinion he wants to voice? And why does he still feel he can't - who is this structure that is stopping him? The government? The Media? Londoners? Labour Voters? Actors? Painters? People who grow beards and drink Oat milk? Vegans? Lesbians? Lesbian Vegans? Lesbian Vegans with Beards who drink Oat milk?

Honestly, that's all it is. I honestly couldn't care less about sickness and hypocrisy in the left wing. I'm not a member of any party and have voted lots of different ways over the years. i was a Labour member but turned my card in when Brown became leader as I wasn't a supporter of him as leader, or as PM. I agree with you Labour were arrogant and sleepwalked into defeat. I argued with friends about their arrogance to anyone in the 'regions' and how their bubbles protected them from hearing what people were growing angrier about over the years. The perception that the liberal progressive consensus had won out and all other positions were rendered null and void was stupefying to hear from supposedly bright people, cossetted in zone 3. Personally, that doesn't mean I then think that I'm to be shut down at every turn nor that views are invalid. In was that that caused the mid nineties progressivism to perish, stupidity and arrogance. But nor do I think that the saviours are Johnson, Le Penn or Trump. It is only by listening that I think we can make a change for the better. I know it may frustrate you when folk say you can't see the irony of some of your posts, but in the responses you have given there's the same arrogance that crippled Labour but its also threaded through with an anger as I said above. So that's the long reason I'm asking these two questions, not to trip you up, but to understand this. To listen.

[Youri McAnespie]

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Not sure where you're going with this, but I'd point out that those ladies will have chosen to remove their clothes and have their picture made public. Quite probably for a fair amount of money.

Freedom of choice.

You're 'not sure where I'm going with this...' - then make a precise counter argument which suggests you think you did know where I was going...

Where I was actually going was - certain posters lay claim that this site is some 'woke' (whatever the fuck that means) shangri-la.

It isn't.

Same folk come on with 'political' schtick most of which does the site no favours at all, some of which is outright embarrassing.

I'm a Battlenips fan, Zico should be commended, I'd trade a single round of Battlenips for all the 'little bit of politics' bollocks.

Battlenips is a throwback to the good old days when it was bollocks and tits and a smidgin of football.

I've been heartened recently to see more and more of the leftist cable stop chiming in to this 'debate' farce on 'political' threads which then become a beyond parody 'yes mate', 'indeed mate' alty-righty gammony spinach circle-jerky lemon party.

There was a belting one t'other day - about sixty posts uninterrupted from the 'ooh, we are SO right-wing' club...

It was fucking laughable.

[Not in Crawley]

I like the music threads.

I can be as musically bigoted as I want on there.

[paulhanley]

13 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

That's not really the answer to my question now, is it? Paul, if you care so much about being silenced, about some invisible, insidious moral metrocentric minority gagging you,  it really shouldn't be all that difficult.

I'm not in anyway claiming superiority, either moral or intellectually. I've not denied that Hartlepool voted for the Conservatives. I've not closed you down, disavowed your position or in someway looked down on your points.  I've not claimed divine rights nor have I claimed I have a significantly enlightened view.

I've just kept asking two questions, what are you not allowed to say that you would like to, and who is stopping you voicing this opinion?

As I said yesterday, I'm interested because I do keep getting the same response from you, almost word for word and whilst being no psychologist, a lot of the language you use is one of the victim, of rising up against a tide of oppression; its attack as defense. In many ways its really not too dissimilar from some of the protest groups you have railed against yourself on here. That, I do find interesting. So I'm really keen to understand this feeling of oppression - and I get that you didn't agree with the liberal consensus that held sway from the mid 90s , which is understandable but this anger seems really rooted and so I ask myself, if Paul feels he hasn't been allowed to voice an opinion for 10 years, and now he feels he can and he styles and then sets himself against an opposition in the 'woke', what is the opinion he wants to voice? And why does he still feel he can't - who is this structure that is stopping him? The government? The Media? Londoners? Labour Voters? Actors? Painters? People who grow beards and drink Oat milk? Vegans? Lesbians? Lesbian Vegans? Lesbian Vegans with Beards who drink Oat milk?

Honestly, that's all it is. I honestly couldn't care less about sickness and hypocrisy in the left wing. I'm not a member of any party and have voted lots of different ways over the years. i was a Labour member but turned my card in when Brown became leader as I wasn't a supporter of him as leader, or as PM. I agree with you Labour were arrogant and sleepwalked into defeat. I argued with friends about their arrogance to anyone in the 'regions' and how their bubbles protected them from hearing what people were growing angrier about over the years. The perception that the liberal progressive consensus had won out and all other positions were rendered null and void was stupefying to hear from supposedly bright people, cossetted in zone 3. Personally, that doesn't mean I then think that I'm to be shut down at every turn nor that views are invalid. In was that that caused the mid nineties progressivism to perish, stupidity and arrogance. But nor do I think that the saviours are Johnson, Le Penn or Trump. It is only by listening that I think we can make a change for the better. I know it may frustrate you when folk say you can't see the irony of some of your posts, but in the responses you have given there's the same arrogance that crippled Labour but its also threaded through with an anger as I said above. So that's the long reason I'm asking these two questions, not to trip you up, but to understand this. To listen.

I think the first thing you need to do is stop personalising this to me. If you are willing to acknowledge recent electoral trends then you must also acknowledge that there are millions of people like me. Leigh and Hartlepool and the rest of the red wall tell you that. 

Tony Blair got this right in the early 1990s and John Smith probably would have done so too. A lot of spadework was done by Neill Kinnock beforehand. Labour listened, understood and responded. However the listening then stopped and the left gradually became arrogant in the way you describe thus: 

The perception that the liberal progressive consensus had won out and all other positions were rendered null and void was stupefying to hear from supposedly bright people, cossetted in zone 3

You've really answered all your own questions in that one sentence. From this mindset flows the judgement that people who want to discuss immigration automatically become bigots, cancel culture, no-platforming and the shocking democracy denying we saw in parliament from 2017-2019. From such people there is a grim distaste for patriotism There were people on the left who thought they'd created a monoculture and they are still out to do it. Don't you understand that if people think all other views have been rendered null and void then those who don't share their view are being marginalised? It is not that they are physically stopped from saying things in the way that may have been the case in the USSR. It is that if they speak their mind and it is not within the confines of the monoculture then this automatically opens them up to being racist/transphobic/sexist etc in the eyes of someone like Emily Thornberry. It isn't just politicians - other organisations like the BBC, National Trust, countless councils have bought in to this soul-destroying arrogance. Gillian Duffy of Rochdale was not a bigot because she wanted to discuss immigration, neither were any of the people who voted for UKIP or Brexit. What was the obstacle to that being understood? It was the perception that all other positions had been rendered, nuil and void so that they could be marginalised. You could have included the word "unacceptable" in your very accurate sentence. 

There needs to be a lot of humility and proper self-analysis from the left. It won't win me back because I'm a conservative now following a path many people do when they get older.  It might win people like my parents back - who in their 70s have gone from being lifelong Labour voters to zealous Conservative voters in a short space of time. Surely the left needs to examine a combination of economic liberalism with social conservatism. It needs to examine anything but tired virtue-signalling wokery.

You really are answering your own questions. However perhaps you don't understand the depths of the anger to which this led - and not just me. Millions of people.

[Not in Crawley]

1 minute ago, paulhanley said:

I think the first thing you need to do is stop personalising this to me. If you are willing to acknowledge recent electoral trends then you must also acknowledge that there are millions of people like me. Leigh and Hartlepool and the rest of the red wall tell you that. 

Tony Blair got this right in the early 1990s and John Smith probably would have done so too. A lot of spadework was done by Neill Kinnock beforehand. Labour listened, understood and responded. However the listening then stopped and the left gradually became arrogant in the way you describe thus: 

The perception that the liberal progressive consensus had won out and all other positions were rendered null and void was stupefying to hear from supposedly bright people, cossetted in zone 3

You've really answered all your own questions in that one sentence. From this mindset flows the judgement that people who want to discuss immigration automatically become bigots, cancel culture, no-platforming and the shocking democracy denying we saw in parliament from 2017-2019. From such people there is a grim distaste for patriotism There were people on the left who thought they'd created a monoculture and they are still out to do it. Don't you understand that if people think all other views have been rendered null and void then those who don't share their view are being marginalised? It is not that they are physically stopped from saying things in the way that may have been the case in the USSR. It is that if they speak their mind and it is not within the confines of the monoculture then this automatically opens them up to being racist/transphobic/sexist etc in the eyes of someone like Emily Thornberry. It isn't just politicians - other organisations like the BBC, National Trust, countless councils have bought in to this soul-destroying arrogance. Gillian Duffy of Rochdale was not a bigot because she wanted to discuss immigration, neither were any of the people who voted for UKIP or Brexit. What was the obstacle to that being understood? It was the perception that all other positions had been rendered, nuil and void so that they could be marginalised. You could have included the word "unacceptable" in your very accurate sentence. 

There needs to be a lot of humility and proper self-analysis from the left. It won't win me back because I'm a conservative now following a path many people do when they get older.  It might win people like my parents back - who in their 70s have gone from being lifelong Labour voters to zealous Conservative voters in a short space of time. Surely the left needs to examine a combination of economic liberalism with social conservatism. It needs to examine anything but tired virtue-signalling wokery.

You really are answering your own questions. However perhaps you don't understand the depths of the anger to which this led - and not just me. Millions of people.

I think I've outlined I understand the anger above, there is no need to go over it again and I've described why there is currently a lot of self-analysis from the left at this time, that's not answering one's own questions, that's providing context.

What I've described is why I'm still facing with asking you the same two questions. I get you are very angry with people in London who didn't listen. But you have constantly gone on about being shut down. Just because someone in a Shoreditch pub is a bit of a dick, doesn't mean everyone who has liberal values is, nor is every liberal value wrong - that's where the anger falls down, because its actually not going to help. You and the bloke with the bread in John the Unicorn are like WW1 fighters, popping your heads over the trenches, taking pot shots and neither of you gaining any ground to the benefit of anyone.

You say you speak for millions, if that isn't arrogant I don't know what it, there are also millions that would disagree with you. I would like more of a consensus politics with listening and debate - not this upper hand dismissiveness that causes divisiveness. Interestingly you mention monoculture, I actually think this is exactly what a lot of your missives prove, I'm not sure you are aiming for a broadening of speech, you are looking for what you think is the correct way. If someone supports BLM for whatever reason - dismissed as woke-ist nonsense, if someone says I don't have an issue with people defining themselves as whatever they want to - attention seeking twattery, If someone says as an organisation they have an open and inclusive policy statement - bowing to an agenda, if someone discusses the structural issues with gender pay-gaps - moaning feminazis, nothing to see here, move along.

You can see how this comes across as a monoculture as you have described? No one is seeking moral perfection, and no one has the right to dismiss views, and I still can't see who is stopping you saying what you want to, unless I've misunderstood what you actually want to say, and I really hope I haven't because you seem like a decent bloke.

[Traf]

Tedious cunts

[London Wanderer]

Nobody should be labelled a bigot for raising concerns over mass immigration. And what happened in Parliament post Brexit was a joke. I don't see the Labour party recovering from it all for a long time. 

But the arrogance of large swathes of the left isn't going anywhere just yet. Until we see the proper self-analysis that Paul is talking about then I can't see enough people switching back. Many are still completely oblivious to it all. 

There's a balance to it though and the woke card can't be applied to everything. Some things have become unacceptable to say now and that's not a bad thing. If I was to start spouting that most Arabs were backwards, inbred scum in my workplace then I'd be in the shit. And rightly so considering I work with Arab families. Then on the other side you've got teachers in the midlands that suffered horrific homophobic abuse and harassment from the Muslim community just for teaching an inclusive curriculum. People were genuinely fearful to call out said community for what it was out of fear of being labelled racist. Too much is being swept under the carpet and it's causing damage. 

[London Wanderer]

8 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

If someone supports BLM for whatever reason - dismissed as woke-ist nonsense, if someone says I don't have an issue with people defining themselves as whatever they want to - attention seeking twattery, If someone says as an organisation they have an open and inclusive policy statement - bowing to an agenda, if someone discusses the structural issues with gender pay-gaps - moaning feminazis, nothing to see here, move along.

👍

[dave2980]

9 minutes ago, Traf said:

Tedious cunts

👆 What he said

[royal white]

NIC not long ago you said that if you witnessed fans booing players taking the knee at the game you would report them. Wouldn’t you put that alongside freedom of speech? If so why are you trying to silence people? 

Edited May 25, 2021 by royal white

[miamiwhite]

10 minutes ago, royal white said:

NIC not long ago you said that if you witnessed fans booing players taking the knee at the game you would report them. Wouldn’t you put that alongside freedom of speech? If so why are you trying to silence people? 

Did he ?

If so, that's a major BOOOOOOOOM and own goal from the Righteous Brother 😄 🤣