The Conservative Party/Government

[bluethrunthru]

Culture wars in full effects:
Trade unionists
Migrants
Transgender

Gotta throw the red meat to Garry Gummun to vote for them.

It's almost like a poem I know well.

yeah - when they come for Garry who will be there for him?

 

[west didsblue]

That wasn’t my meaning at all.

I meant that if you try to tarnish Braverman by suggesting she uses 1930s language from Germany, then half of social media will campaign to get you cancelled, just like with Lineker.

I won’t even try to take the piss about you being over-sensitive to people being over-sensitive about Lineker’s tweet.

Nothing wrong with that explanation.

It was Mr K’s responses to your post that were the piss taking ones.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Nothing wrong with that explanation.

It was Mr K’s responses to your post that were the piss taking ones.

I didn’t get involved after that. I don’t really comment on anti-semitism as it’s a minefield. Pretty much anny opinion on it can be deemed offensive, so I leave it to more informed people than I to debate that topic.

 

[The perfect fumble]

You were the one who said something was antisemitic then said you weren’t qualified to say why.
In other words it sounds like you were taking the piss and posting shit as I suggested earlier.

It's not difficult to argue the primacy of the holocaust. The holocaust is a horrific crime, perpetrated on an industrial scale, designed to wipe out an entire race. A good case can be made that it is a crime unique in human history in scale and cruelty, incomparable to anything that preceded it and anything since.

So, if one believes that the holocaust is incomparable, then comparisons should not be made.

But some folk do make comparisons to the holocaust, in so doing they diminish it, and in diminishing the holocaust such comparisons are considered antisemitic.

But some folk disagree.

 

[west didsblue]

I didn’t get involved after that. I don’t really comment on anti-semitism as it’s a minefield. Pretty much anny opinion on it can be deemed offensive, so I leave it to more informed people than I to debate that topic.

…or to less informed people who post bollocks that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Vic]

It's not difficult to argue the primacy of the holocaust. The holocaust is a horrific crime, perpetrated on an industrial scale, designed to wipe out an entire race. A good case can be made that it is a crime unique in human history in scale and cruelty, incomparable to anything that preceded it and anything since.

So, if one believes that the holocaust is incomparable, then comparisons should not be made.

But some folk do make comparisons to the holocaust, in so doing they diminish it, and in diminishing the holocaust such comparisons are considered antisemitic.

But some folk disagree.

No-one (including Lineker) made comparisons to the Holocaust.

He made comparison with the language used that desensitised and demonised. Then ended with the Holocaust.

And I'm making that comparison specifically of Braverman's repeated use of "humanitarianism" with Hitler's dislike of humanitarian qualms about killing people.

Braverman: Some charities are ‘politically motivated activists masquerading as humanitarians’

Home Secretary hits out as Charity Commission report finds evidence of ‘inappropriate’ payments at Care4Calais

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

It's not that difficult.

Someone likens something to Nazi Germany, and someone (maybe sometimes the Board of Deputies) says anything being likened to Nazi Germany diminishes the unique horror of the Holocaust, then someone says that's therefore antisemitic.

Then Braverman objects to someone saying her language is reminiscent of 1930s Germany, yet she keeps on talking about opposition to her policies as "fake humanitarianism" - which is uncomfortably close to how the Nazis viewed objections to sterilisation of mental defectives and murder of the disabled. See "Humanitätsduselei".

Lost me there I’m afraid. I’d say this discussion is going nowhere.

This where I’m still at.

.

I wish more people would get straight to the point.

 

[The perfect fumble]

No-one (including Lineker) made comparisons to the Holocaust.

He made comparison with the language used that desensitised and demonised. Then ended with the Holocaust.

And I'm making that comparison specifically of Braverman's repeated use of "humanitarianism" with Hitler's dislike of humanitarian qualms about killing people.

Braverman: Some charities are ‘politically motivated activists masquerading as humanitarians’

Home Secretary hits out as Charity Commission report finds evidence of ‘inappropriate’ payments at Care4Calais

www.telegraph.co.uk

You're right, he said....

There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?

He references the rhetoric of Germany in the 30's but not the outcome in the 40s, the language but not its effect.

Are they not intertwined?

You see a difference, so do I, others do not. Some folk are genuine, others, like Braverman, are bad faith actors.

On a tangential note, regardless of whether Lineker was being antisemitic (I don't think he was) I don't believe he was right, but that's for another thread.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Will nobody agree with me that bad though this government is, when they try to do things, they get blocked left, right and centre.

Suella Braverman has said this week that some charities are politically motivated activists masquerading as humanitarians. To back this up it is reported today that a former Home Office Chief (Emma Haddad) accused of resisting key Conservative policies while in charge of asylum, is joining Amnesty International UK - a charity that is on record as saying the government's policies are "inhumane, racist and divisive".

It is not just charities too: also in the news today: the Fire Brigades Union are threatening the Home Office with legal action over the safety of migrants who will soon be moving back onto the Bibby Stockholm barge. I actually wonder what the members of this Union really think about this, like other Unions it will be highly politicised (and on the left) in a way its members may not be. Plus, the barge used to used for Oil workers in Scandinavia I think, if it was safe then, why not now? Could it be the Oil workers had nothing to gain setting fire to their accommodation, whereas these new occupants may have (a return to Hotel living).

FFS this is one of the most ignorantly cretinous posts I’ve ever read on here!

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Just to be clear where I am coming from, consider the Rwanda scheme.

In June 2022 there was a plane on the runway all set to go, but a legal challenge stopped it. It only had 7 passengers* but I ask this: how was it known about, so the ECHR could block it?

Instead of flying a charter flight from Gatwick, use the RAF. Fly 200 to Africa on a secret RAF transport plane, from a clandestine base. How will the ECHR stop that? how will the Supreme Court block that? Plus when the plane arrives, publicise it (TikTok might be most appropriate) so it becomes a deterrent.

This should have happened in June 2022 and this is what should happen in October 2023 and if it doesn't, the government should have a plan (b) - migrants entering illegally as per the illegal migrants bill should be processed abroad, e.g. St Georgia. If only to do one thing: to show that it is the elected government that are running things, not people who disagree with them.

*Not great from a climate change point of view.

An ever more cuntish post.
You’ve got be on a wind up here.