Britain - The Official Thread

[MatskiMonk]

Yeah but that company is a very small operation which he setup, one which he was running even before the show. Also he was the one which said he was unemployable after the show. I'm sure he would rather work from some fortune 500 company earning a mint hence why he was on the show in the first place.

Also that was the same 'company' he lied to Lord Sugar about, I can't remember the details but he inflated what it actually was. Lord sugar was furious with him and fired him on the spot.

Well, I'm sure many people would like to be earning a mint working for a F500 company, I'm not going to feel sorry for people that don't though, especially if they've demonstrated on TV that they might not be very good at their job.

Police say there was no indication of cause of death though... so perhaps this is simply natural causes?

 

[Robin]

Well, I'm sure many people would like to be earning a mint working for a F500 company, I'm not going to feel sorry for people that don't though, especially if they've demonstrated on TV that they might not be very good at their job.

Police say there was no indication of cause of death though... so perhaps this is simply natural causes?

Getting fired on national TV by one of the UK richest men after lying is probably not the best way of selling yourself to prospective employers but my goodness he was hilarious in that series.

He could have died of natural causes but realistically what 27 year old just keels over in their house.

 

[Tired Tyres]

People die of natural causes at all sorts of age. I knew someone who died of a heart attack at 27.

 

[Liquid]

By 'unemployable' did he mean he wouldn't work as a call centre operative or shelf stacker? He was waiting for the next multi-million pound deal to arrive?

 

[Carbonox]

You have a moral obligation to welcome these refugees into your economy.

It is your duty to give them both.

Nothing like forcing your personal opinion down other people's throats.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sorry to interrupt the migrant discussion but I was quite shocked the Stuart Baggs, that bloke from The Apprentice years ago who famously bent the truth in front of Lord Sugar about his business dealings and said the eternal line "I'm not a one trick pony... I'm a field of ponies running towards you" had been found dead at the age of 27.

That's sad to read, I think he did better than expected on The Apprentice as Sugar saw something of himself in him (so to speak). Oddly Mrs. Ten was watching Come Dine With Me some time last week and couldn't figure out who the young, gobby contestant was... it was Baggsy himself in happier days, long before he was so famously fired.

 

[Liquid]

Ted Heath then.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Ted Heath then.

Only allegations... but blimey!

 

[Liquid]

Have any of the newspapers picked up the story?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Have any of the newspapers picked up the story?

Lots. We're told that 5 forces are now holding investigations pertaining to Heath. However, the Madame (jailed some years ago for supplying the services of underage girls) who was said to have made the new claim that begin this particular ball rolling has denied any involvement with- or knowledge of him.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Breaking news; there are now seven forces investigating "claims made about Edward Heath" according the the BBC ticker. I'll provide a link once they've written the page up.

 

[Liquid]

Oh, where is KSaiyu when you need him? The Star, a Yorkshire concern, is now reporting that a two-third majority of the accused in the Rotherham abuse cases are White British.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Oh, where is KSaiyu when you need him? The Star, a Yorkshire concern, is now reporting that a two-third majority of the accused in the Rotherham abuse cases are White British.

I guess single-abuser cases aren't as attractive as an Omgz Asian Paedophile Group!!!, however minor the overall Asian representation is in the grand scheme.

 

[DG_Silva]

This quite accurately represents the left-leaning philosophy on this forum. You are quite happy to slap someone down for commenting on what he perceives to be the truth, and then post something that actually supports what he says.

The comments in the article mentions that Asian-origin men make up 3.5% of the population, 3.1% according to 2011 census, and yet accounts for 24% of the Child Sexual Exploitation crimes. They also make up a much higher percentage of non-familial CSE cases. How is proportional?

EDIT: Just seen what he had been banned for, ignore my comment above in relation to him, but it is still relevant to the leaning on this site.

 

[Famine]

This quite accurately represents the left-leaning philosophy on this forum.

This is an absolutely side-splittingly hilarious comment, given that we're regularly accused of having a Libertarian bias. Libertarianism is, of course, fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.

Of course I have no idea what being left-leaning has to do with it. How does a financial policy geared towards high taxation and redistribution of wealth fit into your accusation of KSaiyu's treatment?

 

[Lizard]

This quite accurately represents the left-leaning philosophy on this forum.

Oh please. I have been slaughtered in the past for being a lefty.

 

[DG_Silva]

@Famine , please see edit. I repeat what I have said. There is a liberal-leaning feel to some of the discussions on this site. Maybe it is just my view on it, but this is not a fiscal discussion, more of a comment on attempts to stop people saying anything 'offensive' based on race.

@haitch40, maybe I don't spend enough time here.

 

[Lizard]

@haitch40, maybe I don't spend enough time here.

Read the $15 thread. If you still think everyone is a lefty then I will be confused.

 

[Famine]

@Famine , please see edit. I repeat what I have said. There is a liberal-leaning feel to some of the discussions on this site. Maybe it is just my view on it, but this is not a fiscal discussion, more of a comment on attempts to stop people saying anything 'offensive' based on race.

Oh. The left-right spectrum is fiscal, not social. Left is socialism (high taxation, nationalised industries, large government), right is conservatism (free market).

If you meant "liberal", then yes, this site's userbase does tend towards preferring freedoms (liberalism) rather than controls and laws (fascism). I'm not... wholly sure how this comes into play when it comes to a user habitually spouting off anti-[group] rhetoric (which is by its very nature fascistic) and ending up talking himself into trouble.

The concept of stopping people saying anything offensive is also fascistic rather than liberal. Not wanting to cause offence is probably a liberal trait, but the creation of controls and laws to stop people from doing it is fascism.

 

[DG_Silva]

@Famine, I think I may have got my political philosophies incorrect, and for any insult I implied, I apologise. I am all for freedoms; but surely those should be the freedoms to think what you think, not what someone else thinks.

It should be correct that in a multi-cultural society like our own, integration is for all parts of the society and it's constraints, which include the laws of the land, not just those you choose, and this is what I take umbrage with. Normally at this point, we get someone saying 'But white males commit more crimes'. That might be true in terms of numbers and percentages, but as a proportion of a population, it is out of ratio.

Can we consider the following (taken from a book called Unrestricted Warfare)

Terrorism erodes a nation's sense of... well being, even if the direct effects of the attacks only concern a minute percentage of the population.

Could we consider that the actions of a few, whatever the intended consequences or results, will end up in deliberate division? There are other actions (look at the Trojan Horse scandal). This could be the aim of a kind of covert terrorism (from both sides of the divide), and we have to be careful. We attack those who represent the BNP and UKIP, but very little is discussed by those from BME.

It still does not remove my opinion that sometimes, the fervour and aggression shown by some members of our community to attack anyone who highlights a negative impact of unrestricted immigration does border on facism; 'No, you can't be offensive, no you can't think like that'. The impression seems to be one of coercion than gentle direction. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but to be hounded out of threads feels wrong.

The reason I disassociated myself with KSaiyu was after I read in the $15 thread what he had done to get himself banned. That is wrong, and he deserved it. My comment was based on attacking him for comments that he had made in the past, and then posting an article that provided citation and validation for some of the comments he, and others, had made. I hope no one is reading it that I am condoning his behaviour.

 

[Famine]

@Famine, I think I may have got my political philosophies incorrect, and for any insult I implied, I apologise. I am all for freedoms; but surely those should be the freedoms to think what you think, not what someone else thinks.

And that's liberalism in a nutshell. So now you're a liberal too

It still does not remove my opinion that sometimes, the fervour and aggression shown by some members of our community to attack anyone who highlights a negative impact of unrestricted immigration does border on facism; 'No, you can't be offensive, no you can't think like that'. The impression seems to be one of coercion than gentle direction. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but to be hounded out of threads feels wrong.

GTPlanet isn't a country - it's a private community and it's entirely appropriate to suggest that aspects of how it is run are fascist in nature. We have rules (which you may consider as laws) and several of us enforce them. One of those rules is not to behave in a hateful manner towards any individual or group. Now this doesn't mean you can't make valid points regarding some groups, but it does mean that if you ramp it up to posting nothing but half-truth, hearsay and rumour about these groups it becomes a campaign of hate. It's not entirely untrue to say that this is what lead to his ban, though the comment you have read about the ban isn't entirely accurate.

The membership though has no power to enforce rules in this way. They can only say what they think - and telling someone who is thinking unpleasant things that what they think is wrong and hopefully educating them as to why is the real cornerstone of liberalism. You're not using legislation to prevent people from thinking unpleasant things, rather education to teach them why they are unpleasant. If they were petitioning the staff to ban them, that'd be a different matter!

 

[DG_Silva]

And that's liberalism in a nutshell. So now you're a liberal too

I'm all for liberalism, but for all, and not at the expense or promotion of others. Affirmative action is wrong, especially the warped version we appear to have in the UK, because it is nearly always apply with zealousness, and non-BME don't get the same opportunities or leeway. Anyway, that's another discussion for another time, and are my opinions only.

GTPlanet isn't a country - it's a private community and it's entirely appropriate to suggest that aspects of how it is run are fascist in nature. We have rules (which you may consider as laws) and several of us enforce them. One of those rules is not to behave in a hateful manner towards any individual or group. Now this doesn't mean you can't make valid points regarding some groups, but it does mean that if you ramp it up to posting nothing but half-truth, hearsay and rumour about these groups it becomes a campaign of hate. It's not entirely untrue to say that this is what lead to his ban, though the comment you have read about the ban isn't entirely accurate.

The membership though has no power to enforce rules in this way. They can only say what they think - and telling someone who is thinking unpleasant things that what they think is wrong and hopefully educating them as to why is the real cornerstone of liberalism. You're not using legislation to prevent people from thinking unpleasant things, rather education to teach them why they are unpleasant. If they were petitioning the staff to ban them, that'd be a different matter!

I agree with everything you have said. Rules are good, rules are your friends, so are pens. However, there are some members of the community that find it correct to hound members into submission, rather than guiding them into the 'correct' frame of mind. I'm not going to name names, you can find them yourself if you dig lightly is this subforum. However, this can rumble on for a long time, so I'm going to nip it in the bud now.

 

[Touring Mars]

So, Tony Blair thinks Labour are heading for a trainwreck if Jeremy Corbyn wins the Labour leadership...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...annihilation-if-jeremy-corbyn-wins-leadership

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-dont-take-labour-over-cliff-edge-tony-blair

Labour in Scotland has already imploded and will probably not return as a credible political force for many years - if it ever recovers from the loss of its core support to the increasingly left-wing nationalist movement. Now Labour as a whole looks like it is splitting down the middle. I don't necessarily agree with Blair on his views, but on the idea that Labour faces years in the wilderness, he's probably bang on the money.

 

[Liquid]

BREAKING: Labour replace 'Red Flag' as their party anthem

 

[Lizard]

So what do people think of Lord Janner?

Under normal circumstances I would fully support taking him before the court. However he is clearly unfit to stand trial. He barely knows where he is, let alone what he is accused of. He is also clearly unable to defend himself.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So what do people think of Lord Janner?

Under normal circumstances I would fully support taking him before the court. However he is clearly unfit to stand trial. He barely knows where he is, let alone what he is accused of. He is also clearly unable to defend himself.

I just don't know whether to believe him. If he's compos mentis then he's legally qualified/experienced enough to present himself as an unfit witness. "Ooh, isn't it lovely" were his first words on entering the court. Truth or act? Hmmm.

 

[Lizard]

I just don't know whether to believe him. If he's compos mentis then he's legally qualified/experienced enough to present himself as an unfit witness. "Ooh, isn't it lovely" were his first words on entering the court. Truth or act? Hmmm.

It does sound like something my grandmother would say to be honest. And I know she doesn't know where she is. Only yesterday she asked me to visit her every Sunday despite it being a 400 mile round trip.

I think it is a case of how is he usually? Is this a once off or are there people who can verify that this is normal behaviour who don't have interest invested in the outcome?

Still though. The system is set up in a way where the evidence for no is right there (he does have an official diagnosis of dementia and his behaviour is in keeping with that). It is up to the prosecution to prove he is able to understand what is happening.

 

[Famine]

So what do people think of Lord Janner?

Under normal circumstances I would fully support taking him before the court. However he is clearly unfit to stand trial. He barely knows where he is, let alone what he is accused of. He is also clearly unable to defend himself.

The case against Janner has been open since 1991 (though it has been claimed that he was being investigated earlier as part of the same enquiry, but that it was obstructed from above) when Frank Beck, director of a Leicester care home, named Janner in his own trial for abusing young boys - and sentenced to five life terms.

In 2001 he pilloried the CPS for allowing Nazi war criminals to escape prosecution due to their dementia...

The case remained open until 2007 when officials in Leicester decided not to prosecute him after an on-again, off-again investigation.

He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 2009 - and since then he's attended the Lords on 634 days, voted 203 times and claimed £104,365 in expenses.

As part of Yew Tree (others), he was investigated again in 2013 and 2014, with searches of his home.

He's been on leave of absence from the Lords since October 2014 and in April 2015 wrote to the Lords to say he did not wish to stop being an "active peer".

The case was effectively reopened by the IICSA at the end of April 2015.


Are we suggesting that there is no connection between the progression of Janner's condition - a condition he knew 14 years ago would prevent his prosecution, if severe enough - from being a voting peer in October 2014 to a gibbering vegetable by August 2015 and the decision to reinvestigate him and take him to trial in the current climate of the 1970s paedo witchhunt?

Really?

 

[DG_Silva]

The interesting question would be 'Why would the Paedofinder General someone in the CPS delay a case against one person, unless there were a lot more people implicated in the case?'

 

[Touring Mars]

In 2001 he pilloried the CPS for allowing Nazi war criminals to escape prosecution due to their dementia...

Some people have short memories...