UK Politics - a new thread for the new board

[mormont]

What do you mean by that?

 

[Commodore]

!!!

 

[Sir Thursday]

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

!!!

 

It's being discussed because there was a petition that got enough signatories. I think the petition system is a healthy one for a democracy to have, even if it does occasionally end up with spurious debates like this one (as Leap says, there's no way this will pass). Ancillary benefit is that it's nice to see politicians from across the political spectrum expressing disgust about his statements :).

I also like that politicians are willing to attempt to present a nuanced position to the public on this issue - yes they disavow Trump's political position, but no they aren't willing to ban him from the country solely on that basis. Maybe they could try doing that in some other areas of public discourse?

ST

[Commodore]

didn't know petitions can force a discussion

that's a cool thing

[ThePrunesThatWasPromised]

Except they used to actually ban Geert Wilders before.

Meanwhile, Rotherham rape gang will probably be released when their half ass sentences are through.

Hopefully Trump embargoes them when he takes office.

[Commodore]

If they vote to ban our future President, I say the invasion of Britain begins on Day 1. 

[ThePrunesThatWasPromised]

I'm referring to their sanctimonious government's cover up.

Maybe they ought to concern themselves with their own sinking ship.

[Maltaran]

For comparison, people currently banned from the UK include several extremist Islamist preachers and the Westboro Baptist Church.

[Roose Goose]

1 hour ago, Leap said:

 

Also, repeatedly referring to child abuse and rape for the sole purpose of winding up strangers on the internet is pretty fucking low. 

What does this even mean? "Don't bring up this thing that happened, it's too useful for your side"??

[HexMachina]

44 minutes ago, Roose Goose said:

What does this even mean? "Don't bring up this thing that happened, it's too useful for your side"??

Because every post Prunes makes makes mention of Rotherham, and he/she conveniently ignored the attempts (i think by Hereward) to actually educate him/her on the matter. So yes, Prunes is attempting to score petty points and provoke reaction by reference to child abuse and rape which is "pretty fucking low" yes.

[ThePrunesThatWasPromised]

He failed is the thing.

Like the government of the U.K.

[ThePrunesThatWasPromised]

I didn't ignore him. I answered every question he posed until he abandoned the inquiry.

More than can be said for the police force of jolly ol England.

Why do liberals put more effort into protecting political correctness than protecting children?

[Roose Goose]

27 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Because every post Prunes makes makes mention of Rotherham, and he/she conveniently ignored the attempts (i think by Hereward) to actually educate him/her on the matter. So yes, Prunes is attempting to score petty points and provoke reaction by reference to child abuse and rape which is "pretty fucking low" yes.

To be fair, he mentioned it in the context of a potential ban on Donald Trump from entering the UK due to his expressed position on Muslim immigration. Prunes bringing up problems in the UK's Muslim community, and the government's abysmal reaction to those problems, seems like fair game in that context. Rather than wasting time debating the threat posed by Donald Trump and patting themselves on the back for their multiculturalism, the people of the UK should grow up a little?

[The Anti-Targ]

So the answer to Muslim wives who come to Britain on a spouse reunification visa and are being educationally oppressed at home by not being allowed to learn English is to deport them for not learning English back to a place where the whole system will oppress them?

And supporting bans on veils is a step in the right direction towards reducing violent Muslim extremism? Seems more likely to have the opposite effect. Banning something religious people see, rightly or wrongly, as an important part of religion, merely adds to feeling of oppression by those religious people and hence will tend to increase extreme violent attitudes towards the powers that be.

[mormont]

8 hours ago, Commodore said:

!!!

 

Maybe next time a little more effort than posting a single image and some exclamation marks would be nice. This is basically spam.

[TerraPrime]

4 hours ago, ThePrunesThatWasPromised said:

He failed is the thing.

Like the government of the U.K.

Failed in educating you? Yes, he did. He's only human, after all. 

As for the U.K. government failing to live up to your barbaric anti-Muslim vision, well, that's a good thing, too. 

Your continual repeat of false statements on the issue is getting to be tiresome. Move on. 

[VarysTheSpider]

7 hours ago, Sir Thursday said:

I think the petition system is a healthy one for a democracy to have, even if it does occasionally end up with spurious debates like this one (as Leap says, there's no way this will pass).

There was actually nothing to pass in the first place. It was just a talking shop, total waste of time and thank God it's over. 

[SeanF]

So the answer to Muslim wives who come to Britain on a spouse reunification visa and are being educationally oppressed at home by not being allowed to learn English is to deport them for not learning English back to a place where the whole system will oppress them?

And supporting bans on veils is a step in the right direction towards reducing violent Muslim extremism? Seems more likely to have the opposite effect. Banning something religious people see, rightly or wrongly, as an important part of religion, merely adds to feeling of oppression by those religious people and hence will tend to increase extreme violent attitudes towards the powers that be.

It seems entirely reasonable to me that proficiency in English should be a factor that gets taken into account in determining whether someone should be entitled to settle here.

[TerraPrime]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

It seems entirely reasonable to me that proficiency in English should be a factor that gets taken into account in determining whether someone should be entitled to settle here.

If reasonable accommodations are made in the UK to assist language-impaired spousal immigrants to learn basic English skills, then yes, delaying the naturalization of those who refuse to try (and note that not everyone can do well in learning second languages) can be a reasonable answer. 

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

It seems entirely reasonable to me that proficiency in English should be a factor that gets taken into account in determining whether someone should be entitled to settle here.

Sure, but wrapping it up as a specific target to Muslim women coming to the UK on spouse reunification visas,and connecting it to the policy of eliminating Muslim extremism is wrong headed thinking and likely to lead to the opposite of what is said to be intended. Any time you give someone the opportunity to see themselves as a victim of targeted oppression, especially religious oppression, you fuel the extremist cause.

Why raise it in a Muslim specific context at all? Presented as "spouse reunification visas for people who's first language is not English can be revoked if the spouse does not make a reasonable attempt to learn English within a reasonable period of time." See no mention of Muslims, nor of any specific language nor or any specific country of origin. This rule applies equally to Russians, Argentinians, Chinese and Iraqis.

Perhaps Cameron was framing it in general terms, but it's being reported in Muslim targeting terms.