Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Which Tyler

UK Politics - From Russia with Love

101 posts in this topic

Quote

 

Stop and search was demonised, so we stopped doing it, so people started carrying weapons with no fear of getting caught, and then started using them.

When i was a PC in the early 00's it was expected that you would do 3 a day, nowadays i doubt my PC's do 3 a month. 

 

I don't know if there's stats in the UK, but I can tell you that "Stop and Search"/"Stop and Frisk" policies in the US weren't "demonised" so much as they were statistically demonstrated to be wildly flagrantly racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Jeremy, it's ok to be anti-Zionist, but not anti-semitic"

"ok, I'll spend passover with these anti-Zionist Jews"

"Oh you bastard"

I'm not sure if anti-semites or pro-Israelis are worse for trying to conflate the two things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

"Jeremy, it's ok to be anti-Zionist, but not anti-semitic"

"ok, I'll spend passover with these anti-Zionist Jews"

"Oh you bastard"

I'm not sure if anti-semites or pro-Israelis are worse for trying to conflate the two things.

The issue is more their claims that all of the flagranatly anti-semitic bulslhit that keeps getting uncovered within the Labour party is just a conspiracy theory against Corbyn.

When you keep getting caught with your hand in the anti-semitsm cookie jar, it's probably a bad idea to try and fix the issue by hanging out with a fringe jewish group who's official position is that the protests against the anti-semitism that keeps getting uncovered are just a right-wing hackjob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shryke said:

I don't know if there's stats in the UK, but I can tell you that "Stop and Search"/"Stop and Frisk" policies in the US weren't "demonised" so much as they were statistically demonstrated to be wildly flagrantly racist.

More to the point, as this article points out, stop and search was reduced in both New York and in London, but in NY the murder rate fell (by much more than the London rate rose, which is the main reason they're becoming comparable). So an increase in the London rate can't simply be attributed to reduced use of stop and search. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mormont said:

More to the point, as this article points out, stop and search was reduced in both New York and in London, but in NY the murder rate fell (by much more than the London rate rose, which is the main reason they're becoming comparable). So an increase in the London rate can't simply be attributed to reduced use of stop and search. 

Well that's not necessarily the case, the increase in the rate of murders in London could be due to reduced use of stop and search tactics by the police while the decrease in New York could be due to another factor particular to New York unrelated to stop and search.

Anyway, here's a BBC article on the use of stop and search powers and it's relationship to violent crime rates. The conclusion seems to be they don't really know.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ljkeane said:

Well that's not necessarily the case, the increase in the rate of murders in London could be due to reduced use of stop and search tactics by the police while the decrease in New York could be due to another factor particular to New York unrelated to stop and search.

Undoubtedly there is another factor at play in NY - the decrease isn't likely to be attributable to reduced stop and search. But it would be going way further than the evidence supports to say that this justifies the claim that reduced stop and search in London leads to a higher murder rate. Particularly as the 'higher rate' really only applies to two months of 2018.

What's going on, it appears, is a significant fall in NY murders coinciding with a much smaller spike in the London rate from a lower base. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/04/2018 at 8:11 PM, Shryke said:

The issue is more their claims that all of the flagranatly anti-semitic bulslhit that keeps getting uncovered within the Labour party is just a conspiracy theory against Corbyn.

When you keep getting caught with your hand in the anti-semitsm cookie jar, it's probably a bad idea to try and fix the issue by hanging out with a fringe jewish group who's official position is that the protests against the anti-semitism that keeps getting uncovered are just a right-wing hackjob.

Even though they've said- "Let's make something clear: we do NOT believe accusations of antisemitism in Labour and the left are nothing more than smears. We have questioned the Jewish establishments cherry picking of antisemitic incidents to suit their agenda."

This seems pretty reasonable. There are clear instances of tolerance of antisemitism in the Labour party, but political opponents are obviously going to try to use this. For example I read an article in The Times which was pretty reasonable, but then ended with advise to the reader to look closely at those leftists opposing circumcision and faith schools. As someone who opposes circumcision and faith schools, this was a bit of a surprise, because I'd never even thought that these things would make me be seen as antisemitic. I mean, Jews only make up a small proportion of those in faith schools, or those who are circumcised. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boris Johnson has managed to make a right has of the Russia case. Theresa May very carefully said that the nerve agent was known to have been developed in Russia but not to say that the scientific evidence alone proved Russia was behind the attack, but that other intelligence played a role. Johnson just flat-out lied when he said that the head of the team investigating the case told him that Russia was 100% behind the attack.

This has damaged (if only lightly) Britain's case and credibility, and Johnson I think now really has to go, especially after it looks like he may have overstated the chances of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe's early release in Iran as well, the Myanmar incident and a host of other inanities. It's utterly ridiculous that this man continues to represent our country abroad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Even though they've said- "Let's make something clear: we do NOT believe accusations of antisemitism in Labour and the left are nothing more than smears. We have questioned the Jewish establishments cherry picking of antisemitic incidents to suit their agenda."

This seems pretty reasonable. There are clear instances of tolerance of antisemitism in the Labour party, but political opponents are obviously going to try to use this. For example I read an article in The Times which was pretty reasonable, but then ended with advise to the reader to look closely at those leftists opposing circumcision and faith schools. As someone who opposes circumcision and faith schools, this was a bit of a surprise, because I'd never even thought that these things would make me be seen as antisemitic. I mean, Jews only make up a small proportion of those in faith schools, or those who are circumcised. 

It's more that they've said this:

https://www.jewdas.org/?p=4780

Quote

What has happened over the last week is anything but an attempt to address antisemitism. It is the work of cynical manipulations by people whose express loyalty is to the Conservative Party and the right wing of the Labour Party. It is a malicious ploy to remove the leader of the Opposition and put a stop to the possibility of a socialist government. The Board of Deputies, the (disgraced for corruption) Jewish Leadership Council and the (unelected, undemocratic) Jewish Labour Movement are playing a dangerous game with people’s lives.

You know, despite the fact that what actually happened is the most recent incident of Corbyn intersecting with anti-semitism caused the whole thing to boil over. An incident they then work to try and excuse:

Quote

 

What triggered this was an antisemitic mural. There is no question that the mural was antisemitic. Michael Segalov can give you the rundown of why it was. Six years ago, that mural got taken down. At the time, Jeremy Corbyn consoled the artist who drew it. Inconsiderate? Definitely. Dodgy? Yeah. Racist? Maybe.

But is it a communal crisis that the leader of the Labour Party posted an unthinking comment on a Facebook post six years ago? Only if you’re a hired troll whose job it is to dig up dirt on left-wing politicians to force them out of office. Only if you’re an outgoing president of the Board of Deputies with a special place in your heart for Trump, Bibi and May. Only if you’re a disgraced wannabe-politician that is being investigated for financial corruption and you need a distraction. Only if, ultimately, your goals have nothing to do with combatting antisemitism and everything to do with ousting the first successful socialist in a lifetime.

 

Which is a funny way of trying to excuse the multiple incidents of anti-semitism the Labour party has been stuck dealing with.

So yeah, it is not surprising that people would object to Corbyn's response to protests about his casual attitude towards anti-semitism being to hang out with a bunch of people who's opinion is that there isn't really a problem with this pattern of behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 hours ago, mormont said:

Undoubtedly there is another factor at play in NY - the decrease isn't likely to be attributable to reduced stop and search. But it would be going way further than the evidence supports to say that this justifies the claim that reduced stop and search in London leads to a higher murder rate. Particularly as the 'higher rate' really only applies to two months of 2018.

Yeah stop-and-frisk cannot possibly be viewed as the reason for the violent crime decrease in NY:

Quote
It is clear that crime rates plunged in New York during Giuliani's time in office, as well as the terms of his successor, Michael Bloomberg, who ramped up the stop-and-frisk program.
 
What's less clear is the policy's impact on the lower crime rate. The number of stops in the city rose dramatically from 97,296 in 2002 to 685,724 in 2011, a seven-fold increase, according to data compiled by the New York Civil Liberties Union based on police reports.
 
But the number of homicides did not fall in proportion to the soaring number of stops, dropping from 587 in 2002 to 515 in 2011. Moreover, the NYCLU also found that in the more than 5 million stops between 2002 and 2013, guns were found in only 0.2% of the cases.
 
Other violent crimes also fell during this time period. Assaults were down 13%, robberies declined 27% and rape declined 35%, according to City-Data.com. But none of these drops came close to corresponding with the huge increase in stop-and-frisk cases.

As others have noted, the violent crime decrease in all of the US, and specifically in NYC, started way before stop-and-frisk was even contemplated.  Even if you want to argue stop-and-frisk was "handcuffed" (heh) by Floyd v. NYC in 2013, the numbers since have pretty much leveled off, and both the overall crime and murder rate continue to hit record lows.  I think increased policing does deserve it's fair share of credit - I've heard horror stories about what NYC was like in the 70 and 80s yet I felt comfortable enough to sleep on my luggage alone in Grand Central as early as 2004 - but stop-and-frisk, or search, or whatever, clearly has little to do with it.

3 hours ago, mankytoes said:

As someone who opposes circumcision and faith schools, this was a bit of a surprise, because I'd never even thought that these things would make me be seen as antisemitic.

I don't think opposing circumcision is antisemitic.  I do, however, think it's anti-basic hygiene.

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Boris Johnson has managed to make a right has of the Russia case.

Yeah, wow, he's really fucked that up.

Edited by dmc515

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Werthead said:

Boris Johnson has managed to make a right has of the Russia case. Theresa May very carefully said that the nerve agent was known to have been developed in Russia but not to say that the scientific evidence alone proved Russia was behind the attack, but that other intelligence played a role. Johnson just flat-out lied when he said that the head of the team investigating the case told him that Russia was 100% behind the attack.

This has damaged (if only lightly) Britain's case and credibility, and Johnson I think now really has to go, especially after it looks like he may have overstated the chances of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe's early release in Iran as well, the Myanmar incident and a host of other inanities. It's utterly ridiculous that this man continues to represent our country abroad.

Johnson should never have been appointed, but he was. And for the same reason he was appointed, he won't go now. His position is not at all about his suitability for office (which is nil) but solely about internal Tory party politics. I shudder to contemplate what he would have to do to get fired. 

That said... calling for an inquiry is perhaps not a great look for Labour, in the circumstances. Yes, Johnson over-sold his position as per usual, because he's a careless fool, but when Russia are hyping every conspiracy theory to lay down smoke and Labour are getting flak for enabling that, maybe let this one go and wait for the inevitable next Johnson fuckup to make political hay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, dmc515 said:

 

I don't think opposing circumcision is antisemitic.  I do, however, think it's anti-basic hygiene.

 

What? Circumcision being more hygienic is a myth that has been debunked for a while.

Cleaning under your foreskin is so difficult right?

Edited by lessthanluke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, lessthanluke said:

What? Circumcision being more hygienic is a myth that has been debunked for a while.

Cleaning under your foreskin is so difficult right?

Didn't expect this to be a discussion.  Was joking around, let's just say easier hygiene and leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Didn't expect this to be a discussion.  Was joking around, let's just say easier hygiene and leave it at that.

Wasn't going to bother but it annoys me whenever I see it. Let's do serious surgery on a child just so it is slightly easier to clean, yay! 

Anyway. Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proper hygiene should never be easy. :mellow: Get right in there with your fingernails.

On the Johnson thing, while I agree he should go (and that he won’t), I do think there’s been a bit much made in the media of this idea of muddying the waters.  Personally, I never thought that a research lab would be responsible for determining where a substance came from, there’s no location strand in a chemical compound. But there was enough information gained that it really shouldn’t be an issue if the Foreign Office could just keep their gobs shut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Werthead said:

Boris Johnson has managed to make a right has of the Russia case. Theresa May very carefully said that the nerve agent was known to have been developed in Russia but not to say that the scientific evidence alone proved Russia was behind the attack, but that other intelligence played a role. Johnson just flat-out lied when he said that the head of the team investigating the case told him that Russia was 100% behind the attack.

This has damaged (if only lightly) Britain's case and credibility, and Johnson I think now really has to go, especially after it looks like he may have overstated the chances of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe's early release in Iran as well, the Myanmar incident and a host of other inanities. It's utterly ridiculous that this man continues to represent our country abroad.

I think it's pretty small beer.  Porton Down confirmed that it was Novichok, and that it could only have been prepared by a State actor.  That narrows the suspect governments down to about one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Even though they've said- "Let's make something clear: we do NOT believe accusations of antisemitism in Labour and the left are nothing more than smears. We have questioned the Jewish establishments cherry picking of antisemitic incidents to suit their agenda."

This seems pretty reasonable. There are clear instances of tolerance of antisemitism in the Labour party, but political opponents are obviously going to try to use this. For example I read an article in The Times which was pretty reasonable, but then ended with advise to the reader to look closely at those leftists opposing circumcision and faith schools. As someone who opposes circumcision and faith schools, this was a bit of a surprise, because I'd never even thought that these things would make me be seen as antisemitic. I mean, Jews only make up a small proportion of those in faith schools, or those who are circumcised. 

Jewdas aren't anti-Semitic.  But, an organisation that claims that "Israel is a steaming pile of sewage that needs to be flushed away" and offers up prayers for the destruction of Israel is unlikely to be popular with other Jews, and Corbyn is hardly mending fences by meeting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its been years since the last circumsition thread, i say go for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/04/2018 at 7:33 PM, Mikael said:

Its been years since the last circumsition thread, i say go for it!

I feel it's one that people are quite entrenched in. I think it's quite a sensitive topic for people who are circumcised, or who have had their children circumcised, when phrases like "genital mutilation" start being used (even though technically...).

I wouldn't make a law specifically about circumcision, I'd make a law banning any unnecessary surgery or permanent body modification on a child. It's bizarre to me that no country in the world, apparently, has that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0