When your political opponents present a target it's good to hit it hard, when the target is one of your own party's elected members it's a sad business and usually kept inside the party but, when someone chooses to go public with their own mistaken and reactionary views on an issue, the gloves have to come off.
Step forward then Margaret Hodge MP who wants to change the system of allocating social housing based on need to one which would see a 'British first' system, some people think that immigrants get preferential treatment, this is not so and she has now helped to perpetuate this vile lie. She is a disgrace and should be deselected, there's no place in the Labour Party for this kind of behaviour.
Into the rammy steps the contemptible Frank Field MP (Labour) this socialist paragon wants to sound more reasonable and would like to change from having homelessness as the top priority to giving top priority to those who 'pay their taxes' what a charming man, what a charming phrase.
I have a message for these two cowards, when you feel the heat coming from the BNP racists and fascists, that's the time to get off your knees and do the right thing - both of you are a disgrace to the party - do the decent thing and resign.
How about campaigning for a proper social house building programme instead of capitulating to the racists, there's a novel idea, decent socialists in the party now have to apologise for you, for god's sake go !
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
65 comments:
Bravo!!
Encore!
First of all Terry, can you not motivate your own side without talk of the BNP? That bunch of goons would have suffocated ages ago if the grass roots Labour and Union movements did not keep giving them publicity by mentioning them as the "hated enemy". They are a bunch of twats. You talk them up like a serious threat then that is what they will become, you ignore them they will get bored and piss off.
However on this issue you and I may find common ground, however small.
Council housing should be allocated on the basis of first come, first served. There are waiting lists are there not? I know that there are ways to get to the "top" of these lists are there not? Is maybe the perception that if someone is on the list but is kipping on a mate's bed they may be lower "priority" than the person who steps off the boat with nothing?
I could see how the latter would be in a worse position and therefore bumped up the list if this indeed can happen. But would it also not be the case to say that the person who brought themselves to this country could have brought this on themselves.
Now before you start accusing me of burning crosses in the front yard let me explain.
There is a feeling that many people arriving in this country do so because they want to take advantage of our welfare state. And that our European neighbours do little to stop them in violation of their international obligations.
When people apply for asylum should they then be held until their application can be processed? If they are processed and have been granted leave to stay then they should be put on a list and given preferential treatment as they are fleeing for their lives. But if they are not then they need to be deported immediately because they are committing a crime by remaining and we cannot choose what laws to obey.
Or is it the case that there should be no "special" cases on housing waiting lists to ensure that everyone is processed in the order in which they entered the system?
RFS - Brief as always - 'ignore the BNP' ? history disagrees with you in a rather big way.
Your views on allocation are a bit convoluted, it's simple, housing should always be allocated with need at the top of the list of priorities, that always comes first.
I've been a councillor for 8 yrs. And I can testify as to how impossible it is to manipulate housing queues, it's a popular misconception, it just doesn't happen.
Your para. About people coming here to exploit our welfare state and the behaviour of our European neighbours is 100 % wrong, it sells right wing papers but it's nonsense, it's also the kind of thing which stirs up hatred.
Asylum seekers should be processed asap and housed immediately on a needs basis if they are entitled to stay.
If they are not entitled to stay they should be returned, what makes people ineligible to stay is a thorny subject on which we would probably disagree.
Allocating housing on a needs basis covers the special needs issue.
When you have people camping on French soil, talking to reporters on the Telly telling them how far they have traveled and how much they want to go to Britain. That is not me being wrong.
You make my point for me. The BNP have always been the lunatic fringe and it is you lot that keep them in the spotlight. I remember watching the TUC conference 2 years ago when speaker after speaker railed against the great threat posed by the BNP. It made them sound like they were laying seige to the conference centre. They win some council seats in London, they are hardly the big threat. Unless of course you need a justification for your own existence?
I think you both agree and disagree with me. What I am saying is that people should be allocated on a needs basis certainly. But what I am suggesting is that the "perception" is that those entering the country are automatically near the top because by definition they are more needy.
Indeed this would not be an issue if the Government could implement a proper policy on immigration and asylum. It is the fact that the Government cannot get those out who do not belong here, and in some cases turn a blind eye to them staying, that tars all those people with the same brush.
Sort out the border issue and the housing one will go away I guarantee you that.
RFS - The only thing new here is your nasty wee story about Johnny Foreigner camped on the French shore waiting to get into Britain, no doubt to spread disease with his nasty foreign habits.
Read some German history and stop talking nonsense about the BNP.
German history has nothing to do with anything here.
Remeber that the BNP is not that old. Of course unless you mean the National Front. In which case I think you are proving your point.
And I never said anything about Johnny. The story was on ITN a couple of weeks ago. Boys risking death to cling to a truck as it passed on its way to the ferrys. Driver having to stop and chase the boy away. I have made none of this up and if you have a problem with that maybe you would like to write to STV and complain?
RFS - German history has everything to do with it. Yes it was Johnny Foreigner you were on about, racism is a terrible thing most people deny it vehemently.
Cllr Kelly - how does changing one's policy to make it more acceptable to all Britons tranlate into "cowardice"?
RightforScotland:
"There is a feeling that many people arriving in this country do so because they want to take advantage of our welfare state. And that our European neighbours do little to stop them in violation of their international obligations."
The problem with processing migrants in the first EU country that they turn up in though is that countries like Malta, which is very small, often has to process hundreds of thousands of migrants, when it makes more sense to share them out depending on population/territory (not that I am defending French policy).
Terry Kelly is right to raise the idea about needing more housing, though I am not sure how the usually admirable Frank Field can resign, as he holds no ministerial post.
No Terry, we live in BRITAN. Not Germany.
That is like me saying that we should remove you from office because you are a socialist as is Robert Mugabe. The two are unrelated but in your desperate attempt to save face you are trying to argue that black is white.
Decent white folks from this nation should come first, they have paid in the aliens from abroad have not.
".....She is a disgrace and should be deselected, there's no place in the Labour Party for this kind of behaviour"
Frankly you could say the same for a good number of members of the Parliamentary Labour Party these days
"..... decent socialists in the party now have to apologise for you, for god's sake go !"
Mind you Terry a lot of party supporters felt that way about the former adminstration on Renfrewshire Council. Hopefully, a spell in opposition and the new leadership of the group will help restore credibility.
In particular, overseeing the effective "privatisation" of large areas of public land was, to say the least disgraceful. Disposing of "surplus" land is one thing - but wholesale disposal of land once occupied by schools, housing or sports fields is another.
If anyone is to "blame" for Rayleen's departure from the Council it is those who tried to steamroller through the sale of Seedhill Playing fields and Rayleen's blind faith in and support for this measure. I do not believe that the Playing fields are a special case as such - however such land disposed of in in this manner only benefits private developers at the expense of local people.
It is certainly time for Labour to get real again and listen to what communities want - not what is commercially expedient
Terry,
You're part of a very dangerous knee-jerk response to Hodge's comments because every time someone denounces someone as reasonable and liberal as she is, only the BNP can benefit.
If you read her actual remarks I'll bet there's nothing there you'd disagree with at all - she wasn't advocating changing the 'allocation by need' system at all. She was just trying to explain it and pointing out why it's sometimes not a very easy choice to make.
Talk of obligations is fine but the reality is we have competing obligations - it won't always be possible to address them all and sometimes we have to make very difficult choices. When it comes to our obligations to those fleeing persecution and abuse nothing trumps it - we have a duty to protect them over and above almost any other domestic political issue. When it comes to those coming here from countries that are safe, developed and where they already have a reasonable standard of living - and they're coming just to better their own lives - then those choices become a little less stark. And in those circumstances it's not unreasonable to regularly review how we assess need and whether or not we're doing so fairly for both indigenous people as well as immigrants.
That, in essence, is all she & Frank Field were saying so which particular but do you disagree with?
"RFS - German history has everything to do with it. Yes it was Johnny Foreigner you were on about, racism is a terrible thing most people deny it vehemently."
So, in order to prove you're not racist, you have to admit to being racist? Nice argument. Startling logic.
You know nothing about RFS. You've learnt nothing about RFS. You have nothing to gain from learning anything about him, because to know him would be to blow your comfy ideas of moral rectitude down about your ears. He's certaibly pretty right wing. I certainly disagree with him politically on a lot of issues. But racist? Not a chance. He's a husband and father who dotes on his wife and child. He's as decent a human being as I'd wish to know. You on the other hand ooze bigotry with every post. You attack nations such as Israel and the USA while holding up a third world dictator with an appalling record on human rights as a paragon of virtue. Your version of debate is to ignore any argument which counters yours and attack it as right wing of nationalistic or racist. You're an excuse for a politcian and you have no right to attack good people in this way.
Terry do you do all your updates from a works pc, and how do you justify that if that is the case?
Terry, you say you do not like anon comments, wny not go into your settings and remove the option.
That way people would have to use a profile to comment then.
"We have chosen as a society to put the civil liberties of the suspect, even if a foreign national, first," he wrote. "I happen to believe this is misguided and wrong."
Britons had decided that, except in very limited ways, the threat to public safety from extremism did not justify radical changes to the law," he said. "I believe this is a dangerous misjudgment."
"Even if a foreign national..."
That sounds a lot like an attack on Johnny Foreigner to me. What's that? Who wrote it? Oh, I forgot to say. It was Tony Blair. You know, that bastion of social justice, fairness and truth. Yes that one. The one who isn't racist. Terry, for Christ's sake, surely even you can't defend this.
james highams - when you side with something you know to be wrong, because you are afraid of the populist BNP you are a coward.
rumbold - Frank Field ? he should resign from the abour Party. He should never have joined.
RFS Britain is no different, it nearly happened here with Mosley, who of course had the support of the monarchy.
I'm a member of the same party as Hodge and Field and I'm entitled to disagree with them, and call for their resignation.
People often call for me to resign in these comments, you probably have as well but I'm not going to look it up, your comment isn't worth the bother, your fan club leader jim lewis is a good, if silly example.
Linking me to Mugabe opens up an open goal but it's too childish - again.
anon - 'decent white folks' delighted to publish you, I'm wearing gloves.
'Party supporters' - our vote was the highest of any party !
Your ref. To Seedhill and disposal of land is simply dishonest but I've been over this before, we'll wait now and see what happens.
Liam - you sound like a pitiful apologist, what Hodge said was deliberately designed to ingratiate herself with voters who might go to the BNP and Field has made a career as a member of the awkward squad.
What they have done is give succour to the repellent Nazis, in Hodge's case because of cowardice and in Fields because of cheap publicity.
Terry,
There are two ways to discuss her remarks.
(1) Focusing on context, secondary meanings, desired media response etc. or
(2) The literal comments she made, taken at face value.
You seem intent on only allowing the first of these - I accept she was being reckless and courting an unsavoury part of the electorate. On that score I agree wholehearedly with you.
On the second though you've yet to address my point - what specific sentence in her speech would you disagree with?
If you keep evading this point you put yourself on the same ideoligical plane as the nutters in the BNP you despise...
Jim Lewis - are you taking the p - - - are you really this dense ? So RFS is nice to dogs and children.
Can you not just say he's good and I'm bad ? Save us all time.
anon - 'updates' I'll tell you if you ID yourself.
anon - 'why do I allow anon comments' because I'm fearless, honest and able to leap tall buildings at a single jump - and, I also want to let people see the kind of reactionary cowards who are out there.
Jim lewis - what a bizarre comment, IMO being a 'suspect' means you are innocent and are therefore due the same civil liberties as everyone no matter what nationality, what do you think ?
I do not believe in making 'radical' changes to the law because of someone's perceived 'threat to public safety' what do you think ?
It's not so much racism from Blair as a reaction from someone who doesn't have an answer and is panicked into a mistaken conclusion.
We can't have it both ways, we either stand by our pledge not to let the terrorists change our way of life or we allow the terrorists to force us to change, which has already happened, we are locking people away illegally without trial and torturing people as well who have not been tried. I thought that that, was what we were in Iraq to put a stop to.
So what is it Jim you can't have it both ways either, do you support me or Blair ?
Liam - I don't have to quote her verbatim, we agree on why she done it, she wasn't being reckless, she is a highly intelligent woman with vast political experience.
She knew exactly what she was doing, she deliberately undermined the principal of need being the most important issue in allocating social housing with specific ref. to immigrants and asylum seekers, she will never recover from this, we don't need to look at 'face value' that's trying to wriggle out of it with distractions.
C'mon Terry - you're ducking the question. I'll happily concede all you say about her intentions and how distasteful they were - we're 100% in agreement on that.
I'm just asking you to indulge me in the courtesy of explaining what specifics in her statement you disagree with. If you're unable or unwilling to do that then you diminish the cause of anti-racism / anti-discrimination that you claim to uphold.
Why do you have so much trouble attacking the Dear Leader? Yes, we do agree. It's funny you seem to adopt double standards. She is an experienced politician who knew exactly what she was saying. He was panicked into a mistaken conclusion. You know very well what Blair's message is. "I know what's best for you people. Just leave it to me and all will be well. Don't you bother your pretty little heads with all that thinking and such like. I'll do it for you."
Just like every politician I've everheard, Blair suffers from a massive ego. He's had so much experience of politics, and us mere mortals don't realy know what it's like. Well, I've lived with the consequences of the actions of arrogant bastards like him, and a lot have died because of them. Get off your bloody fence Terry and have the balls to demand Blair's reisgnation now.
" I don't have to quote her verbatim"
So you are calling for someone's resignation without having all the facts to hand?
I don't think that I have ever called for your resignation in the comments.
Mosley was suppressed and rightly so, that was in the 1930's a very different place. Who supported him is irrelevant to any discussion of today's BNP. The fact that you have moved the discussion from German history to British history but still fail to give any weight to your argument that you are right to publicise the BNP just shows how much you are grasping at straws here.
and Jim said all those nice things about me (even although [or maybe because] he has now retired) and he does not know the story of Monica!!!
And for the record I am nice to dogs and children but hate cats and urban foxes. What would make me good in your eyes then Terry?
".....rumbold - Frank Field ? he should resign from the abour Party. He should never have joined"
I, for one, would say that about Blair, among others.
"..Your ref. To Seedhill and disposal of land is simply dishonest"
What was dishonest about it?
Really - in your opinion, was the former Labour adminstration entirely beyond reproach in all matters?
"....'Party supporters' - our vote was the highest of any party ! "
Just because a number of supporters remained loyal should not be seen as a ringing endorsement nor should it be an excuse for complacency
Liam - I don't know why you find it necessary to wriggle around like this - she is guilty of pandering to the Nazis of the BNP.
I really dont know where you are coming from but that's enough for me, why don't you just join in the condemnation ?
Jim - you can't think straight - if you think I'm sitting on a fence you are either a liar or you have no understanding of how politics works.
Furthermore if you think that everyone in the Labour Party thinks the same way you really are out of it.
Talking tough is cheap, anyone can do that, being involved is a whole lot harder, too hard for the likes of you I suspect.
RFS 1/ no 2/ OK 3/ it's typical right wing stuff about Mosley - at least he could have got the trains to run on time couldn't he. 4/ ? 5/ a retraction of your odious views and an attempt to join the human race.
So my holding different political views from you means that I am sub-human?
Who is using the language of the far right now?
Rumbold - I say you can say what you like about Blair.
Anyone who portrays the proposals for Seedhill as a bad news story is IMO a liar who has their own agenda and the people of Seedhill are not on it.
I'm not aware of any impropriety under the last Labour Administration are you ?
I didn't see the vote as a ringing endorsement, did you think I did ?
RFS - Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to insult you but I've just at last thought what might be going on. Are you autistic ?
I think that you might have got me confused with another poster, as I have no idea what you are talking about.
So now I am not only sub-human but I am also brain damaged?
Has it occured to you that Hodge may have said these things in order to be dismissed from the party and not be tainted by association with you?
Your response to people you don't agree with is to call them "autistic"?
I mean, what?
Can I play, too? Am I a spastic, Terry? Am I? Maybe Jim Lewis is a schizophrenic, eh? We know you think Clairwil is a mentalist.
Margaret Hodge's comments - with which I disagreed - were mild and intelligently expressed compared with this sort of mindless abuse.
Aren't you rather a long way from Barking and Dagenham to have an informed view? I'm from round that way. Here's the paradox. If the BNP get in - and there is every chance they will because Griffin is a very clever monkey - then they will liquidate people like me, and they will manage that because the Labour Party has made it possible.
How so? Two reasons.
a) The Labour Party has obstinately built two databases which carefully identify non-white groups. The notable one is the Every Child Matters database which records ethnicity. This, incidentally, was precisely the database which IBM attempted to build for the Nazi regime, when it developed punch-card techniques. Find the child and you find most of their family. The second database is the one attached to ID cards. Do I hear anyone saying 'Papers please'?
b)In allowing uncontrolled immigration the Labour party (and others to be fair) have stoked this up. Now, when I go round the pubs the most common mutter is 'bloody immigrants'. This is very much how the Weimar Republic fell in a moody election.
So, my warmest thanks but every time you parade your impeccable leftist anti-racist sentiments, you actually move me a millimetre nearer my doom at the hands of these thugs. This is not helping.
I want to slap every well-meaning liberal round the chops and yell 'wake up'.
It's not about proving how nice you are. It is about effectively moderating the needs of indigenous people and immigrants. It is about limiting those number of immigrants, especially those who come with the competitor ideology of Islam.
And Terry, my sister was told by Barking Council she couldn't have a house because immigrants had first claim on those, so don't give me all load of old flannel about how we've imagined all this. I know what my own sister said.
The BNP is a real threat, and it is time people came to realize that the only lucky break we have had so far is that Nick Griffin has a funny eye, which makes him electorally unappealing. A measure of the man's cleverness is that the knows this and tends not to make himself the centre of attention.
(Sorry RFS, you have underestimated this one. We both wish they really were a bunch of twats, but they are not and I can't afford the luxury of your continued mistake.)
So, in summary. I am a devout coward. I would like to stay alive. The best way for this to happen is for the BNP not to have any more success. If they keep being dismissed by the main parties, they will gain grassroots support. If immigration is not stopped, they will gain grass-roots support. If they gain grass-roots support, boy am I ever in trouble.
Stop indulging your 'aren't I a good person' sentiments right now and start doing the things which will keep me alive. Allocate housing to Brits first. Stop encouraging immigration. Deport anybody who should not be here.
I do not want a job as a lampshade.
Merely for history's sake:
My late father was in his 20s when the Battle of Cable Street took place. He was in the area, although he took no part in the action.
His brief opinion of it was that it was indeed glorious the way the ordinary East Enders stood up to the Fascists, particularly the dockers.
His other opinon was that this was predicated on their dislike of a toff from outside, coming down and treating the place like he owned it. In particular my father described the dockers' attitude as: 'They're our Jews and if anybody is going to beat them up, it's going to be us.'
Aw, shucks.
Terry, your slip is showing. Blair baldly stated that human rights were being held ahead of the fight against terrorism, especially where it concerned non-nationals. He went on to state that Britons had expressed their wish to have those freedoms preserved and that they were wrong to do so, a massivley arrogant statement. He proposes new powers of stop and search which are nothing less than the old sus laws in disguise. Powers which no senior police officers were consulted over, powers which they do not want. One described the proposals as 'bizarre', another suggested they would be counteproductive, dammaging police/community relations.
This is a man who does not listen. A man who is employed by me (as are you) and yet refuses to listen to my needs. You viciously attacked Margaret Hodge over proposals for changes to social housing policy. Blair proposes further removals of the civil liberties for which out forefathers fought so hard and you won't even criticise him.
Oh yes, Terry, I know EXACTLY how politics works. You're a liar and a traitor to your own cause, a cause to which I subscribe most of the time. The only diffrence between us is that I won't compromise to suck up to a sleazy, thieving, lying, sanctimonious scumbag like Blair.
Firstly, Terry, that posting was by me not by Rumbold.
"......Anyone who portrays the proposals for Seedhill as a bad news story is IMO a liar who has their own agenda and the people of Seedhill are not on it"
Well that's interesting Terry -Firstly, I live in that area. Secondly, I voted for Rayleen. So then Terry just what is my agenda???.
So how do you reconcile selling off PUBLIC land to PRIVATE developers with your Socialist ideals? I certainly cant!
How can this be other than a bad news story for the people of the people of Seehill and beyond?
I stated previously that the playing fields was not a special case - many are concerned about the amount of land disposed of under the previous administration.
"...I'm not aware of any impropriety under the last Labour Administration are you ?"
Not impropriety as such but sheer arrogance and complacency - to the extent I hear that under the previous leadership of Jim "Just call me God" Harkins (sorry Jim and god-fearing Christians alike) and your mate Tommy Williams some Labour Councillors were subjected to what was no less than bullying.
And, just out of interest, why were you replaced as Chief Whip to the Labour Group?
rumbold - my apologies
eugenides - where did I say that then ?
RFS - It was a genuine question, I was worried that I had been treating you unfairly anyone who appears to take things as literally as you is perhaps a 5 yr old or perhaps there is some other explanation.
I make a crack about joining the human race and you say I'm calling you sub human - the 100 % tax rate ? - your tendency to send me so many posts at the same time, it can be quite worrying.
No I didn't think that about Hodge and again you worry me, do you really think that ?
Anon - I have an informed view about places further away than Dagenham.
'Two reasons' a/ it wasn't the Labour Party it was the Martians.
b/ We don't have uncontrolled immigration (bad slip there)
Immigrant numbers, Islam, Sister couldn't get a house because of immigrants, Brits first, stop immigration, deportations. Let the readers judge.
Anon - I concluded long ago that Cable St. Must be the biggest street in London.
If only Mosley had learned to drop his h's eh !
Jim - your last paragraph indicates that you have lost the plot - your agressive stance/language makes you a phony.
Well if I am to "join the human race" I am not in it for a demotion am I? So it stands to reason that if I am joining it I am bettering myself ergo I am sub that which I seek to join. Unless of course you are saying that my political thought has taken me to a higher level and you wish me to return to more mortal realms so that I can stop making you feel inferior?
I have asked you to defend yourself and your writings. You claim alternatively that I am autistic of a 5 year old. Am I to take it then that you don't actually think the BNP are a threat? That you accept you talk them up to justify your own existence?
I would certainly hope that a 5 year old would recognise when a question is being dodged.
Why did you not take the "open goal" of the Mugabe comment? Why did you resort to a personal attack? Take the goal now Terry and redeem yourself.
Terry, face it, you use the most foul imagery and bully boy tactics to attempt to silence your critics and it upsets you that so far you have failed.
Cynic - If you voted Labour and don't have your own agenda then I will take your word for that, you are quite simply IMO opinion wrong, the proposals for Seedhill are a vast improvement and will be a great benefit to sports in Renfrewshire.
'Many are concerned about the sale of public land' nonsense, you and some others like 'the friends of Seedhill' might pretend to be for your own ends, Renfrewshire Council has more open land than you could shake a stick at, we can't give some of it away.
Arrogance, complacency, bullying etc. I don't remember any of that.
I was replaced as chief whip because they found out about my past scandalous life which I am now writing a book about so I can't say any more, at this juncture
RFS - Keep telling yourself this rubbish I'm happy to let others judge - you show a slim grasp on reality that's why I asked you that question, let's try again, do you think I advocated tax at 100 % ? Do you think I meant that you were sub human ? Where did I say you were autistic ?
Your last para about bullying is simply whinging, I talk to you and others the way they talk to me, go read you past columns on your own web page and stop whining like a big blouse.
you use the stigma of mental illness to launch attacks on those that disagree with you. Will you now publish a retraction and maybe think of another name to call me?
And I think I set out clearly that your statement that rejoining the human race indicated you considered me sub human.
It is no fun when people just let you get away with this kind of thing is it?
Terry the Nazi's were a socialist party, so are you saying that you as a socialist stand with them,,,
"RFS - Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to insult you but I've just at last thought what might be going on. Are you autistic ?"
Posted by Terry Kelly, Tuesday, May 29th 5.09 pm.
"Where did I say you were autistic ?"
Posted by Terry Kelly Wednesday May 30th 3.59 pm
Who's splitting hairs now?
By the way Terry, it's ok. I know you won't indulge in adult debate or answer any of our serious questions. You're a politician.
anon - "Nazi's" of course I bow to you on the subject of Nazi's but you should check out the number of political parties who have used the name Socialist before you go down that road.
You could also try the parties who use Nationalist, now there's a right bunch of Nazi's go check it out.
RFS - If you want to carry this on then fine I find that strange as well, I asked a genuine question, perhaps you could show me where I called you something, what name was it ? you're lying and looking a bit lost but, I'll try again.
You are accusing me of calling you 'sub human' you also believe that I want to tax people at 100 % if I call someone an idiot or a nutter, according to you I'm using the stigma of mental illness to attack my opponents, have you read some of your own writings ? And your friends ?
I maintain that this kind of behaviour is worrying, I genuinely do, young children can sometimes take things literally which are nonsense and it can be quite endearing but when an adult displays this kind of conduct and has it pointed out and still maintains his stance ?
When someone does this kind of thing you think their having a laugh, taking the p - - -, but when they maintain that they are serious several times, well ? What do you think ?
jim - you're not following this - RFS is insisting on saying things which would be funny if said by a child and he insists he is serious.
I didn't call him anything and if you say I did you are clearly a liar.
But we have been here already. You say you were having a laugh? Does not matter. You are splitting hairs. Had you asked the autistic question in a national paper we would now be talking about libel in the high court.
How about if I now ask you "I don't mean to be funny but are you a bit of a darkie?". How does that grab you? Eh? Or maybe if I used the n word?
Easy test this, if you sub something racial into the question like that and it causes offence then it is offensive in its original form!
RFS - back to the courts again eh ? We've definitely been here before haven't we, I'm still waiting on all those threats happening.
The question was serious !
Do you believe that I would advocate tax at 100 % ? Do you believe that I think that you are sub human ? You said these things and repeated them so, what causes such behaviour ?
Would you like to stand up in open court and say these things and convince a judge that you are serious, would you like an open court to have read out the things you have written in the past about me ?
This could be a real feeding frenzy for the lawyers, your problem is of course that you have already provided enough stuff to keep lots of lawyers busy for a long time so, be my guest.
Terry, where did I mention courts?
I have simply said that if you sub some other words into this then it can be considered racist. Unless you think that something is only officially something once a court has ruled on it?
And for someone who is trying to say that I am autistic for asking the same questions again and again at least I have the excuse that I ask them over and over simply because you do not answer them and you are being shown up as such.
You continue to ask three questions that I have already answered so lets go over them.
'Do you believe that I would advocate tax at 100 % ?'
Yes
'Do you believe that I think that you are sub human ? '
Yes, look up "juxtaposition" on Google and you will see what you have done
"You said these things and repeated them so, what causes such behaviour ? "
You tell me? Are you saying that all autistics share identical symptoms? Or are you just asking me if I am Rain Man? Again with the bigoted generalisation of a complex subgroup of society.
So now let me ask you the question again:
Will you recognise your sweeping generalisation of a complex family of mental conditions, retract your original question and substitute it with one with a more suitable phrase?
A simple yes or no will do, we all know how busy you are.
RFS - keep it up, you think I would advocate tax at 100 % I love repeating that one, that is your argument right ? I regard you as sub human, that's your genuine argument Right ?
I won't retract anything I've said about this and I'm even more concerned now than when the notion first struck me that you were serious.
You are not a child but you insist on talking this way so what is going on ?
Post a Comment