Jump to content

What Is Happening To Our Country?

sadoldgit

By sadoldgit
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Farmer Saint

Farmer Saint

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I assume quite a few more. One of the charges is that some have links to the labour party and they are the ones attempting to widen the scope of the enquiry. Not sure how true that is.

So there is a good chance that these 4 are trying to politicise this as well. Goody.

  • Like 1
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Because a big part of her job is presiding over the process they are involved in that she has messed up. Her performance in the commons yesterday should have been enough to see her lose her job on its own.

It’s a shame that it has become political. Pathetic by the Tories to try and capitalise.  A cynical view, but some of these victims will be very easy to manipulate. It is pretty obvious Jess Phillips has the more natural empathy with the victims and a track record of concern over Badenoch who pretends she gives a shit. 
It is pity that controversy is there as important to highlight the despicable culture of not being seen as a racist when clear who the perpetrators are. 

  • Like 5
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

So there is a good chance that these 4 are trying to politicise this as well. Goody.

BBC report says that other survivors on the panel support the process and Phillips. I think a lot of the current turmoil is bring driven by one side of the media, prodded on by Kemi doing her best Captain Mainwaring impression.

  • Like 4
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, whelk said:

It’s a shame that it has become political. Pathetic by the Tories to try and capitalise.  A cynical view, but some of these victims will be very easy to manipulate. It is pretty obvious Jess Phillips has the more natural empathy with the victims and a track record of concern over Badenoch who pretends she gives a shit. 
It is pity that controversy is there as important to highlight the despicable culture of not being seen as a racist when clear who the perpetrators are. 

Interesting. Looks like it's not just political opponents upset at Jess Phillips:

Jess Phillips not planning to quit, I understand, but she’s still under pressure from colleagues. 

A minister tells me they “can’t see how Jess remains”, while a Labour backbench MP says: “I haven't seen her deliver anything apart from loud noise.”

Sir Ralph

Sir Ralph

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, whelk said:

It’s a shame that it has become political. Pathetic by the Tories to try and capitalise.  A cynical view, but some of these victims will be very easy to manipulate. It is pretty obvious Jess Phillips has the more natural empathy with the victims and a track record of concern over Badenoch who pretends she gives a shit. 
It is pity that controversy is there as important to highlight the despicable culture of not being seen as a racist when clear who the perpetrators are. 

Ok I agree the Tories are hypocrites - they could have done this inquiry and their criticism holds little weight. I dont think Labour ever wanted this Inquiry, hence the original vote to not do it. If you were a victim of abuse, surely you want justice and to stop abuse over anything else, rather than make a political point. To me, its more likely that those in power (this isnt just the Labour Government but includes them) dont want to confront the nasties that are going to be exposed, having been forced politically to do this inquiry in the first instance. There are a lot of people who are going to come out of this very badly, a bit like the epstein case which clearly has elements of cover up. I can imagine a lot of pressure from various quarters to dilute it.

Edited by Sir Ralph
  • Confused 1
Holmes_and_Watson

Holmes_and_Watson

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, whelk said:

It’s a shame that it has become political. Pathetic by the Tories to try and capitalise.  A cynical view, but some of these victims will be very easy to manipulate. It is pretty obvious Jess Phillips has the more natural empathy with the victims and a track record of concern over Badenoch who pretends she gives a shit. 
It is pity that controversy is there as important to highlight the despicable culture of not being seen as a racist when clear who the perpetrators are. 

Totally understand the cynical view of the victims. I've no idea of who has been involved or the scope of discussions they've had to this point. Nor on the source of any advice they've had.

From what I gather, some of the victims raised concerns. For Phillips to use the word "untrue" regarding people who have been dismissed repeatedly by those in authority over decades, could reasonably be taken very badly.

Such is the nature and length of the abuse and lack of action across any number of abuse allegations, it's no wonder that there's pressure on the scope. However, that pressure shouldn't be coming from authority, regardless of their concerns over resources, timing etc. It's been over many decades, so there's not a political party or authority that gets to score points.

Where someone has concerns about ethnicity being pushed aside, using "untrue" isn't a great way of reaching a common consensus. Likewise for those concerned about the presence of police and social services on running it. This isn't the first enquiry where there's been tone deafness on who best to be chair. It's reasonable that some victims don't trust anyone connected with the services that repeatedly let them down, be in charge. 

  • Like 2
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, whelk said:

It’s a shame that it has become political. Pathetic by the Tories to try and capitalise.  A cynical view, but some of these victims will be very easy to manipulate. It is pretty obvious Jess Phillips has the more natural empathy with the victims and a track record of concern over Badenoch who pretends she gives a shit. 
It is pity that controversy is there as important to highlight the despicable culture of not being seen as a racist when clear who the perpetrators are. 

It now appears that there's a number of people invited on the panel who aren't group based sexual abuse victims and are victims of other types of childhood sexual abuse and they are the ones pushing for the scope to be expanded. Given your final paragraph presumably you agree that this is not on if true?

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted

Given the counter statement today about jess Phillips, the big question that now needs answering in relation to this issue is who on earth invited loads of victims of individual grooming or wilder child sexual abuse on a panel relating to an inquiry on grooming gangs? Was the purpose to dilute the findings?

Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Given the counter statement today about jess Phillips, the big question that now needs answering in relation to this issue is who on earth invited loads of victims of individual grooming or wilder child sexual abuse on a panel relating to an inquiry on grooming gangs? Was the purpose to dilute the findings?

I think you know the answer to that. 

whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

It now appears that there's a number of people invited on the panel who aren't group based sexual abuse victims and are victims of other types of childhood sexual abuse and they are the ones pushing for the scope to be expanded. Given your final paragraph presumably you agree that this is not on if true?

It seems at risk of turning into some culture war debate to beat the govt with.  I want the truth obviously, although already aware of the risible approach of some involved where clear more concern about how they were perceived rather than highlighting the obvious trend and helping the victims.
You can put two victims against each other who will have different opinions - there isn’t a definitive right answer on Phillips.  

 

  • Like 1
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, whelk said:

It seems at risk of turning into some culture war debate to beat the govt with.  I want the truth obviously, although already aware of the risible approach of some involved where clear more concern about how they were perceived rather than highlighting the obvious trend and helping the victims.
You can put two victims against each other who will have different opinions - there isn’t a definitive right answer on Phillips.  

 

Right but there does now appear that there are a number of people invited on this panel who are not grooming gang victims. These people have also confirmed that they were looking to widen the scope of the investigation-a charge that Phillips denied in the commons- which would have the effect of diluting the findings. You're right that some people are politically partisan but that fact is surely not a good way of discovering the truth.

whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Right but there does now appear that there are a number of people invited on this panel who are not grooming gang victims. These people have also confirmed that they were looking to widen the scope of the investigation-a charge that Phillips denied in the commons- which would have the effect of diluting the findings. You're right that some people are politically partisan but that fact is surely not a good way of discovering the truth.

I have no idea why an inquiry into grooming gangs wouldn’t have a clear remit to just do that. No idea who is trying to widen the scope and why others invited as seems pointless as not going to be acceptable to anyone. 

  • Like 2
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, whelk said:

I have no idea why an inquiry into grooming gangs wouldn’t have a clear remit to just do that. No idea who is trying to widen the scope and why others invited as seems pointless as not going to be acceptable to anyone. 

Agreed. Seems very odd to me. 

whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

He was one of the many fighting aged men fleeing from oppression I’m sure. 

Maybe there were no defenceless women in Sudan for him to stab with a screwdriver? Depressed me watching the article on the news. Need to just throw him off a roof

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

This just highlights how pathetically soft we are as a nation.

I beg your pardon look at this and you’ll find we’re not 

 

IMG_0156.jpeg

east-stand-nic

east-stand-nic

Posted
Posted

Hmm. I note as ever no comment and condemnation of this attack by certain Muslim apologists on here. 

As i have said many times in the past, by allowing all these illegals in, we are opening up the public to a greater risk. This is proving true. Import a large contingent of males from countries where it is normal to abuse and mistreat women and hey presto, look what happens. To defend it and to say it is correct to allow these people in is utterly sick. 

  • Haha 1
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

Hmm. I note as ever no comment and condemnation of this attack by certain Muslim apologists on here. 

As i have said many times in the past, by allowing all these illegals in, we are opening up the public to a greater risk. This is proving true. Import a large contingent of males from countries where it is normal to abuse and mistreat women and hey presto, look what happens. To defend it and to say it is correct to allow these people in is utterly sick. 

Like Thailand?

  • Haha 4
Gloucester Saint

Gloucester Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)

Disturbing that this is seen as OK for a political party to say https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/sarah-pochin-reform-gb-news-advertising-black-asian-video-b2852382.html

If Griffin had said that on QT it would have been a national scandal. But as it’s Reform, only the Indy, Mirror and Guardian will report, possibly Sky News. BBC and the other red tops will put their fingers in their ears.

Was a JP for 20 years as well.

Edited by Gloucester Saint
  • Like 1
Farmer Saint

Farmer Saint

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Disturbing that this is seen as OK for a political party to say https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/sarah-pochin-reform-gb-news-advertising-black-asian-video-b2852382.html

If Griffin had said that on QT it would have been a national scandal. But as it’s Reform, only the Indy, Mirror and Guardian will report, possibly Sky News. BBC and the other red tops will put their fingers in their ears.

Was a JP for 20 years as well.

She is an utterly appalling person. If Reform are serious they need to sack her.

  • Like 2
east-stand-nic

east-stand-nic

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Disturbing that this is seen as OK for a political party to say https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/sarah-pochin-reform-gb-news-advertising-black-asian-video-b2852382.html

If Griffin had said that on QT it would have been a national scandal. But as it’s Reform, only the Indy, Mirror and Guardian will report, possibly Sky News. BBC and the other red tops will put their fingers in their ears.

Was a JP for 20 years as well.

Is that similar to the labour MP who said go out and slash throats of right wing people? No, of course not. That'll be completely different. 

  • Haha 1
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

Not well traveled are you shit for brains. 

Approximately one in six heterosexual women in Thailand have been subjected to domestic violence.  One in six!

The figures are also believed to be widely under reported.

Why would I want to travel to such a backward, abusive country?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
iansums

iansums

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

She is an utterly appalling person. If Reform are serious they need to sack her.

What she said is absolutely spot on, I’ve been saying this for a couple of years now. It’s not massively important and actually makes me laugh every time I watch a block of adverts. A little like watching a historical drama where they feel the need to insert non-white actors.

aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, iansums said:

What she said is absolutely spot on, I’ve been saying this for a couple of years now. It’s not massively important and actually makes me laugh every time I watch a block of adverts. A little like watching a historical drama where they feel the need to insert non-white actors.

Why would seeing people with different colour skin “drive you mad”?

iansums

iansums

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, aintforever said:

So you don’t agree with her then. Glad we cleared that one up 

Oh no, I agree with her. Her choice of words was not the best but I fully agree with the point being made.

aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, iansums said:

Oh no, I agree with her. Her choice of words was not the best but I fully agree with the point being made.

It’s the ‘driving me mad’ bit that’s racist, we can all see the diversity of the people featured in ads today, that’s just stating the obvious. Not sure why seeing people of different colour should drive anyone mad.

  • Like 3
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted

of course as usual everyone is up in arms about it being racist but what she said in its entirety is making the point that there is an over representation and she’s right. 
 

others things she said which people ignored was 

Representation should reflect the diversity of modern Britain, but it should also be proportionate and inclusive of everyone,"

and the study which shows how adverts with black and Asians had increased from 37% to 51% since 2020

bur I’m sure everyone knew that 

iansums

iansums

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, aintforever said:

It’s the ‘driving me mad’ bit that’s racist, we can all see the diversity of the people featured in ads today, that’s just stating the obvious. Not sure why seeing people of different colour should drive anyone mad.

‘Driving me mad’ is racist? How odd. Again you miss the point, she is talking about the disproportionate numbers. It may well be obvious but this probably the first time I’ve heard it mentioned in the media. 

  • Like 1
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, iansums said:

‘Driving me mad’ is racist? How odd. Again you miss the point, she is talking about the disproportionate numbers. It may well be obvious but this probably the first time I’ve heard it mentioned in the media. 

Course he has 😂😂😂

  • Like 1
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, iansums said:

I love how virtually every ‘couple’ in an advert has one white and one non-white.

When you watch pretty much any drama on TV now you can tick them off. Always a black one, Asian one, gay one, mixed race couple and disabled one. 

  • Like 1
iansums

iansums

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Turkish said:

When you watch pretty much any drama on TV now you can tick them off. Always a black one, Asian one, gay one, mixed race couple and disabled one. 

The second series of Wolf Hall did it for me, a brilliant historical drama spoilt by inserting actors of colour for no good reason. Jane Seymour’s sister was mixed race FFS. I’d like to see a remake of Roots with Ross Kemp playing Kunta Kinte.

aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, iansums said:

‘Driving me mad’ is racist? How odd. Again you miss the point, she is talking about the disproportionate numbers. It may well be obvious but this probably the first time I’ve heard it mentioned in the media. 

Why does it need to be proportionate? What exactly is the problem with companies choosing a diverse range of people to advertise their products?

  • Like 1
Sergei Gotsmanov

Sergei Gotsmanov

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Turkish said:

When you watch pretty much any drama on TV now you can tick them off. Always a black one, Asian one, gay one, mixed race couple and disabled one. 

I have no problem with it It actually becomes an issue when you watch 'who dunnit' style dramas because you know the murder will not have been committed by the person of colour, the disabled person or the LGBT person. That rules out a lot of the candidates!   

  • Haha 2
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

I have no problem with it It actually becomes an issue when you watch 'who dunnit' style dramas because you know the murder will not have been committed by the person of colour, the disabled person or the LGBT person. That rules out a lot of the candidates!   

Or anyone using an Apple device. Apple wont allow it

whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Turkish said:

When you watch pretty much any drama on TV now you can tick them off. Always a black one, Asian one, gay one, mixed race couple and disabled one. 

Can’t find any in The Sopranos 

Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Turkish said:

When you watch pretty much any drama on TV now you can tick them off. Always a black one, Asian one, gay one, mixed race couple and disabled one. 

The TFL video calling out unwanted sexual attention on the underground is a classic . Middle class white bloke in a suit, harnesses a minority bird, like that’s the biggest threat to chicks at the moment.

As for Sarah, all depends on the context. If she says whats driving her mad is seeing a disproportionate amount of brown/black faces in adverts, that’s no different than that jock giving it his “white” speech to the sweaty parliament. If she said seeing black faces “drives her mad”,  because they’re black, that’s different. We’re clearly in Abbott territory if that’s the meaning. 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...