The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm not going down a pointless rabbit hole of a conflation of the term and the interpretation of it. As Sheaf has said, your points can be attributed to anti Semitism - example, people who speak out against the conduct of the IDF/Israeli government are deemed anti Semitic, which is bollox.

It was obvious what the propaganda issued in this by election meant, and it does you no favours to dismiss it by focus on the word used, rather than addressing the issue behind it. 

It's not a pointless rabbit hole, it's the very foundation of the entire point I was making and a leading reason for the problem. The interpretation of the term is why there is an issue and like I said, the article I posted which you have ignored explains that well. We won't agree you're better off agreeing to disagree. My hope is that a definition is not adopted officially and if it is it is repealed as soon as another government gets in power. 

Edited 2 hours ago by hypochondriac

[ecuk268]

48 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If the Democracy Volunteers observers in the polling stations see what they think is 'family voting' taking place, why don"t they report it there and then ? After all, it is criminal activity, and most polling stations have a Police officer present as well as the electoral officials.

Indeed. They didn't mention it until after the polls had closed.

Every polling ststion had a police officer present and the voting staff reported not seeing any incidence of family voting.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

Uncle Trousers has sorted it folks... with the help of my good friend Google AI, the new word to use is "Islamacriticism" or "Islamacritic"...

 

 

You're welcome

 

What if you dislike the religion but you're also not a fan of many of those who purport to be followers of the religion but engage in activities that some other followers would disavow?

[trousers]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

What if you dislike the religion but you're also not a fan of many of those who purport to be followers of the religion but engage in activities that some other followers would disavow?

Gimme 5 minutes... I'll come up with a word for that too....

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, ecuk268 said:

Indeed. They didn't mention it until after the polls had closed.

Every polling ststion had a police officer present and the voting staff reported not seeing any incidence of family voting.

I know it's social media but the quote I saw this morning was that the observers had mentioned it to the polling stations at the time. 

[trousers]

5 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

Every polling ststion had a police officer present and the voting staff reported not seeing any incidence of family voting.

I know I'm in danger of sounding like a scratched record, but the way the law is worded, the crime of "undue influence" doesn't appear to apply exclusively to activity in or around the polling station. It could equally apply to any such activity in said family's house or car, prior to going to the polling station, for example. Unless my interpretation of the law is wide of the mark? (no doubt there are suitable experts on Saintsweb that can correct me )

Edited 2 hours ago by trousers

[hypochondriac]

Just now, trousers said:

I know I'm in danger of sounding like a scratched record, but the way the law is worded, the crime of "undue influence" doesn't appear to just apply to activity in or around the polling station. It could euqally apply to any such activity in said family's house or car, prior to going to the polling station, for example. Unless my interpretation of the law is wide of the mark? 

I may have got it wrong but I thought it meant that more than one person had gone into the polling station presumably family members in order to ensure that other family members were voting the correct way. Is that right?

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's not a pointless rabbit hole, it's the very foundation of the entire point I was making and a leading reason for the problem. The interpretation of the term is why there is an issue and like I said, the article I posted which you have ignored explains that well. We won't agree you're better off agreeing to disagree. 

It is. Communities and individuals feel discriminated against. Why you feel the need to focus on the word to describe that discrimination I don't know. They could call bollockism for all I care, it's the issue that matters, not the title. 

Genuinely, I'll leave this here because it's absolutely pointless doing this with you. 

[ecuk268]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

I know I'm in danger of sounding like a scratched record, but the way the law is worded, the crime of "undue influence" doesn't appear to just apply to activity in or around the polling station. It could equally apply to any such activity in said family's house or car, prior to going to the polling station, for example. Unless my interpretation of the law is wide of the mark? 

That has probably been going on for years among all parts of society and could never be proven. 

If someone told me how to vote they'd get a 2-word answer ending in "off".

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

It is. Communities and individuals feel discriminated against. Why you feel the need to focus on the word to describe that discrimination I don't know. They could call bollockism for all I care, it's the issue that matters, not the title. 

Genuinely, I'll leave this here because it's absolutely pointless doing this with you. 

Because the word and its misapplication has been used to silence criticism of Islam and was a contributing factor to a climate that led to rape gangs in the UK. Of course words and definitions of words matter. As the article I posted argues, there's a decent argument for not having a specific definition due to the potential for harm there is. We know for example that discrimination against all faiths can occur but we don't have an official working definition of Christianophobia or Sikhaphobia- we prosecute people who commit those crimes under existing public order and equality acts. 

[trousers]

6 minutes ago, trousers said:

I know I'm in danger of sounding like a scratched record, but the way the law is worded, the crime of "undue influence" doesn't appear to apply exclusively to activity in or around the polling station. It could equally apply to any such activity in said family's house or car, prior to going to the polling station, for example. Unless my interpretation of the law is wide of the mark? (no doubt there are suitable experts on Saintsweb that can correct me )

 

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I may have got it wrong but I thought it meant that more than one person had gone into the polling station presumably family members in order to ensure that other family members were voting the correct way. Is that right?

I believe this is the applicable law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/37/part/1/crossheading/undue-influence

 

 

I can't see anywhere in there that explicity says that the act of "unduly influencing" someone's vote is confined to the polling station. But, as I say, maybe my interpretation is wrong...?

Edited 2 hours ago by trousers

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

That has probably been going on for years among all parts of society and could never be proven. 

If someone told me how to vote they'd get a 2-word answer ending in "off".

They'd get the same answer from me if they tried to get me to wear a burkha but I'm not an Arab woman under a religiously dogmatic form of a patriarchy so it's easy for me to say.

[trousers]

3 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

That has probably been going on for years among all parts of society and could never be proven. 

And therein lies the crux of the problem....

[trousers]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

They'd get the same answer from me if they tried to get me to wear a burkha but I'm not an Arab woman under a religiously dogmatic form of a patriarchy so it's easy for me to say.

You Islamocritic, you...

 

(I can see this new word catching on )

Edited 2 hours ago by trousers

[hypochondriac]

Just now, trousers said:

And therein lies the crux of the problem....

At least if the vote were truly secret you could get away with voting for whoever you wanted without repercussions. 

[iansums]

17 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Because the word and its misapplication has been used to silence criticism of Islam and was a contributing factor to a climate that led to rape gangs in the UK. Of course words and definitions of words matter. As the article I posted argues, there's a decent argument for not having a specific definition due to the potential for harm there is. We know for example that discrimination against all faiths can occur but we don't have an official working definition of Christianophobia or Sikhaphobia- we prosecute people who commit those crimes under existing public order and equality acts. 

Apparently we do. When I had the same argument a few months ago, I was 'proved wrong' by someone presenting this word, odd that most have never heard of it. The problem is many Muslims think that mocking or questioning Islam is Islamaphobia, it's bollox. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Every single word of this could also be applied to antisemitism.

When I see groups of Jewish men raping young British girls on a mass scale across the UK and doing things like branding them with the star of David on their buttocks and quoting verses from the Torah as justification for their actions with police forces turning a blind eye for fear of being branded antisemitic then I'd consider that more of a pertinent problem to our country. There's a legitimate argument that antisemitism could be used to silence legitimate criticism of actual atrocities committed in Gaza which I would not support but it's also less relevant to my country which is what I care about most (plus there are other factors in that but I'm not revisiting that here.)

Edited 1 hour ago by hypochondriac

[Sir Ralph]

You can question any theory, religious concept or political view without being shouted down for being xy or z. It completely misses the point and is very 2020 (in fact it quashes debate and deflects).

One of the reasons Brexit happened was because the political elite ignored people’s concerns and labelled them. Those same people that bemoan Brexit (I didn’t vote for it) are repeating the same mistake and it will play out again at the next election. It will likely result in an election result that those same people will again bemoan.

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

Interesting read. I wonder what percentage of the Green vote was from Muslim's, considering 70% of the area is non-Muslim and the turnout was 47%.

[iansums]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

Interesting read. I wonder what percentage of the Green vote was from Muslim's, considering 70% of the area is non-Muslim and the turnout was 47%.

You can bet that pretty much every Muslim male went and voted and would have dragged their (obedient) wives out too. They would all have voted Green of course.

[Saint86]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

Lets say, for arguments sake, that the dictionary definition is incorrect / out-dated, what word would be more appropriate to use than 'Islamaphobia' for people that simply dislike the Islam religion? Asking for a friend

How was Christopher Hitchens described? 😄

[egg]

2 minutes ago, iansums said:

You can bet that pretty much every Muslim male went and voted and would have dragged their (obedient) wives out too. They would all have voted Green of course.

You talk like voter persuasion is a new thing, and limited to brown people. That's bollox. 

[ecuk268]

2 minutes ago, iansums said:

You can bet that pretty much every Muslim male went and voted and would have dragged their (obedient) wives out too. They would all have voted Green of course.

Voting for a party lead by a gay Jewish man.

We live in strange times.

[Farmer Saint]

7 minutes ago, iansums said:

You can bet that pretty much every Muslim male went and voted and would have dragged their (obedient) wives out too. They would all have voted Green of course.

And every bald, tattooed Christian male went and voted for Reform and dragged their beaten abused wives out too I would guess.

We can all make stupid stereotyped comments on this... 

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[Saint86]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

It's not a pointless rabbit hole, it's the very foundation of the entire point I was making and a leading reason for the problem. The interpretation of the term is why there is an issue and like I said, the article I posted which you have ignored explains that well. We won't agree you're better off agreeing to disagree. My hope is that a definition is not adopted officially and if it is it is repealed as soon as another government gets in power. 

The only 2 parties that would repeal it are surely the Tories or Reform. I don't think we'll see another tory government, and its far from certain that we'll see a Reform one. Can't imagine the lib dems touching something so contentious with a barge pole (if they get back into government). Labour introduced it (and based on Streeting's whatsapp messages are probably shitting their pants even more now re their loss of muslim voters), and the greens would probably go further.

Edited 1 hour ago by Saint86

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

The only 2 parties that would repeal it are surely the Tories or Reform. I don't think we'll see another tory government, and its far from certain that we'll see a Reform one. Can't imagine the lib dems touching something so contentious with a barge pole. Labour introduced it, and the greens would probably go further.

That's why I said it is a hope but certainly not an expectation. TBF Labour haven't currently adopted it but look set to do so. 

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

And every bald, tattooed Christian male went and voted for Reform and dragged their beaten abused wives out too I would guess.

We can all make stupid stereotyped comments on this... 

As it happens I agree. Not helpful to stereotype every Muslim voter. The issue of block voting is serious enough without allowing people to dismiss it by exaggerating the problem. 

[Saint86]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

You talk like voter persuasion is a new thing, and limited to brown people. That's bollox. 

Its becoming more and more of an issue and is beginning to distort / damage confidence in our democracy now on the localised scale. Barring special circumstances, people should be voting in private - with their actual vote only known by themselves.

Group voting being observed in 68% of polling stations is atrocious - the fundamental contract of everyone having their own vote and all votes being equal is shattered by that kind of behaviour.

Edited 1 hour ago by Saint86

[Farmer Saint]

What is odd is that the turnout yesterday was lower than in the GE...so there probably wasn't much of an increase in the number of Muslims who voted.

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[iansums]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

As it happens I agree. Not helpful to stereotype every Muslim voter. The issue of block voting is serious enough without allowing people to dismiss it by exaggerating the problem. 

I didn't say every, I said 'pretty much every' so only 99.9% of them 😜

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, iansums said:

I didn't say every, I said 'pretty much every' so only 99.9% of them 😜

Yeah I don't subscribe to that I'm afraid. I work with many Muslims, my father in law and his family are Muslim and on an individual level they are kind and as far as I can tell good people who I don't have a problem with. It very clearly isn't all Muslims but it is enough of a group who claim to be Muslim that it is a problem. Failure to integrate is a huge issue admitted by honest people on the left and the right. 

[hypochondriac]

16 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What is odd is that the turnout yesterday was lower than in the GE...so there probably wasn't much of an increase in the number of Muslims who voted.

You would imagine a lot of them voted in the GE and like you say I doubt many more of them voted. They just likely switched their vote to the Greens. 

[badgerx16]

22 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

 

Group voting being observed in 68% of polling stations is atrocious - the fundamental contract of everyone having their own vote and all votes being equal is shattered by that kind of behaviour.

Claims that it was observed in 15 out of the 45 polling stations.

 

 

The Acting Returning Officer's office said ;

"Polling station staff are trained to look out for any evidence of undue influence on voters. No such issues have been reported today.

If Democracy Volunteers were so concerned about alleged issues they could and should have raised them with us during polling hours so that immediate action could be taken. We have operated a central by-election hub which has been rapidly responding to reported issues during the day, in liaison with the police - who had a presence at every polling station - where necessary.

It is extremely disappointing that Democracy Volunteers have waited until after polls have closed to make such claims.""

[Saint86]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Claims that it was observed in 15 out of the 45 polling stations.

 

 

The Acting Returning Officer's office said ;

"Polling station staff are trained to look out for any evidence of undue influence on voters. No such issues have been reported today.

If Democracy Volunteers were so concerned about alleged issues they could and should have raised them with us during polling hours so that immediate action could be taken. We have operated a central by-election hub which has been rapidly responding to reported issues during the day, in liaison with the police - who had a presence at every polling station - where necessary.

It is extremely disappointing that Democracy Volunteers have waited until after polls have closed to make such claims.""

This is from the BBC...

[iansums]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Yeah I don't subscribe to that I'm afraid. I work with many Muslims, my father in law and his family are Muslim and on an individual level they are kind and as far as I can tell good people who I don't have a problem with. It very clearly isn't all Muslims but it is enough of a group who claim to be Muslim that it is a problem. Failure to integrate is a huge issue admitted by honest people on the left and the right. 

Fair enough and I know I'm being a little flippant with my choice of words but clearly there is an issue many who follow that religion sadly.

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

This is from the BBC...

You missed out the bit that says they claim it iwas observed in 15 of the 22 polling stations they attended, out of 45 in the constituency.

If you see people breaking the Law and there is a Police officer nearby do you report it  him, or the election officials in the polling station, or do you wait until hours later you can post it on Social Media ?

Edited 43 minutes ago by badgerx16

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If you see people breaking the Law and there is a Police officer nearby do you report it  him, or the election officials in the polling station, or do you wait until hours later you can post it on Social Media ?

I read on social media -could be wrong-that they had responded to say that they had reported it to the polling stations at the times it occurred.

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I read on social media -could be wrong-that they had responded to say that they had reported it to the polling stations at the times it occurred.

Which Manchester Council ( currently ) say did not happen.

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Which Manchester Council ( currently ) say did not happen.

How would Manchester Council know what they told an official at a polling station?

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

How would Manchester Council know what they told an official at a polling station?

The officials are employees of the Council, and are duty bound by Law to report and act on such allegations.

Edited 23 minutes ago by badgerx16

[hypochondriac]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

The officials are employees of the Council, and are duty bound by Law to report and act on such allegations.

Well someone is lying then. Seems an odd thing to make up though unless they are just trying to undermine the vote. 

[Sir Ralph]

Why would a non political not for profit charity organisation raise these issues if they didn’t occur? What happens if there is truth in the allegations - is there a rerun?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yqpr28jrwo

Edited 21 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[aintforever]

It's obviously an issue that needs stamping out but to suggest it changed the result is just in Trump territory.

My other half pays no interest in politics whatsoever so usually votes for who I suggest. Put the cross next to the rose or the bird, never the tree.

 

[badgerx16]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Well someone is lying then. Seems an odd thing to make up though unless they are just trying to undermine the vote. 

I think it's best to resist too much speculation and hype, let the dust settle and wait for the inevitable inquiry which all political parties seem to be demanding. I agree with others that is difficult to see what the Observers have to gain from concocting misrepresentations, but the ramifications of a cover-up by the Council could be seismic.

 

 

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, aintforever said:

It's obviously an issue that needs stamping out but to suggest it changed the result is just in Trump territory.

My other half pays no interest in politics whatsoever so usually votes for who I suggest. Put the cross next to the rose or the bird, never the tree.

 

That's not really comparable to this alleged situation is it. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

I think it's best to resist too much speculation and hype, let the dust settle and wait for the inevitable inquiry which all political parties seem to be demanding. I agree with others that is difficult to see what the Observers have to gain from concocting misrepresentations, but the ramifications of a cover-up by the Council could be seismic.

 

 

Or it was just mentioned maybe that something seemed to be off but they didn't think it was a serious enough matter to escalate further? There's usually context to these things. 

[badgerx16]

12 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Why would a non political not for profit charity organisation raise these issues if they didn’t occur? What happens if there is truth in the allegations - is there a rerun?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yqpr28jrwo

Given the size of the winning majority, and low number of votes nvolved in the allegations, I don't think the result was in any way impacted, so I would not think so.

[Saint86]

40 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

You missed out the bit that says they claim it iwas observed in 15 of the 22 polling stations they attended, out of 45 in the constituency.

If you see people breaking the Law and there is a Police officer nearby do you report it  him, or the election officials in the polling station, or do you wait until hours later you can post it on Social Media ?

Oh okay, whereas you're arguing that in half the polling stations it was prevalent and at record levels, but in the other half it magically didn't happen at all? If you believe that then I've got a great investment opportunity to sell you... 😅

Edited 4 minutes ago by Saint86

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Oh okay, whereas you're arguing that in half the polling stations it was prevalent and at record levels, but in the other half it magically didn't happen at all? I've got a great investment opportunity to sell you... 😅

I have already committed my investment money to a Nigerian Prince.

[Saint86]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

I have already committed my investment money to a Nigerian Prince.

Damit, i was too slow 🤦‍♂️