Forum menu
The ol' Pekingese police dogs eh?
Edit : What cracked me up was that he wasn't just shouting at the police dog, he was shouting "in a police dog's face"
Which TBF takes some guts. Or stupidity.
Mind you not so much if it was a Pekingese
It was a joke
I didn't know that you live in Edinburgh.
I didn’t know that you live in Edinburgh.
Just to be clear, you're saying that I was genuinely trying to say English language speakers have no way of conveying the idea of things happening in the future?
It was a pedantic joke. It was a shit joke. But honestly, after I've taken you through all the steps of how it was constructed (you don't know tenses, hah, here's a pedantic definition of tense) and the background definitions on how it's technically correct from a linguistic point of view, you've still come to the conclusion that it was a serious observation that the future might as well be mythical land for English speakers?
In future I will bear in mind you need jokes aimed at you to be a bit more obvious.
Another rioter that went down today was identified by.... having his name emblazoned on the back of his T shirt.
It didn't say but id love to think he wore a mask/balaclava to add to the utter stupidity exhibited! Epic. 😀
Another rioter that went down today was identified by…. having his name emblazoned on the back of his T shirt.
It didn’t say but id love to think he wore a mask/balaclava to add to the utter stupidity exhibited! Epic. 😀
Probably stumbled into police having tried, unsuccessfully, to wear a balaclava - but put it on back-to-front.
Edit: Semi-serious question - with reference to the above - at what point is it OK to tell someone they are literally useless?
Just to be clear, you’re saying that I was genuinely trying to say English language speakers have no way of conveying the idea of things happening in the future?
No. I have no idea why you would think that people can't talk about the future if they don't have a future tense in their language, other than a lack of imagination.
In future I will bear in mind you need jokes aimed at you to be a bit more obvious.
Emojis would help me to tell when you're trying to be funny.
I pretty much gave up on humour on this site a decade ago, Bruce. Some kinds of humour work, mainly black or deadpan. Anything too clever and people will (deliberately) misunderstand or assume you're ignorant or thick which is easier and better for their self esteem. If you do try humour the addition of 'sic', 'pun intended', 'note the irony' and copious smileys (when they are available) just might get the message across that you're not being entirely serious. Maybe.
Be dull boring, play consistently straight and you might get a wry smile (your own) even if nobody else is amused. And if you do use humour people chose not to get, watch with detachment as they dive in ripping it to bits without for a moment thinking you're marvelling at their bad faith in assuming the worst about you.
But above all, don't worry about it, it's only a bike forum and most members seem pretty good people behind their personas. The kind of people in or supporting the anti-fascist demos rather than fascists.
Emojis would help me to tell when you’re trying to be funny,
Well, if nothing else at least I would appreciate the irony of trying to crack grammar jokes that then had to be accompanied by little pictures as that's the only way people would know it was supposed to funny ✍️?
Edit: **** it. The second emoji is supposed to be a crying emoji but I can't get it to work. The joke is that I'm depressed because humour based on language only works with pictures. Good night.
Well, if nothing else at least I would appreciate the irony of trying to crack grammar jokes that then had to be accompanied by little pictures as that’s the only way people would know it was supposed to funny ✍️?
It's not as if there's any other way of telling.
There’s blokes in their 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. What the hell are you doing with your life if you’re that age and you’re spending your evening chucking bricks at coppers?
A lot of the were those young and stupid 18 years old who got sent to prison and went further downhill from there and have had a shit angry life ever since. If what went on in prisons actually worked those 18 years old would come out in a better place than then went in rather than a no hope worse place with fewer options in life.
Will have to see if anything actually progressive happens in that area as could do but we need to check in 5 years time as you can't possibly judge Starmers government before then.
Immigration detention centres to be reopened. But trying to address the conditions that made them so inhospitable before that they were plagued by suicide and self-harm. Plus other actions to beef up Border security and NCA activities against the criminal gangs.
So, something's being done. Not enough to appease those that don't want to be appeased I bet, but something.
As the middle box says - the blame game (even if true) is becoming a tad repetitive - and the public, supporters or not, now want to see plans and actions.
https://news.sky.com/story/immigration-detention-centres-to-re-open-in-removals-drive-13200380
On the response to the riots and civil unrest. I can't help but imagine if we'd had the tories in charge and what their response would have been as their rhetoric was completely aligned (albeit very slightly obfuscated) with that of the rioters. Suella and Priti would have spun themselves into the ground trying to condemn the unrest while avoiding upsetting their RW support. I'm almost sad to have missed it...
So, something’s being done. Not enough to appease those that don’t want to be appeased I bet, but something.
That's great, but if you look back many of us were concerned at the lack of action and narrative on reversing the demonisation of foreigners and the lumping of legal immigrants, asylum seekers, and illegal immigrants into the same boat.
This was a narrative that was fed to the public for years. It's not going to be a quick fix and it's going to require a constant effort throughout this term and probably beyond.
So the fact there has still been little to no sign of this happening is worrying. Prior to the election the excuse was that Labour didn't want to scare Tory voters and upset the rightwing press. Now the excuse is that it's only been 6 weeks.
This is not going to be a campaign that requires masses of investment. This is something that starts with the PM standing up and explaining to people that the reason people are poorer is not because of immigrants.
This was known before the election. They've not had 6 weeks to prepare for this. They've had years.
And like I said, the fact they are not doing this makes me suspect they want to continue with neo-liberal policies that make people poorer and they want to continue blaming immigrants. And the story you link doesn't do much to allay my fears.
It's true, I'll probably never be satisfied. But there is nothing satisfactory about pursuing the same policies as the Tories but competently. We shouldn't be surprised though. They told us that's what they were going to do during the election.
but if you look back many of us were concerned at the lack of action and narrative on reversing the demonisation of foreigners and the lumping of legal immigrants, asylum seekers, and illegal immigrants into the same boat.
This was a narrative that was fed to the public for years. It’s not going to be a quick fix and it’s going to require a constant effort throughout this term and probably beyond.
So the fact there has still been little to no sign of this happening is worrying
Can you show me evidence that the new government has continued with this narrative?
Things might not be progressing as quickly and as obviously as you want, but things have changed in the last few weeks. The government is not pushing that rhetoric, I hope they are figuring out how to effectively reverse it.
Suella and Priti would have spun themselves into the ground trying to condemn the unrest while avoiding upsetting their RW support. I’m almost sad to have missed it…
Just because the Tories are not in government doesn't mean Starmsy shouldn't have tried to pin the likes of Jenrick down with this. It was a free hit.
Edit: Semi-serious question – with reference to the above – at what point is it OK to tell someone they are literally useless?
Forumite or rioter?
Asking for a friend.
Can you show me evidence that the new government has continued with this narrative?
Type 'Starmer immigration' or 'Labour immigration' into google and see what the headlines are.
Do you see any headlines that say anything other than a variation of, 'Starmer pledges to tackle illegal immigration' or 'Starmer pledges to reduce reliance on immigration'?
Can you show me anything that suggests he wants to undo the years of Tory and right wing press narrative?
Both are issues that need tackling, our immigration system is at breaking point and needs fixing, we need to look at education and skills here in the UK to determine what type of immigration we want going forwards.
Neither of those are bad things. You seem to be looking and finding nuance that's not necessarily there. The glass might be half full and not half empty.
There are very few quick fixes in any aspect of life.
There are very few quick fixes in any aspect of life.
Not looking for a quick fix. I said this was going to be an ongoing process over this term and probably the next to reverse the years of Tory lies.
I'm not seeing signs of this process beginning.
Semi-serious question – with reference to the above – at what point is it OK to tell someone they are literally useless?
At the earliest opportunity.
Do you see any headlines that say anything other than a variation of, ‘Starmer pledges to tackle illegal immigration’ or ‘Starmer pledges to reduce reliance on immigration’?
I really don't see a problem with a government pledging to tackle anything that is illegal, including immigration. Or are you suggesting that no immigration should be illegal and that everyone anywhere in the world should be free to immigrate to the UK?
Nor do I see any problem with the UK reducing reliance on immigration. It seems a strange economic model that can only function effectively if it imports labour as if it is just another commodity.
What I do see as a problem though, in the context of this thread, is the persistent islamophobia in British society as exemplified by the recent rioting over an issue which had absolutely nothing at all to do the Islam.
When it comes to islamophobia Muslims seem to have few friends among the political parties, which will explain British Muslims growing lack of faith in the Labour Party under the present leadership.
If Labour was at the forefront of the fight against islamophobia it could expect to enjoy the enthusiastic support of the Muslim community, however:
Islamophobia in the Labour Party – shocking survey results
The stench of Islamophobia in the Labour Party is getting stronger
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/islamophobia-labour-party-batley-b1881024.html
Edit: Semi-serious question – with reference to the above – at what point is it OK to tell someone they are literally useless?
Forumite or rioter?
Asking for a friend.
It was with reference to the plonker that got nicked because he had his name on the back of his shirt.
But either will do.
The stench of Islamophobia in the Labour Party is getting stronger
Any update on that ernie, as the article is 3 years old?
This site seems to be one of the originators of the whole "murderer was an asylum seeker" BS that the usual suspects amplified.
Any update on that ernie, as the article is 3 years old?
Yeah as you can imagine deeply ingrained islamophobia within the Labour Party has been wiped out in just three short years and now UK Muslims are enthusiastically supporting Labour in their droves.
Which explains why Wes Streeting very nearly lost his seat less than two months ago and Keir Starmer saw his vote halved.
Do you see any headlines that say anything other than a variation of, ‘Starmer pledges to tackle illegal immigration’ or ‘Starmer pledges to reduce reliance on immigration’?
Headlines don't usually say much. It's a good idea to read the story behind them.
Headlines don’t usually say much. It’s a good idea to read the story behind them.
Feel free to quote the parts of the stories that make it clear Starmer is making it a priority to begin undoing the years of Tory and right wing press lies that led us to where we are now.
Who are you, again?
FWIW, I caught tenburner in a direct lie, contradicting himself because he was making stuff up. This upset him
FWIW - Fenderextender is lying about me on the internet. Is that called cyber bullying? Dont worry, I wont report you.
Amnesty International's press release
“It’s dismaying to see the new Government reheating the last Government’s rhetoric over ‘border security’ and ‘smashing gangs’ even while neglecting the pressing need to provide safe asylum routes and a clear guarantee of asylum to refugees arriving here.
“People in urgent need - including those fleeing war and persecution in places like Sudan, Afghanistan, Syria and Iran - will keep coming to the UK and other countries, and the Government needs to establish safe routes that reduce the perils of dangerous border crossings and the risk of exploitation by ruthless smuggling gangs.
“This ‘securitised’ approach to asylum and immigration will simply deter and punish many of the people most in need of crossing borders, people who are therefore often most vulnerable to criminal exploitation.
"Increasing immigration powers - including to detain people - rather than making sure existing powers are only used where that is necessary and fair has for decades rewarded Home Office inefficiency and injustice.
“A new set of ministers promoting an age-old message of fear and hostility regarding some of the most victimised and traumatised people who may ever arrive in the UK, means that smuggling gangs and racist and Islamophobic hate-mongers at home are likely to feed off this to everyone’s detriment.”
It’s dismaying to see the new Government reheating the last Government’s rhetoric over ‘border security’ and ‘smashing gangs’ even while neglecting the pressing need to provide safe asylum routes
The problem is that Sir Keir Starmer does not approve of 'safe asylum routes' so arriving on leaky inflatable dinghies might be the only option for some people.
'Safe routes not the answer': Starmer rejects opening new passages from other countries for migrants
I have no idea why Starmer is opposed to safe routes, the article doesn't explain. Perhaps one of his many supporters on here could explain?
Is it something to do with not having been PM long enough?
FWIW – Fenderextender is lying about me on the internet. Is that called cyber bullying? Dont worry, I wont report you.
Welcome back. Don't worry, I won't report you either for your initial lie and then doubling-down by lying about it again. Not my style.
I'm not going to revisit your inconsistencies again - I tried twice (three times perhaps) but you never actually addressed the point. For anyone who is interested you can go back 11-12 days on this thread and see for yourselves. I doubt anyone would be bothered enough, TBH. You outed yourself in other ways in any case - glib assertions that increased crime was a direct result of immigration, for example.
Hope you have a nice day in your "local area" which I seem to recall is both a crime-free haven and yet a hotbed of crime. Schrödinger lived there too for a while, I think.
I’m not going to revisit your inconsistencies again – I tried twice (three times perhaps) but you never actually addressed the point
The only thing you have revealed is your inability to understand nuance. You bundle any discussion on multiple issues into one topic and use bits of discussion from all of them to form your counter to a comment on any of the individual subjects, and deliberately misinterpret the response. Then you inferred that anyone who dares to disagree with you is a bigot (or similar), and call those who don't respond to your bizarre questions and strawman arguments a liar. When ignored, you also seem to take that as proof that your assertions are correct.
crime-free haven and yet a hotbed of crime
Sweeping generalisations, deliberately misconstruing what was said, poor short term memory, or all three?
It is certainly impressive that you have managed to participate in so many of the 44 pages this thread has accrued to date without adding anything relevant or useful to the discussion. All you have done is argue with what you think was said, rather than what was actually said.
I'm trying to work out some of the above, i thought the UK had several safe asylum routes, like our schemes with Afghanistan, Ukraine, Hong Kong, Family Reunion Schemes, as well as those deemed vulnerable and in danger by the UN Refugee Agency.
What do you mean Starmer (should this be UK Government) do not approve safe asylum routes?
The whole channel crossing thing needs to stop due to the pain and misery it causes, last i heard the tories had some agreement with France to do more, has this not worked well, why are so many hell bent on leaving a safe nation (France) to get here, how do you stop the trade if there is a safe route, but say 80% are rejected, how do you deal with those who aren't allowed to claim asylum in the UK?
The only thing you have revealed is your inability to understand nuance. You bundle any discussion on multiple issues into one topic and use bits of discussion from all of them to form your counter to a comment on any of the individual subjects, and deliberately misinterpret the response. Then you inferred that anyone who dares to disagree with you is a bigot (or similar), and call those who don’t respond to your bizarre questions and strawman arguments a liar. When ignored, you also seem to take that as proof that your assertions are correct.
crime-free haven and yet a hotbed of crime
Sweeping generalisations, deliberately misconstruing what was said, poor short term memory, or all three?
It is certainly impressive that you have managed to participate in so many of the 44 pages this thread has accrued to date without adding anything relevant or useful to the discussion. All you have done is argue with what you think was said, rather than what was actually said.
Word salad, still dancing on the head of a pin.
As I said above, I CBA with this anymore. If anyone wants to go back 12 days on this thread and look, then great. If not, meh.
As I (also said above) you comprehensively outed yourself on those 2-3 pages of this thread.
It's there now in black and white for all to see.
Cheerio.
What do you mean Starmer (should this be UK Government) do not approve safe asylum routes?
Who is that question directed at? The article was written by ITV News and they directly quoted Starmer, not "the UK government".
According to ITV News Starmer said, quote, "Safe routes not the answer".
Are you suggesting this is fake news?
Support Among Voters For Keir Starmer's Handling Of The Riots Has Soared
While the unrest was taking place, approval for Keir Starmer’s response was under water, but now as the rioters are facing justice his approval has turned dramatically more positive.
Rather than being too harsh on rioters as some have suggested, most of the public think the policing and sentencing of rioters is about right, or even too lenient.
The whole channel crossing thing needs to stop due to the pain and misery it causes, last i heard the tories had some agreement with France to do more, has this not worked well, why are so many hell bent on leaving a safe nation (France) to get here, how do you stop the trade if there is a safe route, but say 80% are rejected, how do you deal with those who aren’t allowed to claim asylum in the UK?
i would recommend watching some of Zoe Gardners videos on YouTube and elsewhere. She deals with these and other FAQ in an informed way.
Feel free to quote the parts of the stories that make it clear Starmer is making it a priority to begin undoing the years of Tory and right wing press lies that led us to where we are now.
Which stories? You haven't mentioned any with respect to the headlines you mentioned.
If I do your suggested searches:
"Starmer pledges to tackle illegal immigration" brings up several articles on that topic including this announcement 2 weeks after coming into power. UK steps up work to reduce illegal migration
"Starmer pledges to reduce reliance on immigration" finds articles on improving the UK skills base in order to reduce immigration, e.g.
Better skills training will cut migration, vows PM
I find it weird that The Guardian is producing column after column that is saying what I'm trying to say (but probably better) and yet on here so many seem to be trying to convince me that I'm living in some sort of fantasy and Starmer's Labour party is, in fact, behaving entirely reasonably and what I want to see happen is unreasonable.
I feel a bit weird when I read the Guardian too Bruce.
In fact anything written by Zoe Williams has tended to make me all dizzy with confusion.
File the Guardian with the Daily Mail these days when it comes to making sense / relationship to the truth.
Word salad, still dancing on the head of a pin.
As I said above, I CBA with this anymore. If anyone wants to go back 12 days on this thread and look, then great. If not, meh.
As I (also said above) you comprehensively outed yourself on those 2-3 pages of this thread.
It’s there now in black and white for all to see.
Cheerio.
Proved my point for me there, repeat the same rubbish all you want, it won’t make it true.
Still a steady stream of people being sent down I see.
I suspect there are many out there still wondering if they are going to get an early morning knock on the door, even if it's months from now.
That's the sort of stress I could do without. Then again, I'm not the rioty type I suppose... more the ranty type on STW, which is a damned site safer. 😀
File the Guardian with the Daily Mail these days when it comes to making sense / relationship to the truth.
They are all all the same......Daily Mail, Guardian, ITV News, it's all fake news!
You can only rely on social media to tell you the truth these days!
According to ITV News Starmer said, quote, “Safe routes not the answer”.
Was aimed at whoever, as there are safe routes for asylum, always have been, i'm wondering what the safe route that Starmer was stating wasn't the answer, i'm not sure what the origins of the question were and what this 'safe route' would be, and how it would work?