. . . and if the "needs" are self-defined ??
Labour's Employment Rights Bill
- Thread starter ey_tony
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
No. Some country's populations have matured enough to prevent that happening again. But, unfortunately, there's still one or two more tribal ones, who want, not just to stop another people, but destroy them.
I can see where that goes, and we're not allowed to discuss such issues for fear of being cancelled.
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
I wish I had your faith.
With strong leadership a country can handle many crissis and move on but the west seems to be having some issues with it's leaders and many countries have had unrest brewing for a long time so it was only a mater of time before ignition. All this is just part of re alignment and accepting what we are now and not thinking of what we once were and is something none of use will solve so I will continue in my attempt to tidy up and break the cycle of just moving the mess around and bythen maybe we will see a return of summer.
Lons
Established Member
Well apparently slimy Starmer said that you're not a working man if you have saved £1000.
Sir Keir Starmer has opened the door to tax rises on millions of families by suggesting that “working people” do not have savings...
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
What do you mean? What does "cancelled" mean? Who does it, and how?
We have been discussing these issues quite freely but anybody is free to drop out if they don't want to.
This is always the problem isnt it. The conservatives cut funding to public services, the NHS, Social security budgets leaving the people, in dire straits
AS WE HAVE SEEN IN THE LAST 14 BLOODY YEARS and to the point the people cannot take any more.
Labour are voted in and they have to fix these problems. Where the hell do you think the money is going to come from ?
Wasnt there some American politician(MTG ?) who stood up on a platform, maybe in congress or perhaps a party rally wearing a facemask with censored or something such on it, as she made her far right hate speech.
I mean how dumb do you have to be? claiming to be censored but talking freely on a public platform in front of tv cameras, in front of the press, in front of their supporters.
Last edited:
Starmers election speal was that the money would come from growing the economy, I do not recall him saying they would raise taxes or simply cut allowances. Yes we all knew that if the economy did not grow then it is a choice of cut or borrow but he is looking at the easy options with small gains rather than the difficult options with bigger gains. If you want the economy to grow then people need to work and not live on benefits so there is one difficult target for him, then close down tax avoidance loop holes to collect tax fairly from all even if it does upset your freinds and then look at the tax bands. Raise the tax free threshold to £20K to take those worse off out of paying a lot of tax and making it a better choice to work than claim benefits, leave the 20% but drop in maybe a 30% band and then over £55K you pay 45% so the burden is spread out. But before changing tax in the first year in office do everything else first so the people can see things changing and as I said, give Mp's a 5 year pay freeze so people can see they are also doing there bit.
'Cancelled' in this context means that if a discussion develops into areas that may cause offence to someone, the debators' get cunsured or, in some cases, comments will get removed. In the wider world, a person cam be tagged as an activist for having views that don't fit the state's rules although the views may be in line with a larger majority of people.
We are living in an inceasingly repressed society, amplified by social media, which only antgonises the very people we'd prefer were not around.
The island we live on is getting smaller, both geographically and by population increase. There are those who believe that as the population increases by immigration, the tensions will also increase. The majority of people who accepted immigration will slowly see the effects of over-population and the need to pay more in taxes and it may well turn the tide of opinion.
Cultural engineering is accelerating, taboos are on the increase, politically-speaking, and open views are not encouraged. Less of a free country, these days, I'm afraid.
Another way of putting it is that statements that are offensive are censured. Nobody actually needs to be offended for this to happen, tho it's often put that way by those who want the fault to be with the targets of offensive comments. It makes them sound weak, 'snowflakes' etc. But identifying a statement as offensive is something most of us can do fairly well, and the fault is with the one who speaks/ acts. I think few of us would support offensive speech or actions?
Yes, I suppose it does. Isn't that the crux of the issue, though? Surely, while being offensive is not nice, it is not, or was not, illegal in my lifetime. Has the clampdown improved things? Do you know, I don't think it has.
With the advent of social media, all kinds of offensive garbage can be voiced, and even gain traction, that once would have remained within earshot of the speaker and no further. And being offensive is not 'not nice', it's being offensive. Again, few of us would support it.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Censure is OK, we are all free to disagree.
Only for the smooth running of the thread, when it tends to repetition and abuse.
Seems to work pretty well.
What like the climate change protestors? I agree, but then it is a major issue which won't go away and governments are particularly slack on this.
If you mean immigration then the antis are in a minority and anyway its a global human rights issue which should be dealt with in humane ways. Governments again are slow on this and should be fighting the negative attitudes put about by the right-wing and social media.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....ation-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/
Quite the opposite IMHO.
Last edited:
The problem is who decides what is offensive? As you rightly say some things, racism for example, are unquestionably offensive.
But what has happened over recent years is rather different. Many have suffered in the Trans debate for example, simply for stating their view that a trans woman is not actually female, and so their participation in sport against biological females is potentially unfair. This, to my mind perfectly sensible observation, has led to Martina Navratilova and others being called out as Trans Phobic, and their comments declared to be offensive. There are many who have been censured, even had death threats, for begging to differ with the view that "a trans woman is a woman", without qualification.
I fail to see how this is offensive, unless you make the qualifier that if anyone at all is, or might possibly be offended, then that is offensive. I think that would be a sorry state to get into, and certainly flies in the face of any right to free speech.
Can't disagree with any of that, Fergie.
I full heartedly support someone being offensive. The alternative is a society in which everyone is scared to speak.
I genuinely can’t believe there are people that cannot see how being offensive whether deliberately or not, is a fundamental part of western vales and living in a free society.
It’s scary.
Queue subversive ideologies saying ‘what exactly are western values’?
If Climate change protestors break the law by causing damage, or more recently, interruption of services and traffic, then they are breaking the laww and dealt with accordingly. That has little do with their views.
I don't think the 'antis' are a minority.
'Fighting the negative attitudes'? Well, that an attitude nobody wants, right?
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
They are according to the surveys but it's variable according to the questions asked.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....ation-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/
What is certain is that there is very little support for the rioters and almost universal disgust.
- Status
Similar threads
