Right Wing Grifters

alastair

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

The biggest grifters in Ireland at the moment are the 19,000+ NGOs (yes nineteen thousand) who fleece the taxpayer for more than 5 billion a year.

By providing services to the government that would otherwise cost the government in direct outgoings.

Wibbs

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

It is one ad. There is no evidence that this ad swayed anyone.

It's a clear example of misinformation and was all over the British media at the time as one of the cornerstones of the Brexit campaign. The Brexit side clearly saw it as an effective marketing tool for their campaign. There were other examples of stoking up fears, Turkey joining the EU and an influx of people from there was another. The immigration aspect was a strong influence. Like I said, I'm no "left winger" particularly on immigration and don't want this country to suffer the same social issues on the back of it the way the UK has, but it was in play in that campaign. Never mind that the guts of the UK's immigrant population trends were historically and remain from her former colonies, not the EU. Claims that Brexit wouldn't mean leaving the single market was another one. Britain being able to work out deals with individual EU states another.

Oh don't get me wrong the Remain side came out with their own dubious claims too. EG the claim that the two thirds of the UK's manufacturing industries were reliant on the EU was one, the near guaranteed breakup of the UK another, but overall the Brexit side had more howlers on this score.

It was a sh1t show on a few fronts. Never mind that the UK voters unlike Irish voters aren't used to running and voting in referendums. IIRC they've only had two(?) in their history, the first was a vote to join the Common Market. For all the BS within Irish politics there is at least the aim for the government to provide independent information concerning referendums and their meanings. In the UK they didn't have that and it was left to two sides to provide information and neither were independent.

Tony EH

Wibbs wrote: »

It's a clear example of misinformation and was all over the British media at the time as one of the cornerstones of the Brexit campaign. The Brexit side clearly saw it as an effective marketing tool for their campaign. There were other examples of stoking up fears, Turkey joining the EU and an influx of people from there was another. The immigration aspect was a strong influence. Like I said, I'm no "left winger" particularly on immigration and don't want this country to suffer the same social issues on the back of it the way the UK has, but it was in play in that campaign. Never mind that the guts of the UK's immigrant population trends were historically and remain from her former colonies, not the EU. Claims that Brexit wouldn't mean leaving the single market was another one. Britain being able to work out deals with individual EU states another.

Oh don't get me wrong the Remain side came out with their own dubious claims too. EG the claim that the two thirds of the UK's manufacturing industries were reliant on the EU was one, the near guaranteed breakup of the UK another, but overall the Brexit side had more howlers on this score.

It was a sh1t show on a few fronts. Never mind that the UK voters unlike Irish voters aren't used to running and voting in referendums. IIRC they've only had two(?) in their history, the first was a vote to join the Common Market. For all the BS within Irish politics there is at least the aim for the government to provide independent information concerning referendums and their meanings. In the UK they didn't have that and it was left to two sides to provide information and neither were independent.

In fairness, the bolded may not seem quite as outlandish as might first appear, considering the election results in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Sturgeon's first demand from Johnson is going to be Indy Ref part 2.

Dick_Swiveller

Wibbs wrote: »

It's a clear example of misinformation and was all over the British media at the time as one of the cornerstones of the Brexit campaign. The Brexit side clearly saw it as an effective marketing tool for their campaign. There were other examples of stoking up fears, Turkey joining the EU and an influx of people from there was another. The immigration aspect was a strong influence. Like I said, I'm no "left winger" particularly on immigration and don't want this country to suffer the same social issues on the back of it the way the UK has, but it was in play in that campaign. Never mind that the guts of the UK's immigrant population trends were historically and remain from her former colonies, not the EU. Claims that Brexit wouldn't mean leaving the single market was another one. Britain being able to work out deals with individual EU states another.

Oh don't get me wrong the Remain side came out with their own dubious claims too. EG the claim that the two thirds of the UK's manufacturing industries were reliant on the EU was one, the near guaranteed breakup of the UK another, but overall the Brexit side had more howlers on this score.

It was a sh1t show on a few fronts. Never mind that the UK voters unlike Irish voters aren't used to running and voting in referendums. IIRC they've only had two(?) in their history, the first was a vote to join the Common Market. For all the BS within Irish politics there is at least the aim for the government to provide independent information concerning referendums and their meanings. In the UK they didn't have that and it was left to two sides to provide information and neither were independent.

In what way is it "stoking up fears" to mention the fact that it is very likely that a majority Muslim country of 80 million people is likely to join the European Union in the near future, with free access to travel to and from the UK?

I'm surprised that you're going on about the bus and the 350 million (or whatever it was). That was largely irrelevant; and was only pounced on by the remainers after the result. People voted to leave because of immigration. That is the sole reason. Many towns - particularly in the North - have been transformed by ridiculous levels of immigration, and people had had enough.

All this whinging and moaning about lies, misinformation (when has that ever happened in politics, eh?) is beyond tedious.

I expect better from you.

Wibbs

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

In what way is it "stoking up fears" to mention the fact that it is very likely that a majority Muslim country of 80 million people is likely to join the European Union in the near future, with free access to travel to and from the UK?

Because it's looking ever more and more unlikely that they'll be invited to join in anything like the near future. This part wasn't mentioned by the Brexit side. Hell, the Remain side didn't seem to understand it. Though to be fair their joining has gone far more backwards into the future since the Brexit referendum. There are 30 odd legal chapters that a prospective nation has to jump through to get into the EU, Turkey has only completed 16 and the book is currently closed on the rest. Over the last couple of years the EU powers have - and for the first time with a nation trying to get in - given Turkey major political static over all sorts of issues to the degree it has issued a clear statement on the matter which says:

“The Council notes that Turkey has been moving further away from the European Union. Turkey’s accession negotiations have therefore effectively come to a standstill and no further chapters can be considered for opening or closing and no further work towards the modernisation of the EU-Turkey Customs Union is foreseen,”

Check out this graphic on Turkey's requirements to join. The only green is go criteria is in science and research. Every single other one is redder than a turkey's comb(apt ) or still up for grabs.

I'm surprised that you're going on about the bus and the 350 million (or whatever it was). That was largely irrelevant; and was only pounced on by the remainers after the result. People voted to leave because of immigration. That is the sole reason. Many towns - particularly in the North - have been transformed by ridiculous levels of immigration, and people had had enough.

All this whinging and moaning about lies, misinformation (when has that ever happened in politics, eh?) is beyond tedious.

I expect better from you.

Well since you know my previous D, I'm sure well you're aware of my stance on multiculturalism, "diversity" and all that nonsense and that the UK is most certainly not the way I want our country to go and if there were a vote on it that would make a difference I'd be casting it.

However for whatever reasons someone might have for voting to leave the EU and I can see a couple, the one area where it's kinda daft is on the topic of immigration. Of the foreign born non UK people living there, the EU folks are made up of Poles, Irish and Germans in order of magnitude. OK bye bye EU and bye bye Poles and Germans(neither group exactly well known for civil and social unrest). The Irish are allowed free travel anyway. The rest of the again foreign born are made up of those from the Indian subcontinent, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan. Not in the EU.

Of those long standing immigrant populations that are born and bred in Britain and hold British passports for a few generations and where much of the ethnic strife kicks off, almost none are from the EU. They're again from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and the Caribbean with some from Africa and some East Asians. The knife murders in London, the riots down the years, the rapes in Rotherham, the Islamist attacks and all those social issues that tend to come on the back of modern multiculturalism are nada to do with EU migrants. They are down to England's imperial past and her former colonies and the need for workers back in the 50's and 60's when they were invited in. The only time EU citizens were in play was during the Troubles when Irish Republicans were setting off bombs, but again they had free travel anyway, EU or not(and was again a result of England's colonial past) and were at that before they even joined. Sure the EU were asking to home Syrians, but they're so far a drop in the ocean compared to the others and the UN will likely ask for help there anyway.

Britain leaving the EU because of immigration is akin to feeling your house is draughty, then voting to close an upstairs window thinking that solves it while leaving your front door wide open.

Wibbs

Tony EH wrote: »

In fairness, the bolded may not seem quite as outlandish as might first appear, considering the election results in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Sturgeon's first demand from Johnson is going to be Indy Ref part 2.

Maybe, but I'll lay bets now that it will be defeated.

20Cent

Even trumps spiritual adviser Paula White is also on the grift.
Apparently the bible says we should offer God our "first fruit offering". Paula reads this as people should honour God by sending her a months pay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_YuweZVEk8

Her website is a total grift as well just a list of things to buy off her. Looked at a bible it says enter a donation. Put in one dollar, it says 120 dollar minimum.

Shameless all of them.

Dick_Swiveller

Wibbs wrote: »

Because it's looking ever more and more unlikely that they'll be invited to join in anything like the near future. This part wasn't mentioned by the Brexit side. Hell, the Remain side didn't seem to understand it. Though to be fair their joining has gone far more backwards into the future since the Brexit referendum. There are 30 odd legal chapters that a prospective nation has to jump through to get into the EU, Turkey has only completed 16 and the book is currently closed on the rest. Over the last couple of years the EU powers have - and for the first time with a nation trying to get in - given Turkey major political static over all sorts of issues to the degree it has issued a clear statement on the matter which says:

“The Council notes that Turkey has been moving further away from the European Union. Turkey’s accession negotiations have therefore effectively come to a standstill and no further chapters can be considered for opening or closing and no further work towards the modernisation of the EU-Turkey Customs Union is foreseen,”

Check out this graphic on Turkey's requirements to join. The only green is go criteria is in science and research. Every single other one is redder than a turkey's comb(apt ) or still up for grabs.



Well since you know my previous D, I'm sure well you're aware of my stance on multiculturalism, "diversity" and all that nonsense and that the UK is most certainly not the way I want our country to go and if there were a vote on it that would make a difference I'd be casting it.

However for whatever reasons someone might have for voting to leave the EU and I can see a couple, the one area where it's kinda daft is on the topic of immigration. Of the foreign born non UK people living there, the EU folks are made up of Poles, Irish and Germans in order of magnitude. OK bye bye EU and bye bye Poles and Germans(neither group exactly well known for civil and social unrest). The Irish are allowed free travel anyway. The rest of the again foreign born are made up of those from the Indian subcontinent, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan. Not in the EU.

Of those long standing immigrant populations that are born and bred in Britain and hold British passports for a few generations and where much of the ethnic strife kicks off, almost none are from the EU. They're again from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and the Caribbean with some from Africa and some East Asians. The knife murders in London, the riots down the years, the rapes in Rotherham, the Islamist attacks and all those social issues that tend to come on the back of modern multiculturalism are nada to do with EU migrants. They are down to England's imperial past and her former colonies and the need for workers back in the 50's and 60's when they were invited in. The only time EU citizens were in play was during the Troubles when Irish Republicans were setting off bombs, but again they had free travel anyway, EU or not(and was again a result of England's colonial past) and were at that before they even joined. Sure the EU were asking to home Syrians, but they're so far a drop in the ocean compared to the others and the UN will likely ask for help there anyway.

Britain leaving the EU because of immigration is akin to feeling your house is draughty, then voting to close an upstairs window thinking that solves it while leaving your front door wide open.

Thank you for your detailed reply Wibbs. I'll concede the Turkey point, but I think you are underplaying the impact immigration from Eastern Europe has had on parts of Britain. The area with the largest leave vote was Boston in Lincolnshire (75 per cent). Almost all immigration into Boston has been from Eastern Europe.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36258541

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZa0aeBQb-g

I'd like to write a more detailed reply but I have to go to leaba for work tomorrow.

Good luck.

20Cent

Arch alt right grifter Katie Hopkins got pranked very funny.
Kicked off twitter as well, good stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRIdtMlqwNA

Ulysses Gaze

alastair wrote: »

By providing services to the government that would otherwise cost the government in direct outgoings.

Do we really need 23 homeless charities in Dublin alone though?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/the-homeless-industry-also-has-questions-to-answer-30804937.html

The time has come to focus attention on homeless charities - there are 23 in Dublin alone; on what Archbishop Diarmuid Martin referred to on national radio last week as the "homeless industry".

Ulysses Gaze

20Cent wrote: »

Arch alt right grifter Katie Hopkins got pranked very funny.
Kicked off twitter as well, good stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRIdtMlqwNA

Chickens coming home to roost after she lost her lawsuit against Jack Monroe.

Could have donated £5,000 to a refugee charity, as Jack had asked her to, but no. Decided to pursue the case and racked up £500,000 in legal bills.

I see her heading to the US as they will buy her crap over there.

topper75

Wibbs wrote: »

All "fights for freedom" are inevitably one sided. One's position on them largely depends on viewpoint. I would hold a republican viewpoint and see the throwing off of the English yoke as a fight for freedom, but I would have a very different viewpoint if I had been born into the Unionist minority in the thirty two counties a century ago and an even more different viewpoint if I were born into the Unionist majority in the six counties. The Nazi party's viewpoint was also a fight for freedom from Bolsheviks and other "outside influences" in defence of the German people. They were just as equally convinced of their right to do so and if they'd just stuck with fighting "Commies" chances are high that they'd now be lauded for it by many.

Ironically for the nazi forces, TRUE nationalism was their undoing: love for Mother Russia and dealing with an intruder at the front door is a much, much higher motivation when starving under gunfire in the frost than any Bolshevik scaremongering or Versailles saltiness.
In terms of tying down divisions, the sheer bloody mindedness of the bear in the East facilitated a breach of the Atlantic Wall in France. The clock then began ticking on the nazis.

1800_Ladladlad

20Cent wrote: »

Arch alt right grifter Katie Hopkins got pranked very funny.
Kicked off twitter as well, good stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRIdtMlqwNA

Great grift by the chap

MakingMovies2

20Cent wrote: »

Arch alt right grifter Katie Hopkins got pranked very funny.
Kicked off twitter as well, good stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRIdtMlqwNA

Good hopefully the hateful old bag goes to live in some damp cave somewhere. Hopefully the cave has a large wolf population too...

Kidchameleon

Everyone should be free to say what they want as long as they are not inciting violence. All Hopkins is guilty of is hurting peoples feelings. More power to her. People have gotten too sensitive. No religion should be free from criticism.

Boggles

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Everyone should be free to say what they want as long as they are not inciting violence. All Hopkins is guilty of is hurting peoples feelings. More power to her. People have gotten too sensitive. No religion should be free from criticism.

Palestinians busy knifing Israelis. 2 state solution my arse. Filthy rodents burrowing beneath Israel. Time to restart the bombing campaign

Yeah more power to her all right.

:rolleyes:

She is an absolute cretin and the sooner she fúcks off the better.

Kidchameleon

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah more power to her all right.

:rolleyes:

She is an absolute cretin and the sooner she fúcks off the better.

So she said something that offends you and you think she should have her speech curtailed? Thats not how free speech works.

Boggles

Kidchameleon wrote: »

So she said something that offends you and you think she should have her speech curtailed? Thats not how free speech works.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Everyone should be free to say what they want as long as they are not inciting violence.

Nothing to do with me lad.

It was your standard.

Kidchameleon

Boggles wrote: »

Nothing to do with me lad.

It was your standard.

Do you think Barack Obama should be kicked off Twitter?

Boggles

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Do you think Barack Obama should be kicked off Twitter?

I couldn't give a flying fúck if Twitter melted.

The fact is she is an absolute cretin and the sooner she fúcks off the better.

Free screeching aside.

Kidchameleon

Boggles wrote: »

I couldn't give a flying fúck if Twitter melted.

The fact is she is an absolute cretin and the sooner she fúcks off the better.

Free screeching aside.

Dont answer my question so

20Cent

Kidchameleon wrote: »

So she said something that offends you and you think she should have her speech curtailed? Thats not how free speech works.

Being kicked off twitter is nothing to do with free speech. It's a private company.

KyussB

There's a cull of non-mainstream views on both the left and right on Twitter right now.

Useful Idiots everywhere - having been coopted into supporting increasing mass censorship - deluded into thinking they are making the world a more tolerant place...

alastair

KyussB wrote: »

There's a cull of non-mainstream views on both the left and right on Twitter right now.

Useful Idiots everywhere - having been coopted into supporting increasing mass censorship - deluded into thinking they are making the world a more tolerant place...

Twitter have their user rules. Up to them to enforce them. Plenty of other platforms available.

KyussB

That's simply acting as an apologist for political censorship.

Public discourse takes place in privatized 'town squares' these days - and when places like Twitter/Facebook etc. become as large as they are, dominating as much of the public platform as they do - then the idea of choice is lie, when these platforms command the greatest amount of the publics attention online.

They've grown too big to be treated as 'just another platform', free to apply arbitrary censorship as they see fit. If they want an effective monopoly/duopoly/oligopoly, dividing up the vast majority of the online 'town square' between themselves - then the public needs to be guaranteed a right to access that 'town square', and be able to sue these companies for political censorship.

Kidchameleon

20Cent wrote: »

Being kicked off twitter is nothing to do with free speech. It's a private company.

That old chestnut. Its a slippery slope. It starts with private companies but it leads to having passports revoked etc. This IS happening in China right now

Boggles

Kidchameleon wrote: »

That old chestnut. Its a slippery slope. It starts with private companies but it leads to having passports revoked etc. This IS happening in China right now

Ya, I remember the good old days when China was a free and open society where you could express any thoughts you wanted.

:pac:

Odhinn

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Everyone should be free to say what they want as long as they are not inciting violence. All Hopkins is guilty of is hurting peoples feelings. More power to her. People have gotten too sensitive. No religion should be free from criticism.

Really?


"final solution" hopkins?
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40061888



“We can commit to arm ourselves, not just with the help of the NRA,” she added. “Get furious and fight back.”
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1570054/3-british-columnist-gave-speech-attacking-muslims-days-leaving-mail-online/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=9bdd229083dee95451a630e2ef0cbad7af19d02e-1580587279-0-AWcjdnDOjbPRzoo575bUzx1H_L11VEAnB1HjD9ajBb-f0xOFSVyZsx75bwD76ji7d-g-XcKYkbV---SVOQvMnQggAy5sTNknRbPVzxsT0YAy8AjtDUaGdMZN6Qro1mdlJVbcALDMsxBnywVsqTg5OG86ixqVWCOPepbVGvPzxfiyepvH2wt1meuKfVepucvh79FVCYWd7NGKrWhJcQ6XANZ6yuiwY2Oq_rALimKpf73UMOC0w-5kVz5h3T8hemlUy8wK-EoLJLmJgNTBav2utSwFde61th3p80xE7-Qe39cZ_x_wW1hEYRmjV2mIfbETCB43-POtSNRhbDea-oq8aLI7Dv3VuCMRbNi5GAFqFMlOK0ZEiUydEqe7odeqrmlpPA

alastair

KyussB wrote: »

That's simply acting as an apologist for political censorship.

Public discourse takes place in privatized 'town squares' these days - and when places like Twitter/Facebook etc. become as large as they are, dominating as much of the public platform as they do - then the idea of choice is lie, when these platforms command the greatest amount of the publics attention online.

They've grown too big to be treated as 'just another platform', free to apply arbitrary censorship as they see fit. If they want an effective monopoly/duopoly/oligopoly, dividing up the vast majority of the online 'town square' between themselves - then the public needs to be guaranteed a right to access that 'town square', and be able to sue these companies for political censorship.

Not remotely convincing. Censorship has always been, and remains, defined as an instrument of the State - not private platforms.

KyussB

alastair wrote: »

Not remotely convincing. Censorship has always been, and remains, defined as an instrument of the State - not private platforms.

You're wrong:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and corporations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship