What part of what he said in the videos did you not find convincing or truthful? He's pretty straightforward in everything he says. It's kind of his thing. He's already hated by many, it's not like he stands to win friends now by being deceitful.
Printable View
What part of what he said in the videos did you not find convincing or truthful? He's pretty straightforward in everything he says. It's kind of his thing. He's already hated by many, it's not like he stands to win friends now by being deceitful.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with being an agnostic in a nuanced world. The truth is often more complex than we can or will comprehend, appreciate or envisage. :)
More often than not, I probably broadly concur with the various bits and pieces I'm quoting though, or at least, I feel the information is worthy of inclusion in whatever discussion is in progress and can add some value or insight.
And evidence-based academic research is surely a world away from speculation.
I'm sure the stuff about his background, how he got to where he is truthful. Distancing himself from the racists he's run with from his entire adult life I find hilarious. I'll watch it again over the weekend as it's been a while but the whole 'mea culpa, I was a bad un' schtick is a classic. Can't remember if he mentioned it there but the idea he left the EDL after failing to run out the neo-nazis is very funny.
Interesting you should mention Rotherham, as I found this the other day, revealing that 68% of the offenders were actually white: https://exposingbf.wordpress.com/201...rooming-gangs/
This quote from the Crown Prosecution service's lead on child sex abuse stood out:
The normal resident population of the UK is 86% white. For every sex crime by a black or middle-eastern person that gets the gutter press whipped up into a frenzy, there are a raft of similar crimes committed by white people which are swept under the carpet. Nationwide, Muslims do not appear to be significantly more likely to commit sex crimes than any other ethnic group.Quote:
“So I know that the vast majority of offenders are British white male,” he says, setting the number at somewhere between 80 and 90%. “We have come across cases all over the country and the ethnicity of the perpetrators varies depending on where you are … It is not the abusers’ race that defines them. It is their attitude to women that defines them.”
from the same blog post (which by the way didn't link to the Rotherham report itself, instead a strategic plan to move Rotherham forward):
The report itself and almost every article and analysis provided (and even Jack Straw) at the time was unanimous in claiming that this was a problem predominantly perpetrated by Muslim gangs. Even this problem itself is acknowledged by Muslim thought leaders.Quote:
To be fair, we genuinely don’t know how accurate or representative even these figures are. It seems that as more information comes to light the picture of what happened in Rotherham keeps on changing. Perhaps we’ll never know for sure.
Bear in mind that this scandal was initiated as a result a conviction of 5 members of a Muslim gang in the area in 2010, then Rochdale (all Muslim) and then the Inquiry was called and completed with the first groups of people imprisoned as a result of the report back in 2016 were a Muslim group (and two white women). I don't deny that it likely is not exclusively a Muslim problem but they do seem to be hugely represented in the events that predated the report, the report itself and the follow on convictions. Of the 20 convictions arising from Operation Clover, 18 are Muslim men aged between 30 and 42. The other 2 are white women. Another 3 Muslim men are awaiting trial.Quote:
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, said British Pakistanis needed to acknowledge the problem of grooming gangs operating in their communities.
He said: 'Until British Pakistanis accept that this is a problem for our community we will not be able to eradicate this evil. Burying our head in the sand as the usual response is not good enough.'
BBC News (27 August 2014): "At least 1,400 children in the South Yorkshire town were sexually exploited by criminal gangs of men who were predominantly of Pakistani origin between 1997 and 2013."
from Wikipedia related to the Casey report:
Quote:
Published in January 2015, the Casey report concluded that Rotherham Council was "not fit for purpose".[173] Casey identified a culture of "bullying, sexism ... and misplaced 'political correctness'", along with a history of covering up information and silencing whistleblowers. The child-sexual-exploitation team was poorly directed, suffered from excessive case loads, and did not share information.[174] The council had a history of failing to deal with issues around race: "Staff perceived that there was only a small step between mentioning the ethnicity of perpetrators and being labelled a racist."[175] The Pakistani-heritage councillors were left to deal with all issues pertaining to that community, which left them able to exert disproportionate influence, while white councillors ignored their responsibilities
Looks like the number is ticking up.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/13/29-peo...ldren-6571793/
I have an idea to solve the border issue if it's seemingly so insurmountable...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...b0a8ea08b6e015Quote:
Originally Posted by David Davis
That's a very good post on the issue. Both you and the Crown prosecutor have it spot on and from what I can gather most rational sex exploitation researchers/ activists/'legalists' would agree with that quote from the prosecutor.
However, here a discussion about brexit has come down to discussing the merits of the socially divisive propaganda of racist groups, Britain First or British Pride or whatever they're called in these days of re-branding racism into something trendy and credible.
Wendy Shepherd, child sexual exploitation project manager for Barnardo's wrote,
"The danger with saying that the problem is with one ethnicity is that then people will only be on the lookout for that group – and will risk missing other threats."
I think Wendy's statement doesn't go far enough, because focusing the problem on one ethnicity to the exclusion of others is (to state the obvious) a poison and patently a part of an agenda driven racist propaganda.
Fortunately in order to understand what that's about, we can get assistance from those who have studied propaganda and in particular Nazis. One of the most respected in this field is Sebastian Haffner
In "Jekyll and Hyde" Seb wrote “Outside of Germany people often wonder at the palpable fraudulence of Nazi propaganda, the stupid incredible exaggerations, the ludicrous reticences concerning what is generally known. Who can be convinced by it? They ask. The answer is that it is not meant to convince but to impress. It addresses emotion and fantasy. Nazi propaganda seeks to create in our minds tenacious ideas and fantasies."
In Germany there were plenty of intelligentsia who rejected the facts of the propaganda, eg. that "snub nosed, dwarfish, half ape" Czechs/Poles were threats to Germany, but the impression of the propaganda lingered.
In the aftermath of such propaganda today (Moslems rape our white girls) we get discussions based on those lingering impressions, which in turn deepen the effect of the propaganda, as explanations are offered that such belligerent people are victims of bad information, instead of what they are, basically people having questionable levels of rationality, bigots who focus on selective incidents to support their prejudices.
We offer in response, information that "Muslims" have low crime rates, good in business, academia, solid family support network etc etc , but in a nutshell this information is having the effect of separation, of accentuating differences in other ethnic groups. They are, they have, they is ok.
I'm not saying that racist/ethnic/social propaganda issues should not be challenged, but to keep in mind a perspective on the idea that "racist propaganda is not meant to convince but to impress".
It's not just about the facts.
The plural of anecdote isn't data. If you narrow your focus on anything you can pretend that it's the problem. Take these guys for example: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...le-gang-jailed . Not a Muslim involved. It doesn't matter how things seem, because that's a product of the media and our own internal biases. So let's take a look at what the statistics say:
Here's a British government report on crime and ethnicity, which is probably as close as we're going to get to a breakdown based on religion. Page 36 has a breakdown by race and type of offence. Asians commit about 7% of sexual crimes in the UK, while comprising 6.9% of the population. Also interesting to note is that Asians are significantly less likely than the general population to commit violent offences, robbery, burglary or drug offences. Statistically speaking, perhaps we should be whipping up a moral panic about these Muslim immigrants coming over here committing fraud and forgery (for which the defendant is Asian ~10-11% of the time), although that's less of an emotive topic for the press to latch onto than strange-looking foreigners abusing innocent British girls.
See above. The plural of anecdote isn't data. In the same time period I guarantee there was a proportional number of sex crimes committed by folk of other ethnicities and religions. If there wasn't the statistics would look different.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrisLetang
We never had female genital mutilation in Michigan or Minnesota until these Muslim Communities were gathered there. Muslim doctors were shocked they got arrested for it. They didn't see the harm. To me that's bad immigration. We don't need that. And I'm not just choosing just that when talking about immigration problems. MS-13 is murdering people on Long Island like crazy. They come from El Salvador--illegally. Wait until MS-13 get to Chicago. You think that city is going up in flames now...I mean they are there already, just not like they are on L.I. yet.
I'm not quite sure what that's got to do with the EU, but banning Muslims from entering the country isn't going to stop FGM. In fact, it's less likely to happen in the US or the UK where there are actually laws against it. Not to mention the fact that FGM is also extremely widespread among the christian communities in west, central and east african countries, whereas it is almost completely non-existent in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran, Saudia Arabia...
Well this doesn't exactly have much to do with freedom of movement for EU nationals within the EU. But anyway, there are almost no immigrants in the Aryan Nation and Combat 18. And the Crips are almost exclusively African-Americans whose ancestors were slaves. And none of this changes the fact that immigration does not have any statistical correlation with an increase in crime rate. You can point to MS-13, but I could point to the proportional number of crimes committed by non-immigrants:Quote:
And I'm not just choosing just that when talking about immigration problems. MS-13 is murdering people on Long Island like crazy. They come from El Salvador--illegally. Wait until MS-13 get to Chicago. You think that city is going up in flames now...I mean they are there already, just not like they are on L.I. yet.
https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...-united-states
http://econofact.org/are-immigrants-...-commit-crimes
http://thehill.com/latino/324607-rep...-born-citizens
Right but we don't need to add any illegal immigrants who are in gangs.
The keyword there is illegal. The UK can already stop illegal migration, because it's, y'know, illegal. Leaving the EU isn't going to change that one iota. And if the immigration is legal, then you can filter out gang members and terrorists at the visa application stage. EU immigrants have contributed far more to the UK economy in taxes and economic activity than they have taken out, which makes more money available for things that benefit everyone in the UK. And that's without mentioning the fact that things like the NHS would simply collapse without migrant workers to prop it up.
Do people who are rich or upper class use NHS generally?
Although they are perfectly entitled to do so, persons from the upper classes probably wouldn't tend to avail of it. They may consult for minor matters but I suspect they would generally go private for more serious issues or where there may be long waiting lists on the NHS as they can afford it.
Working class persons would generally be limited to NHS treatment due to financial restraint. This Telegraph article (which references a report by a think-tank) claims that middle class people "dominate" the NHS, however:
This piece discusses the impact the introduction of universal healthcare free at the point of service had upon the middle class:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebecca Smith
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Doyle
So what % of a working persons taxes that they pay in the U.K. go toward NHS? Do sales taxes and property taxes also go towards NHS or is it only payroll taxes?
Sales tax, income tax and National Insurance all go in the one pot. Property tax is paid locally and goes towards fixing potholes, social housing, state schools etc.
The NHS comes out of the big pot, and accounts for 18.8% of that. Currently Income Tax is 0% on all earnings £11,000 and below, 20% on all earnings £11,000 to £43,000, and 40% on all earnings above that. National Insurance varies from 0% to 11% of income depending on a number of factors. On average a UK worker will pay 31% tax on their earnings, which means just under 6% of their income will go on the NHS. This is significantly less than in the US, which is generally attributed to a number of factors. One of the most important of these being that people in the UK will go to the doctor on a cautionary or preventative basis, so many problems are nipped in the bud before they can develop into something more dangerous (and expensive). There is also the fact that the NHS does not try to turn a profit, and the fact that it has a much greater negotiating power than individual US customers, and so can get a better deal from suppliers of drugs and medical equipment.
Whilst there has been talk in recent years of sending itemised letters to taxpayers detailing exactly how their tax contribution is spent by the British government, exact figures aren't presently published or made known to taxpayers. However, according to this BBC piece from 2012, a worker earning the then-average UK full-time salary of £25,500 per annum would have paid a total tax amount of £5,979 and, from that total, would have contributed £1,094 to the NHS.
This article (also from 2012) claims that "a taxpayer earning £50,000 a year [was] paying £14,183 (or 28.37 per cent) of their income to the Government" and that "by far the largest proportion of this money [went] to fund the welfare state (£4,727.67), followed by health (£2,469.73) and education (£1,848.73)". It more or less confirms what the BBC article was asserting and suggests that someone earning £25,000 would contribute £993 to health-care.
This article from the Telegraph states that someone earning £60,000 per year will contribute £3,442 to the NHS.
For what it's worth, the average UK wage in 2015 was £27,600 and it tends to rise by a percentage or two every year, so the average tax contribution will also have increased proportionately.
The NHS is funded almost exclusively through income (payroll) tax and national insurance contributions. Some further info on NHS funding here:
Some further info here too:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by The King's Fund
Just following on from the talk on immigration above... This is a powerful and thought-provoking long-read by a former asylum seeker (who left Iran aged eight and who is now a teacher of American literature in London, as well as holding both US and EU citizenship) on the nativist disdain for the "ungrateful refugee" and the suspicious notion that refugees should shed their old identities and owe eternal and unconditional thanks to their native hosts: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ateful-refugee
This is my example of the NHS.
Mrs BTTW is currently pregnant. When she gives birth it will be in an NHS hospital. If things go as the have previously we will have a night spent in an NHS hospital. We will have the care of a midwife and a few nurses. My son or daughter will be delivered in a safe environment (most likely a waterbirth in a suite built to to accomodate that).
If anything goes wrong a team of consultant surgeons, anesthetists, nurses etc will be on hand to save her life and my childs life.
All of this will be provided free of charge at the point of delivery (quite literally in this case). I have been paying or it in advance since i was 18 and got a job.
I am able to pay for it, and type this, because when it went wrong as I was being born, and i needed the help of crash team to save my life, there was one there free of charge, paid for in advance by my father and mother.
Bringing this back to the original subject, when the day comes for a referendum in ROI, I can think of no better reason for Irish unity than the fact that we bring with us the infrastructure of an all-Ireland health service, provided for free at the point on delivery. We can work out the money later!
Well of course it costs money. You're just paying in a different way instead of a bill when you leave.
Here's mine
Recently my knee popped in a 50/50 indoor soccer match. I felt it pop, not in agony but a pops a pop and I did some knee bends in the dressing room and told the guys to take me off the text list for games for the foreseeable & went home, I knew it was not good.
A&E the next day, described it to the nurse, was referred to a higher up nurse who examined me. Twisted and turned it and nearly brought tears from me, she said it was not ruptured, I repeated I felt it pop and had had a look online and felt my MCR was gone. She said no. Said to give it 4 weeks minimum and not to expect it to be pain free, after that go to a GP if I wasn't coming from it but clearly, she was sure I wouldn't need to.
I pressed her, and got nowhere. She was borderline dismissive.
GP 5 weeks or so later, I get referred for an MRI, wait two more weeks for MRI appt, which when it comes back shows, a ruptured MCR ligament.
Again I wait, two weeks for an appt letter in a hospital in a different town even though the consultant does weekly surgeries in the town I'm in it turns out when I finally see him, another week or more after the letter. They guy decides on a brace and crutches, with a follow up every two weeks for eight weeks followed by physio.
The brace he sent the nurse for isn't in stock so another one is brought, totally different and she warned me it wasn't exactly an award winner. And its worse than useless, I mean no matter how tight I fasten it, within two steps it has fallen not only down, but completely below the knee. Worthless pile of nonsense, so I rang the manufacturers as I assumed I was misusing it, but no, and they were blissfully unaware of it ever being anything other than perfect.
Rang the hospital, and they had me back in within two days to be fair, but the woman on the phone was a world apart from the nurses I met upon going back, they basically said that's how it is, keep hiking it up, keep calm and carry on. So I pushed for the brace i was originally supposed to get, and it still wasn't in stock but they would order it in. I pushed because being immobile isn't an option as I work for myself and the original brace would have been fine for that.
They said it would be here by Wednesday of this week and would phone me, bring me in and fit it. No call and its now Saturday, so Ill start chasing them again on Monday. They assured me they would call me soon as it came in and that would be Wednesday, so lets see when I call if its there. I know where my tenner is on that one.
I realise it's not life and death, it's not childbirth, and I injured myself chasing a ball around but the point holds, I run my own business, and if any part of that malfunctioned as badly and repeatedly as almost every part of this NHS chain I am in, I would be eaten alive by my competitors in probably about as much time as passed since I hurt my knee.
This is not to say I want it auctioned off, privatised, nor is it me uncloaking as a godless Tory :) I just found it to be a string of bad getting worse this time.
The Tories' long-term plan is working a treat then, unfortunately.
Here's something a junior doctor friend of mine wrote on Tory treatment of the NHS: https://geosociopolitico.com/2016/03...-on-the-brink/
Defund, make sure things don't work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital... As Noam Chomsky once said: "That's the standard technique of privatisation."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Sorial
Some further reasons as to why the Tories can't be trusted with the NHS: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs...ories-with-nhs
But because it's free at the point of use, it ends up costing less overall, because everyone can afford it, and people aren't put off getting preventative medicine by the cost.
In the US, there are still outbreaks of disease because people don't go to the doctor and get it treated before they infect others. There are drug-resistant strains of diseases that have emerged because it's too expensive for people to complete courses of treatment. And that's not to mention the fact that private healthcare providers are also trying to maximise their profits. All of this adds to the overall healthcare burden and the amount people pay overall compared to a single-payer system.
They actually had single payer in Vermont. It collapsed.
Could work in California though. http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/0...floor-lefties/
Yes, single-payer health care requires an increase in taxes. We all know that. But pretty much every other country in the developed world has it. And it works. The US healthcare system is ranked 37th in the world for quality by the WHO, 31st for life expectancy and 48th for infant mortality. And this is in spite of spending the highest amount per capita in the entire world, by quite some margin.
Single-payer healthcare is objectively better. It produces better outcomes at a lower cost. Yes, taxes will have to go up, but when that means that the average person ends up healthier and with more money in their pocket, that's a good thing.
The same WHO that spent 200 Million on Travel last year? :) And I read that on Al Jazeera of all places.
I'm sure you Health Ins is fine. Mine is fine too and not that expensive. Raising Taxes by that much in CAL would be crazy. Taxes are crazy in left wing states like that as it is.I'm glad that works for you. I notice that rich people from around the world often come to the US for treatment. Max Factor in LA, CLE Clinic, Mayo in Minny. NYU Langone down the street from me. They all have their VIP centers. Why would anyone need that? I thought everyone is treated the exact same under socialized medicine? Weird.
I don't think anyone suggested US doesn't have good hospitals. I assume Max Factor got treatment in the US because he has loads of money and can afford to get treatment that ordinary people in any country couldn't afford.
What's that got to do with anything? Their travel budget doesn't have much to do with how good they are at making reports.
I don't have health insurance. I don't need it because of the NHS. Whenever I go to a doctor or a hospital, I get treated, free of charge, no questions asked. I earn just above the median income in the UK and have no major chronic conditions, so I can expect to put in more than I take out, but I'm okay with that.Quote:
I'm sure you Health Ins is fine. Mine is fine too and not that expensive. Raising Taxes by that much in CAL would be crazy. Taxes are crazy in left wing states like that as it is.I'm glad that works for you. I notice that rich people from around the world often come to the US for treatment. Max Factor in LA, CLE Clinic, Mayo in Minny. NYU Langone down the street from me. They all have their VIP centers. Why would anyone need that? I thought everyone is treated the exact same under socialized medicine? Weird.
When you say "taxes are crazy" in Ca, I had a look. The maximum state tax rate is 13%, sales tax is 7.5%, and the bands are set much higher than they are in the UK. Our sales tax is 20% and our income tax for those earning under £43,000 is 20%. And people are okay with that. To most Europeans, American taxes seem insanely low. Countries can, and do, manage with those levels of taxation perfectly well.
As for why the super-rich travel to the USA for certain procedures, I pretty much agree with Charlie. America has great health services. For the rich. I've not been talking about that. For the majority of the population the service is poorer and more expensive per capita than a taxpayer-funded one.
Incidentally while reading about Tony Wilson (of Factory Records fame) earlier, I saw this tidbit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_WilsonQuote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Oh it's terribly underfunded. What has happened to you sounds like a fairly classic example of things falling through the cracks in an understaffed and over worked department.
And how much travel did they get for the money? They were dealing with the Ebola outbreak in West Africa and Zika in South America last year, which would make meant flying people and cargo all over the place. Stuff costs money, and moving stuff costs more money.
And how much tax do you think we pay? The UK takes 34% of GDP in tax. Ireland takes 30%. The USA takes 26% (On average. It varies from state to state obviously)
Healthcare is a fairly rare example of something the government can run more efficiently than the market. It's not like buying a car. Nobody would ever buy a car knowing it would bankrupt them. Nobody who had a choice would ever go to a slightly less reliable cardiologist because he is 20% cheaper. The free market just doesn't with healthcare.
Yeah, if I wanted to privatise a health service I'd steadily cut services too. Tories know what they're doing and guess who'll be first in the line to take up public-private partnerships?
'After Brexit: the UK will need to renegotiate at least 759 treaties': https://www.ft.com/content/f1435a8e-...4-9023f8c0fd2e
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul McClean
The UK has fallen to the bottom of the GDP growth-rate league table of advanced economies and has been the worst performer among the G7 this year, along with Italy: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...lump-inflation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nesrine Malik