The cost of Brexit for us; the ordinary people

Perhaps we should have a list of what is and what is not acceptable in political terms on GN.

The Newspeak Nazis would far rather its whatever they decide is not acceptable on the day!

Key EU nations France, Germany and the Netherlands are steaming towards elections next year with increasing numbers of voters biting at the bit to give what they believe to be a self-serving elite - and their attack dogs: market capitalism, multiculturalism and globalisation - a good kicking.
from:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37925716

So it's good enough for The Guardian, the BBC and John Prescott but unacceptable to Gransnetters.

Are you saying your description is not correct?

No. I am saying you havent provided the actual report which you claim your stats come from, thus I have no way of knowing if they represent an increase in reports of so called 'hate crime' or actual convictions.
From what I have seen in the papers it appears the increase was in mere reports!

To your other:
You made a sarcastic comment about her dads prediction WW.

Just because I read The Guardian, Jalima, it doesn't mean that I approve of everything written in it; nor do I take it as my guide to the acceptable use of language.

oh well, I thought it was a political term meaning being trounced in an election. I have never used it but I have heard it from several sources.
As 'Big Beast' is also a political term for a statesman-like politician of great stature (but apparently on GN it is considered to be a nasty term).

Perhaps we should have a list of what is and what is not acceptable in political terms on GN.

Ah - John Prescott as reported by the BBC:
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott admits voters have given Labour a "kicking" in protest at the Iraq war.
He of the eloquent turn of phrase.

I can give you a reference but my technical abilities stop at that I am afraid.

I'm on page 15. It depends how many posts per page you've chosen to display.

So what are you saying? Are you saying your description is not correct? What did I say to the poster that constituted a sneer?

No mair it is for you to provide figures that dispute this report. The ball is firmly in your court.

The report that you havent provided?!?!

mair now to page 23!!!
I am on page 8

You talked of Britain being a repressive society, but I doubt whether many people would recognise the society you have described.

You take my examples out of context (deliberately). I was replying to the poster whose dad had voted OUT of the EE in the seventies on the grounds that we would become a more repressed society. You sneered at her.

He was absolutely right. In the 70s British people were considerably less restricted and freer than now, and that is before we even add in the numerous regulations imposed by the EU directly.

No mair it is for you to provide figures that dispute this report. The ball is firmly in your court.

WW
First you indicated your doubt relating to the level of hate crimes since the referendum.

I would like to refer you to the police report in which they confirm that racial/religious abuse crimes rose by 41% immediately after the referendum. They have also reported that these crimes have remained at a higher level since. Amber Rudd accepts these figures as correct.

I think you will find that these are simply reports of alleged
'hate crimes' rather than convictions.

Please provide actual statistics if I am wrong. I suspect there may be a very very small rise, on the basis that if more even very minor public order offences are reported then there will be a few convictions.

In the hysterical climate whipped up by the minority of furious Bremoaners after the referendum, it is my belief that the most petty incidents were being reported by the angry brigade as so called 'hate crimes' incidents such as school children innocently asking classmates if they would be going home now, and people teasing their work colleagues about going home - maybe not all entirely kindly, but not with malicious hate either, typical of the kind of 'builder banter' that is par for the course in many workplaces, away from the sheltered lives that some middle class Gransnetters lead.

Some of our less stable immigrants too were caught up in this panic, and reacted in the most hysterical manner. I recall one Polish woman almost crying on the radio for no more reason than we had voted Brexit, and she was now claiming she 'feels so unwanted..' Well boohoo!

mair now to page 23!!! You have surpassed yourself and Mr Eric Blair would be proud of you

You talked of Britain being a repressive society, but I doubt whether many people would recognise the society you have described.

"CCTV cameras everywhere" apart from the obvious exaggeration - I will accede that the UK has the most cameras in the EU. However whether this can be seen as an invasion of privacy can only ironically enough be challenged using the HRA

"Mobiles tracking us" the question here is who is doing the tracking? If it is the police, then in order to be able to do so they need a warrant. Unfortunately these need to be issued by your biased judiciary. However to think that we are ALL being tracked is a tad paranoid I think.

"GCHQ recording your internet activity" well where peodophiles are caught and there have been numerous such incidents I say bring it on. That is not to say unfettered access is desirable but this is so far from the case as to be out of sight.

"Laws restricting what we say and people being banged up for saying something rude"
I assume that you are talking about the Public Order Act 1986. This is divided into 3 main offences the least of these says that someone using abusive language to cause harassment, alarm or distress is causing an offence against this act. I have no problem with this -do you?
This Act does by its nature restricts what we say -which you seem to take offence to. What is there you wish to say that you feel you can't say? There is nothing I feel restricted from saying.

"People are desperate for ID cards" well it may be the case that the majority of British have no objection to ID cards, but to suggest that they will enable the Government from preventing illegal immigration is nonsense.

"Teachers being encouraged to brainwash our children ......aided by the EU" You don't make that clear as to how and why, so my conclusion is that this is hyperbole at the least.

With regard to Foster care I assume you are talking about the Rotherham social services who challenged a UKIP couple who were fostering 3children of ethnic minority status. However what you also failed to mention was that the government and opposition completely opposed this decision, so it is certainly not policy.

And last and best of all the assertion that the police are deciding a child's friends. Can you expand on this please?

And (if memory is correct) approximately 35,000 are from Ireland. If they're going to be stopped, it will mean overturning a treaty from the 1920s. Can anybody see that happening?

mair. Just a couple of asides to your post on page 22

First you indicated your doubt relating to the level of hate crimes since the referendum.

I would like to refer you to the police report in which they confirm that racial/religious abuse crimes rose by 41% immediately after the referendum. They have also reported that these crimes have remained at a higher level since. Amber Rudd accepts these figures as correct.

79%of the increase was directly related to race hate.

The other figure I would like to challenge is your statement that"remaining in the EU with some 600000(gross) immigrants a year ......is causing distress to poorer people"

Hmm! how many is the EU responsible for? Your reply doesn't make that clear does it? In fact the immigration figure for the year ending June 2016 was in fact 335K net. Of these the larger was non-Europe migrants at 289K.

No rose simply putting an alternative argument.

Just because I read The Guardian, Jalima, it doesn't mean that I approve of everything written in it; nor do I take it as my guide to the acceptable use of language.

ww taking back control ( of everything, ) includes immigration!

So Jess you thought that getting a kicking ( Merkel) meant somebody really and literally giving her a kicking? Oh come on!
but if they had said they hoped she would get shafted or f****d ( missing letters for purposes of those of a sheltered disposition) that would be better?

Yup I am missing the point as well about "getting a kicking". If someone had posted that someone or something was going to get shafted (I'm being polite) then I might have got it.

mair

Your second claim

"The majority who voted Brexit did not do so for economic reasons"

According to Lord Ashcroft findings, this is indeed a true assertion. In fact 49% who voted stated that their primary reason was to take back control. 33% who voted stated that their primary reason was to limit immigration.

The last figure in view if all your later comments will be of the greatest interest to you I am sure, so let's drill down further on your assertion later made that immigration is what concerns .....greatly.

So 33% of the Brexit vote represents approximately 13% of the total U.K. Population - of course immigration may be a concern with more people, but this was not given as a primary reason as you later claimed. Indeed I would and can rightly claim from these figures that immigration may be one of a number of issues that are of concern to the UK as a whole is not the primary issue, by a long way.

There is also an interesting paper in which UKIP were asked about their voting intentions and any economic impact/hardship that Brexit might have on their attitude to immigration, published by UCL.

What this paper finds that it very much depends on the way the question relating to immigration is formed, (I am sure UKIP must be aware of this report/paper)
It relates to the diversity/assimilation arguments of which I am sure you are aware. Interestingly when the assimilation argument was put to the UKIP voter their anti-immigration stance collapsed to 15%. So you see for some the "economy stupid " does make a difference and is still of prime importance.

That reminds me of when I once called a Labour politician a 'Big Beast' and got roundly castigated for my anti-Labour language

Of course, 'Big Beast' in politics is a term of admiration, someone worthy of respect.

getting a kicking in the election is a term used by The Guardian so presumably it is all above board and a correct and proper term to use.

I'm just astounded that anyone finds such language acceptable under any circumstances. perhaps you don't read The Guardian MaizieD.

Oh dear Mair - descent into personal insults means only one thing really doesn't it
So why are you all doing it and?
As Firecracker says:
I think most personal insults have been aimed at Mair especially the Jo Cox one and troll remark.

I know the political threads can descend into clashes - if everyone thought the same it would be a very strange world (or a very frightened one where dissent is not allowed).

However, someone coming on here with very strong views which challenge the usual dominating themes of political threads seems to have ruffled a lot of feathers.

I am not saying I agree with either side - both too extreme for me! - but the name-calling and innuendo is not in the slightest bit constructive.

mair
As promised some counter arguments to your various posts since page 18.

Your first assertion and erroneous claim was that the "majority of the judiciary are pro-EU" and you went even further to say that the rule of law is being deliberately used to stop Brexit.

I can find no evidence at all to back this claim. Of course we can all agree that perfect objectivity is impossible, but are equally aware that there are the strongest guidelines under which the judiciary conduct their lives and the way the judiciary operates.

If indeed the judiciary is considered to be biased in this case then we all have recourse to the law. However, I would argue that in this particular instance with people like yourselves and UKIP breathing down their necks than what will be uppermost in their minds will be an unbiased outcome.

To attempt to undermine the judicial integrity without proof is both undemocratic and against the British Rule of Law that has held for centuries. Not a good look.