UKMT May: Elections! (which won't fix anything)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT May: Elections! (which won't fix anything)

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

tdrules posted:

UKIP's "small & medium business spokesperson" is Pakistani, his website is an absolute delight

http://www.amjadbashir.co.uk

I like the part where he says "The EU are unelected" while running to be an MEP.

# ¿ May 5, 2014 21:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 12:50

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Trickjaw posted:

Just putting some washing out, and the Queen is in town today. I could hear them at the Cathederal belting out God Save the Queen. Gawd bless ah, Makes you prahd, etc.

Hello fellow Queen-visited-now-we're-a-city [sic] Goon!

# ¿ May 6, 2014 18:50

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Trickjaw posted:

There's never another unfortunate Chelmsfordian ITT

We should coordinate heckling UKIP outside Waterstones.

# ¿ May 6, 2014 18:57

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Jesus making GBS threads Christ!

Right that's it. I'm starting a business, it'll be one of those 'get the scroungers off their backsides and into honest work' cons the government loves. The ones where they pay you £14k for convincing someone to be self-employed and stop claiming JSA.

Instead of making them self employed though I will get them to sign up for the MBA programme I am offering, the teaching of which I will sub-contract to an Eastern European professor who came here in the back of a lorry looking to claim benefits.

Huge profits for me. Your move IDS.

[I'm doing Great Britain PLC properly, right?]

# ¿ May 10, 2014 10:22

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Remember a few pages back when we had a laugh at the UKIP Small & Medium Business Spokesman and his website? You may remember that he claims that the EU has "Employment policies which make it impossible to employ", but then went no further as to what particular policies he had in mind.

Well, it turns out that the internet doesn't forget. Here is his website as archived on April the 29th this year.

There you go. The EU employment laws that UKIP's Small & Medium Business Spokesman would like to get rid of. Not a huge surprise, granted, but worth knowing.

# ¿ May 11, 2014 19:19

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

IceAgeComing posted:

I've just been looking at the European election polls, and I've just realised that UKIP was actually leading in them . I assumed that they were close to Labour, but still behind them. Its may only be a few more votes: but UKIP "winning" the Euro elections (despite probably having less power in the European Parliament as all their old pals have flocked towards Le Pen's group that UKIP are refusing to join) will give them a huge credibility boost for next year...

I don't have the numbers to hand, but I think it's fairly well established that people will vote for the likes of UKIP in a European election, but when it is perceived that voting 'matters' (ie a General Election) people vote for one of the big three.

Something along the lines of UKIP getting around 25% at the last Euro elections then about 3% at the next GE.

# ¿ May 12, 2014 14:27

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

To calm fears about UKIP polling at 15% for the General Election, take a look at the Electoral Calculus website, especially the UKIP Analysis section.

Long story short they need a minimum of 16% to get a single seat. There previous best is around 3%, at the 2010 General Election.

# ¿ May 12, 2014 20:21

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Jedit posted:

[…] the UK government did not consider murderers of women and children to be soldiers.

Unless they happen to be soldiers in the British Army, in which case at absolute worst they will be called "a few bad apples".

# ¿ May 13, 2014 10:26

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:

bloo bloo bloo

Why won't they tolerate our intolerance?

Well at least they're finally being open about their desire to see anyone that disagrees with them arrested.

# ¿ May 13, 2014 10:30

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Jedit posted:

Who mentioned fault? The straw man is the argument that because some soldiers committed crimes, the IRA can be considered soldiers because they committed crimes too. Just because someone wasn't punished as much as they should have been doesn't mean that someone who is being justly punished should be punished less.

Well while that would be a splendid example of a straw man, it's not actually what I said, was it?

Nowhere in my post will you find me suggesting that "the IRA can be considered soldiers because they committed crimes too". All I was, and still am, saying is that the British establishment will always seek to excuse behaviour amongst people it considers it's own while condemning the same behaviour amongst those designated 'the enemy'.

Pork Pie Hat fucked around with this message at 19:23 on May 13, 2014

# ¿ May 13, 2014 19:21

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Darth Walrus posted:

Ooh, source, please? I could use this.

Here's the BBC story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27407126

# ¿ May 14, 2014 12:14

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Renaissance Robot posted:

masterrace.jpg

# ¿ May 14, 2014 12:16

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Right, if I see any pictures of Nige tomorrow I'll be sure to deface them. Up yours Essex Chronicle.

# ¿ May 15, 2014 22:25

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Geokinesis posted:

I know people here have talked about being assessed by ATOS so would anyone be able to go over the process?

My brother has autism and has been getting DLA and is now called up for an assessment by ATOS, after all the horror stories I'm pretty worried.

I'm probably a bit late on this but to echo what other people have said, don't give them anything they don't ask for and they will be trying to catch you out.

However, if they assess that your brother shouldn't get anything, don't be afraid to appeal and appeal strongly. The last time I had an assessment I ended up having to appeal. I got letters from my psychiatrist, GP and psychotherapist and I wrote them a letter detailing point by point exactly why their medical professional's assessment was wrong. In the end the appeal tribunal found in my favour and *touch wood* I've not heard from ATOS since (beyond filling in the annual form).

Bottom line is that don't be disheartened if after the assessment it turns out they're arseholes. You can still get what your brother needs and if you need it I'll be more than happy to help with an appeal.

fake edit: Obviously I hope it never has to go that far!

# ¿ May 16, 2014 17:39

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Fatty posted:

I remember a recording of an ATOS assessment awhile ago where upon finding out the blokes best friend had killed themselves very recently, the medically untrained assessor really pushed about any possible suicidal thoughts. This inevitably led to them fleeing the room with a panic attack and being marked down as a failure to attend.

It's horror stories like that which have kind of discouraged me from applying for any benefits at all.

Don't let them win. Apply for every benefit you're entitled to and if they pull poo poo like that then you appeal and complain and get the person involved disciplined. I know it's easy for someone else to come along and say "do this/don't do that" but they are relying on people not claiming.

# ¿ May 16, 2014 17:49

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Pilchenstein posted:

Entertaining isn't a strong enough word.

Also: "I don't understand why you're uncomfortable listening to foreign languages when your own wife and children speak them, and I don't understand why you talk about problems in Primary schools that are caused by children like your own".

:owned:

# ¿ May 16, 2014 18:03

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

quote:

A police chief has said more than half of his force's armed officers could stop carrying weapons because of plans by the police watchdog to ban them from conferring with each other as they write up statements following a shooting.

Commander Neil Basu, Scotland Yard's head of armed policing, said the Independent Police Complaints Commission was being driven by a desire to salvage its battered reputation. He said the plan would leave officers feeling "criminalised" as murder suspects for doing their duty in tackling gun crime.

He said officers were likely to withdraw cooperation from investigations into the police following shootings and give "no comment" answers to any questions.

Basu's comments in a Guardian interview brings into the open a seething row between the police and its watchdog. The IPCC is acting after years of criticism over officers sitting with each other and conferring after serious incidents as they write up their statements. The police say conferring covers only the lead-up to the use of force. Critics including the high court say it is an opportunity for collusion.

Basu said the IPCC was pandering to a small minority who believed marksmen were "liars" conspiring to hide the truth by conferring. "I think that is based on the perception that officers confer to lie," he said.

Basu said he feared that 50-65% of his force's armed officers would decide not to carry a weapon any more. "I think there is a very serious risk that officers will no longer volunteer for the role." More than 2,000 officers in the Met carry arms.

Basu said his officers opened fire rarely and showed professionalism and restraint. "This is not about paramilitary policing and death squads," he said.

Under the IPCC plans, which cover all forces in England and Wales, officers would be separated from each other where practical after serious incidents such as a shooting, use of a Taser stun gun or a death in custody.

Officers would not be allowed to talk to each other at any stage before or while writing up their account, according to the IPCC's proposals, which the watchdog is consulting on. They would also be expected to write their full account before going off duty, instead of the current system where they have 48 hours to recover.

The police say the current system means IPCC investigators get the "best evidence" available.

The IPCC announced the proposals to stop the practice of conferring after the inquest into the shooting of Mark Duggan. A jury found he was unarmed when shot dead but that the armed officer acted lawfully because he believed Duggan was holding a weapon. Days after the shooting, police officers sat in a room together for eight hours writing their accounts.

Basu said a leading lawyer for armed officers had warned that they would refuse to answer questions from the IPCC if the watchdog insisted on separating them after shootings.

"No amount of fantastic Churchilian leadership from me is going to make an officer want to contribute to an inquiry where they are being made a suspect," he said. "They will be legally advised to make no comment. Why wouldn't they, knowing that the slightest mistake they make and they are potentially facing a murder charge for doing their job?"

Basu said separating officers after an incident as traumatic as a shooting would increase their stress, leaving them isolated at a time of their greatest need.

A survey of firearms officers released last week found that eight in 10 lacked confidence in the IPCC's planned changes and two-thirds in the Met "would think seriously" about handing in their weapons if the changes went ahead. Nine out of 10 believe that having to make a full statement after an incident without having 48 hours to recover would add to the stress they face and say the changes would make them feel like a criminal suspect.

Officers are already warned not to confer about why they may have used force and the actual use of force.

Basu said claims that the police and IPCC were too close were "laughable", and said the watchdog was fighting for its survival.

The IPCC's director of investigations, Moir Stewart, a former senior Met officer, said separating officers where practical gave the public better reassurance.

"It adds integrity to their accounts and protects them from accusations of a cover-up or collusion," he said. "I believe that explainable inconsistencies are more credible than unexplainable consistencies. The proposals we have put forward as part of our draft guidance will increase public confidence in the police version of events, and help ensure our investigations are as robust and thorough as they can be."

The IPCC said it would consider the police service's views, and it would be up to home secretary, Theresa May, to decide whether or not to approve the proposed statutory guidelines.

Well boo loving hoo. How will we possibly cope with fewer armed police. Think of all the Brazilians and poor kids that won't get shot.

Source

Pork Pie Hat fucked around with this message at 19:48 on May 18, 2014

# ¿ May 18, 2014 19:44

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Spangly A posted:

this is the best news I've had all week and I'm outright laughing that this absolute piece of poo poo somehow thinks the mass riots over his murdering vigilantes are a "small minority"

London burned thanks to them and they're crying that they won't be allowed to collude. They honestly think "no comment" answers will be acceptable in criminal proceedings. The arrogance is incredible.

It's especially fortunate that the Police have shown themselves above collusion recently, I mean, just ask Andrew Mitchell if you want the opinion of an old white dude.

# ¿ May 18, 2014 19:59

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Darth Walrus posted:

Looks like UKIP have found a new angle for their race-baiting - Asian electoral fraud.

The BNP used to say exactly the same thing pretty much word for loving word. Ukip probably just recycled one of their old leaflets.

gently caress 'em all.

# ¿ May 21, 2014 19:13

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

SybilVimes posted:

Probably much closer to the truth - like how around here our BNP candidate decided that the BNP wasn't hardcore racist enough, so went and joined the English Democrats

Good point, well made. Which is why, like someone else pointed out earlier, telling Ukip supporters their party is racist won't work; that's their reason for supporting them in the first place, even if they do sometimes remember to call it "common sense" when out in public.

It occurs to me that I haven't had any Ukip 'literature' through my door. I've had English Democrats stuff and Lib Dem leaflets (in envelopes!) but nothing from the kippers, which given their semi-regular presence in the High Street and them having an office about two minutes from my front door, is surprising.

# ¿ May 21, 2014 19:39

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

CptAwesome posted:

UKMT posters, I need some help. Because this is the season for getting in facebook arguments with people about their terrible voting choices, I'm gonna need some outside perspective on some issues.

I'm currently debating with someone who's decided to quote this article: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/rod-liddle/2014/05/reasons-to-love-your-german-neighbours/ (I know it's Rob Liddle and he is A poo poo, but it's mainly the statistics about crime relating to Romanians versus other nationalities.)

If we are to be taking these stats as truth, what can be said of it? Is it maybe the economic situation in native Romania that cause people to 'turn to crime'? I'm really not sure what to make of it.

This quote:

Rod Liddle posted:

They out-crim even the Jamaicans and the Somalians, which is an incredible achievement, really.

Jesus making GBS threads Christ. I'd forgotten Liddle was that loving bad.

Anyway, to the point, does he actually link to the data he claims he's read, or does he just cite numbers and expect his readers to believe it? I'm viewing the article on my phone, so I might not have seen the link.

# ¿ May 21, 2014 21:17

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

SybilVimes posted:

it's a thing, nuances are for pansies.

I watched some bullshit :911:

legal drama thing the other day and right after the clearly fictional story had ended they put up a "All events portrayed are fictional" screen. It wasn't even a recreation thing like Crimewatch, it may indeed have been Law & Order. Are yank audiences now so bovine that they have to have it spelled out to them that the moving pictures dun told uh story?

# ¿ May 21, 2014 23:42

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

I'm not voting for any of them because in or out of the EU all of the parties exist to consolidate and advance the power and interests of the capitalist classes.

Participating in any form (voting or spoiling your ballot) just legitimises the process they use to subjugate you.

When you spoil your ballots, don't forget your demads;

"Bigger Cages! Longer Chains!"

# ¿ May 22, 2014 15:09

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Myrddin_Emrys posted:

UKIP is now a party to be reckoned with

Yes, their control of a mighty no councils marks them out as a true political heavyweight.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 10:12

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:

lol the ukips

The downside to this though is 17%, if repeated in a General Election*, will see them get.... one seat. Which means Fartrage won't resign.**

* I don't think it will. Personally I think their share of the vote will be in single figures at the next election.

** I don't think he will resign even if they don't get a seat. What will he do if he can't get followed around by TV cameras all day? His job?

# ¿ May 23, 2014 17:11

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Illuminti posted:

But in somewhere like London which see very large immigrant groups arriving over a relatively short period of time I don't think that happens, there's no evolution, the nebulous "britishness" that existed can seem like it's just been shunted to the side.

Even if this was true, so what? What difference does it make to your life if some groups in London prefer to keep to themselves?

Illuminti posted:

I like being British, and having the history and social cues that go with it. And I don't want that to disappear.

So what is your definition of 'British'? Who is taking away your British history?

Illuminti posted:

I actually quite like Farage for all the reasons the papers list, mainly he's not some smooth faced creep like Cameron Clegg and Milliband, they make my skin crawl.

No he's just a public school educated, ex-stockbroker, ex-Tory party member, very well off man of the people.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 18:36

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

SelfOM posted:

Let's start with the most operative form (genetics). http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/may/18/non-white-british-population-ons

So non-white people, however many generations of their family have lived here, can never be considered British in your view?

# ¿ May 23, 2014 19:37

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Myrddin_Emrys posted:

The British are the most mongrel out of all the countries in Europe, so why is poo poo like this still an issue?

Because, when asked to provide the statistics he claimed existed that show "Britishness" being eroded, SelfOM pulled a link about the white population decreasing. Take it up with him if you want to.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 20:27

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Illuminti posted:

I don't think someone can't become "British". Of course they can, but with mass migration into areas, what becomes british in those areas is not an evolution of what a lot of the old population would call British, it's a very different thing.

How very good of you to allow immigrants to become "British", as you put it.

It's unfortunate though that they seem to becoming the wrong kind of British for your taste. The nerve of them, coming over here, not evolving properly.

# ¿ May 24, 2014 19:19

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Illuminti posted:

oh shut the gently caress up. You're so eager to jump down my throat, i've never even come close to saying that. I've acknowledged that britishness changes, you're either willfully misunderstanding or you're so blinkered the possiblity of someone not agreeing with the great and righteous path of this thread it pointless engaging.

Can't be bothered, you can go back to your misery circle jerk and start congratulating yourselves or besting me so effortlessly

Poor little bigot, Britain First probably has a message board more to you liking.

Speaking of Vanilla Coke, I remember when Wetherspoons did vodka and coke with vanilla Stolli. They were delicious.

# ¿ May 25, 2014 09:26

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Answers Me posted:

gently caress's sake:

So I guess instead of using Literature to broaden horizons, teach critical thinking and harbour creativity, kids will now be taught "books by dead white British people are awesome because dead white British people are awesome"

I can't believe Gove has free reign to design a syllabus himself

A cynic might suggest that it's deliberately making GCSE English Literature boring so kids take subjects that will make it easier for them to become productive worker drones.

e: wrong qualification.

Pork Pie Hat fucked around with this message at 09:59 on May 25, 2014

# ¿ May 25, 2014 09:53

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Kin posted:

I've not seen anyone mention scampi fries yet. They're like little bags of crack, plus not half filled with air like most other bags of crisps.

Finally, someone sees the light. Scampi fries are vegitarian too, which is nice.

I miss pork scratchings

# ¿ May 25, 2014 20:13

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Good news: Griffin has lost his seat.

Bad news: Ukip got 45% in Basildon. What the living gently caress Basildon? I have a horrible feeling Chelmsford will be one of the 20 - 30 seats Ukip are targeting next year. Simon Burns (Con, obv) only has a majority of 5,000.

If Scotland votes yes I'm claiming citizenship and emmigrating.

# ¿ May 25, 2014 22:55

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

The Guardian are saying it's SNP, Labour, Tories, Ukip, Greens, Lib Dems. In that order.

# ¿ May 25, 2014 23:05

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Trickjaw posted:

You may be right (and its my city) but Chelmsford has been a really safe Tory seat forever. The difference between Basildon and Chelmsford is Chelmsford is much more of a commuter town, so it tends to skew more to Tory.

Oh I agree, the difference between Chelmsford and Basildon is night and day and as much as I loathe Burns I expect him to hold his seat. I wonder if Ukip will mention "Lord" Hanningfield in their campaign literature.

[I'm frontKHAAAN! from Chelmsford, just had a name change.]

# ¿ May 25, 2014 23:08

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Carecat posted:

A lot of the public write off the BBC as being left wing propaganda.

Instead of correctly writing it off for never challenging the factual accuracy of their quotes, barely connecting the dots between any stories and constantly sourcing quotes from Advocacy Group Against This Thing.

Whenever I hear/see the BBC trying to do 'balance' by having two opposite and extreme ends of the spectrum on any given topic, I'm reminded of the time my Step-Dad (who was a fairly big cheese in the world of town planning) was asked to participate in a news segment, but after speaking to the producer pre-show was told they couldn't use him because he was too balanced and even handed.

# ¿ May 26, 2014 11:23

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

thehustler posted:

Thanks everyone. I was just trying to decide what the difference was between right and left anti-EU parties. What are the specific issues they differ on, etc?

I believe this is the 'main' left wing anti-EU party, it's certainly the one Bob Crow endorsed, so you might find it useful.

http://www.no2eu.com/

# ¿ May 26, 2014 15:13

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

ronya posted:

now he's a "consummate politician" rather than a racist outsider

sigh

To be fair though, in context 'consumate politician' wasn't meant as a compliment, it was a label used to counter his 'man of the people' shtick.

# ¿ May 27, 2014 09:57

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Some of you actually voted just last week for a party that has renationalising the railways in its manifesto; the Greens.

Caroline 'scab' Lucas even introduced a Private Members Bill calling for the same.

# ¿ May 28, 2014 09:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 12:50

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Betjeman posted:

Ban all buy to let mortgages.

Labour should say they're going to extend Thatcher's Right to Buy scheme to private tenants. The wailing and gnashing of teeth from buy to let landlords would be glorious to behold.

I mean, they won't of course, and they won't build enough new social housing. But if they promised that I might even vote for them.

# ¿ May 29, 2014 17:49

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT May: Elections! (which won't fix anything)

«‹›2 »