Print Story Three's a Crowd
Diary
By TheophileEscargot (Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 05:56:56 AM EST) Reading, Watching, MLP (all tags)
Reading: "The Triumph of the Political Class". Watching: "Up", "Ong Bak". MLP.


What I'm Reading
The Triumph of the Political Class by Peter Oborne. Fascinating polemical book documenting the rise of the caste of professional politicians in the UK. Written by a former Parliamentary correspondent, it has a lot of fascinating detail.

The most interesting part is where Oborne documents how the traditional model of British government has been abandoned. There used to be an independent civil service: elected ministers could not promote or demote within it. The Prime Minister had little direct power: he could hire and fire ministers, but exert no direct control other than that. Long, minuted Cabinet meetings decided overall policy. The Cabinet Secretary was an enormously powerful civil servant, since he coordinated policy. This system was created in the Nineteenth century in response to widespread corruption and patronage.

Beginning with Thatcher and culminating with Blair, the system has been changed. "Special advisors", under direct control of ministers, have been imported into the Civil Service and give orders to the now-sidelined civil servants. Blair ran a "sofa government" of a few trusted advisors, with unminuted and informal meetings, which passed out direct orders to the ministries. In addition he uses his close relationship with the media to brief against ministers. Parliament, the civil service, and often ministers themselves, are essentially sidelined.

Oborne makes a case that the inefficiencies and mistakes of the Blair era are often because bad decisions were made this way by a media/political clique with no administrative experience.

He also regards some of the apparent conflicts within the Political Class as illusory. He points out that Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats all combined to suppress expenses details, and to get rid of troublesome watchwoman Elizabeth Filkin. Even when the Tories could have gotten an advantage from exposing Labour misdeeds, they preferred to keep quiet.

More importantly, he also regards the clash between media and politicians as an illusion. He amasses a lot of information on how politicians court newspaper owners and editors, meeting editors vastly often when it used to be rare. Tame journalists are used to disseminate information, and to brief against rivals. Moreover the same people move smoothly between media and political office: Michael Portillo moving one way, Boris Johnson the other.

Oborne points out that the Political Class is largely cut off from normal society. They tend to be fast-tracked from college, moving between media, PR, "advisor" and government without ever doing real jobs. They tend to live in a bubble in London, cut off from most communities. The decline of mass membership of political parties is partly responsible here.

Oborne regards the Political Class as institutionally corrupt. Cut off from mainstream life, they tend to have an exceptionally cynical view of British standards. He describes contemptuous disbelief when it was explained how if a normal business man had had an adulterous, office-bound , sexual relationship with subordinates in the same way as John Prescott, he could expect to lose his job.

However, the Political Class seem to regard themselves as far more virtuous than mainstream society. Therefore they seek to expand government control at the expense of institutions like the judiciary, the police and the military.

In general, Oborne sees Britain as returning to an Eighteenth Century pattern of corruption, nepotism and influence. Cliques and cabals gain office to gain profit, with the Nineteenth century reforms abandoned.

The book is certainly worth reading. However I'm not sure to what extent the various trends coalesce into a single phenomenon.

Oborne seems to regard the collapse of political party memberships as a one-way problem. That is, in the old days the party memberships told their political representatives what to do.

However, it seems to me that this was also a two-way process: the politicians could talk directly to their members and influence public views through those opinion-formers.

Without that, public opinion seems to be informed only by soundbites and the media, making it harder for complicated ideas to be gotten across.

Overall, an interesting if depressing book: well written and thoroughly researched. Well worth reading if you're interested in British politics.

Guardian, Independent, Financial Times, Times reviews.

Fascism and the BNP
I wanted to stop going on about this since I know people are getting sick of it. But I seem to get sucked into making rambling and disorganized statements in the comments anyway, so I'm going to have another go here: just skip it if you've had enough.

Some people seem to be very willing to take the BNP at their word: that they're (now) a peaceful, non-violent organization aiming at democratic change.

Now to start with, take a look at the original Nazis. The SA or Brownshirts were separated to a degree from the Nazi political party. When under pressure from the authorities, the SA was renamed the Frontbann and kept nominally separate. With incidents like Kristalnacht, both legal sanctions and illegal violence were combined to make life in Germany unbearable for the Jews.

The combination of political pressure and thug violence seems to me one of the hallmarks of Fascism. (This is one of the reasons I disagreed with the characterization of the Bush administration as Fascist: at least domestically they didn't seem to be trying to create any equivalent of the Brownshirts.)

Now, the BNP claim to be a distinct organization from groups like the English Defence League (EDL). But EDL organizers like Chris Renton are also members of the BNP. EDL members are seen wearing BNP badges.

The BNP claim to be non-violent. After their campaigns, their opponents may get abducted at knifepoint and have their homes firebombed, but it's apparently nothing to do with them, or their previous threats of firebombing. As their leader in the council says "Firebombing is not a British method. A brick through the window is a British method, but firebombing is not a way of showing displeasure."

In 1993 BNP leader Nick Griffin said:"[BNP voters backed] what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites' with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate."

These days, he claims to have changed his mind and that he's devoted to peaceful means. But I don't believe him. It seems to me that the BNP remains just like the Fascist movements it grew out of: willing to use electoral democracy and thuggish violence interchangeably.

If you prefer modern terms, think of it as leveraging synergy. Electoral success helps them recruit thugs. Thugs can be used to intimidate political opponents.

Unlike the original Nazis, I doubt they have the ability to actually form a government. But even with their small present numbers they have the ability to use violence and intimidation against their opponents. The more success they have, the more their ability to use violence grows. They will hopefully never be able to ethically cleanse the UK, but they will quite probably be able to drive minorities out of local areas.

Without wanting to get too personal, I have clear memories of the las time the far right were strong in the UK, and I don't want to see that abuse and intimidation repeated.

So in conclusion, I think the BNP are dishonest, genuinely dangerous, and not genuinely committed to democracy. I've donated to the UAF, I'm perfectly happy about having gone to the last demo, and aim to do more.

What I'm Watching
Saw Up at the cinema in 3D. First 3D movie I've seen where they didn't keep chucking stuff at the audience: wonder if it's actually becoming more than a novelty. Made the aerial animations very impressive.

Definitely a good film: manages to stay just the right side of sentimental in places. I'm still not that keen on Pixar's animations of humans, who always seem more robotic than their animals or robots, but the animal characters make up for it. Not hilariously funny throughout, but some good moments.

Well worth seeing, now it's finally made its way to the UK.

What I'm Watching 2
Saw the much-praised Thai martial arts movie Ong Bak on DVD.

Thought it might be overrated, but it isn't, though admittedly a lot of the comedy isn't actually funny. It's a lot like the early Jackie Chan movies like Drunken Master, though the editing and photography is a lot tighter, with lots of speeding-up and slowing-down.

But the fight and stunt scenes are astonishingly athletic, and the wirework isn't too obtrusive. It's practically worth it for the foot chase down the alley alone, where the hero inexplicably has to hurdle railings, roll over hotplates and leap through a bale of barbed wire.

Web
Socioeconomics. Is Triathlon the new Golf. Stumbling and Mumbling on resentment and privilege. New George Soros institute could improve economics. Marital violence calculated.

Pics. Queen and Presidents again. CSI zoom. Rabbit tarot. Alien wedding cake.

Articles. Newspaper advertising buggered.

Video. Klingon propaganda.

< A Day in the Life | That's it, it's time to buckle down and get 70s big. >
Three's a Crowd | 72 comments (72 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
CSI zoom. by garlic (2.00 / 0) #1 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 08:03:43 AM EST
irritating.


also the databases are holmsian by garlic (2.00 / 0) #2 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 08:07:51 AM EST
I remember a holmes story where he made a study of cigar ashes to catagorize them. CSI databases seem to go to that same level. Their fiber and particulate databases don't seem very likely.


[ Parent ]
Queens and Presidents link is wrong (nt) by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #3 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 08:31:43 AM EST

---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
Should be by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #24 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 12:32:06 AM EST
Fixed.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Oborns book by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #4 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 09:23:55 AM EST
Had me grinding my teeth.  It was almost like a Breakermatic diary done with proper research and a writer who can write.  So actually not like a Breakermatic diary in fact, but

Donating to the UAF - I am speechless.  These are the folks that are saying "free speech - but only if you agree with us" aren't they?


There is only one way to protest the BNP. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #9 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 11:44:48 AM EST
And that's to find the ward in your constituency where they poll highest, and write to your chosen political party and ask what help they need there.

[ Parent ]
Indeed. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #10 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 12:40:19 PM EST
So, let me think :
Labour.  Think I've made my position on this government once or twice before.
Conservative: Call Me Dave is far too reminiscent of Bliar for me to trust them.
LibDem: LOL

So who does that leave?  Greens = communists, UKIP = unformed policy.

That only leaves Breaker's Constant Party.


[ Parent ]
Have you thought of standing as an independent? by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #12 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 12:49:44 PM EST
I've got a mate who's doing it, he raised his deposit through his blog, and believe me his ideas are more half-baked than yours.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
And he will poll by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #16 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 02:11:44 PM EST
About 10 votes.

Read the book TE reviews; the big 3 have got the elections sewn up.


[ Parent ]
So, choose the least worst option. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #14 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 01:30:05 PM EST


[ Parent ]
For me next GE by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #17 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 02:12:55 PM EST
I will probably have to hold my nose and vote libdem, mostly to keep labour out.

No BNP activity in SE London, though, AFAICT.


[ Parent ]
In my local elections, by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #18 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 02:23:08 PM EST
I only have Lib Dem and Conservative candidates in my ward, amazingly.

[ Parent ]
ambrosen by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #19 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 02:43:03 PM EST
For Parliament!


[ Parent ]
How is it better or worse than any other election? by gpig (2.00 / 0) #23 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 08:04:09 PM EST
I don't know about you, but I've always seen voting as choosing the least worst option. Saying "oh god they're all horrible" doesn't really help.
---
(,   ,') -- eep
[ Parent ]
Says something by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #27 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 05:23:27 AM EST
About the state of politics in UKia though, eh?


[ Parent ]
yeah by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #29 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 05:48:50 AM EST
You're allowed say it:)


[ Parent ]
For now... by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #31 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 07:33:25 AM EST
At least.


[ Parent ]
To be honest, no by gpig (2.00 / 0) #32 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 07:47:52 AM EST
There was a brief period of hope generated by the ejection of the Tories -- don't mistake that for politics being in some kind of mythical 'good state' in the 90s which has now degenerated.

I think it's business as usual all the way.
---
(,   ,') -- eep

[ Parent ]
Yeah. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #35 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 07:56:31 AM EST
I don't get the sense of hope like there was in the run up to May 1997; we have about the same level of sleaze and feathernesting going on by the government. 

When people voted Labour in 1997 I think there was a real hope that things would really change for the better - people were voting for something.

Now, I think people are sullenly going to vote against Labour, which is a whole different thing.


[ Parent ]
Yup by Merekat (4.00 / 1) #36 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 08:02:02 AM EST
Some of that has to be down to the Tories not motivating people to believe they can deliver something worth being excited about. It could be my bias but I always think this is a harder thing for conservatives to do.

Some of it was that the 1997 Labour was something pretty remarkable coming after something else very differently remarkable (Thatcher, forgetting the Major intterregnum for a bit). It might be seen as a glitch rather than an expected behaviour.


[ Parent ]
Yes probably by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #38 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 08:19:14 AM EST
In 1997 it was easy for Labour to sell "more schoolsnospitals" with the economic climate then - we'd had our recession and recovery was well under way.

In 2010, the Tories will have to sell "cuts, tax rises and austerity".

Every one loves Father Christmas, no one likes Scrooge.


[ Parent ]
UAF are a pressure group by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #13 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 12:51:01 PM EST
Not a party. They fulfil a very different role, and have to be quite single-minded and focused to be effective.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
Silencing free speech? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #15 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 02:10:51 PM EST
Nice.  I hold no truck with the BNP, but to try and shut people up because you disagree with them is backwards.


[ Parent ]
As if they're going to get that! by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #21 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 03:40:10 PM EST
Pressure group politics - demand extreme methods so when they meet you half-way, it's not completely diluted.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
Not exactly by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #22 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 05:26:59 PM EST
Setting themselves up on the higher moral ground though, are they?

One set wants to deport my mother and wife, the other wants to silence people they disagree with.


[ Parent ]
Fancy robbing a bank next Thursday? by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 2) #25 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 12:51:12 AM EST
First, as far as I know they've called for the BBC not to allow the BNP on certain programmes, and for specific BNP rallies to be banned. They haven't called for the BNP itself to be banned, nor for its party political broadcasts to be banned, that I know of.

Free speech has never extended to organizing or promoting crime or violence. There are 59 banned organizations in the UK. There are huge grey areas as these organizations constantly shift and reform under new names to avoid bans, create different "wings" to be violent or non-violent, as the same members join nominally different organizations, and as violent organizations try to cloak themselves as peaceful democratic ones.

If someone says "let's put a bomb on a number 30 bus", and you don't want them to say that, it's not really a case of SILENCING THOSE YOU DISAGREE WITH.

The point of this diary is that I don't believe the BNP line that they're now a purely peaceful and democratic organization, and the firebombing and brick-throwing and knifepoint abductions and attacks that follow them are just coincidences. Those things are not just things some people disagree with, they are things that are objectively wrong.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Very odd by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #26 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 04:51:08 AM EST
That Combat 18 aren't on that list.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #28 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 05:44:25 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Pay attention. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #30 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 07:33:01 AM EST
UAF spokeswoman - "we don't believe in free speech for fascists".

That said, you are right in disavowing incitement to violence.  I don't believe the UAF are exactly free from that taint, either.


[ Parent ]
The UAF by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #33 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 07:51:18 AM EST
Are a very broad organisation. They're supported by Conservatives like David Cameron and Teddy Taylor as well as the left. I don't know where you get the idea that they're dangerous extremists, the only people saying that seem to be the BNP and Stormfront.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Ah that's all right then. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #37 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 08:14:56 AM EST
If they have support from the right and the left.

Did you follow that link I sent? 

Their spokeswoman said: "We don't believe in free speech for fascists".

Not "we are against organisations who advocate racial violence" or "we are against organisations who advocate persecution of gay people".

So on the one hand we have an organisation that has shadowy link to those who do violence, and another that want to limit free speech.

I'd say both were extreme points of view to take and why neither deserve support.


[ Parent ]
So your complaint by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #39 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 08:52:56 AM EST
Is that that statement is unfair to that subset of people who are fascists but are opposed to racial violence and homophobia?
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
I'm saying by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #40 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 09:10:39 AM EST
The UAF has stated they don't support free speech for a certain group of lawful people. 

Last I heard it is not against the law to be a fascist in UKia.

Now, it is against the law to be violent, to incite others to violence, and I believe these to be good laws that ought to be upheld to the strongest degree for everyone.

The UAF went on record as being opposed to free speech.  That is a viewpoint I find extremist.


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #41 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 09:17:19 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Come on in! by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #43 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 09:35:32 AM EST
The trolling's lovely!


[ Parent ]
You say trolling, by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #48 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 10:36:14 AM EST
I say arguing orthogonal points.

[ Parent ]
But at least xth's by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #49 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 10:39:44 AM EST
Getting his jollies on the sidelines!

In what way are the arguments orthogonal?


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (4.00 / 1) #51 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 02:14:29 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
I disagree! by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #53 Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 06:13:29 AM EST
Heh.


[ Parent ]
Well I think it's pretty bizarre by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #42 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 09:23:31 AM EST
That you're drawing a moral equivalence between the BNP and a broad umbrella group including Conservative and Labour MPs, the trade unions, newspaper editors, and the band Franz Ferdinand.

Sometimes you just try rather too hard to look cynical.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Play the ball not the man, TE. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #44 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 09:39:13 AM EST
You've moved from rational debate into ad hominem already.

Do you agree with the UAF's statement or not? 


[ Parent ]
Depends on the definition of Fascism by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #45 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 09:48:25 AM EST
If that includes using extra-legal violence to expel other races, which I think it does as explained in this diary, then yes.

Do you agree with the UAF statement or not? Do you think all the banned organisations on the list should be legalized, or are you ZOMG OPPOSING FREE SPEECH too?
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Semantic wriggle. by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #46 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 10:19:38 AM EST
They didn't qualify their statement, so I don't think you can go oh but what they meant was..., the statement stands as-is.

Now, if you're saying "free speech should be banned for legitimate group X", I cannot support that. 

If you're saying "free speech should be banned for violent lawbreaking group Y" then of course that's a different kettle of fish.

Not being knowledgeable on each and every one of those banned organisations, I'm not qualified to  say if I support them being on that list or not. 

Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre may not indeed be legitimate free speech; if the theatre is in fact ablaze then it's valuable free speech. 

But if the organisations you mention are the ones that set the fire in the first place, then by all means proscribe them.  But that's not free speech any more, is it?  It's violence, and we already have laws against that.

Now, getting back on topic: I appreciate your point that the BNP may be linked to actual violence.  But the official line put forward by Griffin et al is that the BNP are a non-violent group.

If people commit acts of violence and happen to be members of the BNP then does that mean the BNP can or should be proscribed? 

That's a tricky one to me.  Where do we draw the line, and who gets to draw it?


[ Parent ]
Duck duck duck duck duck the issue by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #47 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 10:34:14 AM EST
You challenged me to answer whether I agreed with that UAF question. After clarifying the terms, I did so.

Now I ask you whether you agree, and all you is duck the question. Hmmm.

Read my diary, or look at Google cache if you think I edited it. I said right there that the combination of political pressure and thug violence is a hallmark of Fascism. Not wriggling: just reminding you of my already-stated position.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
LOLWHAT? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #50 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 10:52:13 AM EST
You challenged me to answer whether I agreed with that UAF question. After clarifying the terms, I did so.

Isn't that what I just did, too?  Clarified the terms and stated my position?

In the current thread I have not been talking about your interpretation of the word "fascist". 

Can you prove that the UAF's definition of "fascist" in that quote are the same?  Because "What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments is a highly disputed subject that has proved complicated and contentious".

In any case, see you in the pub in about 40 mins!


[ Parent ]
Still duck duck duck duck ducking I see by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #52 Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 02:54:53 AM EST
You demanded I state whether I agree with the statement "We don't believe in free speech for fascists", and I said I did, after clarifying the meaning of fascist.

But you won't say whether you agree or disagree. You just evade the issue.

The reason you have to do this is that you're trying to prove UAF are extremist by adopting an unreasonably broad definition of free speech, which includes speech in the service of violence.

So, you can't say "I agree" or that makes you an extremist too.

But you can't say "I disagree" because that leads you down the absurd path where you have to demand organizations like Al-Qaeda be taken off the proscribed list, since free speech trumps violence.

Now bluster and evade some more, it amuses me.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Bluster and evade? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #54 Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 06:16:21 AM EST
You clarified the meaning of "fascist" and so did I. 

Peaceful flag waving fascists can rant on in public until the cows come home about renationalising the railways for the Marxist Republic as far as I'm concerned; violent lawbreaking fascists should not be allowed to incite violence.

Does that clear things up for you?  In the end it's not so different to what you're saying. 

But the point still stands; the UAF spokeswoman did not make that distinction between the two in that interview.

How about if I said "We don't believe in free speech for crotchet enthusiasts"? 

Would you take that to mean "We don't believe in free speech for crotchet enthusiasts who advocate violence", or would you assume that every crotchet enthusiast must be silenced?


[ Parent ]
I still see no AGREE or DISAGREE by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #55 Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 09:46:37 AM EST
You've done some more evasion, now some bluster please.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
You're grasping there. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #56 Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 09:49:39 AM EST
Which part of:
Peaceful flag waving fascists can rant on in public until the cows come home about renationalising the railways for the Marxist Republic as far as I'm concerned; violent lawbreaking fascists should not be allowed to incite violence.

Is unclear?

How are you doing on those crotchet enthusiasts though?


[ Parent ]
That's bluster all right by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #57 Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 09:52:02 AM EST
Now some more evasion, unless you feel like stating an AGREE or DISAGREE.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
I have given you an answer by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #58 Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 10:05:14 AM EST
Identical to yours, with the same caveats you have applied for yourself.

Why are you holding me to different rules?


[ Parent ]
No, I said AGREE after defining my terms by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #59 Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 10:16:18 AM EST
You haven't said AGREE or DISAGREE.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
How's this then? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #60 Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 11:08:29 AM EST
I AGREE Peaceful flag waving fascists can rant on in public until the cows come home about renationalising the railways for the Marxist Republic as far as I'm concerned;

I DISAGREE violent lawbreaking fascists should be allowed to incite violence.

Straightforward enough for you?

Now, about that crochet?


[ Parent ]
Ageeing AND disagreeing by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #61 Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 11:25:17 AM EST
Isn't really a straight answer.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Two different statements. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #62 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:50:48 AM EST
One qualified, one unqualified.  The unqualified is what the UAF said, and even you caveated it before agreeing with it.

Now for the average person on the street, what do you think they will understand the UAF spokeswoman meant?


[ Parent ]
You're still evading. AGREE or DISAGREE? [nt] by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #63 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:11:03 AM EST

--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
I've given you my answer by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #64 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:18:44 AM EST
And your post is a lot funnier if you read it with a Dalek accent.

Your answer was caveated.  So was mine.  All that's left for you is bluster and evasion.

You've ducked the crotchet question, and the average person question in #62.


[ Parent ]
I AGREEd. Do you AGREE or DISAGREE? [nt] by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #65 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:22:53 AM EST

--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
I've even lost track of what you're asking. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #66 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:01:02 AM EST
Agree / Disagree, yes?  Says right up there:
I AGREE peaceful flag waving fascists can rant on in public until the cows come home about renationalising the railways for the Marxist Republic as far as I'm concerned;

I DISAGREE violent lawbreaking fascists should be allowed to incite violence.

You stated that you agree with the UAF spokeswoman, as long as "fascists" is taken to mean those "using extra-legal violence to expel other races".  Which I agree with but that was not what the UAF spokeswoman said, was it?


[ Parent ]
AGREE or DISAGREE? by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #67 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:08:51 AM EST
Or post some more evasions if you like, of course.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Reboot your script TE by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #68 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:20:48 AM EST
You stated that you agree with the UAF spokeswoman, as long as "fascists" is taken to mean those "using extra-legal violence to expel other races".  Which I agree with

HTH.


[ Parent ]
If you're finally admitting AGREE by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #69 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:53:46 AM EST
Your evidence that the UAF is as extremist as the BNP is an off-the-cuff verbal comment from a UAF spokesman that you actually agree with.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Being interviewed by the BBC by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #70 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:36:32 AM EST
Is an off the cuff statement?

And no, don't conflate the two; I agree with the statement for your limited definition of fascist and not with an undefined description of fascist.  So, that puts the UAF's words into the disagree camp because they were unqualified.

Do you see the difference?


[ Parent ]
Heh by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #71 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:15:55 AM EST
That's the most ludicrous nitpicking you've tried to date.

Remember that your purpose is to prove that the UAF is just as extremist as the BNP.

But you only argument comes from a statement you agree with.p> This seems to be Orwellian doublethink. The statement has one meaning when you think it, but a different meaning when the UAF thinks it, so only when they say it is it evidence of extremism.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Nitpicking. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #72 Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:03:00 AM EST
They haven't qualified it, you did.


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (4.00 / 2) #5 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 09:57:14 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



I wonder how much by Herring (4.00 / 2) #6 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 10:24:07 AM EST
is anger at the current situation and the fact that both main parties are full of the twats described in the first part of the diary. It's a choice like: do you want your shit sandwich with brown or white bread?

The greens and the Lib Dems aren't angry enough to capture people's mood. The further left is populated by loonies.

What's needed is an angry liberal/left party. Furious, but moderate.

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #7 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 10:34:13 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Sort of UKIP by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #8 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 11:19:01 AM EST
But with a Socialist / Communist slant?


[ Parent ]
Yes by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #11 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 12:41:38 PM EST
Given me a fiscally responsible safety net or give me death!
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Can't I have best of both? by darkbrown (2.00 / 0) #20 Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 02:46:28 PM EST


[ Parent ]
"Furious, but moderate" by gpig (4.00 / 2) #34 Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 07:53:49 AM EST
Sounds like you should ask Unitarian Jihad if they want to set up a political wing ....
---
(,   ,') -- eep
[ Parent ]
Three's a Crowd | 72 comments (72 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback