Mehdi's Morning Memo: Ukip's 'Backwards Looking Bile'

Quite good news for UKIP that the other parties are going so all out to dig up any scandal. If you read the article "UKIP candidate forwarded racist..." you'll see that it actually refers to an EX-UKIP candidate. The difference is that if UKIP discover wrongdoing with their candidates they throw them out straight away, whereas if the Labour Party for example find any paedophiles in their party they cover up for them.

As for that dipstick Clegg - you know, the one who wants to increase immigration by allowing the third generation of each one to stay, I can't wait for him to debate face to face with Farage!

Tess. wrote:Quite good news for UKIP that the other parties are going so all out to dig up any scandal.  If you read the article "UKIP candidate forwarded racist..." you'll see that it actually refers to an EX-UKIP candidate.  The difference is that if UKIP discover wrongdoing with their candidates they throw them out straight away, whereas if the Labour Party for example find any paedophiles in their party they cover up for them.

As for that dipstick Clegg - you know, the one who wants to increase immigration by allowing the third generation of each one to stay, I can't wait for him to debate face to face with Farage!

What is shows Tess is that daily many people who represent UKIP or have represented them are of a similar view point of the BNP, which to me UKIP is nothing more than a dressed up version of the BNP.
They have thrown a few out but have they thrown out the MEP that called upon Muslims to sign a Charter?
No they have no, yet his views are extreme and his connections to far right extreme parties is well documented. What this and many other articles are actually doing is pulling back the smoke screen UKIP have used to cover themselves from what they really are, nothing more than a party formed from prejudice views.

I read his call to bring in more people which I think is wrong, but again that was blown out of proportion if you actually read it, was that they would have to be able to financially support them the families and pay for them to come here, which would amount to very few people when you think about it, even though I still think this view is wrong.

I think Farage is going to have to learn how to answer very difficult questions, because as yet he claims to have many great ideas, but sadly none lack any real policies to show how they can be implemented, he is thus solely reliant on people having nothing more than faith in his party

Tess. wrote:Quite good news for UKIP that the other parties are going so all out to dig up any scandal.  If you read the article "UKIP candidate forwarded racist..." you'll see that it actually refers to an EX-UKIP candidate.  The difference is that if UKIP discover wrongdoing with their candidates they throw them out straight away, whereas if the Labour Party for example find any paedophiles in their party they cover up for them.

As for that dipstick Clegg - you know, the one who wants to increase immigration by allowing the third generation of each one to stay, I can't wait for him to debate face to face with Farage!

Actually this ex Labour man left UKIP of his own volition because "he disagreed with the direction they were taking" which probably translates as "they didn't accept my racist position".

sphinx wrote:

Tess. wrote:Quite good news for UKIP that the other parties are going so all out to dig up any scandal.  If you read the article "UKIP candidate forwarded racist..." you'll see that it actually refers to an EX-UKIP candidate.  The difference is that if UKIP discover wrongdoing with their candidates they throw them out straight away, whereas if the Labour Party for example find any paedophiles in their party they cover up for them.

As for that dipstick Clegg - you know, the one who wants to increase immigration by allowing the third generation of each one to stay, I can't wait for him to debate face to face with Farage!

Actually this ex Labour man left UKIP of his own volition because "he disagreed with the direction they were taking" which probably translates as "they didn't accept my racist position".

I back the stance of UKIP throwing out people with extreme views, but to me I think this is a smoke screen, to provide the public with a squeaky clean imagine of themselves, but even that is being exposed of late.
Until I see some validity and clear definition of their policies I will continue to see them as nothing more than a joke party Sphinx

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Actually this ex Labour man left UKIP of his own volition because "he disagreed with the direction they were taking" which probably translates as "they didn't accept my racist position".

I back the stance of UKIP throwing out people with extreme views, but to me I think this is a smoke screen, to provide the public with a squeaky clean imagine of themselves, but even that is being exposed of late.
Until I see some validity and clear definition of their policies I will continue to see them as nothing more than a joke party Sphinx

Then I think you'll find the joke'll be on you. How can you simply dismiss a party that has sprung from nowhere to achieve such a high proportion of followers in such a short time as a joke!

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I back the stance of UKIP throwing out people with extreme views, but to me I think this is a smoke screen, to provide the public with a squeaky clean imagine of themselves, but even that is being exposed of late.
Until I see some validity and clear definition of their policies I will continue to see them as nothing more than a joke party Sphinx

Then I think you'll find the joke'll be on you.  How can you simply dismiss a party that has sprung from nowhere to achieve such a high proportion of followers in such a short time as a joke!

Simple really, there are a few people disaffected with the main parties and UKIP is offering or should I say claiming to offer an alternative, thus they sell themselves well, because mainly so far they have hardly been under the spotlight until now, which is why they are coming under closer scrutiny.

The fact is they have not provided any viable policies of yet, because these policies lack definition to how they would be implemented, They are constantly playing off the fear factor with the EU and immigrants, whilst again offering no views to what the many alternative outcomes could be of leaving the EU. So does that show them as nothing more than a joke party? Yes, because selling a good story is one thing, buying into it is another and as seen so far, they lack any real credibility with their policies and a lack of real honesty. They targeting certain voters who are disaffected, the white working class Brit, which is odd as that is exactly who the BNP targeted.

From the first post this is quite an interesting article from the Observer:






A new book has revealed that Ukip considered forming a pact with theBNP six years ago, with two members of the party's national executive committee at the time in favour of the idea.
In 2008 Nigel Farage acknowledged that the BNP had proposed a deal for the European elections the following year, but insisted it had been unanimously rejected. Farage told reporters then: "I'm simply amazed that the BNP thought we would even consider such a thing."
Now the new book, Revolt on the Right, by Dr Matthew Goodwin and Dr Robert Ford – called the most definitive account yet of the Ukip movement – reveals that the BNP's proposal was canvassed among 17 members of the party's NEC. Two members supported the proposal, it has emerged.
Farage, who said he had been against a pact, told the authors: "There were a lot of people saying to me at that time, 'You've got to do a deal with them.' I even had Tory MEPs saying to me, 'Nigel, you've got to do a deal with these people.' We were being beaten by them regularly in local elections. So there was huge pressure on me. The nature of the deal was the BNP would stand in some regions in the European elections in the north, and Ukip would stand in the south, and that would be the electoral pact: we wouldn't oppose each other."
Of the members who offered support for the pact, Farage said: "They were the angry old men of old Ukip who thought Ukip was doomed."
The political predicament of Ukip in 2008 contrasts with its potential today, the authors say. In the book, published this week, they say the party has emerged from the crash with the potential to attract a third of the electorate.
Around 30% of voters are now believed to be both Eurosceptic and opposed to immigration, or Eurosceptic and politically dissatisfied, the defining themes for Ukip. Such sentiments are continuing to grow in strength among the electorate, according to the authors, who draw on the biggest pool of data so far amassed on the political movement.
The book provides evidence that the share of voters holding Eurosceptic views and at least one other radical right belief has increased by five to seven percentage points since 2008. Ukip is widely seen as not having a credible manifesto and has faced serious questions about the calibre of its MEPs, the authors note.
This weekend, the party was dogged by claims that it had misused EU funds in paying staff working in the UK. Yet Goodwin, from Nottingham University, and Ford, of Manchester University, say the "army of potential supporters for Ukip is growing in size" and is being aided by continued anger at Labour's record and disaffection with the Tory leader.
They argue that Farage and Ukip face huge challenges in the first-past-the-post electoral system, and given the party's continued unpopularity among women, ethnic minorities, graduates and the young. However, Ukip is now the favoured electoral option among those who strongly disapprove of the EU – 20% of all British voters.
Over the past three years, the party has also performed better than Labour among older, working-class voters and those who are struggling financially. The party is using tactics similar to those once successfully deployed by the Lib Dems, the authors say, in that they seek to deepen their vote in particular areas by getting into local councils and building strongholds.
It is claimed that, of the five constituencies where Ukip stands its best chance of general election success, four are Labour seats (Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View, Ashfield and Walsall North) and one is Tory (Waveney). The consistent feature in these areas is a splintering of the traditional vote and the existence of a large, older, blue-collar demographic.
The book suggests that the potential for Ukip's rise can be clearly seen in societal changes that developed decades ago. The authors write: "Its seeds lay among groups of voters who struggled with the destabilising and threatening changes brought by deindustrialisation, globalisation and, later, European integration and mass immigration."
The academics claim Farage is fusing three issues to make a coherent message: "Farage's party now encourages voters to say 'no' three times: no to the Eurocrats in Brussels and Strasbourg; no to the politicians in Westminster; and no to immigration. This is not a grand ideological vision – there is no 'Farageism' – but it is a coherent and highly effective message."
They add: "Ukip is not a second home for disgruntled Tories in the shires; it is a first home for disaffected working-class Britons of all political backgrounds who have lost faith in a political system that ceased to represent them long ago."

The other article mentioned makes for very interesting reading also:





Over the next 15 months, Britain's political debate will focus heavily on the prospect of a breakthrough by Ukip at the 2015 general election. For a new and untested party, however, overcoming the barriers of a first-past-the-post electoral system will be incredibly difficult, never mind competing successfully against three established and well-resourced parties that can each trace their roots back over a century. Aside from these wider challenges that meet all new parties in British politics, Nigel Farage and Ukip also face more specific problems.
Over the past year, and for our book Revolt on the Right, we investigated the backgrounds and concerns of over 100,000 British voters, including almost 6,000 who intend to support Ukip. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, which would have you believe that the average Ukip voter is a relatively secure, middle-class Conservative who is motivated only by their distrust of Brussels and perhaps also David Cameron, the true nature of this support is quite different; old, working class, poorly educated, male and driven by intense concerns not only about the EU but how Labour and the Conservatives have managed immigration, the financial crisis and the state of our politics more generally. These are voters who have been shaped by the social and economic changes over the past five decades, and who hold a fundamentally different set of values; they see a world and a way of life slipping away, feel powerless to stop it happening, and are angry at the established political class for not seeming to understand their concerns, or care about what is being lost. These intense beliefs are not likely to be resolved by a new party leader, a referendum promise or a net migration target. Ukip's revolt has been a long time coming, and it may have a long way to run yet.
But our analysis also sheds light on several groups in Britain that Ukip needs to win over if it is to mobilise a truly historic revolt, but who are currently resistant to Farage's charms. First, Ukip currently has little or no appeal among the half of the British electorate who do not share their intense hostility towards the EU. That non-Eurosceptics do not find Ukip appealing is fairly obvious, but it is also a problem for the party; even when voters share their intense concerns over immigration and the state of politics but are not animated by the EU, they remain unwilling to back Farage; 95% of Ukip voters disapprove of Britain's EU membership but fewer than one in 200 who think otherwise back the party. In other words, Ukip's anti-EU image is so strong that it is preventing them from winning over a far larger pool of voters who share their resentment of immigration and mainstream politicians but do not stay awake at night worrying about the EU.
Second, Ukip is consistently failing to win over three large groups of voters; the young, women and ethnic minorities. Women are the largest of these groups and though many share Ukip's views over Europe, immigration and threats to national identity, they are significantly less receptive than men. Almost 60% of Ukip's electorate is male, making it the most male-dominated of all parties (only the BNP, in earlier years, had a stronger male bias). Ukip has sought to present women candidates, notably in parliamentary byelections and on Question Time, but the party remains hampered by this "gender gap".
The story with ethnic minorities, meanwhile, is to be expected; just 0.4% of Ukip's electorate is non-white. Put another way, only one out of every 250 Ukip supporters is not white. The equivalent figure for Labour is 3.7%, and for the Liberal Democrats 1.7%. That Ukip's revolt is overwhelmingly white will not come as a surprise, although it is interesting to note that many rightwing parties are grappling with the same problem (the equivalent figure for the Conservatives is just 1.1%). But amid an era of rapidly rising ethnic diversity, this and another problem raises questions over the long-term sustainability of this insurgency.
Ukip is also a very grey revolt, which adds another dark cloud over its long-term prospects – although, of course, generational change takes a long time! In fact, 57% of Ukip's supporters are over the age of 54 but only one in 10 are under 35. During one of our interviews with Farage the Ukip leader recognised this specific problem, conceding that his party is "not connecting with disaffected youth". He is right. While young Britons have struggled amidst the crisis, they are also much less concerned about Ukip's agenda of immigration, the EU and rapid social change, and feel broadly comfortable with the identity and values of modern Britain. They have only ever known Britain as an EU member state, and our society as one of mass migration, much of which has come from the EU. The students we teach at our universities, for example, were born between 1993 and 1995, and most likely went to school alongside EU or non-EU migrants. They simply don't know anything else, and most likely think that Ukip's world view is markedly out of touch with their own experiences.
Ukip's revolt on the right is recruiting significant support among specific groups, but it is not one of unbridled potential. Like all political parties, Ukip faces some big challenges going forward that will need to be overcome if it is to meet its ambitions of causing a more damaging earthquake in British politics. Much rests on the shoulders of Farage, and on the next 15 months.

Revolt on the Right: Explaining Public Support for the Radical Right in Britain, a new book by Matthew Goodwin and Robert Ford, is published this week

Good afternoon Folks.

You can't take anything that Mehdi Hassan says seriously because he is a proven anti-white & anti-British racist muslim.

He's been caught out more than once spouting his hardline muslim bile but the scum bag is allowed to carry on his antics in the Huff Post & on Lorraine Kellys show.

Shady wrote:Good afternoon Folks.

You can't take anything that Mehdi Hassan says seriously because he is a proven anti-white & anti-British racist muslim.

He's been caught out more than once spouting his hardline muslim bile but the scum bag is allowed to carry on his antics in the Huff Post & on Lorraine Kellys show.

The above was a party political broadcast from the militant wing of the UKIP party.

Of course the militant Shady cannot back up his claims about Medhi, let alone fail to understand he was going off the back of two writers on a book of UKIP. The fact is Medhi has actually been a strong vocal Muslim against extremism, which shows the level of desperation some UKIP supporters will go to, being as some support UKIP only like Shady does as a means to follow up their goal, hate of Muslims.
They seek UKIP in power as a means to carry out this goal, one of intolerance to Muslims.

This is sadly what UKIP have drawn to themselves, all the disaffected haters, which does not bode well for the party or the many decent UKIP supporters, as they get lumbered alongside extremists who have flocked to support their party and will constantly be chastised for something not of their making.

Hence I can understand the views of Tess, Sphinx, Andy for example having genuine concerns and argue their points, but with Shady, his agenda is different, one of intolerance and hate, which makes me feel sorry for the other supporters like Tess Sphinx and Andy, as they get lumbered with association to idiots like Shady

For those interested about Medhi to show why shady is about the worst liar you will meet:


Hasan, a Shia Muslim, has written articles about Islam and Muslims for the New Statesman and newspapers. He has written in favour of secularism, writing that a "religiously neutral model of governance" is the only way for a country like India to "prosper".

In April 2009, Hasan argued against the concept and idea of an Islamic state. He argues that "Today it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify a Muslim-majority nation that could plausibly be identified as a modern, viable and legitimate “Islamic state” and that "contrary to popular Muslim opinion, there is not a shred of theological, historical or empirical evidence to support the existence of such an entity."

In April 2010, Hasan wrote a piece condemning the controversial Islamic advocacy of the death penalty for apostasy in the New Statesman. He states that "The sharia (or Islamic law), it is claimed, sanctions the death penalty for any adult Muslim who chooses to leave the faith, or apostatise. This is an intellectually, morally and, perhaps above all, theologically unsustainable position.

Hasan wrote an article in The Guardian in September 2011 condemning the Iranian regime for its proposed execution of an "apostate." "The death sentence given to Youcef Nadarkhani in Iran is an affront to universal moral values and a disservice to Muslims."

In April 2012, Hasan wrote an article criticising British Muslims for being obsessed with foreign affairs and the anti-war movement. He criticised British Muslims' apparent apathy towards national issues, "why is it that most British Muslims get so excited and aroused by foreign affairs, yet seem so bored by and uninterested in domestic politics and the economy?

Hence the danger of what UKIP now faces, those with extremist views flocking to them, obsessed with their own goals, which I fear will will be the downfall of UKIP. When you are a bold party as the UKIP is and make 3 strong goals that will attract people, you also have to be mindful of the wrong element you will attract, those seeking to add new hateful goals placing the party in difficulties, as people outside of UKIP, or on the fence with who to vote for, will have difficulty differentiating between the two groups (decent UKIP and extremists) who support UKIP and see them sadly as one. That is the problem UKIP now faces going ahead, because these haters will constantly be a drain on UKIP and blacken their name

Will you make up your mind whether UKIP is extremist or decent but attracting extremists.

sphinx wrote:Will you make up your mind whether UKIP is extremist or decent but attracting extremists.

How absurd again, I have never seen them as an extremist party, you have me confused with Catman, I do though see them as a very prejudiced party and they attract all the RW extremist, which is not good news for you

So you see them as prejudiced based on what?

sphinx wrote:So you see them as prejudiced based on what?

Their vocal views, like Farge for example trying to scare off the nation in regards to Romanians and Bulgarians, he plays as they all do on fear and prejudice, as seen no come back to one of their own MEP's promoting a charter for Muslims to sign, their prejudice views on Homosexuality backed with evidence, with them voting against or abstaining votes for the equals rights of homosexuals, how Farage called for Syrian refugee's to be taken in but only if they were Christians. Do you wish me to continue, or will you finally understand you follow a very prejudiced party?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:So you see them as prejudiced based on what?

Their vocal views, like Farge for example trying to scare off the nation in regards to Romanians and Bulgarians, he plays as they all do on fear and prejudice, as seen no come back to one of their own MEP's promoting a charter for Muslims to sign, their prejudice views on Homosexuality backed with evidence, with them voting against or abstaining votes for the equals rights of homosexuals, how Farage called for Syrian refugee's to be taken in but only if they were Christians. Do you wish me to continue, or will you finally understand you follow a very prejudiced party?  

How was explaining the practical implications of the law change prejudiced?

I am torn on the Muslim one - in the same way I am torn on the issue of identity cards and the old argument "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear".  Maybe it would be less prejudiced to have every citizen sign an anti violence promise regardless of religion ethnicity or birthplace.  However much I want to deny it, however much people try to deny it the fact remains that in the 70s and 80s people looked at Irish newcomers with suspicion - and sometimes that suspicion was correct.  Now people look at Muslims with suspicion and sometimes that suspicion is again correct (they may not be remotely suspicious of the Irish and they may be incorrect in that).  Do you have understand the sickness a decent person feels when they want to get on with anyone but cannot escape the nasty worm of suspicion that comes unbidden.  

Do you understand the prejudice experienced by Christians in this country?  I am not Christian - and to be honest I have deep personal reasons to consider Islam the cleaner religion so I am not a non Christian who supports Christianity by default either.  I see in all too many places equal rights are simply some being more equal than others.  This applies on both the Homosexual and Syrian question.  I see it as trying to be unprejudiced to all - others see it as being prejudiced in favour of Christians.[/quote]

Why doesn't that "nasty worm of suspicion" come up with everyone, though -- why just members of certain groups?

Doesn't this look like a guy it would be easy to get along with?

Ben_Reilly wrote:Why doesn't that "nasty worm of suspicion" come up with everyone, though -- why just members of certain groups?

Doesn't this look like a guy it would be easy to get along with?

It is a case of patterns - if I am being suspicious of serial killers white male between the ages of 20 and 50 is going to figure heavily because of patterns.

When in the 70s and 80s the pattern of terrorist bombs were overwhelmingly filled with Irish people it became normal - especially in a garrison town - to be suspicious of any visiting Irish, and even long established Irish who everyone knew would sometimes get a wondering look.

Now I live in a time where the big terrorist atrocities are showing a pattern where the majority of them are committed by Muslims.

Unfortunately it is human nature - if you take a red ball and a blue ball and roll them down a hill 10 times and the first 9 times the red ball gets down first what do you expect the tenth time? Your intellectual brain may come up with a half dozeyn reasons why it might be the blue but the inner human will be screaming red - because it has become a pattern.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Their vocal views, like Farge for example trying to scare off the nation in regards to Romanians and Bulgarians, he plays as they all do on fear and prejudice, as seen no come back to one of their own MEP's promoting a charter for Muslims to sign, their prejudice views on Homosexuality backed with evidence, with them voting against or abstaining votes for the equals rights of homosexuals, how Farage called for Syrian refugee's to be taken in but only if they were Christians. Do you wish me to continue, or will you finally understand you follow a very prejudiced party?  

How was explaining the practical implications of the law change prejudiced?
Oh behave that really has to be the worst excuse from you, I proved they are prejudice and because you are so naive to place all your eggs in a prejudice party, you are daft enough to defend them with any absurd defence

I am torn on the Muslim one - in the same way I am torn on the issue of identity cards and the old argument "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear".
Balderdash, how can you even be torn if already who hold views of fear, to have torn views means you cast a poor inept stereotype born from this fear. You should never be torn over being idiotic to believe in that association fallacy  

 Maybe it would be less prejudiced to have every citizen sign an anti violence promise regardless of religion ethnicity or birthplace.
PMSL, what next an anti rape and anti child abuse declaration, will that stop them, how idiotic can you get, Violence if you actually spent a second to understand it comes from anger, control and fear, but you being the poor drone of UKIP have no concept of this. So how do you stop these human traits, by being daft to think they have only connections to religions and ethnicity?

 However much I want to deny it, however much people try to deny it the fact remains that in the 70s and 80s people looked at Irish newcomers with suspicion - and sometimes that suspicion was correct.
Well fuck me, there is an idiot born every minute and you are one of them, so because people were stupid enough to have such unfounded suspicions of Irish people, makes it okay? You absolute idiot, and your view is now acceptable because you think it is okay to label a thousand Irish people based because if one of them is a terrorist, you are thus justified, fucking hell, and I thought you had intelligence, to then now associate such stupidity to form a fear of Muslims  

 Now people look at Muslims with suspicion and sometimes that suspicion is again correct (they may not be remotely suspicious of the Irish and they may be incorrect in that).
So your view is to have a really daft and idiotic approach , treat all Muslims with suspicions, fuck me, welcome to Nazi Germany, as exactly the same happened to the Jews, the same bullshit claims to them, raping their children, being anti democracy, being incompatible, showing how you know fuck all about history

 Do you have understand the sickness a decent person feels when they want to get on with anyone but cannot escape the nasty worm of suspicion that comes unbidden.  
Yes that sickness is so bad like a virus it makes people stupidly believe they can be justified as you stupidly think to be hateful, that is the desperation of someone who hates, not being able to see reason, they clutch at extremism

Do you understand the prejudice experienced by Christians in this country?  I am not Christian - and to be honest I have deep personal reasons to consider Islam the cleaner religion so I am not a non Christian who supports Christianity by default either.  I see in all too many places equal rights are simply some being more equal than others.
What prejudice, by individuals? Or people of other faiths, as they do the same back? So because Christianity ha been told you do not have a say, it has lost rights it really never had in the first place, to deny others? Behave, you talk like an absolute idiot, trying to excuse hate, or to allow you to be hateful. The interpretations of Christianity in the west held back thinking and reasoning and has always tried to deny equality, yet lets save that tradition of prejudice, what daft prune you are

 This applies on both the Homosexual and Syrian question.  I see it as trying to be unprejudiced to all - others see it as being prejudiced in favour of Christians.

[/quote]

PMSL you excuse being selective based on fairness off an idiotic association of people, fuck me I gave you credit for intelligence, but seriously you are as bad as others with your prejudice bullshit, you seek to excuse and allow a view to be discriminating, based solely on ignorance

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Why doesn't that "nasty worm of suspicion" come up with everyone, though -- why just members of certain groups?

Doesn't this look like a guy it would be easy to get along with?

It is a case of patterns - if I am being suspicious of serial killers white male between the ages of 20 and 50 is going to figure heavily because of patterns.

When in the 70s and 80s the pattern of terrorist bombs were overwhelmingly filled with Irish people it became normal - especially in a garrison town - to be suspicious of any visiting Irish, and even long established Irish who everyone knew would sometimes get a wondering look.

Now I live in a time where the big terrorist atrocities are showing a pattern where the majority of them are committed by Muslims.  

Unfortunately it is human nature - if you take a red ball and a blue ball and roll them down a hill 10 times and the first 9 times the red ball gets down first what do you expect the tenth time?  Your intellectual brain may come up with a half dozeyn reasons why it might be the blue but the inner human will be screaming red - because it has become a pattern.

If you have any intelligence you would know that the tenth time will be like the first nine luck on guessing, because each time there is a 50% chance with each colour. What you again show is utter stupidity, you now go off poor guesses, that if nine times out of ten it is red, then you stand to reason to condemn people to then being the tenth, yet mathematics will show you you could actually roll ten blues the next solely by chance. So if you go with the stupid part of your brain to justify a reasoning to be prejudice, then clearly you are trying to justify a reason to be prejudice off the most absurd stupidity I have ever born witness to.

That is what UKIP stand for, turn normal people into absolute idiots

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:


It is a case of patterns - if I am being suspicious of serial killers white male between the ages of 20 and 50 is going to figure heavily because of patterns.

When in the 70s and 80s the pattern of terrorist bombs were overwhelmingly filled with Irish people it became normal - especially in a garrison town - to be suspicious of any visiting Irish, and even long established Irish who everyone knew would sometimes get a wondering look.

Now I live in a time where the big terrorist atrocities are showing a pattern where the majority of them are committed by Muslims.  

Unfortunately it is human nature - if you take a red ball and a blue ball and roll them down a hill 10 times and the first 9 times the red ball gets down first what do you expect the tenth time?  Your intellectual brain may come up with a half dozen reasons why it might be the blue but the inner human will be screaming red - because it has become a pattern.

If you have any intelligence you would know that the tenth time will be like the first nine luck on guessing, because each time there is a 50% chance with each colour. What you again show is utter stupidity, you now go off poor guesses, that if nine times out of ten it is red, then you stand to reason to condemn people to then being the tenth, yet mathematics will show you you could actually roll ten blues the next solely by chance. So if you go with the stupid part of your brain to justify a reasoning to be prejudice, then clearly you are trying to justify a reason to be prejudice off the most absurd stupidity I have ever born witness to.

That is what UKIP stand for, turn normal people into absolute idiots

Uh how do you know each time there is a 50% chance of each colour? I am not demonstrating chance here I am talking about patterns and I have not detailed any other specifications of the red ball/blue ball like for instance they are always launched from the same side and the blue side is much rougher - or one is of a different pressure than the other, or one has dimples the other bobbles. So although the reason for the red ball always being first is nothing to do with the colour it is to do with that ball.

Face it life is far more horrendously complex than any of us (short of the odd Steven Hawkins) can possibly imagine and the human way is to find patterns at the simplest level. They are not interested in the reason the red ball is always first - they just care it always is.

I do not try to justify a reason for prejudice I am simply accepting that there may be one.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


If you have any intelligence you would know that the tenth time will be like the first nine luck on guessing, because each time there is a 50% chance with each colour. What you again show is utter stupidity, you now go off poor guesses, that if nine times out of ten it is red, then you stand to reason to condemn people to then being the tenth, yet mathematics will show you you could actually roll ten blues the next solely by chance. So if you go with the stupid part of your brain to justify a reasoning to be prejudice, then clearly you are trying to justify a reason to be prejudice off the most absurd stupidity I have ever born witness to.

That is what UKIP stand for, turn normal people into absolute idiots

Uh how do you know each time there is a 50% chance of each colour?
Are you that thick to ask?


 I am not demonstrating chance here I am talking about patterns and I have not detailed any other specifications of the red ball/blue ball like for instance they are always launched from the same side and the blue side is much rougher - or one is of a different pressure than the other, or one has dimples the other bobbles.
So you use percentages based off chance to demonstrate patterns, even though rolling two balls of different colour will still give you the same 50 to 50 chance if they are of the same dimensions. You are thus basing an absurdity based off chance

 So although the reason for the red ball always being first is nothing to do with the colour it is to do with that ball.
If the ball is doctored to win, then there is no probability or chance, the game is rigged to favour one winning and thus has no analogy on your point

Face it life is far more horrendously complex than any of us (short of the odd Steven Hawkins) can possibly imagine and the human way is to find patterns at the simplest level.  They are not interested in the reason the red ball is always first - they just care it always is.

Oh my that made me chuckle, now using Hawkins to justify prejudice views. I am well aware of the limitations of humans, what we are debating is if UKIP and you are justified in you fallacy associations of Muslims

I do not try to justify a reason for prejudice I am simply accepting that there may be one.

The sad fact is you are trying to justify one, because there is no justification for any prejudice view from a morality point of view. The reality is you are trying to deflect away from UKIP being very prejudice off now how people will be thus again trying to justify this prejudice, when such views are always wrong. The fact is you follow a prejudice party and even worse poorly try to excuse that

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Uh how do you know each time there is a 50% chance of each colour?
Are you that thick to ask?


 I am not demonstrating chance here I am talking about patterns and I have not detailed any other specifications of the red ball/blue ball like for instance they are always launched from the same side and the blue side is much rougher - or one is of a different pressure than the other, or one has dimples the other bobbles.
So you use percentages based off chance to demonstrate patterns, even though rolling two balls of different colour will still give you the same 50 to 50 chance if they are of the same dimensions. You are thus basing an absurdity based off chance

 So although the reason for the red ball always being first is nothing to do with the colour it is to do with that ball.
If the ball is doctored to win, then there is no probability or chance, the game is rigged to favour one winning and thus has no analogy on your point

Face it life is far more horrendously complex than any of us (short of the odd Steven Hawkins) can possibly imagine and the human way is to find patterns at the simplest level.  They are not interested in the reason the red ball is always first - they just care it always is.

Oh my that made me chuckle, now using Hawkins to justify prejudice views. I am well aware of the limitations of humans, what we are debating is if UKIP and you are justified in you fallacy associations of Muslims

I do not try to justify a reason for prejudice I am simply accepting that there may be one.

The sad fact is you are trying to justify one, because there is no justification for any prejudice view from a morality point of view. The reality is you are trying to deflect away from UKIP being very prejudice off now how people will be thus again trying to justify this prejudice, when such views are always wrong. The fact is you follow a prejudice party and even worse poorly try to excuse that

The sad but inevitable fact is once again you have completely failed to grasp what I am telling you.

Not really surprising from someone who thinks the best way to deal with rules and laws is to ignore them if you think they will not be enforced.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

The sad fact is you are trying to justify one, because there is no justification for any prejudice view from a morality point of view. The reality is you are trying to deflect away from UKIP being very prejudice off now how people will be thus again trying to justify this prejudice, when such views are always wrong. The fact is you follow a prejudice party and even worse poorly try to excuse that

The sad but inevitable fact is once again you have completely failed to grasp what I am telling you.

Oh I did but you did not like the reply and now claim the higher intellectual ground based again off the absurd views you hold

Not really surprising from someone who thinks the best way to deal with rules and laws is to ignore them if you think they will not be enforced.

lol you are yet to show me how the EU actually enforces rules, but you know they cannot which really destroys your idiotic claim to support UKIP


Night dearest

Tell me didge - who is it who knows what they are saying - the person saying it or the person that says something totally different?

Mind you that may be too difficult for you as well.

sphinx wrote:Tell me didge - who is it who knows what they are saying - the person saying it or the person that says something totally different?

Mind you that may be too difficult for you as well.

lol you want the videos showing they said this ha ha.

Are you denying in EU votes on equality to Gays they voted against and abstained?

You are coming out with the most pathetic excuses why you support a prejudice party and you sell your soul to them because they reeled you in with their bullshit over the EU, as I have demonstrated clearly you lack any understanding of. That is what really surprised me, you are intelligent yet are gullible to the bull they feed you, even worse you are going solely off ideas they promote which they have not once provided any viable policies showing how they will work

What I am now pondering is how you defend them at every turn even though as shown they are very prejudice against Homosexuals, which makes me wonder if you are part of the UKIP party being funded to spout your rubbish. Good thing Irn and myself are hear to show up your poor claims eh

Good morning Folks.

Whatever happens to UKIP & whatever you may think of them,they are the party that will almost certainly prevent the Tories from winning a majority vote at the next General Election.....& hooray for that.

And as the Conservative party is virtually identical to the LibDems & Labour it makes no difference if Labour win by default due to UKIP votes.

The suspected Tory lies about how they will reduce immigration to tens of thousands has been clearly exposed with Cameron being exposed as a straight forward left winger.......& liar.

Tory supporters are kidding themselves about how well the party is doing for the UK & clearly those same people do not have a clue,just like Labour & LibDem voters.

Clueless & mindless auto mata.

Good evening Folks.

Here's a little dit about Mehdi Hassan who I believe is the ever so respectable editor of the Huffington Post & often appears on Lorraine Kellys morning slot on ITV.



Mehdi Hasan Exposed. Part I – Atheists and disbelievers are “cattle” and “of no intelligence”

Your View, July 24th 2009, 4:55 pm


This is the first part of a three-part article on Mehdi Hasan, senior editor (politics) of the New Statesman, by Harry’s Place guest writer Channel 4 Insider.

Since its foundation in 1913, the New Statesman’s journalism been marked by its rationalism, a consistent concern for the underdog and a healthy scepticism for all forms of authority – not least towards organised religion. This is not surprising. Many of the magazine’s founders were among the most prominent atheists and socialists of their era. At the same time, however, despite their strong ideas and beliefs, these men and women wrote with humour and with great respect for those whose ideas differed from their own.

For example, George Bernard Shaw, one of the New Statesman’s co-founders, frequently attacked religion and yet wrote of his desire to believe in God and also his belief that lack of belief in an all-powerful deity should not be a barrier to good works:


“I should like to believe my people’s religion, which was just what I could wish, but alas, it is impossible. I have really no religion, for my God, being a spirit shown merely by reason to exist, his properties utterly unknown, is no help to my life. I have nor the parson’s comfortable doctrine that every good action has its reward, and every sin is forgiven. My whole religion is this: do every duty, and expect no reward for it, either here or hereafter.”

One wonders what he would have made therefore of the foam-flecked denunciation of atheists and “disbelievers” given by Mehdi Hasan, the New Statesman’s recently appointed politics editor, in a vitriolic speech,’ From Jahiliya to Jahiliya’, given at the Al Khoei Islamic Centre in February 2009 (the speech has now been removed from the IUS website, but we have archived a copy):




“The kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran; they are described in the Quran as, quote, “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as; not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Quran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.”

It is one thing to argue about relative merits of atheism or religious beliefs and it is surely right to say that some atheists have become blind to the wonders of the world. However, it is clear from the way that Mehdi Hasan spits out the words “the kaffar, the disbelievers” and his spittle-flecked denunciation of them as “cattle” that he does not intent this to be a reasonable discussion of belief.

Indeed, he does not seek to persuade his Muslim audience that atheists, kuffar and disbelievers are “cattle” and “people of no intelligence” – instead he simply tells them this is an unquestionable fact merely because the Quran says so. Hasan’s blanket denunciation of these people as “of no intelligence” would however be less galling if he hadn’t elsewhere attacked the mass media for making generalisations about Muslims. Here is Mehdi Hasanwriting in The Guardian about the British media:


“I grow tired of having to also endure a barrage of lazy stereotypes, inflammatory headlines, disparaging generalisations and often inaccurate and baseless stories.

If Mehdi Hasan is upset by “disparaging generalisations” made about Muslims, then why does he himself then attack all atheists and “disbelievers” as being “cattle” and “of no intelligence”?

One suspects that if a prominent non-Muslim journalist gave a speech in a London church in which he attacked all Muslims as being “of no intelligence”, Hasan would be among the first to object. Why then does he think that he has right to stand up in a mosque and defame and insult others on account of their beliefs?

http://hurryupharry.org/2009/07/24/medhi-hasan-exposed-part-i-%e2%80%93-atheists-and-disbelievers-are-%e2%80%9ccattle%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9cof-no-intelligence%e2%80%9d/

And to further expose Shady as an idiot Muslim hater:







Search formSearch



It was Andy Warhol who remarked that one day we'd all have our fifteen minutes of fame. I'm now into my fifth day of online infamy - thanks to the blog, Harry's Place (as well as a blog on the Spectator). The former has devoted much time and energy, over five separate posts, to quoting selectively, and out of context, from various informal talks that I have given in recent years, in front of numerous British Muslim (and non-Muslim) audiences.

The end result? Commenters at Harry's Place have decided that I am an ally of "Andy Choudary" (I assume they mean Anjem Choudary, from the radical Muslim group, al Muhajiroun), that I come from a Hizb ut Tahrir "background" and that I'm a "raving Islamist bigot". One commenter says, "we are considering a misguided, arrogant, dangerous Muslim shit-head for a form of hate speech in the same genre as a Hitler rally, based on the Koran."

But consider this:

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who have written a piece entitled "There's nothing Islamic about a state" , as I did for the New Statesman in April, in which I concluded, with the words of secular Muslim professor Abdullahi An-Na'im, that "the Islamic state is a historical misconception, a logical fallacy and a practical impossibility"?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who challenge senior members of Hizb ut Tahrir in public debates, as I did with HT's Dr Imran Wahid in a debate on the future of European Islam in June 2006?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who believe not simply in parliamentary democracy but who passionately and publicly immerse themselves in the current campaign for the introduction of proportional representation via "AV plus", as I did earlier this month in the Vote for a Change campaign rally at Methodist Hall, where I shared a platform with Peter Tatchell and Polly Toynbee?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who chair and shape public debates on the future of the social-democratic centre-left, as I did at the annual Compass conference last month?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who tell an audience of Muslims that Islam is a "humanitarian" faith and insist that Muslim nations in the Middle East would be under an Islamic obligation to come to Israel's help were the Jewish state to suffer, God forbid, from a horrible natural disaster like an earthquake, as I did in a speech in February this year (a speech, incidentally, singled out for praise by former counter-terrorism minister Tony McNulty who was present in the audience that afternoon)?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who publicly denounce "those in our community who decry any collaboration any cooperation between Muslims and non-Muslims, who describe all non-Muslims as kafirs whom we owe nothing to, whom we need not offer any help or charity to" as I did in a speech in February this year ("I want to disassociate myself and all of us here from such extremist Muslims," I said at the time)?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who chastise Muslim audiences for daring "to criticize the way this country is run.... complaining and whining and moaning about how we're treated" when "we don't bother to exercise our basic right to vote", and who urge British Muslims to be "an engaged and outward-looking community....politically and socially proactive", as I did in a speech in a north London mosque in October 2007?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who tell a Muslim audience that "nowhere in the Quran, when we read it properly, can we find any justification for violence against civilians, for indiscriminate attacks of terror against noncombatants, against women, against children. Nowhere!", as I did in a speech in Manchester in September 2007, called "Disconnecting Islam from Violence" (and, again, quoted out of context by my anonymous critics at Harry's Place)?

I have spent my entire life, from secondary school to university to my professional life as a journalist, encouraging Muslims to be moderate, and to integrate, rather than remain outside the mainstream of British society. And I have had innumerable stand-up rows with extremist Muslims who think I am not Muslim enough; as well as with aggressive atheists who think I am not liberal or secular enough. It is par for the course.

So, what did I say, back in February, prior to joining the New Statesman, that has sent one corner of the blogosphere into such an angry frenzy? In the section from the speech quoted prominently (and, once again, out of context) at Harry's Place, I seem to refer to atheists as "kafirs", as "people of no intelligence" and as "cattle". In fact, I am quoting from the Quran - where the word "kafir" simply means "non-Muslim" or "non-believer" and it is in this sense (in fact, in its atheistic sense), and no other, that I used it. I do, however, acknowledge that in the hands of a few Muslim extremists, the word has taken on more sinister connotations. Perhaps it is a time for a debate on the future of this term - or, alternatively, to reclaim it from the bigots and radical Islamists. The Quranic phrase "people of no intelligence" simply and narrowly refers to the fact that Muslims regard their views on God as the only intellectually tenable position, just as atheists (like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris) regard believers as fundamentally irrational and, even, mentally deficient. As for the metaphorical use of the word "cattle", that has no more pejorative charge than does the word "sheep" when applied by atheists to religious believers - plus, you will note that I also refer to unthinking Muslims as "cattle" in the same speech, which was addressed primarily as a critique of my co-religionists (as you can see here and here).

Thankfully, many of my closest non-Muslim colleague and friends over the years have recognized that I am neither an Islamist, nor an extremist of any kind - Jonathan Dimbleby, for example, has said: "Mehdi is a devout Muslim but is at all times entirely within the framework of liberal democratic society. He typifies the best of British."

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dissident-voice/2009/07/islamic-extremists-muslim