Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JohnM

It's Back!

79 posts in this topic

The local party got quite upset when the new candidate was dropped on them. Respect could do them some damage here.

Their candidate, Yvonne Ridley, has certainly taken to Islam in a big way. see http://yvonneridley.org/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvonne_Ridley but she ain't no Salma Yaqoob.

'Being lectured on probity by David Blunkett is bit like being told to sit up straight by Quasimodo,' said Ms Ridley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Cameron has retracted his retraction.

Which I think means he does still think Ukip is filled with nutters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rotherham is a sheeite council. Safeguarding issues, poor management, been in dodgy territory viz their inspections, etc. I wouldn't take the judgement of anyone working for Rotherham Council as being worth a first glance, never mind a second. UKIP wants the UK to leave the EU. That's about as racist as it gets as a party. And no, I don't vote UKIP. Remember, Rotherham stated that UKIP was considered racist because it 'didn't like European people', which is as childish a statement as I can think of.

Massive mistake by Rotherham Council this, and will seriously put good people off volunteering as foster carers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we're sure that the children didn't complain about their foster parents' views making them uncomfortable or anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, Rotherham stated that UKIP was considered racist because it 'didn't like European people', which is as childish a statement as I can think of.

Childish and inaccurate, Farage is married to a German.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we're sure that the children didn't complain about their foster parents' views making them uncomfortable or anything?

We can't be sure because not all the facts are in the public arena. But the facts that we do have certainly don't support that interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we're sure that the children didn't complain about their foster parents' views making them uncomfortable or anything?

Highly unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Labour Tories in Rotherhamichmond put up a of Donkey as candidate, the burghers would vote them in. Eh, up...they did,

They elected William Hague! (wonder why he didn't stand in his home town of Rotherham?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Labour Tories in Rotherhamichmond put up a of Donkey as candidate, the burghers would vote them in. Eh, up...they did,

They elected William Hague! (wonder why he didn't stand in his home town of Rotherham?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be some sort of misunderstanding. This is all about Rotherham. If you want to start a topic about Richmond Council taking kids away from foster parents just because of the political party they belong to, please feel free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly when Joyce Thacker, Strategic Director of Children and Young People’s Services in Rotherham gave quite a long interview on BBCTV News this morning, she did not mention that. She did say, "These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children."

You can hear her Radio 4 Interview here: http://audioboo.fm/boos/1076097-council-protected-children-from-strong-views This is a must hear for those who would like to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be some sort of misunderstanding. This is all about Rotherham. If you want to start a topic about Richmond Council taking kids away from foster parents just because of the political party they belong to, please feel free.

It was you who accused the people of Rotherham of voting for donkeys. So why not the people of Richmond? After all William only just scraped in 1989, but despite the fact that it was clear Thatcher was no longer fit to govern, enough Tories voters still elected their donkey. It's clear you regard anyone who votes Labour as not being worthy of having the vote and who should therefore be immediately disenfranchised. I wonder why it is that the areas in the former Metropolitan County of South Yorkshire vote Labour in such large numbers? Come to think of it I wonder why it is that the heartlands of the game we both love is predominantly represented at both national and local levels by the Labour party? Could it be that the same people who tried to prevent weavers and colliers from playng sport, vinctimising and ostracising them if they did are the same people who victimised and exploited them in their workplace? Rotherham council's action is stupid. But much of what the current government is doing such as dismanltling the NHS could also be described as stupid. Perhaps there's also a case for the electors of Richmond to be disenfranchised too..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joyce Thacker, head of Rotherham's snatch squad

:blink:

My word, looks to be a place to avoid then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blink:

My word, looks to be a place to avoid then.

Don't knock it, you can make good money.

I'd have thought the biggest concern about UKIP voters fostering children would be that they wouldn't have enough time to look after kids, what with the amount of time UKIP fanatics seem to spend commenting 'OUT NOW LET'S END THIS FARCE' on internet forums and in below-the-line comment sections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blink:

My word, looks to be a place to avoid then.

Gosh! I didn't mean for it to be taken that way............ :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was you who accused the people of Rotherham of voting for donkeys. So why not the people of Richmond? After all William only just scraped in 1989, but despite the fact that it was clear Thatcher was no longer fit to govern, enough Tories voters still elected their donkey. It's clear you regard anyone who votes Labour as not being worthy of having the vote and who should therefore be immediately disenfranchised. I wonder why it is that the areas in the former Metropolitan County of South Yorkshire vote Labour in such large numbers? Come to think of it I wonder why it is that the heartlands of the game we both love is predominantly represented at both national and local levels by the Labour party? Could it be that the same people who tried to prevent weavers and colliers from playng sport, vinctimising and ostracising them if they did are the same people who victimised and exploited them in their workplace? Rotherham council's action is stupid. But much of what the current government is doing such as dismanltling the NHS could also be described as stupid. Perhaps there's also a case for the electors of Richmond to be disenfranchised too..

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be that the same people who tried to prevent weavers and colliers from playng sport, vinctimising and ostracising them if they did are the same people who victimised and exploited them in their workplace?

This is pushing it. The 19th century was a long time ago, the Tories of 2012 are not those of the Victorian era. A lot of the Tory voting middle class today had great-grandparents who were weavers and collliers. I'm not exactly a Tory but I'm not a socialist either. None of my family would have had the vote until the universal franchise. I don't think this obligates me to vote Labour.

Don't forget that rugby league would have got nowhere without the backing of mill owners. It is not and never has been a solely working class game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pushing it. The 19th century was a long time ago, the Tories of 2012 are not those of the Victorian era.

Don't kid yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't kid yourself

I don't. The class system changed a great deal in the 60s and 70s. Most people these days have close relatives that "belong" to a different social class to them. Even in Rotherham, there are working class Tories.

You are right that Labour dominates these areas at a national level but at a local level, the Liberals often do very well (or did) in these kinds of metropolises. One reason being the kind of rigid politicised thinking that Labour councils were / are famous for and this would seem to be the case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Respect wins these two by elections,and holds on to them after the next general election,I wonder if they would be asked or if the would even consider working with Labour in a kind of coalition.Somehow I dont think so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't. The class system changed a great deal in the 60s and 70s.

No it didn't and such nonsense doesn't gain in veracity by repetition. It might be the wish of neo-liberals to perpetuate the idea that an increase in disposable income and consequent ability to partake in consumerism madness changes a persons class, but it is simply untrue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't. The class system changed a great deal in the 60s and 70s. Most people these days have close relatives that "belong" to a different social class to them. Even in Rotherham, there are working class Tories.

You are right that Labour dominates these areas at a national level but at a local level, the Liberals often do very well (or did) in these kinds of metropolises. One reason being the kind of rigid politicised thinking that Labour councils were / are famous for and this would seem to be the case here.

Since the universal franchise the Tories have had to trim. But they do as little as possible to gain election. In other words Labour keeps them honest. Remarks like John's "donkey" gives the game away of what they truly think. You only have to get Tories talking to get them to reveal what they'd really like to do to the working people of this country. That expression was a favourite one of my right wing Tory supporting mother in law. Under the skin they are exactly like the Tories of the 19th century. As for those who supported the Northern Union, I think if you look back most of the tradesmen and millowners were non-comformist Liberals, and as far as the Tories who ran the RFU, the MCC and everything else, indistinguishable from the weavers and miners playing the game.

In the sixties I played Rugby Union for a "first class club" - not for the first team miind you I wasn't good enough. But there were plenty of my mates who were, and when the sons of the millowners etc (who by now had become Tories) came home from Uni at Christmas and Easter, they were quickly dropped form the first team to make space for the club's benefactors. As a regular 3rd teamer, I of course found myself in the 4th team, as we all moved down a level to make room for them. It was good in a way - it meant for brief periods the 4th's couild play XV a side instead of "any number can play" But I know the displaced 1st teamers resented it. The class system in the UK is alive and well. Dave (Lord Snooty) and his pals is perpetuating it to the best of his ability. I believe the appointment of Lynton Crosby as election co-ordinator throws out the last pretences of "detoxification" Wait for things to turn really nasty in the next 2 1/2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.