BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 08:55 PM

Sorry Steve (Shaw)- should elucidate.
It's an old trick of Keith's that, when he finds himself really in the klarts (as now) - first he lumps those opposing him as "you lot" and tries to attribute what one of us has said to the other(s) - hence his lumping yours and my statements together - then he he tries to split "us lot" up, by claiming one or other of us is now agreeing with him, as he has with me "We no longer disagree.".
We've never met (I don't think), but basically, you and I seem to be coming from the same direction, while we may not entirely agree on the detail - Keith his using his worn-out tactic of "divide and rule".
He has two idiot friends here, neither of which have balls or staying power and leave him to take the flack, sniping from the sidelines occasionally when he really starts to gibber.
None of them are the brightest starfishes in the sandbucket - they toss a coin to decide whose turn it is to use the single brain at the beginning of each session (sort of, like the 3 Cyclops with one eye between them.
As far as I'm concerned, the engagement's still on - see you at the church!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 08:36 PM

Keith is trying to break off our engagement Steve - take no notice; we're still buddies
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 07:52 PM

Which bloody Steve are we talking about here? Can we clear this up, please? I don't feel that I'm distanced from anyone I wasn't distanced from before, and, if I over-simplify things, I should like to told how.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 07:34 PM

"Jim, the title of the thread and your early posts are about government being behind this local arrangement"
Nothing about Government persecuting anybody yet - ah well!!
The title of the thread was based on newspaper comparisons of the identification bands - maybe they suspected Government persecution - nuffin' to do with me.
"Clearly you no longer believe that and distance yourself from Steve "
No I don't - I think he is oversimplifying things, I have no idea whether he believes in a government plot to persecute asylum seekers - if he does - disagree with him - as I have made quite clear - you have yet to come up with one single thing I have said at any time which contradicts this - just the opposite - though I have no doubt you have fine-combed everything - you are now lying desperately and, as I have said many times before - you have not a shred of self-respect in your desperation to prove something I have neither said, nor do I believe.
"We no longer disagree."
Are you really that short of friends? Utterly pathetic.
Ake - you started this with your lying - have you any evidence of what Keith is claiming - c'mon - he's blowing for tugs here - help him out
You refuse to respond to the damage that these bands and the front doors have caused, even though you have been shown the evidence over and over again - that is beneath contempt.
"Jim the RSPCA remark is unlike you, "
Your lying, your support for a practice that has been discredited, your contemptuous regard for the well-being and safety of men women and children who have been driven out of their homes and countries by genocidal war and persecution is, unfortunately, very much like you.
I notice you are totally avoiding all this - which means, having started all this, you are now leaving your friend to wallow in your shit-storm - very noble of you.
So - wadd've we got?
A Islamophobic racist Antisemite who claims to be a Christian - an Islamophobic, Antisemite Troll who is to ashamed to admit to the identity he once posted under and only peeps from under his bridge occasionally to throw a few stones, and a homophobic, right wing extremist who thinks he is a socialist - such opposition - won't sleep a wink tonight worrying about it - shesh - what a gang of tossers!
"Please God, make this madness stop."
Then how about helping to put a stop to it Woodie - can you show anything to back up Keith's claims, or would you rather keep your distance too?
Were's me 'orlicks
Night all
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, Jim, the tit suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 07:04 PM

"

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 06:04 PM

"I repeat, these people are here because we allow them to be here, every taxpayer provides the benefits that our own young jobless or low paid people do not qualify for.....our own sons and daughters.
The asylum seekers should be a little more grateful for the kindness of the UK population in providing such a standard of living for nothing."

Disgusting. Inhuman, racist, xenophobic and Incredibly Ill-informed. Actually, I think I'm being kind to you. One of the most hateful posts I've ever read here. Your presence shames this place.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 05:55 PM

I agree BWM, it's getting extremely boring, but these crazy ideas need to be opposed, or they become the norm. Soon we will be unable to speak or think for ourselves the madia will control every waking moment.

Keith is correct to point out the fallacies in their views, the "plaques" are a typical example ....house numbers, what colour should they be? Rainbow colours to baffle the racist thugs?

It is absolutely laughable. Wristbands, if you are allowed to remove them, I suppose you could lend them or rent them to people who don't qualify for the benefits?    Door colour is beyond discussion, why on earth would any letting company deliberately encourage thugs to attack their property?

I repeat, these people are here because we allow them to be here, every taxpayer provides the benefits that our own young jobless or low paid people do not qualify for.....our own sons and daughters.
The asylum seekers should be a little more grateful for the kindness of the UK population in providing such a standard of living for nothing.

Jim the RSPCA remark is unlike you, but I don't think you are a bad person, I made the comment "daft" after considerable thought, it was meant more as "comically confused" than "mentally ill".

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 04:56 PM

Please God, make this madness stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 03:13 PM

hysteria

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 03:12 PM

Jim, the title of the thread and your early posts are about government being behind this local arrangement, for the purpose of persecuting migrants just as Jews were persecuted by the yellow stars.

Clearly you no longer believe that and distance yourself from Steve who has not changed his position.

That is good.
We no longer disagree.

Denying your original position now just makes you look silly, but at least we now agree that this is not really an issue at all, and not worthy of all the hype and hyssteria here and elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 02:47 PM

"Jim, you claimed that the government was deliberately identifying migrants to those who would harm them,"
Where?
The only time of have accused anybody of deliberation is in claiming you aqre deliberately lying - which you now are.
I said that attacks on asylum seekers were the consequence of their policies - at no time have I ever said (or believed) that the Government set out to persecute anybody - in fact I said the opposite
"Governments who describe themselves as 'democratic' don't 'persecute' - they don't have to - they have the power of the State to keep them warm."
"what better than our Tess May standing up and saying - "we're going to do something about all those cadgers-cum-security-threats"?"
Up to your old - 'out of context'stunts;
In context
""I suggested that these "unrelated" incidents - armbands, plaques on walls, red doors, may have been a pilot scheme to identify asylum seekers and where they were living - no more than that.
Immigration, particularly the numbers of asylum seekers in need of assistance, has become a political issue, and the latter have become perfect election fodder.
Come a dodgy by-election, or another crisis brought on by bankers giving themselves over-generous bonuses, or more MPs claiming expenses for yet more duck-palaces.... what better than our Tess May standing up and saying - "we're going to do something about all those cadgers-cum-security-threats"?"
If you are going to do this, please make an effort - this is ****** ludicrous.
"You say you no longer believe that the government is doing this to persecute the migrants."
Piss off Keith - I said no such thing - I have never claimed the Government disd anything other than to clear the ground for some sort of identification
You really are a pathetic little man
Mor from what I* have said - and what I believe.
27 Jan 16 - 11:19 AM
But surely the reason why it was done is beside the point - the practice has led to vandalising attacks on the property and it is putting the safety and possibly the lives of tenants at risk (only takes a braindead, a can of petrol and a match and whoosh- there you go)

29 Jan 16 - 07:23 AM
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that these have been pilot schemes for future identification of all asylum seekers, and, if them, why not all immigrants?

30 Jan 16 - 05:45 AM
It is a way of tagging people and it has been proven to have put people at risk yet our star super-rights continue to defend the use of compulsory markers to identify foreigners
IT WAS COMPULSORY TO WEAR THEM AT ALL TIMES, INSIDE AND OUT - IT WAS A FORM OF TAGGING - NOTHING MORE

07 Feb 16 - 11:56 AM
This is an exercise in tagging asylum seekers - the way it was done was found to be degrading and dangerous so it was abandoned (after nationwide protests).

You really should not be allowed to post until you clean up your act
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 01:03 PM

Just looking in the "Mother" thread he could double some up to get either Hawk-Chimp or Chimp-Hawk and River with Banks

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 01:02 PM

Jim, you claimed that the government was deliberately identifying migrants to those who would harm them, as the yellow stars once identified Jews.
That is persecution Jim.

The post you just quoted has this,
"what better than our Tess May standing up and saying - "we're going to do something about all those cadgers-cum-security-threats"?"

May is Home Secretary!

Never mind.
You say you no longer believe that the government is doing this to persecute the migrants.
I think that you are right about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 12:56 PM

Have you noticed that Guesticle's new policy is to call people he falls out with by their surname only. Let's hope he doesn't fall out with Keith, who will become A. Michael will become Lion, Greg would be F, pete would be Link and we'd have a woodsman and a tash. Any more offers for this joker?

"Thought I'd heard it all from Carroll, Shaw, Gnomo and F, but now even Lion and A, who you'd have thought would be on my side, are having a go. And bugger me sideways with a bent banana if woodsman and tash aren't stalking me as well. If he'll talk to me again, think I'll head off for a prayer meeting with Link..."

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 12:34 PM

"can I presume we can now add clairvoyance to your list of talents."
Nope - just a confirmation of dishonesty - this bit compounds the dishonesty
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 12:22 PM

In the quotes you highlighted Jim made no mention of government policy can I presume we can now add clairvoyance to your list of talents.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 12:22 PM

Repeat
""I suggested that these "unrelated" incidents - armbands, plaques on walls, red doors, may have been a pilot scheme to identify asylum seekers and where they were living - no more than that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 12:19 PM

"and he clearly refers to it as government policy in the others without needing to use the phrase.
Where have I ever accused the Government of persecution - on the contrary
07 Feb 16 - 08:00 PM
"Governments who describe themselves as 'democratic' don't 'persecute' - they don't have to - they have the power of the State to keep them warm."
"I suggested that these "unrelated" incidents - armbands, plaques on walls, red doors, may have been a pilot scheme to identify asylum seekers and where they were living - no more than that.
Immigration, particularly the numbers of asylum seekers in need of assistance, has become a political issue, and the latter have become perfect election fodder.
Come a dodgy by-election, or another crisis brought on by bankers giving themselves over-generous bonuses, or more MPs claiming expenses for yet more duck-palaces.... what better than our Tess May standing up and saying - "we're going to do something about all those cadgers-cum-security-threats"?"
You and your friend have been caught lying - lay down - you're dead
Now will you piss off

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 11:48 AM

Rag, he did use the term in one of the quotes, and he clearly refers to it as government policy in the others without needing to use the phrase.
His meaning is quite clear however much you pretend that you can not see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 11:46 AM

"In all these quotes Jim,"
Now you are a stupidly lying unless you believe that being tagged is persecution - in which case both the government and the firm are guilty of persecution - is that what you are saying?
You have defended the use of armbands and the plaques - in which case, you are defending persecution - is that what you are saying?
The Government has actually forced the removal of the tags and the plaques.
If either is the case - you are supporting persecution - plain and simple
You are deliberately twisting my words to make them something I have never suggested and do not believe - the stupid this is you are doing so obviously.
Leave it Keith - this is just another of your justifications for your dishonesty
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 11:45 AM

It is encouraging that Jim now does not accuse the government of deliberately persecuting, or encouraging the persecution, of migrants, distancing himself from Steve who has let stand his view that "we are being softened up to hate immigrants by a nasty, racist Tory government."

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 11:41 AM

Again, where has Jim used the term, government policy. As far as I can make out he hasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 11:29 AM

Rag, he says he believes that the policy comes from "higher up" than the agents who paint the doors and provide the bands for welfare.

He refers to "government policy."

He says, "these have been pilot schemes for future identification of all asylum seekers, "
Local agents would hardly be piloting such a scheme for all asylum seekers in the country. Who would order such a scheme but government?

He says, "The armbands have nothing to do with benefits - they are to identify the wearers as asylum seekers whenever they appear in public"
which would have to be a national policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 11:13 AM

So where is a reference to government policy?

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 11:05 AM

- where have I ever suggested that it was Government policy to PERSECUTE ASYLUM SEEKERS


In all these quotes Jim,

"These doors were equivalent to hanging signs up and saying "To any right wing thus who happens to be in the vicinity - I am an asylum seeker - please feel free to vandalise my home". "

"the continuing singling out of asylum seekers for racist persecution and attacks."

"Personally, I believe that the red front doors are not unconnected to the now abandoned 'yellow-star type' armbands and goes higher up than landlord's policy, but that's me."

"The armbands have nothing to do with benefits - they are to identify the wearers as asylum seekers whenever they appear in public"

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 10:43 AM

Another aspect of this squalid affair; from yesterday's Times
Jim Carroll

Asylum Wristband Row Company Pays Chief £1m
Dominic Kennedy

A company that forced asylum seekers to wear red wristbands is to be summoned before parliament after it was disclosed that one of its directors is being paid nearly £1 million.
Clearsprings, which is contracted by the Home Office to look after immigrants, was criticised for requiring the bands to be worn in exchange for meals.
Company records show that its highest paid director is receiving £960,000 a year. Clearsprings is owned by the brothers Graham and Jeff King, of south Essex. Several years ago it was at the centre of complaints over its plans to set up bail hostels.
The company dropped a policy of forcing asylum seekers in Cardiff to wear the wristbands. Now MPs are furious that the company is making big profits and paying fat-cat boardroom salaries.
Clearsprings Ready Homes made £3million on a turnover of £29million, according to company filings.
Its parent company Clearsprings (Management) nearly trebled pay for its three-man board from £494, 000 to £1. 3 million. The company also disclosed that HMRC was conducting an
inquiry into its tax affairs.
The Mail on Sunday reported that Clearsprings was housing asylum seekers at a hotel near Gatwick where they had to eat away from other guests.
Keith Vaz, chairman of the home affairs committee, said of the company:
"We will be calling them in." MPs had warned the home secretary, Theresa May, about the agreements, he said.
"The situation regarding Clearsprings is most concerning. There have been numerous complaints which ought to have alerted the Home Office.
The taxpayer needs value for money, not to be ripped off by providers providing an inadequate service, " he added He said the committee would question James Brokenshire, the immigration minister, when he appears before MPs tomorrow. Stephen Doughty, the
Labour MP, has secured a debate on asylum contracts this week.
Clearsprings did not respond.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 10:41 AM

Yes, yes, Carroll you are morally superior to Keith et al and you have, once again saved the persecuted from the scourge of government racism. You are a true hero and your name, like that of Don Quixote, will be legend.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 10:18 AM

"No. I quoted you verbatim."
You did not Keith - this was your claim
"There is certainly nothing to judtify Jim's claim that this local arrangement represents a government policy to persecute asylum seekers!
- where have I ever suggested that it was Government policy to PERSECUTE ASYLUM SEEKERS
I neither said that, notr do I believe it, as my reply pointed out.
I believe that it was "possibly" a trying out of tagging asylum seekers with a possible view to expanding it to all immigrants, or at least those who have arrived recently.
If you can find one hint of persecution - put it up - don't expect for a minute you are prepared to withdraw it.
You and Ake have made a fine art of rewriting what people say to suit yourselves.
"There may be to this than meets the eye - the Government has been aware of this for four years."
As I said before - not a word of "persecution"
Cameron did describe them as a swarm - are you suggesting he did not?
Again - not a word of "persecution" - you appear to be linking Cameron's words with persecution - not me.
What the **** are you putting something written by Steve up for - I didn't say it - you've already been told about this.
Wriggling - malicious or just plain stupid - or what?
I certainly believe the Government are prepared to use immigrants to will elections - so are many other politicians - that is cynicism, not racism, in my opinion.
Now put up or shut up Keith and stop exposing yourself to more ridicule
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 09:57 AM

Jim,
Keith's already tried rewriting what I actually said and failed miserably

No. I quoted you verbatim.
You did suggest, as Ake also mentioned, that this was a conspiracy by a racist government to persecute migrants, and Steve likewise.

In fact it was a short lived story that was of no import and soon dealt with.
The Chicken Littles both wildly over-reacted and the sky is still in place.

Here are the quotes again,

"There may be to this than meets the eye - the Government has been aware of this for four years."

"explaining away the attacks by putting them down to Government policy - Britain has a shameful record of racism - Moseley, N.F., BNP, and now Ukip - all major players in British politics
Now they are targeting asylum seekers and you are supporting them."

"It is extreme paranoia to imagine a government conspiracy in any of this."
Yeah - sure it is - we have imagined that Cameron has just described alylum seekers as a "swarm" (insects, maybe)
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that these have been pilot schemes for future identification of all asylum seekers, and, if them, why not all immigrants?

(Steve)
"I think we are being softened up to hate immigrants by a nasty, racist Tory government..... The fact that we can even be having a discussion about marking out asylum seekers as separate by painting their doors a certain colour or making them wear wristbands is testament to the fact that the cynical softening up is working on the more bigoted and feeble-minded among us. These things are not debatable in my opinion. "

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 09:35 AM

"Cuts too close to home, does it Carroll?"
Might do if you actually had something to say Troll (or should I say Brucie?) - your literary flair is somewhat distinctive.
Still happy to hear what you have to say - go on - force yourself - no? - didn't think so
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 09:29 AM

The same goes for our somewhat cowardly anonymous guest

Cuts too close to home, does it Carroll?

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 07:46 AM

"If so, you're as daft as Jim."
If I'm "daft" it should be relatively easy to disprove what I say - instead you throw stones from afar.
You have the situation as it stands at present, you have the damage done to human beings who already have enough to cope with - instead of name-calling, why not just respond to that directly without telling lies - easy-peasy as that.
The same goes for our somewhat cowardly anonymous guest - why not creep out from under your bridge and give us the benefit of your opinion?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Feb 16 - 07:33 AM

The mention of TV licences reminds me of an incident many years ago. There was a knock on my door, the chap said according to our records you don't have a TV licence. Your records are correct says I. Why don't you have one says he. I don't need one, I don't have a television. He asked if he could come in my house and have a look. He was told to bugger off. He said I think you have a television. Why says I, because you have an aerial. Hmmmmmm I whipped up my polo shirt and said I've got nipples but I don't bloody use them. The look on his face was well worth it.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: GUEST,Aggiornamento
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 11:29 PM

Yellow Stars (Jude) and arm-bands (Mussulmen) both indicate the individuals respect for what is sacred. They do compare.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 07:30 PM

Do you seriously think that is racial prejudice?

Yes I do think it is. And I am not daft, neither is Jim, I'm already an adult, and less than six hours ago you told us that you don't believe in personal abuse, as a tactic it always fails in the face of reason. You appear to have a short memory.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 06:59 PM

"Jim, The reason I am not responding to you, is that I just don't understand what you are getting at by accusing me of supporting racism."
Youve had what you said put to you - you don't even res[pond to that.
You have not acknowledged the harm that these armbands, the plaques and the front doors have had on asylum seekers - your response is to appease the attacks made on them - now condemnation of the attacks - don't have to ask what side you are on.
You have deliberately misrepresented what I have said, that is simply lying - which makes you what you are.
How would it be if I asked you if you'd had a visit from the R.S.P.C.A. lately?
Wouldn't do that because that would be lowering myself to your level.
Are you still contemplating becoming a Christian - just wondered?
"Out of interest, Steve: what about your tv licence? your driving licence"
Still comparing apples with artichokes Mike - you know as well as we do that they don't bear comparison (you've had the identity card wish-list), yet you stay as silent as Ake.
Another dinner party where the spoon is too short.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 06:55 PM

It would seem that there are some who are so desperate to flaunt their perceived moral superiority that they have to create victims in order to ride to their defense. They are well represented here on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 06:20 PM

What is wrong with "these people" in reference to asylum seekers or any other particular group of human beings?

Do you seriously think that is racial prejudice?
If so, you're as daft as Jim.
Why don't "you people" grow up?

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 06:02 PM

I just don't understand what you are getting at by accusing me of supporting racism.

.....these people are seeking asylum, they will be receiving benefits, food, and a newly refurbished house, something our own young people can only dream about.

There's clearly quite a lot that you don't understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 04:28 PM

Jim, The reason I am not responding to you, is that I just don't understand what you are getting at by accusing me of supporting racism.

As far as I am concerned there was nothing wrong with the colour of the doors, the house number plates, or the wristbands.....these people are seeking asylum, they will be receiving benefits, food, and a newly refurbished house, something our own young people can only dream about.   Try to get a grip on reality, the media sniffed a human rights story and dived in feet first....rather than take them on as they should have done, the housing agencies backed down.

Nothing to do with right and wrong....just the latest example of who controls this country.....the stinking media and the fools who follow them.    and politically motivated people on internet forums of course :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 03:34 PM

Out of interest, Steve: what about your tv licence? your driving licence? Do you think it unnecessary that we should all have our births registered, and have birth certificates issued? Which of the various documents which over the years have become regarded as necessary, so that they are taken for granted [but why should we all have birth certificates?, just ask yourself, if you are to be consistent] would you abolish? And, following on from that, why is it so unthinkable to you that any new ones might ever be added to their number? I frankly do not think you are being right bright about this. To hear you tell it, all the extant ones are OK, but any additions would be a tyrannical assault on the very basis of your civil liberties! And surely you can see that your "without good reason" in your final sentence is an unconscionable begging of the question -- in the true petitio principii sense.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 01:51 PM

Are you really going to walk away from you accusation Ake?
Suppose you are - why break the habit of a lifetime?
Confirmation enough for me though
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 12:52 PM

Steve, "Team Musket" is not a conspiracy theory, unless you haven't been paying attention to what the people who post under that username have been saying.

I wonder how you would have dealt with their charges of having a criminal record, vicious personal stuff about your wife's medical treatment, and insults in nearly every post
I have remained cool and reasonable while they vent their hatred on all who dare to hold different views.
I don't believe in personal abuse, as a tactic it always fails in the face of reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 12:03 PM

Do not accuse me of not being very bright, Michael, when you are deliberately trying to miss the point. I am talking about, in the spirit of the thread's topic, being obliged to carry documentation around with me. I have no objection to having to HAVE a bus pass, driving licence, railcard, passport, birth certificate, telly licence, Eden Project Locals' Pass, credit card, debit card, Nectar card, MyWaitrose card, or any other card or document. The address book on my iPhone instantly identifies me (my choice). If I want a particular service, such as to get into the Eden Project without having to pay extra, I expect to have to show my entitlement. But none of these items are permanently affixed to my person and I can't be arrested simply for not having them with me. That's how it should be. I may need my birth certificate to get a new passport but I don't have to carry it round with me. I don't have to show my telly licence to any old Tom, Dick, or Harry who knocks on the door asking for it. I want to see a warrant that states that I'm suspected of having an unlicensed telly first, and even then I can't be punished just because I can't find it. I don't even expect to be asked for my driving licence unless a policeman suspects me of committing a driving offence, and even then I have several days to produce it. That's what "with good reason" means, Michael, open to abuse of course, but that's the real world. I'm not going to a holiday venue that tries to force me to wear a wristband. Asylum seekers allowed into this country have a human right to receive food. We do not have the moral right to force them to wear non-removable, stigmatising, humiliating wristbands in order to receive it. They've been humiliated enough as it is. In all of this long, rambling, patient post, Michael, there are only two key words, obliged and non-removable. Try to hang on to them and act a little more bright.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 11:18 AM

"What has all this to do with Jim's theory that they whole shemozzle is being engineered by the govt and the housing services to make it easier for thugs to harass the asylum seekers."
Pleawse4 stop misrepresenting what I said - my offer to your favourite charity still stands if you can show I ever said such a thing.
I said it was possibly a part of a pilot scheme to test identity cards for immigrants - no more.
The thuggery that you are defending (by ignoring, if nothing else) was a natural outcome - not an intention.
Keith's already tried rewriting what I actually said and failed miserably - why not try a little honest debate for a change - your dishonesty only serves to underline the weakness of your argument.
I don't claim to be an advocate for anything Mike - I put a list of rights I once had that have disappeared, you, in your wisdom and attitude to fair play, choose to ignore them.
Your desire to learn my politics became reminiscent of nagging.
"Who has suggested any such thing? "
Well - Michael Howard did actually:
These were his proposals for identity cards
"The introduction of the scheme was much debated, and various degrees of concern about the scheme were expressed by human rights lawyers, activists, security professionals and IT experts, as well as politicians. Many of the concerns focused on the databases underlying the identity cards rather than the cards themselves. The Act specified fifty categories of information that the National Identity Register could hold on each citizen,[1] including up to 10 fingerprints, digitised facial scan and iris scan, current and past UK and overseas places of residence of all residents of the UK throughout their lives and indexes to other Government databases (including National Insurance Number[2]) – which would allow them to be connected. The legislation on this resident register also said that any further information could be added.[3]
The legislation further said that those renewing or applying for passports must be entered on to the NIR. It was expected that this would happen soon after the Identity and Passport Service (IPS), which was formerly the UK Passport Service, started interviewing passport applicants to verify their identity.[4]"
Your rather unpleasant summing up of my character is rather difficult to deal with - it's somewhat like the rest of your gang, who don't actually involve themselves in debate, but make general snideswipes - rather like wrestling fog.
Perhaps if we concentrated on what each other actually said instead of our assumption of each others politics, we might retain the somewhat tenuous respect we have for each other (speaking for myself of course)
Yours as ever
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 10:46 AM

Out of interest, Steve: what about your tv licence? your driving licence? Do you think it unnecessary that we should all have our births registered, and have birth certificates issued? Which of the various documents which over the years have become regarded as necessary, so that they are taken for granted [but why should we all have birth certificates?, just ask yourself, if you are to be consistent] would you abolish? And, following on from that, why is it so unthinkable to you that any new ones might ever be added to their number? I frankly do not think you are being right bright about this. To hear you tell it, all the extant ones are OK, but any additions would be a tyrannical assault on the very basis of your civil liberties! And surely you can see that your "without good reason" in your final sentence is an unconscionable begging of the question -- in the true petitio principii sense.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 09:51 AM

Like when you keep burbling on about "team Musket" for example? You're a laugh a minute, aren't you?

Michael. I am the last person to worry about whatever dire secrets about me might be revealed. If I have any at all, they've been kept secret from me! My point is simply one of principle. I live in this state but I am not beholden to it. As long as I keep the laws that are there to protect my freedoms and the freedoms of everyone else and pay my taxes, I should be free to be as public or as secretive as I please. That excludes random people "in authority" from demanding my ID without good reason, and it excludes obliging me to carry ID.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 09:04 AM

What has all this to do with Jim's theory that they whole shemozzle is being engineered by the govt and the housing services to make it easier for thugs to harass the asylum seekers.
Wristbands v cards is arguable. Door paint on public property is almost always uniform. Number plates on houses are all usually one colour.    Conspiracy theories are not worth discussing.

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 08:56 AM

"forced to carry a card that not only identifies you but which also contains comprehensive information about you"

.,,.

Who has suggested any such thing? Why assume that if such a document were required to be carried it would be bound to give such information? Its content, once the wisdom of some form of identification being a useful thing for any citizen to carry had been agreed, would be a matter of debate. Why for crying out loud are you all so paranoid as to what dire secrets of your existence it would inevitably reveal?   But it would make sense if it just showed your name, address, next of kin, blood group...

Jim would, I daresay, claim to be an advocate of freedom of speech -- in his dreams. Why, just have the nerve to suggest that one of his ogres might have had something to be said for them; then wind him up and set him down & listen to him go! I didn't have to 'mount any campaigns' to find out your politics, Jim. I simply pointed out that your statements made them appear to tend more leftwards than otherwise. It was your own incurable paranoia that made you think that meant that I cared a flying piggiturd which stinking bloody party you might belong to. I couldn't give a flying one if you are a member of the Martian Independence From Jupiter Party...

Subject: RE: BS: Beats yellow stars, I suppose!!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 08:21 AM

Michael, I am not so secretive, etc. etc. fer chrissake, I'm one of the most identifiable and trackable people here for a start. Whenever I'm out and about, like most people I have items about my person that would identify me within seconds. That is not the same thing as being forced to carry a card that not only identifies you but which also contains comprehensive information about you, and it's not the same as being forced to wear a non-removable wristband. Why, if I wanted to, I could stroll around Bude all day on a summer's day with nothing but a pair of swimming trunks and no personal possessions on me whatsoever (down, girls). That is exactly how it should be in a free country. The state does not own me and no-one has the right to control me as long as I operate within the law. Whether it's wise is completely beside the point. I have the choice, that's the point.