Influx of far-right posters

[Slightyamusedandsilly]

Why has the site suddenly had an influx of far-right posters? Almost overnight.

Is this a concerted campaign by the black shirts from Dover, Reform or Tommy ten names to infiltrate women's SM?

I posted that media bias check post. I also posted about calibration, and how a couple of points either way does not really matter. I made a few posts about it all, put a fair bit of effort in too, not that that matters.

So, do you have any links to bias sites that rate the BBC as you do ?

I think its both. Hitchens because the burden of proof lies with you. Occams because if you don't provide it the simplest explanation, that you may not have it, is the one most likely to be correct. Philosophically speaking of course.

It’s fine, don’t link if you don’t want to.

I have just read that Badenoch has praised the man with the crutch and said that "the protestor asked for it. Women should know not to antagonise people".😲

I won't be posting any links to back up my assertion, though, as it seems we can now make up any old crap and expect to to be believed with no evidence required. Happy days.

It is. Here's his post.

Whether it's bots, orchestrated targeting or traditional mumsnet users deciding they're sick of the Government failing to deal with small boats is somewhat irrelevant. The ADF just won massively in Germany on the back of anti-immigrant rhetoric. People are dismissing those voicing anti-immigrant views as thick racists. That worked so well during the Brexit referendum. I suggest if you really care about protecting immigrants you come up with some very good arguments for what has been happening. Refusing to debate or just hurling insults isn't going to work. Over on the Feminism boards we've been politely dismantling the arguments and insults of trans activists for years. People wander on, see the discussion and make a decision based on the arguments set out in front of them. I suggest you do the same.

Yeh I like the feminism board. A less skewed mix of politics.

I pointed that one out yesterday. But to suggest a bias checking organisation has got something wrong just demonstrates our own bias apparently.

That would only really work as a parallel if there were people on here calling for more immigration, more small boats and more HMOs. I don't see any of that here, do you?
People speaking up when they think concern for immigration has crossed into racism are not immigrants rights activists who want to convince other people we need more immigrants and are bad at arguing their case.
Nor are they people who need you to educate them on why immigration is problematic by demolishing their pro immigration arguments. Because they're not making any.
The arguments are against racism not for immigration.

Agree. And there’s proof that there was American money behind the recent Dover protests. And again American money from far right donors for the recent Anti abortion protests in London last weekend. The same groups that overturned Roe and Wade.

Musk has flown Robinson to Russia this year so his money and influence is behind it too.

Then there is the concerted effort via social media to tell our young teenage boys that girls should be serving them in life, putting their needs and interests first. That a good wife should be serving her husband. And all linked to the tradwife movement. All linked to that ‘even the poorest man can have a maid via marriage’ paraphrased message from Steinem.

Then Reforms plans to exit EHCR and a lot of the protections that women benefit from. It’s all very depressing.

Are you sure it's about racism? I've seen gay men say they don't want mass immigration from cultures which believe homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. Is that racist? Do people start believing in the values of the culture of their new country as soon as they set foot in it? Or do they bring their cultural beliefs with them? I don't have answers to these questions but I do think people need to be able to voice their concerns and have discussions without being shut down and accused of racism. For me, that's what a discussion forum is for. Actual racism is against site guidelines and can be reported.

Not every poster who is concerned about immigration is racist. Most people are concerned about it in some form or another. You will be highly unlikely to find anyone saying "Bring in more boats".
With that in mind, imo it's rather unecessary to keep going on about 'unvetted fighting age from misogynist cultures'. These are neither new arguments or ones that have not been heard. Nor is it necessary to add in lots of hyperbole about Islam.
I think its safe to say we all want to stop the boats. The question now is how.
I don't think we get any closer to understanding the different options by constantly repeating that we need to stop the boats (do we? You should have said!) because of this negative stereotype or that, demonising the people on the boats.

We want to stop the boats. How do we do that?

Take a look at where has. Plus see what happens with the French election.

The Danish model is interesting.

I discussed calibration too. And how a few points either side do not matter.

And I said, as I just said above, again, that if you disagree with the bias check I posted, that you are totally free to post a bias check that agrees with what you think.

I do try to compose my posts in such a way that I try to explain my reasoning, and if you disagree with my reasoning then please say so. Because when you say, quote : "But to suggest a bias checking organisation has got something wrong just demonstrates our own bias apparently.", it does come across as handwaving away.

Here is a bit more reasoning from me. If a bias check site is miles out and is totally wrong, then surely all, or most of, the other bias check sites will have different check results ?

That’s already been sold in as underpinning Mahmood’s policies. There was a good post on the differences, we’ll see how it goes.

I'll try and find that, thanks.

I haven't seen the other discussions but I would think asking questions like yours could produce a constructive dialogue. I would hope Mumsnet would shut down racism. However, saying you don't like the tenets of a religion isn't racism. I'm grateful every day that I live in a democratic country where people are allowed to worship as they please as long as they don't take away the rights of others and criticising any religion is allowed. I'm concerned that the thread title: 'Influx of far right posters' is putting everyone voicing concern into a box and dismissing them out of hand rather than taking time to engage with the concerns and discuss solutions.

If you can't/won't provide any evidence then we can all reasonably assume that the incident never took place. Without proof it's just some random claim.

Is Mahmood going to be able to deliver?
Or is she going to talk tough but get her plans weakened by the backbenchers?

I don't think it is a realistic solution to "stop the boats". If illegal migrants choose to get on a dinghy and try to cross the channel, then other than sinking them and causing massive and unacceptable loss of life then there really is not a lot you can do.

Instead the better model would be to reduce the incentive for coming to the UK in the first place. Things involves a number of actions such as reducing the "black unregulated economy ", that all migrants that enter the UK illegally are never able to settle permanently, active deportation of illegal migrants starting with those that have committed crimes in the UK and within that group those guilty of sex crimes first. Illegal migrants to be held in accommodation dispersed across the UK including affluent areas.

For all the criticism of the US in the two years of their policies against illegal migration (which attracted a lot of criticism) , the US has seen a fall from 2.2 million illegal migrants in 2022 to 235k last year and is set to be less than 100k this year.

The question is are you prepared to tolerate deportation of illegal migrants for a period of time in order to remove the incentive for illegal migration. And if not then what other disincentive is there?

I think you are fundamentally right in what you say.

Would detaining people while they wait for their cases to be decided help? They don’t need to be in prison, but it feels odd that they are at liberty, they have entered illegally.

There is, if you look at Australia it had the same problem, which they stopped.

I didn't say it was miles out and totally wrong. I said one of its sources was a very poor choice, and also that an organisation the size of the BBC cannot be meaningfully bias checked as a whole.

The bias check is for the news. That is all. I also mentioned that in an above post. A bias check is not checking Songs of Praise or Eastenders. Just the news. And that is what matters here.

And all UK TV news has OFCOM rules on impartially to follow. Rules that Youtube channels etc don't need to follow.

Re the Good Law project reference part you mention. The bias check site is listing the major claims of bias. It is not saying if they are right or wrong. It is just listing claims made. It mentions claims that Trump made. That does not mean it supports Trump.

And there is this in the report, with links

"In past reporting, the BBC has been criticized by both the political right and left. Notable examples include the Evening Standard and The Times of London."

Again, they are not saying what is right or wrong. They are listing some of the claims made.

That is how it is supposed to work. They look at the claims of bias, throw all those claims in a pot, and see what the mix looks like. Then publish their bias score.

So when you say, quote "one of its sources was a very poor choice,", no, it's actually not. It's a bias check site. Do you really think they don't know if claimants might be biased or not ? It all goes in the pot.