To hate what he says but he has a right to say it

[Tamponlady]

I think Donald trump is a dick but he has a right to be ones huge one also this shit with the furey guy

This is becoming like 1981 the thought police

People don't like gays and they are racist if we don't tackle these people and simply try to shut them up they feed of there sence of grievance

You allow people to dig their own grave when you shut people up some may wonder why maybe have have somthing to say the chattering class don't want to hear let them talk and we all realise it's bull shit

Nick griffin is a prime example for years people were not allowing the BNP a platform the Bbc were lambasted for letting him on its the best thing they ever done they emploded before the fateful night there base was growing because no one heard them some actually thought they were respectable

The personality of the year award will sort itself out if people think
fury is a twant they won't vote for him

I hate what you say but defend you right to say it you don't stop people being anti gay or rasict because you keep them quiet

Mr trump wants to ban Muslims from the USA because he dosnet like what they stand for so in turn we want to ban him because we don't like what he stands for let him come and we can tell him what a fuck wit he is

To an extent, it appears that the abuse of women and children in Rotherham is now being framed in such a way as to feed a racist agenda. Yes, the abusers were mostly Asian men, but a major factor in the abuse being allowed to continue as long as it did was the belief that the girls were all lying little scrubbers and fuckups who couldn't be believed, and that what happened to them didn't actually matter, because they were only slutty, uncontrollable teenagers (just like all the other 'uncontrollable' teenage girls who are being persistently abused by adult men in positions of power.) Blaming this abuse so squarely on evil left-wing councillors and their 'anti-racist agendas' is a little bit dodgy.

Brass, go and read the Jay report. For a start, all the men involved were Asian. I believe all except two Afghanis were Pakistani.

Nobody accused the girls of lying. They were perfectly aware that sex was happening, they just refused to prosecute (or even arrest) and ignored the crimes.

But aside from that two reports have explicitly said that the cover ups and inaction were based on fear of accusations of racism, damaging 'community cohesion'. It's not just me saying it, it's something that's been officially sanctioned a number of times.

Anyway, we're talking about this in the context of whether people should be allowed to say, or the press to report, things which don't conform to certain people's belief systems or touch on sacred cows which some people consider verboten for discussion. And in that context, yes, Rotherham is a perfect example of why forbidding the discussion of certain things based on the assumption that certain groups must be protected at all costs (even at the expense of abused children) is dangerous.

I agree with you 100% that banning discussion or the airing of 'unpopular' viewpoints is harmful, but fear of racism wasn't the only issue in Rotherham

Thank you, TurkeyisMassive and others, for keeping up the good fight!

Everyone now knows exactly what happened in Rotherham and why it was allowed to continue for so long. And Rotherham wasn't the only place that this type of disgusting criminal behavior occurred. Except for the better-late-than-never freedom of the press/speech that still manages to exist, no one would ever have learned about these crimes or about the massive cover up. Those who fear freedom of the press/speech do not care about these girls, and they don't mind lying about the facts -- as evidenced above. They only care about their own agendas. And the pathetic failure of reasoning and logic shown in these posts which attempt to explain why free speech should be curtailed (as well as why the media should be controlled) is mind-boggling and just so disheartening.

Fear of being accused of racism was the only issue in Rotherham. The fact that many of the victims were voiceless and, therefore, could be ignored without fear of reprisal by those who have sworn to protect the public was merely convenient as it allowed law enforcement and all the rest of the gutless toads to do nothing. The fact that these girls were of a lower class facilitated turning a blind eye, but that wasn't the reason. Officials didn't want to get their hands dirty by investigating and prosecuting crimes that could bring upon their heads cries of racism and non-inclusion. There was no other issue. Just another example of the progressive left's hierarchy of priorities and multiculturalism trumps feminism! The feminist coterie should have made this a women's rights issue long, long before the general public finally became aware of it, but they didn't.

For a start, I'm not particularly convinced that an article on somewhere called 'left futures' is going to provide the most non-partisan assessment of events in Rotherham. Or by Diane Abbott who has a vested interest in defending the types of attitudes which led to Rotherham because she has spent most of her life promoting them. But that article is way off the mark in a lot of ways. If the abuse was about misogyny and the patriarchy, then surely we would be looking at rape and abuse being ignored across the board in Rotherham? And it wasn't, it was just specifically when committed by men of one race. Race was the key factor in the cover up, it wouldn't and couldn't have happened without it.

It was very much a case of 'You can't say that'. Everybody knew it was happening, I'm in my mid-30s and people of my generation remember these girls being collected from school by these men. Big groups of them hanging around at home time hassling girls. Girls that were involved with them going missing all the time and turning up obviously under the influence of drugs and were quite open that sexual things were happening. And it was still happening when people of my generation had teenage daughters. But it couldn't be openly talked about for decades. Our local forum deleted posts and banned members if it was mentioned. The local papers wouldn't touch it. It was something discussed in hushed corners. It was an open secret. But I never, ever once heard anybody say that they feared talking about it because of misogyny or the patriarchy. It was only ever race.

You can link to Diane Abbott trying to obfuscate all you want (and remember it was her party involved in the cover up) but it doesn't change the fact that race and a feeling that difficult issues couldn't be discussed if it might reflect badly on certain communities was the primary reason for the cover up.

I would agree if socialist revolutionaries were given the same amount of airtime as fascist demagogues as Trump. But they're not so I think the public debate is becoming very skewed towards a right wing way of thinking at the moment. There are a lot of people who read shit like the Daily Mail and believe its' propaganda. It's really easy to engender hate due to fear but much harder to create a rational, evidence based discussion. Also, you have to wonder, what are the motives of pp like Donald Trump et al in spouting this shit? I find it very scary times we're living in right now and feel we're sleepwalking into something akin to fascism.

Also, these comments have real effects on people, increases in hate crime for example. You get someone powerful and influential saying shit like this and it legitimises such attacks. It's not ok.

FundraisingPTABitch -- I do not mean to criticise your parenting here but in general I would say 8 and 9 yos are too young to be watching the news or exposed to the news. There is too much that is negative, frightening, depressing, hard to explain and hard for children to process on the news, night after night.

If they do get wind of something that has happened or has been said, you can try to reassure them by reference to Mr Rogers Neighborhood's lesson -- when a disaster strikes, emphasise to children the role of the helpers, the ambulance drivers, police, firemen. When hatred or fear have been expressed, emphasise the fundamental decency of the vast majority of people and that fear expressed by one individual needs to be challenged and put into perspective.

Socialist revolutionaries get vast amounts of airtime and have for years; they just don't call themselves socialist revolutionaries! They do, however, demonize anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda by calling them fascists and wanting to charge them with hate speech or inciting hate. They lie and pretend to have all of humanity's best interests at heart, and their false concern is quite convincing, especially to those who can't or won't think for themselves. By the way, the group which has had by far the highest incidence of hate crimes perpetrated against it within Europe and the United States during recent years is that of the Jewish population, and this is increasing with each year. Why might that be? But you don't see those figures in or on the news. Why might that be?

The media began its near 24-hour-a-day coverage on Donald Trump in an attempt to discredit and ridicule him as a candidate. Everyone knows that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly comprised of liberal Democrats. Whether this tactic has worked or backfired remains to be seen.

should read "the mainstream media in the United States is overwhelmingly comprised of . . . "

So Rupert Murdoch is a 'liberal democrat'? Righty ho. I saw him as a ruthless corporatist, how could I have been so wrong?

First of all, the phrase "overwhelmingly comprised of" means just what it says, meaning very much nearly all, but not every single one. No one would be so foolish as to believe or state that every single media owner in the US is necessarily a liberal Democrat. In actuality, though, only one of the six conglomerates which control over 90% of the media could remotely be considered conservative. I brought up the media to assure those who were concerned about the dissemination of Trump's platform that the US media is certainly not promoting a new age of fascism.

Whether or not Rupert Murdoch is a ruthless corporatist or not doesn't have anything to do with this discussion, unless this discussion has suddenly veered off into a discussion of capitalism. (But then, so many who want to curtail freedom of speech also have an deep suspicion of capitalism and free enterprise.) And Rupert Murdoch has, from time to time, supported liberal Democrats and Labor parties as well as Republicans; he has, however, spoken out against socialism and against crony capitalism, the only kind of capitalism that so many progressives seem to like. You are aware, I'm sure, that there are great numbers of unsavory corporatists that support the Democratic party and upon which the Democratic party depends. Corporatism is found all along the political spectrum. Where did you get the idea that corporatism is found only on the right?

mathanxiety

I whole heartedly agree with you re:news watching. Now more than ever.