To be fed up of comparisons with 1930s Germany in U.K. politics?

[jessica29054]

Surely a better and far less potentially offensive comparison is the 1980s?

Labour in disarray, therefore weak opposition, and a female PM of course.

Comparisons with the rise of the extreme far right in Germany have little place. The BNP are the equivalent to Hitler and his party and thankfully have little mainstream support.

Oh yes the old anecdotal whine. Precisely the same whine used by misgogynists to deny sexual harassment and sex crimes. Which the sheer volume of misogynist abuse on the Internet and sites like everydaysexism.com counters

Well if the abuse is there on the internet it's demonstrable and not anecdotal isn't it? Plus what I'm disputing is a spike, not the existence of it altogether, so you're making an entirely false comparison.

As I said earlier, this sort of anecdotal evidence has more in common with the the type of story about asylum seekers routinely being given mansions and cars and higher levels of benefits. The sort of story that there is little evidence of the truth of beyond someone's word for it, but some people choose to believe them because it reinforces the views they already hold.

The police figures are clear enough: a marked and sustained rise in race hate crime.

Um, you're ignoring the bit in the article you linked to which actually said it had returned to normal within weeks. And the disclaimer from the very press release the figures were released on: 'This should not be read as a national increase in hate crime of 57% but an increase in reporting through one mechanism.'

Let's be absolutely clear, labelling someone who denies and minimises race hate crime, makes excuses for it, and comes up with spurious reasons why it's not valid is a racist

Now that statement is the absolute closest thing to nazism on this thread. You are demanding that claims which support your point of view should be allowed to stand absolutely immune from any sort of question or scrutiny purely because they support your point of view. If people point out (quite reasonable) questions over the validity of a statistic then you start throwing labels around and demonising them. Perhaps you would like someone to denounce me to and have me thrown in jail for questioning the statistic? Perhaps the multiple journalists who have also pointed out the problems with the figure? I'm sure you would if you could.

Rather than pointing out why my points are wrong you are simply stating that the conclusion I've reached is unacceptable because it doesn't fit in with your dogma. It's along the lines of someone saying 'Jews profit from the impoverishment of the German people' and someone responding 'Really, could you show me the evidence of this, because the figures I've seen don't look quite right' being told 'How dare you ask for evidence, if you can't just accept this self evident fact you must be a collaborator and sympathiser with the Jews'.

You know what I'm getting at - they wouldn't have had any real evidence to back it up or real arguments to dispute it so they would just attack the speaker for departing from their accepted ideology. Like you are.

Inability to accept the voicing of dissenting viewpoints and a desire to silence them or intimidate them into silence with abuse is absolutely the tactics the Nazis used and your attitude is exactly the same. It's ironic that people who claim to be anti-facist are the most likely to adopt their tactics in discourse.

If you believe that the issues facing many of the most vulnerable in soceity are to do with immigration then you are misguided. If only it was so simple. For example families where there is no history of employment over a number of generations. The issues in those families are complex, and tend to involve numerous different factors. Immigration would be at the bottom of a very very long list. Some of these issues were being unpicked by the work done by Sure start, Family Support. A lot of that work has stopped now.

"Sure start, Family Support." absolutely!

sorry meaning brat post bird. i have volunteered for several Sure Start centres. their work is invaluable and i agree with everything in your post.

Saw a very sad post today on FB from a friend...however much people deny get annoyed at people describing the parallels, it's those that are at the receiving end who can truly judge

This is exactly the sort of anecdotal evidence I mean. We have absolutely no idea if this person exists, let alone made the facebook post. Yet apparently we are supposed to accept this second hand report as evidence the country is descending into facism. This is the sort of thing we're supposed to rely on but apparently asking for figures from a reliable source before jumping to any conclusion is racist! Oh no, we all have to rely on 'Well my friend posted x on facebook so it must be true'.

Just to give examples: the morning after the Brexit vote there were several people on here swearing blind that they were HR reps for large UK companies and were spending the morning sending out hundreds of redundancy letters as a result of the outcome of the vote. It was fairly obvious it was untrue anyway as it ignored things like consultation periods. But it's become very clear that it was untrue because there have been absolutely no reports of major lay offs from large companies as a result of the vote. They were lying. Total outright lies.

Ditto Twitter on the couple of nights after. If you believed Twitter there was a bloodbath happening on the streets of London. Rumours of attacks were being circulated which turned out to be totally bogus.

And of course things like the tapas restaurant burglary were falsely linked to Brexit.

And all these tall tales started somewhere. People will start false rumours which they think will gain support for their position or create an impression they think will bolster it - just as they do about other things like claims about asylum seekers getting special treatment etc. People are not always honest, especially not on the internet. I'm not saying you're lying OP. I have no idea either way, but it's completely possible that you are. And I am not going to start basing my view of the world around me on second and third hand web posts when there doesn't seem to be much in the way of solid real world evidence to back it up.

But to add my own anecdotal evidence, my DH is an EU national who works in an industry which would be the most likely for him to get abuse in if much was going around. He hasn't noticed any problems, neither have my other foreign family members. DH's foreign colleagues are generally unworried. But those who are concerned aren't concerned because they've had abuse or been told they're unwelcome - they're concerned because remainers have told them that they should be feeling unwelcome and telling them that people don't want them here and they're going to throw them out.

But then, that's just my anecdotal evidence. I suppose a few of you will disbelieve it purely on the basis that you assess the worth of evidence based on how much it chimes with your own views but, hey ho.

Um, you're ignoring the bit in the article you linked to which actually said it had returned to normal within weeks

It didn't say anything of the sort, it said that the level of increase dipped within weeks but the levels still remained signficantly higher than same dates in the previous year.

Moreover it highlighted that the UN highlighted that the problem of underreporting hate crime persists in Britain.

Indeed the UN committee for elimination of racial discrimination commented on the "divisive, anti-immigrant and xenophobic rhetoric" of the referendum campaign. And added: "The committee remains concerned that despite the recent increase in the reporting of hate crimes, the problem of underreporting persists, and the gap between reported cases and successful prosecution remains significant."

(This quote is not taken from the article.)

You are a salutary example that an everyday racism.com website is a now a necessity.

I will not read your reply. I will not engage with racists. You genuinely disgust me.

BillSykesDog, keep smashing their smashing Gloria's intellectual drivel out of the park. It's mighty entertaining.

"This is exactly the sort of anecdotal evidence I mean"

Oh come on billy this is a discussion board, not a call for scientific papers.

Interesting that someone who seems to be pro brexit and who is going on and on about giving ordinary citizens a voice (e.g. the referendum, the people have spoken etc. etc.) seeks to discredit people's experiences, which they share as stories online or by talking with their friends. People talking about being racially abused or asked to 'go home' because they have accents are not giving 'evidence' they are incidentally not in court nor are they making a scientific argument. They are sharing their experiences. We don't know if these are true as we don't know if anything on the internet is true, as we don't know if you are truthful bill. You either take it at face value or question it but please come off it with that anecdotal evidence. Life is full of people's stories and experiences, we are not giving evidence nor are we seeking to.

and.. obviously the whole brexit ant-foreigner narratives is full of 'anecdotal' evidence e.g. those 15 Poles that moved next door.

Just read through this and the last couple of comments are intriguing me. I the whole point of this to whip people up into a frenzy, seeing stuff that may or may not be there?

My DH is from EU and he has not yet been told to go home? Maybe he should feel left out? None of his EU national workmates have been told either. I shall make sure I tell him when he gets in from work then it will all tally with everything everyone is saying here...

How about this, then for evidence of anti-foreigner sentiment, not even among the wilder fringes of the population but at the heart of government:

Foreign Academics being prevented from contributing to expert briefings on Brexit and Article 50

The comparisons between the 30s and now are accurate, the hate crimes against immigrants are rising, and are confirmed to be lasting:

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/07/hate-surged-after-eu-referendum-police-figures-show

Shaming firms that employ immigrants, banning academics from working on things because they weren't born here.

Spouting spurious nonsense about taking British jobs ( it doesnt: www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration)

The press demonising immigrants and blaming them for the ills of the country, 1 in every 5 Mail and Sun front pages did this for 6 months up to the referendum.

Its accurate, there are parallels.

Denying it is simply to do the same that many Germans did at the time.

But I'm assuming the government still does use a range of foreign nationals for all sorts of consultations? So they have not said at any point we are not going to employ any foreign nationals on anything? So there is not any all encompassing anti-foreigner feeling across the board?

My experience is that many Brits and foreign nationals are still getting on with our lives, just like we did before. I remember when my DH went back after the referendum (we were on holiday over the vote period) he expected kind of a lot of hostility etc. There was absolutely none. Still is none. And there are a lot of foreign nationals at his work and a lot of Brits. But they are all colleagues, and many are friends.

Might that be different in the naming and shaming policy comes in?

It didn't say anything of the sort, it said that the level of increase dipped within weeks but the levels still remained signficantly higher than same dates in the previous year.

But it also said: We have seen continued decreases in reports of hate crimes to forces and these reports have now returned to formerly seen levels for 2016.

Moreover it highlighted that the UN highlighted that the problem of underreporting hate crime persists in Britain.

That's completely irrelevant. As I said before, we're discussing a supposed spike. A spike would be unaffected negatively by under reporting as the under reporting would have stayed at a similar level so the comparison in terms of rise would not be affected.

I will not read your reply. I will not engage with racists. You genuinely disgust me.

Fair dos, can't make you. But just on the off chance you are, you've made yourself look absolutely absurd.

I've disputed a statistics with some criticism which have been fairly widely made, I've pointed out that all the research shows that UK public opinion is generally in favour of immigration but with stricter controls to direct it towards the right places, noted some aspects of the UK political systems that protect against a dictator and pointed out the limited value of anecdotal evidence. You have responded as though I have suggested that we march off anybody without a British passport to a gas chamber!

I really barely even have to argue against you as you are making very clear from your own posts that you're not being very rational and your responses are rather overwrought and exaggerated verging on paranoia and you seem determined to label even very mild dissent from your own dogma as racism or fascism. I think most people reading this who aren't cut from the same cloth as you will get from your own posts that you're a little over excitable on this subject and not to be taken seriously.

Oh come on billy this is a discussion board, not a call for scientific papers.

and.. obviously the whole brexit ant-foreigner narratives is full of 'anecdotal' evidence e.g. those 15 Poles that moved next door.

You've contradicted yourself their green, in a way which exactly backs up the point I was making. You're sneering at '15 Poles next door' types of anecdotal evidence while at the same time implying that anecdotal evidence that backs you up should be accepted unquestioningly. So you're applying different standards of credibility depending on whether or not you like the message it gives. So you would challenge a fifteen Poles story but you accept stories about attacks related to Brexit.

The examples I gave earlier of Iraqis getting mansions were deliberately ridiculous and far fetched. But interestingly the one you've chosen is actually much more factual and can be backed up by other evidence. A quick google shows several academic studies which show that overcrowded substandard accommodation is very much a problem for recent migrants from EU ascension states. Which rather backs up my point about judging reliability on whether or not you like the message it sends, don't you think?

This whole anti-foreigner thing is getting weirder by the day. Latest news is that the government will not take advice on Brexit from foreign academics at the LSE, even if they are living and working in the UK, and even (apparently) if they have dual UK nationality.

But I'm assuming the government still does use a range of foreign nationals for all sorts of consultations?

See my post above.

Got to wonder how long Carney can remain in his job.

*there

BillSykesDog : you don't need to believe me. It is indeed anecdotal - in the sense that it is one person and not part of a set of anonymised data. Doesn't make it any less true though - or sad for the person concerned. I know it is true. You can continue to stick your head in the sand just as some Germans did

Likewise the sending out of redundancy notices. I have been through a mass redundancy when the company I worked for was taken over by one of our competitors - and was myself made redundant. The sending out of the "notification of being at risk" to those involved, to those involved feels the same as - and in almost every single case, the end result was, being made redundant. Given that my specific job consisted almost entirely of a strategic role selling to that competitor, no amount of consultation was going to change the fact that the raison d'etre for that role had disappeared. That's not to say I didn't spend the notice period looking for alternative roles - and I even worked one month into my 3 month's "pay in lieu of notice" as there was the sniff of a different role yes, I was a mug

Nonsense Billy

I am merely pointing out double standards. I am happy to read any kind of stories and contradict theme when I see fit. I just think calling peoples' shared stories anecdotal evidence is silly as none here looking for evidence that is the point i tried to make. We here the'15 poles next door' stories and i was told to 'fuck off home today' stories. Both are legitimate and posters can challenge them or agree with them as they see fir. It's just silly to call it pseudo evidence when no-one is setting out to give evidence just share stuff.

If a scientific paper used these stories they be either valid or not valid depending on the research methods.

Misti I think that's common practice when it comes to matters of national security and not uncommon at all. Not just for people involved in the nuts and bolts but also just for incidental people who might see documents etc. My DH works in construction and wasn't born here and doesn't hold a British passport and wasn't born here. He's been turned away from quite a few jobs on government property on the first day, MOD, Home Office, Houses of Parliament - once even when absolutely nothing was built and it was a field of mud. Similar applies for people like cleaners and maintenance people. So if people are actually involved in negotiations then it would be even more likely.

And of course there is the question of a conflict of interest. There's a geniune espionage risk that it's our interests to protect against too. I think Nick Clegg is being disingenuous pretending he doesn't know it's standard practice.

There's a geniune espionage risk that it's our interests to protect against too

Yesterday EU citizens were executing their right to live and work here as equals tomorrow they are enemy of the state. Cool.

But Steve Peers, a professor of EU law at the University of Essex who has advised the government, said it should be “perfectly possible to get useful input from some of the best-qualified people in the country” without anything sensitive being revealed.

“I don’t really get the security or sensitivity argument,” he said. “Whatever the reasons, this will come across as hostile, narrow and xenophobic.”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/07/lse-brexit-non-uk-experts-foreign-academics

pretty, it may well be. But nobody on this board can know that apart from you. And the original point was that a poster was insisting that posts on the web were a reliable way of judging current events. They're not. Seriously, you'd have to be pretty damn credulous to accept something as true based only on the fact somebody on the internet said so without any corroborating info. I don't know what relevance your redundancy has? It doesn't change the fact that no major lay offs were reported as a result of Brexit which it would have been pretty much impossible to sneak under the radar - let alone sizeable amount which would have happened if all those posters has been telling the truth about 'sitting in tears sending out hundreds of redundancy notices'. It was bollocks. A lot of people on the web talk bollocks. Just because you like the sound of it doesn't make it less likely to be bollocks.

Green, that's ignoring the whole point of the conversation in the first place. It didn't start because of someone sharing something - it started because a poster did actually present 'evidence' in the form of the NPCC figure. Only they didn't really understand what those figures showed. I pointed out that the figures were shaky and had been widely criticised and that poster started having a bit of a tantrum saying only racists would ever even dream of pointing out problems with her claims about the figures, even though the police specifically said on the damn press release it shouldn't be used to make the extrapolations she was.

And then she said that she knew it was true because she'd seen people posting about it on the web. It was never just people sharing stuff, it was someone making claims you could unequivocally say something was true because people were writing about it on the web. Which isn't true.

Your initial post made it very clear that you disbelieved the 15 Poles next door story - you put anecdotal in inverted commas which you didn't do when referring to anecdotes of post Brexit attacks and you picked a deliberately inflated figure to make the statement look too ridiculous to be true. So I think saying that both are equally valid is a spectacular bit of back tracking because I pointed out your own double standards in accepting anecdotes about attacks whilst dismissing anecdotes about 15 Poles. So selecting information based on how much you like what it says.