UKC

Accusing a man whose wife and mother of his children was killed by a right wing extremist (who I suspect thinks Farage is the dog's danglies) of extremism:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/20/nigel-farage-accuses-jo-co...

I'm lost for words. Beyond cnut, obviously.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Checked 'Hope Not Hate' on Wikipedia and it is clear that it does not 'pursue violent and undemocratic means'. Its main 'crime' seems to have been to investigate far right groups. Farage has gone too far this time.

In reply to Pekkie:

He's just an idiot and needs to be either ridiculed publically or ignored.

In reply to Yanis Nayu: "and I'm sorry, mr cox, but it's time people took responsibility for what happened".


It is, Nigel. Isn't it?

In reply to toad:



Exactly. Horrid purveyor of hatred and division.

In reply to toad:



This.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

What is quite amazing is that Farage appears to got off very lightly, in terms of wholesale condemnation. Maybe that's a sad indication that the extremities of the Brexit appeal are rather more subtly embedded than we realise.

But an utterly ghastly statement & one that utterly diminishes Farage's modest claim to be a serious politician.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Farage is an @rse.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

As vile as Farage is, did you happen to also see the image of Angela Merkel that Geert Wilders tweeted? It makes me feel deeply unwell in many, many ways. The way these people's minds 'work' is a mystery to me.

In reply to Pekkie:


I suspect he will just continue his seagull act happily enough whilst people cheer him on.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Wow, that is an entirely new level of... I honestly can't think of a word strong enough to describe the prick.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Just when I thought my opinion of that vile piece of subhuman filth F****e couldn't be any lower. Absolute scum of the earth.

In reply to Dax H: I feel we all have the responsibility to tread carefully here; he has the ear and loyalty of a large number of people. Simply denouncing the idiocy may not cut it; we should choose words carefully when objecting to his vile bilge. At least thats what I shall try to do, though rarely do I meet anyone whose mind requires change.

In reply to pencilled in:

Just ignore the prick, he is irrelevant. This is is straight from the trump play book this shit.

In reply to snoop6060:
That feels like the grown up,response. However I'm not confident that that will cut it as a solution. What we seem to be experiencing is a paradigm shift, from politics with some (variably loose) connection with reality, and politics of hate and division based on shouting lies long enough and loud enough for some of them to gain leverage.
One of the Sunday heavies was on about "militant nostalgia" and that seems to be the constituency these creatures are tapping into.

In reply to pencilled in:

Never forget, you can´t really fight ideas, but you can fight people.

Racist jokes after the job interview (in an institute with a global workforce)? Easiest thing for me to blacklist a tech applicant across all potential employers in town (happened last year).

Stupid nazi comments after judo training? Get matched with noone less than 25 kg heavier next session, and whisper instructions for some special TLC.

Let´s treat the bigots like shit, they deserve it, else they might get delusions of adequacy.

CB

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

The little feed thing on the side of my facebook feed says "Katie Hopkins trending now".

Has she thrown in a soundbite clickbait opinion on this? I never click those things. It just encourages them.

In reply to ThunderCat:

I think she and the DM put out a forced apology to a Muslim family they accused of terrorism. It went out at 2am for maximum exposure...

In reply to cb294:


You can challenge ideas, though?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

A forced apology and a six-figure payout. As you say, they discreetly snuck the retraction/apology out at 2am and it's since gone a bit viral with people wanting to make sure it isn't missed. (And enjoying a bit of schadenfreude at the Daily Heil's expense.)

Hope Not Hate are planning legal action against Farage, and are planning to crowd-fund it. I've just chipped in a few quid here - money very well spent if they can wipe the smile off that vile gobshite's face.

https://donate.hopenothate.org.uk/page/contribute/farage-to-court

In reply to Timmd:

Waste of time. Have you ever convinced someone of anything in politics? Opinions can evolve, but hardly through outward pressure.

My favourite summary is from Ian Banks, from Use of Weapons;

“It’s not cynicism,” he said flatly. “I just think people overvalue argument because they like to hear themselves talk.”
“Oh well, thank you.”
“It’s comforting, I suppose.” He watched the stars wheel, like absurdly slow shells seen at night: rising, peaking, falling...(And reminded himself that the stars too would explode, perhaps, one day.) “Most people are not prepared to have their minds changed,” he said. “And I think they know in their hearts that other people are just the same, and one of the reasons people become angry when they argue is that they realize just that, as they trot out their excuses.”
“Excuses, eh? Well, if this ain’t cynicism, what is?” Erens snorted.
“Yes, excuses,” he said, with what Erens thought might just have been a trace of bitterness. “I strongly suspect the things people believe in are usually just what they instinctively feel is right; the excuses, the justifications, the things you’re supposed to argue about, come later. They’re the least important part of the belief. That’s why you can destroy them, win an argument, prove the other person wrong, and still they believe what they did in the first place.” He looked at Erens. “You’ve attacked the wrong thing.”
....

In reply to cb294:

Not politics as such, which often seems to feel like common sense to whoever is thinking it (including me), but I have to do with anything racist - or close to being, in making them question what they've just said.

A macho working class guy in his late 60's from the North East of the UK who I used to volunteer with and had a black and white way of looking at things sometimes, would concede I had a point on occasion if I tactfully pointed out what he was saying wasn't quite right - or mightn't be the whole picture.

If people challenged him as plainly as he spoke it generally turned into an argument which spoilt the day.

In reply to cb294:


Blacklist a job applicant on the say so of one person? That's what the construction industry in the UK did to workers who dared to point out unsafe working practices. What could possibly go wrong?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

This would be the same Farage who did deals with racist, Holocaust denying extremists in the European Parliament?

Total skidmark on the undercrackers of humanity.

And to whoever has been disliking the condemnation of Farage, at least have the balls to say why.

In reply to Ridge:

You are right, it is a double edged sword. However, too much tolerance has made neonazi views acceptable in large sections of east German society. Time to show some intolerance the other way.

CB

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Remember back in June he had to apologise for saying that Brexit was won "without a single shot being fired" at the end of a campaigning period that was most notable for the murder, by shooting and stabbing, of Jo Cox.

In reply to deepsoup:




Exactly my feelings... rather than pontificate on here its actually a chance to do something practical about it.. they have something from me.

In reply to Timmd:


Fair enough if you tried to make a racist acquaintance see some sense but why did you feel the need to mention the racist's age, geographical origin and socioeconomic status? Are saying that this guy's background made him more predisposed to being a racist? Isn't this just another form of the kind of stereotyping racists are guilty of? Are there no young middle class Southern racists? I myself, while hardly macho, am in my 50's, from the North East and of very humble working class origins. I have also been staunchly anti-racist since my early teens.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Having read the article in your link and listened to Mr Farage's comments on the radio I do feel that, while you might disagree with his views, the idea of taking Mr Farage to court for expressing said views is a complete overreaction.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Is describing his subject stereotyping? Sounds like you made that leap yourself.

In reply to baron:

It's not his views being challenged but his incorrect claims. I would say an organisation being accused of being extremist and violent when it isnt, is pretty defamatory. Likewise for an individual.

In reply to cb294:



Somehow Paisley and Adams managed to work out agreements and to get along to the extent of becoming firm friends by the time of Paisley's death. If that was possible, anything can be possible.

In reply to baron:

Using the radio to describe a peaceful campaign group as violent extremists is potentially libellous. Which part of that do you disagree with?

In reply to cb294:


Of course they can. Someone doing a volte face on the spot is rare, but influencing someone's views happens all the time through discussion. Have you never altered your perspective through discussion on here?

In reply to MG:


Farage has been on about Hate not Hope for a couple of years now. He seems to genuinely believe that they, or maybe people linked to them, are responsible for attacks , some physical, on UKIP and UKIP property. I've got no idea whether this is true, although HnotH regards UKIP as an extremist organisation and treats it accordingly.

I guess if HnotH take legal action we may find out more about what has been a long running feud.

In reply to Bingers:


I doubt if either convinced the other about what's best for the future of Ulster though.

In reply to MG:
I had never heard of hopenothate so did the usual google search. Then perused its Facebook page. Whether or not it's an extremist organisation would appear to be open for debate. Which is what should be happening. Not a rush to the courts.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
See my reply to MG.

In reply to baron:

What about violent? We have seen in the US what happens when lies such as this go unchallenged. The idea that"debate" can lead to finding the truth is very questionable with modern media. The courts probably aren't a great route either but are probably the best option at times. If HNH don't challenge this legally, Farage's claims become the "truth".

In reply to baron:


I guess it would rather depend if it was said about you.

In reply to lummox:


Worse than that - he’s a pair of sandpaper grundies

In reply to MG:
As I said my 'in depth knowledge' of this organisation is limited to a couple of hours on the internet.
There are articles either supporting hope not hate and then others accusing them of inciting violence (although not actually taking direct part).
I don't have the time nor the inclination to investigate the background to all these disparate claims but that would seem to be the only sensible way to find out the 'truth'.
So maybe a court action is a suitable vehicle for both sides in this case.
But then isn't a court just a debate albeit with a definitive and possibly punitive outcome?

In reply to baron:


Yes but one with reasonably defined rules and an impartial judge, not a lopsided social media.driven one. There are much larger questions here about reporting and truth and the media.

Personally I am more disturbed by Farage going for Cox that HNH, but I haven't heard of him planning legal action

In reply to The New NickB:
It might depend on that but also how true it was.
If I had Mr Cox's alleged history I wouldn't be dashing anywhere near a courtroom.
Oh gosh, will I get sued as well now?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

In a peverse way, what Farage says is actually right. HOPE not hate have indeed sponsored some quite interesting reserach into extremism, with a view to preventing young people setting off down that path.

In my view the legal action would go no where & is only a way of generating publicity for HOPE not hate and giving Farage a well deserved slap

In reply to MG:
From my very recent internet 'research' it is very obvious that finding the truth is an almost impossible job when anyone with an agenda can publish their ideas and others can then use those ideas to support their own ideas.
Without any expertise in a given area it is very easy to end up totally confused.
Or even worse totally wrong.

In reply to baron:


Let's assume, they believe they are not violent extremists.


It's Hope Not Hate, rather than Brendan Cox who have asked Farage to apologise, under threat of legal action. Well done for the attempted character assassination though.

In reply to baron:


All the better reason I would have thought for organisations or people to challenge claims made against them.
Especially when it comes from someone whose political alliances are rather questionable.

In reply to MG:

I have, but mainly on topics that can be decided by factual data. I can of course be convinced by facts that my current view of things is wrong (else I could not work as a scientist, convincing yourself that our most dearly held ideas are wrong is at the core of what we do), but for issues based on ethics rather than facts? Deep convictions do not normally change by discussion, possibly if something happens in your life, good or bad.

CB

In reply to Bingers:

Do you believe that any of the two actually changed his core convictions? At this level it is agree to disagree, or fight, and fortunately they got tired of the latter.
CB

In reply to The New NickB:
It wasn't an attempted character assassination but an attempt to show how easy it would have been for Mr Farage to have had a go at Mr Cox.
That he didn't use this ammunition could show either
The allegations against Mr Cox are untrue
Or
Mr Farage believes his accusations against Mr Cox and Hope not hate are true and chose not to bring up Mr Cox's murky past.
I'm glad you obviously know the truth so as to be so sure in your defence of hope not hate.

In reply to baron:


I haven't been paying much attention - what is Brendan Cox's murky past?

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Pardon me. A very fair question to ask. I think I'd subconsciously absorbed younger people excusing what he said by talking about his age and his background, I've always thought that didn't really explain it though - looking at my Dad of a similar age from humble beginnings in Grimsby, but it seems I repeated it in my posting.

You were right to say...

In reply to baron:

What are the allegations against Mr Cox?

In reply to baron:


An interesting incite into how you interpret my post. I haven't actually given my opinion on hope not hate.

In reply to tony:


In November 2015 he resigned his senior role at Save the Children in the face of allegations of "inappropriate behaviour" by a number of female employees.

Doing a bit of digging around on the relationship between UKIP and HnotH one soon gets dragged into a subculture of claim and counter claim, half truth and untruth, and bizarre characters which soon becomes difficult to unravel.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Other than the Daily Mail and Guido Fawkes, any other sources for this information ?

Not that I doubt the journalistic integrity of either esteemed organ.

In reply to lummox:



Does the Grauniad count?

Not that I doubt the journalistic integrity of such an esteemed organ.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/n...

In reply to Postmanpat:

I would say touche, but frankly the Grauniad are mere amateurs in the fabrication of stories, unlike the aforementioned organs.

Cox's alleged behaviour has absolutely knack all to do with Hope Not Hate "pursuing violent and undemocratic means" as Farage stated.

In the weighing scales of bad behaviour, our Nige comes up as a super heavyweight..

In reply to lummox:



>
Which is presumably why Farage resisted the temptation to raise the subject.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Or possibly not. After all he had the gall to talk about allying with political extremists.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Ermm, he said that Cox “would know more about extremists than me” because of his connections to Hope Not Hate.

In reply to lummox:


And resisted the temptation to bring up Cox's resignation from Save the Children, as I said.

In reply to KevinD:


Well, this is what I referred to above when I said one enters a very strange subculture when investigating those allegations.

In reply to Timmd:

I'm 51 and from a working class family in Grimsby. My old man was a manual worker and had a tough life in the factories of the Humber Bank. My old lady worked in shops and as a lolly-pop lady. I left school and got an apprenticeship (a real one, not like today). We are all trade union supporters and have, insomuch as I can recall, never uttered anything or harboured thoughts of racism.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Criticising men for allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards women, however unsubstantiated, may sully his love-in with the Donald.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

Please note my reply to Gerry. I'll always admit it where I'm wrong.

''Pardon me. A very fair question to ask. I think I'd subconsciously absorbed younger people excusing what he said by talking about his age and his background, I've always thought that didn't really explain it though - looking at my Dad of a similar age from humble beginnings in Grimsby, but it seems I repeated it in my posting.

You were right to say...''

In reply to The New NickB:


Yes I remember that, what a total ass. The last time I shouted abuse at the television anywhere near as loudly was the Christiano Ronaldo winker episode! (Though that was not nearly in the same ball park as good old Nige).

In reply to cb294:


Who found them racist? You? Who are ou to judge what's racist, and whose thoughts or mind you can control?
Some of the most racist jokes I have heard have been from black mates, about themselves and white counter parts.

How thoughtful of you to take role of Thought Crime Commissioner.


Well I think you need to go and revise your dojo rules and etiquette.


It would appear it is you who is the bigot.
Bigot:
a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

Typical lefty, instead of challenging someone to debate, you use underhand methods and violence to attack the person not the argument. I am sure someone had similar tactics and veiws on free speech, what was his name again? Famous fellow, bit of a funny moustache held a lot of socialists veiws too.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

A United supporter (I'm assuming from the name) from Grimsby, just that info alone would lead me to question any opinion you held.......

In reply to Bootrock:
Forget it, I will not bite today!

Merry Christmas,

CB

Edited just to add a little anecdote about the chap with the beardlet: I almost got beat up at the US high school I was attending some time 1985ish for answering "Austria" when another student asked me whether Hitler was born in the "good or the bad Germany".

In reply to Bootrock:

2/10.

And I'm being generous.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

The line has been drawn. if you feel you have to defend Farage you're on the wrong side .I am with Brendan Cox. Bootrock, Big Ger get over here.

In reply to cb294:


Not sure where it originates but there is the old joke. Austria diplomats greatest achievement is convincing the world Hitler was German and Beethoven was Austrian.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


I never said I defended him. He's a politician, I despise politicians. I have nothing but contempt for him. I do however see why the rise in his popularity, I see the trend, I see what the left refuses to see. He is a product of the regressive left.

And I fail to see why the regressive left keep falling to the "threat of violence" and refusal to accept free speech, which not only strangles their own position but accepts, and validates and forces more people to the right. You can't even debate certain things without gettin shouted down about bigotry and racism. The Rotherham scandal was covered up because of fear of racism.
The German left politician was raped by migrants and lied because she was scared of being labelled racist or creating racism
There is a domestic abuse epidemic in this country within ethnic groups that police, agencies and charities are incredibly concerned about but no one will talk about it for fear of "racism".

Someone openly admitted to potentially destroying someone's career, encouraged physical violence and called for others to be violent against people who held different views.

I may be confused, angry and fed up with the regressive left but at the end of the day I prefer to use debate, even against a bad argument, it either changed your opinion or reinforces it. I would never threaten violence against anyone for expressing their right to freedom of speech, even if I disagree.

The second you refuse to accept freedom of speech, even speech you disagree with, and start threatening violence, then you might as well just sign another reichstag bill.

In reply to Bootrock:

Do you think there is any place for libel laws?

In reply to MG:


It would be a complex issue. But in effect, no.
If I held the opinion that you were an arsehole. Then that's my right and my opinion.

In reply to Bootrock:
Opinion is one thing. What about facts? What about, for example, if I was an upright accountant and you prominently claimed falsely in the national press I was stealing clients' money. Should I not have some recourse other than denying the claim, given it is likely to destroy.my business?

In reply to Bootrock:

Indeed - and you are entitled to that opinion no matter how unpleasant. Libel is very specific "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation", as MG's example illustrates.

If I (or someone else) came onto UKC and started saying that you were claiming benefits fraudulently or evading paying tax (and I'm not! just as an example...) - would you take that lying down? I would hope not.

In reply to Bootrock:


Do you? I'm still waiting for a response to my response to your statement that no one's ever presented you with biological evidence for gender fluidity.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


You are?

Evolution. Male. Female. We didn't evolve the ability to change sex in a single sex environment to enable continuation of our species. what more evidence do you want?

In reply to damhan-allaidh:



Like I said. You should have the freedom of speech to say something, then libel laws can challenge it. Slightly different to banning all free speech.

And I have never claimed benefits a day in my life. Ever. I have earned my money.

I wish I could evade tax, Christ, that would be awesome. Imagine that. Or even better, imagine a place where taxes get used properly.

In reply to Bootrock:


Obviously it's different! So you do see a place for libel? That is, using free speech may have (severe) consequences if it is defamatory?

In reply to MG:


Depends. Should people be arrested for comments on Facebook? No.
Should the media be held accountable? Yes.

In reply to Bootrock:

Yes. I am. I DM'd you several research papers investigating - and demonstrating - biological bases for gender fluidity (the terminology you used in your original argument). The ability to change sex is hermaphrodism, different concept, although arguably an extreme endpoint of the gender spectrum. I also included some intersting articles on the psychosocial aspects of gender fluidity in diverse hunter-gather societies and Native Americancultures - mainly to point out that the idea of gender fluidity is an old accepted one, not a product of post-modernism or the modern regreeisve left (whatever that is).

In reply to damhan-allaidh:



You did?


Well I will have read them to get back to you on that one!

In reply to Bootrock:

If I publish on FB (the place where it's likely to do most damage) that 'one' is a benefit fraud - you think that should go unpunished?

In reply to Bootrock:

Look forward to it. Apologies for typos, difficult when one's desk is a cat (object fluidity).

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


Now we are getting into the complexities of the law and that's what Lawyers are paid for.

Just be like me and don't have Facebook. Life is so much fuller, less dramatic and you actually speak to people.

Actually, scrap that, I am a miserable bastard and don't like people. Where do I sign up?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Unlike most of the press I decided to do five minutes research to understand the background to Farage's comments.

It seems to go something like this. In 2013 HnotH initiated a campaign against UKIP on the basis that it was displaying racist tendencies. This involved a stream of comments on their websites attacking UKIP activities and policies , some for what might be regarded as racism, but many just being things that HnotH happen to disagree with (flat tax, NHS privatisation etc) . Fair enough I guess, although shouldn't HnotH stick to its brief?

However, it also seemed spill over into a number of attacks on UKIP offices (throwing paint etc) and a well know incident described here https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2015/mar/23/beyond-ukip-cabaret-nigel-far... in which Farage and his teenage daughters were chased out of a pub where they were having Sunday lunch by a group of professional demonstrators . There are various different versions of this incident but the most charitable is that what started as an inappropriate but fairly light hearted interruption of a family lunched turned a bit nasty when the demonstrators started jumping on his car,
Unsurprisingly UKIP made the most of it.

It's not entirely clear how HnotH was involved in the latter or the vandalism incidents but it included various far left loonies like the ridiculous Zita Holbourne who seems to be connected to HnotH.and full time rent a mob activist Dan Glass I think in fairness that such threatening behaviour is not official HnotH policy but like so many of these campaigning groups they soon get exploited by far left ne'er do wells.

I think the texts received by the Graniad journo from the activists who had mistakenly assumed that she was behind the "negative version" of the lunch incident gives a flavour,
"Next, I start receiving hostile texts from activists: the story in the Guardian is presumed to have been written by me, the only journalist on the scene. It wasn’t. “Back-stabbing Red Tory rag,” comes one text. “Get tae f*ck,” comes another."

Personally I think that in the context of Jo Cox's murder Farage should have firmly bitten his lip when criticised by Mr.Cox. But anyway, that seems to be the background.

No doubt there are other versions of events. There are some very odd folk out there on both sides of the argument.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Of course. They didnt do the research unlike yourself. Or perhaps they did know they shite he has been sprouting in the past and decide it was rubbish which wasnt worth wasting time on.
Even all your careful research doesnt really show anything which would, given the current use of the word, count as extremist. Considering it is mostly used for when people end up dead.


There doesnt seem to be much linking those people to hope not hate. Its not like some parts of the anti fascist movement where it does seem like a coin toss decided whether they would be a thug beating people up because they are racist or because the person they are beating up is racist.

In reply to KevinD:

>
I suspect two things:

1) They didn't want to be seen as giving any hint of justifying Farage.

2) They were too lazy.

3) They don't want to prejudice a court case.

It seems pretty obvious that any decent journalist should try and give some background to such high profile story even if they want to add the addendum that the stories are probably bollocks. The coverage was curiously incomplete.

No it's not. The SWP,BNP and EDL are widely dubbed extremist. Don't you think they are?

Actually, it's quite entertaining how a some of the people in this story seem to have tossed your coin once or twice and changed sides.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Most press coverage is. The question is whether they are an extreme group. Considering no one aside from Farage and his groupies think so it isnt unreasonable to discard it.


Majority of their members nope. Far left or right but not extremist given the connotations that term has now got.
Some of their continental counterparts would be verging on it though.


I would suggest thats not exactly unknown in this situation. There does seem a certain psychological makeup which means whatever someone believes in they really do believe and if that belief manages to get punctured, not an easy job, they will flip as far the other way as possible. Aside from anything else I think the argument that there isnt a line but instead a circle has a fair amount going for it if sticking to the simple left right split.

In reply to KevinD:

>
Or simply to demonstrate why it is wrong, which nobody bothered to do.

>
We'll have to agree to disagree on current usage of "extremist".



Agreed, like that weird orthodox Jew who ended up as a radical moslem via evangelical Christianity. Turns up on documentaries spouting crap from time to time.