The Spectator The desperate bid to slur the Brexit Party Brendan O'Neill please log in to view this image please log in to view this image The Bermondsey by-election of 1983 is widely regarded as one of the nastiest, most scurrilous election campaigns in British history. Peter Tatchell, queer-rights activist and bona fide national treasure, stood for the Labour Party against Simon Hughes, who stood for the Liberals. Tatchell was the target of a ceaseless campaign of smears, innuendo, hatred and homophobia. It came from all sides: the tabloids, the hard right, Liberals themselves. Of all the tactics used against Tatchell, perhaps the lowest, the most awful, was the attempt to depict him as a *****phile, or at least a friend of *****philes. Incredibly, the tabloid press sent young boys to Tatchell’s apartment, presumably in the hope that he would invite them in. They wanted to expose him as at the very least a fellow traveller of child rapists, in order to destroy his political career and potentially his life. I liked to think that the politicisation of such a dreadful crime as child rape to the end of damaging an electoral candidate was a thing of the past, a relic of the dirty politics of 1980s Britain. But it seems not. Nick Cohen of this very parish uses the same tactic today. Taking his place alongside the whisperers and defamers of the Bermondsey debacle, Cohen devoted a large chunk of his most recent piece for The Spectator to implying, very strongly, that three candidates for the Brexit Party — Claire Fox, James Heartfield and Alka Sehgal Cuthbert — are cavalier about the abuse of children. These are lies. Straight-up, low-down lies. I knew some people in the pro-Remain side are feeling desperate and angry; I didn’t know they’d reached Bermondsey by-election levels of desperation and anger. What does this have to do with me? Quite a lot, unfortunately. The articles Cohen cites as part of his smearing of Heartfield and Sehgal Cuthbert were published on spiked, the magazine I edit. I rarely respond to slurs against spiked, because life is short, and it’s par for the course for editors to be badmouthed. But there comes a breaking point. And one such breaking point is the implication that one’s magazine is chilled out about child pornography and child abuse. A lie like that must not be allowed to stand. The thing is, I’m pretty sure Cohen himself knows it is not true. How else to explain the wilful distortion of the things Heartfield and Sehgal Cuthbert said in their articles for spiked? He accuses Heartfield of denouncing ‘fears of child abuse as a fantasy’ and believing that ‘all fears of *****philia are a “panic”’. In short, Heartfield thinks child abuse is made up. But Heartfield didn’t say this, and if he had spiked wouldn’t have published it. Heartfield, in his piece that we published in July 2014, clearly writes of ‘the problems of *****philia and other abuses of children’ — i.e., they are real problems. He goes on to argue that sometimes these real problems are used to create a panic. In this case, the *****phile panic. You know the *****phile panic, Nick — you wrote about it yourself, in the Observer in 2005. Back then, Cohen argued that there is no more ‘potent political concern’ than ‘modern worries about children’. Such worries lie ‘behind the MMR mania [and] the *****phile panic’, he said. This is the same panic Heartfield was commenting on in spiked. It’s there in the headline: ‘How the Tories ignited the *****phile panic’. That Cohen has gone from using the phrase ‘*****phile panic’ to smearing others who use it as disgusting non-believers in the problem of child rape is quite extraordinary. It seems that, like Tatchell’s persecutors 35 years ago, he’ll latch on to anything in order to smear an electoral candidate he doesn’t like. His distortions of Sehgal Cuthbert’s article for spiked, which we published in June 2013, are even worse. You could read his piece and come away thinking Sehgal Cuthbert is okay with child pornography. He claims that in her piece she ‘deplored the willingness of children’s charities to include [child pornography] in their definition of child abuse’. Utterly untrue. In her piece, which was about the authoritarian clampdown on internet porn (actual porn, not so-called ‘child pornography’), Sehgal Cuthbert criticised the NSPCC, not for describing child pornography as child abuse, but for including ‘the watching of pornography’ in its definition of child abuse. She was arguing that it is wrong to describe young people’s watching of general porn as a form of child abuse; she was not talking about the use of children to produce ‘porn’. I think this might be a new low in the politics of smear. Given that my magazine has been dragged into this discussion — very much against our will — let me make two things clear. First, child abuse is real. Everyone knows this. And sometimes concern about child abuse becomes a panic, leading to undue fear, and in some cases violence — witness the hounding of suspected *****philes from their homes during the 1990s *****phile panic (credit for that phrase: Nick Cohen and James Heartfield). And secondly, in my view there is no such thing as ‘child pornography’. The creation of pornography requires consent. It can only be made by adults. ‘Child pornography’ is a contradiction in terms. Such material is in itself a crime — the criminal recording of a criminal act. To speak of free speech for child pornography is bizarre. Can we quit the smears now? If you disagree with what spiked says about the *****phile panic, say so. If you disagree with our position on Brexit, say why. If you hate the Brexit Party and its candidates, challenge their political views, put forward alternative views, get stuck into the debate. But don’t trade in slurs and character assassination, because when you do that you really are no better than the people who poisoned the political well in Bermondsey in 1983 because they were so determined to destroy one of the candidates there.
Merkel's open-door policy hits German economy as 99% of migrants STILL don't have a job THE German chancellor's controversial open-door migrant policy has been dealt another catastrophic blow after it emerged only 1 in every 10,000 migrants who arrived since last year has a job Astonishing statistics revealed that only 1 in every 10,000 refugees who arrived during the massive migrant influx last year are now employed. German firms have defended themselves after Angela Merkel blamed them for not hiring enough refugees. The German leader unleashed a scathing criticism of local businesses – but company leaders claim refugees "are just not ready" for the job market. please log in to view this image GETTY German firms defend themselves after only 1 out 10,000 refugees who arrived are employed German companies have hired less than 100 refugees despite the arrival of more than a million into the country last year. Mrs Merkel is currently fighting for her political career after her open-door policy provoked a humiliating political backlash in regional elections two weeks ago. She summoned the bosses of Germany's biggest companies to Berlin to explain their lack of action as she tried to deflect blame onto them. Around 80 percent of asylum seekers are not highly qualified and may not yet have a high level of German proficiency German business community leader A survey by Reuters of the 30 companies in Germany's DAX stock market index found just 63 refugee hires in total. Of those 63 hires, 50 are employed by Deutsche Post DHL, who have been praised for their "pragmatic approach" after employing refugees to sort and deliver letters and parcels. But during yesterday's meeting, businesses pointed to the uncertainty about the migrants' permission to stay in the country. They claimed that refugees lacked German-language skills and proof of qualifications. please log in to view this image GETTY Europe’s biggest economy faces a growing skills shortage with a working-age population due to drop A spokesman for the German business community said: "Given that around 80 percent of asylum seekers are not highly qualified and may not yet have a high level of German proficiency, we have primarily offered jobs that do not require technical skills or a considerable amount of interaction in German." A high proportion of refugees are not qualified beyond primary or secondary school level, with many unable to read or write, according to the business community leaders. Airline and financial industries added that many asylum seekers are unable to prove their identities. please log in to view this image GETTY 80 percent of asylum seekers are not highly qualified and more cannot speak German please log in to view this image GETTY She has summoned the bosses of some of Germany's biggest companies to Berlin to account Merkel told bosses on Wednesday's meeting that "everyone will benefit" if more refugees are integrated through the workplace. She also pointed to special migrant job centres set up to help immigrants find jobs, housing and qualification recognition of their previous employment and education. The desperate news comes as optimism surrounding the migrant influx vanishes. Germany - Europe's biggest economy - faces a growing skills shortage with a working-age population due to decrease by six million people over the next 15 years. Many had hoped that migrants could boost economic growth and help ease the skills shortage. Industrial group ThyssenKrupp’s Chief Executive Heinrich Hiesinger confirmed that "the employment of refugees is no solution for the skills shortage". Deutsche Telekom plans to take on about 75 refugees as apprentices this year but still has not made a permanent hire yet. A spokeswoman said: "Our experience is that it takes a minimum of 18 months for a well trained refugee to go through the asylum procedure and learn German at an adequate level in order to apply for a job." please log in to view this image GETTY Merkel is fighting for her political life over her open-door policy Susanne Eikemeier from the German Federal Agency for Employment said: "Many refugees need money quickly to send it back to their relatives in their home country or pay their bills and they do not see the advantages of an apprenticeship that starts with less pay. "We try to convince them that this would be better in the long run and we try to figure out what skills they actually have. "The problem is that a mechanic from Afghanistan may repair cars, but he never went to a professional school and got a certificate." The employment figures emerged as anti-refugee Alternative für Deutschland party made considerable gains in elections following fears that Merkel’s refugee policy threatened German stability. please log in to view this image ✖
no blasphemy laws yet Theresa May Will Reject Calls By Muslim Groups To Define Islamophobia As A Type Of Racism Exclusive: BuzzFeed News has been briefed on plans to oppose the definition on free speech grounds. Posted on May 15, 2019, at 9:30 p.m. please log in to view this image Alex Wickham BuzzFeed News Reporter View 8 commentsArrow Down please log in to view this image Dan Kitwood / Getty Images Men pray at the Suleymaniye Mosque in East London. Theresa May is to reject a definition of Islamophobia proposed by British Muslim groups, BuzzFeed News can reveal. At a parliamentary debate on anti-Muslim prejudice on Thursday, ministers will oppose the definition which states: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” More than 750 British Muslim organisations had called on the government to adopt the British Muslims all-party parliamentary group definition, which was produced after consultation with legal experts, MPs, and Muslim groups. The definition has been formally endorsed by the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the Scottish Conservatives. But BuzzFeed News has been briefed on plans by communities secretary James Brokenshire to reject the definition on free speech grounds. The government is said to be concerned that adopting the definition could mean people who criticise aspects of Islam might be prosecuted under discrimination laws. A source familiar with the decision also said there are legal difficulties with calling Islamophobia a “type of racism” because Islam is a religion rather than a race. Instead, BuzzFeed News understands ministers will appoint two new independent advisers to produce their own definition of Islamophobia. The two advisers will also investigate anti-Muslim prejudice in Britain. The definition has been criticised by free speech campaigners and the leader of Britain’s police chiefs. According to the Times Martin Hewitt, chair of the National Police Chiefs Council, wrote to May warning that accepting the definition could exacerbate community tensions and undermine counterterrorism police work. But speaking on the Today programme on Wednesday morning, former Conservative party chair Sayeeda Warsi dismissed Hewitt’s letter as “irresponsible scaremongering” and urged the PM to adopt the definition. Responding to BuzzFeed News' story, Warsi said: "Years of research, hundreds of pages of evidence, months of discussions, a countrywide consultation, full parliamentary support bar Conservatives, dozens of academics, hundreds of community organisations isn’t good enough... but two govt advisers know better." The Muslim Council of Britain said it was "truly astonishing the government thinks it knows better than Muslim communities". "If this free speech rationale is true, it would mean that the government believes that defining the racism that targets Muslims or expressions of Muslimness somehow impinges on free speech. "Defining anti-semitism does not do so, but defining Islamophobia does. Truly shocking," a spokesperson for the MCB said. Wes Streeting, the chair of the British Muslims APPG, said: "The lack of humility and self-reflection is astonishing. Given their abject failure to tackle racism within their own party, why does this Conservative Government believe they has the credibility to write their own definition rather than one backed by huge numbers of Muslims." Labour's shadow equalities minister Naz Shah said: "The Conservative Party is in denial about Islamophobia and other forms of racism in its ranks, and that denial flows from the very top. If Theresa May refuses to adopt the definition of Islamophobia, the message she sends to the Muslim community will be heard loud and clear. "It has been a great struggle to get the police to record Islamophobia as a specific crime, so it is deeply worrying to see the National Police Chiefs Council bringing terrorism into the discussion about tackling Islamophobia. "This shows a worrying trend of seeing British Muslims through the lens of terror and security, and the Prime Minister must distance herself from this immediately."
Brexit Party formed in Welsh Assembly 'with IMMEDIATE effect' - Tory and Ukip members QUIT FOUR Welsh assembly members (AMs) have sensationally joined the Brexit Party “with immediate effect” to give Nigel Farage’s party their first political representation at a national level. The Conservatives’ Mark Reckless, and Ukip’s David Rowlands have joined up with independents Mandy Jones and Caroline Jones to form the group in the Welsh Assembly. In a letter the four AMs said: “We wish to form a Brexit Party political group, with immediate effect. We confirm that Mark Reckless has resigned from the Conservative Group, and that David Rowlands hereby resigns from the Ukip group.”
getting desperate now https://t.co/glYV7WruVq "Remain activist Magdalena Williams is demanding the Electoral Commission puts the party logos on the right of the ballot paper so Farage’s arrow points away from the voting boxes. Failing that, large arrows could be put around all the political parties to even the playing field" Titania McGrath@TitaniaMcGrath 12h12 hours ago Campaigners have noticed a secret arrow in the Brexit Party logo which will force people to vote for them. This is even worse than when they hypnotised everyone with that bus.
now even the words offensive Brexit energy drink denied EU trademark after claims brand was 'offensive' please log in to view this image Polish businessman Pawel Tumilowicz has launched his own Brexit energy drink in the wake of the EU referendum Credit: Eddie Garvey/ Manchester Evening News James Crisp, Brussels Correspondent 15 May 2019 • 5:12pm An energy drink called Brexit will not get Europe-wide trademark protection after an EU agency initially decided its name was “offensive” before later ruling the brand name was too confusing instead. Polish entrepreneurs Pawel Tumilowicz and Mariusz Majchrzak, who run the business in Prestwich, Greater Manchester insist they called their drink, which boasts Union Jack branding, Brexit “for a laugh”. But the European Union Intellectual Property Office (Euipo) did not see the funny side. An official castigated the cheeky Poles for causing offence with their trademark protection. “Citizens across the EU would be deeply offended if the expression at issue was registered as a European Union trade...
The Guardian: Majority of Europeans 'expect end of EU within 20 years' Three in 10 think conflict among EU countries is a realistic possibility, survey finds Daniel Boffey in Brussels please log in to view this image European flags in Brussels. Two-thirds of Europeans have positive feelings towards the EU, according to the Eurobarometer. Photograph: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images More than half of Europeans believe the EU is likely to collapse within a generation, despite support for the bloc hitting heights not recorded in more than a quarter of a century. In France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Slovakia, Romania, Greece, the Czech Republic and Poland, a majority of people surveyed thought EU disintegration was a “realistic possibility” in the next 10 to 20 years. The figures are particularly stark in France, where President Emmanuel Macron’s La République En Marche party is trailing behind Marine Le Pen’s Brussels-bashing Rassemblement National (RN) in the polls for next week’s European elections. According to the survey, commissioned by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) thinktank, 58% of people in France believe the EU is very likely or fairly likely to fall apart within 20 years, second only to Slovakia (66%). Of the 14 countries polled by YouGov – constituting more than 70% of the seats of the European parliament – it was only in Sweden (44%), Denmark (41%) and Spain (40%) that the proportion predicting implosion dipped below a majority. Nearly seven decades after the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, bringing together France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg in a pact designed to stave off further war, three in 10 people polled said conflict among countries within the EU was a realistic possibility. As many as a third of voters in France and Poland said they believed a war could be possible. That sentiment was notably strong among people planning to abstain or vote for extremists next week. Nearly half (46%) of supporters of RN and 41% of supporters of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in Germany held this view. Europeans are also concerned about faltering prosperity. The survey found that just a third of Germans and a quarter of Italians and French typically had money left over at month’s end for discretionary spending. The survey was shared with six big European newspapers that have worked together in partnership on EU issues since 2012. Q&A What is the Europa project? The findings reflect widespread concerns over next week’s elections, in large part sparked by the warnings of European leaders and the emergence of populist governments in several member states. Macron has pitted himself as the leader of anti-populist forces in opposition to the likes of Matteo Salvini, Italy’s far-right deputy prime minister, while the European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, has warned voters against using the elections as a protest vote. please log in to view this image What is the European parliament and do the elections matter? Read more But with the extremist parties such as RN and AfD expected to do well, the European parliament that will sit in July is expected to be more divided, raising the risk of paralysis as the old pro-European parliamentary coalition falls away. Despite the unifying impact of Brexit among the EU27, a divide has also emerged between east and west among the member states. Hungary’s nationalist prime minister, Viktor Orbán, who has targeted immigrants in his speeches and has run an antisemitic campaign in which his former mentor George Soros has been depicted as a hate figure, is pushing his vision of illiberal democracy. The governments of Romania, Poland and Hungary are in the sights of the European commission for failure to respect the rule of law. Across Europe, three-quarters of voters think politics is broken at either the national or EU level or both. In France only 15% think the political system works well. With the latest Eurobarometer statistics showing that two-thirds of Europeans have positive feelings towards the EU – the highest recorded since 1983 – the ECFR’s director, Mark Leonard, said the onus was on pro-European parties to awaken the “silent majority”. He said: “There are seven days to resolve the paradox at the heart of the European project. Support for EU membership is at the highest level since 1983, and yet a majority of voters fear the EU might collapse. The challenge for pro-Europeans is to use this fear of loss to mobilise their silent majority and ensure that it is not just the anti-system parties who get their say on 26 May. “Pro-Europeans need to offer voters bold ideas for change that emotionally resonate and make the silent majority feel it is worth turning out at the end of May. It is not yet too late. With a volatile European electorate, there are up to 97 million voters who could still be persuaded to vote for different parties.” The survey found that almost 92% of voters thought they would lose out if the EU collapsed. Fears about the ability to trade, travel and work in other EU countries topped the list of reasons. Citizens feared losing unity on security and defence and valued being part of a bloc that could counter the US and China, amid growing economic uncertainty and the parlous nature of the transatlantic relationship
Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May are now more unpopular than Nigel Farage. and hes on minus 32 is there any politician these days that would be in positive territory Net favourability scores: Nigel Farage: -32 Theresa May: -49 (her all-time low) Jeremy Corbyn: -50 please log in to view this image
BURNING A HOLE Fury as £4billion of Britain’s foreign aid budget goes towards improving roads and railways abroad Campaigners said the news 'beggars belief' while councils at home face a £14billion bill for repairing our own pothole-plagued roads By Matt Dathan, Political Correspondent 12th October 2018, 12:37 am Updated: 18th October 2018, 6:11 pm OUTRAGE erupted yesterday as it emerged the Government has spent nearly £4 billion of foreign aid money on improving roads and railways around the world – including projects in Pakistan and India. As Britain’s own transport infrastructure grinds to a halt, the foreign aid spending watchdog revealed taxpayers have spent £265 million on a new roads corridor in Pakistan.
Please share **** right off. What a pile of ****. They'll find sufficient resources for the fascist Trump visit won't they. PLEASE SHARE
Amazingly they always find the resources to police left wing marches that take place almost every weekend and quite often during weekdays in London. As a footnote to the above they did eventually let the outing to Maldon go ahead...
Sorry Sooper, my ire wasn't directed at you. It's the constant cut-and-paste garbage right-wing propaganda from Kiwi that tips me over now and then. PLEASE SHARE.
