My belief is almost everyone on both sides wants manageable immigration, as close to a net of zero as possible. But, the issue is the left - of which I am a part - will always fight the deliberate attempts to alienate foreign people and villanise them. So, people posting misleading charts and articles get angry when ‘leftists’ point out what is wrong with that information. I also think the left would never be okay with mass deportations or anything like that. They have been allowed in and we need to make them welcome (or they won’t have any reason to integrate). That doesn’t mean we believe immigration is at an acceptable level. But blaming the immigrant is pure nonsense.
The warnings were about making personal insults which previously, along with others, he did. But that is not what he was banned for. The rules were changed after the event to snare Osvaldorama. If posters didn't like what he was saying or how he said it, they could have ignored him but chose to reply often with insults. The so called wumming and baiting were described that way only because what he was saying was from a right wing perspective. Instead of ignoring him they couldn't resist trying to put him in his place. The playground boycott plan didn't work because there was always someone whose ego wouldn't let Os' comments go unchallenged. In my opinion, the mob played their part in the rows but instead of coping with a dissenting voice, they got him removed. It was always the aim, so job done. The comment I made yesterday about banning posters was not because I want others thrown off (it's the opposite actually). It was about the inconsistencies around how it was implemented if we were going to have them. Yes there have been others who have had temporary bans but Os is the only one to have a permanent one, so yes he has been singled out.
Have you got two accounts or are you, not content with being the not606 gatekeeper in your own name, answering for other posters now?
Again, he was not singled out in anyway, he didn’t heed the warnings of his insults and got banned (as others did) but he kept going when allowed back. To him, anyone who didn’t agree with him was stupid and had a low IQ, and he could out bench press anyone. And then the nonsense of saying London had fallen all the time. Posters on here stopped engaging with him, I find it strange for you to think he was innocent, very strange.
IOAG I have no issue with people espousing Right Wing opinion in here even though I vehemently disagree. Os was not willing to engage and the posts became increasingly declaratory. The data he linked to was also interrogated by other posters and found to originate from a disreputable website. I so feel sorry for him being banned and the nonsense he posted sometimes made me smile as it was so ridiculous. However, there was no attempt to properly engage with others....it was always a case of I told you so ! In the end, it became annoying because he could not see any alternative opinion to his own. I do think that Os was probably even younger than Tom. I understand there may be generational differences but no one else was as immature as Os.
If Labour's numbers do not improve very soon................will Kier Starmer, or his party pressure him to, surrender the next election early and change the electoral process while he still has a majority to railroad it through?
