Brown sticks his foot in his mouth

JasonLVC

LauraW10 wrote: »

The fact is Brown had a point. The woman is a bigot......

.....Somebody talking sense at last:)

If Brown had a point then why apologise? Do you want to add hypocrite, two-faced and desperate to the list of his attributes?

How is the woman a bigot? Remember, she is just an ordinary working class gal, no airs and graces and who got stopped in the street.

She's not going to have the same speech writers, PR bods and training in expressing her view and so I see no racism in asking "why is the country full of immigrants" just as asking "why do we have so many unemployed people" or "why must we have nuclear proliferation" are all perfectly valid questions.

Indeed, Brown has commented today that 'immigration' isn't a dirty word (well, for the first time in 13 years it seems), thus rendering any debate on bigotry pointless.

Graham_Devon

LauraW10 wrote: »

The Attack on Brown is Hypocritical


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/elections/talking-elections-post/post/talking_election/25/comment-the-attack-on-brown-is-hypocritical.html

The fact is Brown had a point. The woman is a bigot......

.....Somebody talking sense at last:)

So if I also have my own thoughts on immigration....I'm a biggot?

Is this a one size fit's all approach of simply dismissing anyone elses opinion who you do not agree with?

That's all I can see it as. A very easy way to dismiss others opinions and box opinions into a group, immediately, without thought, and without taking on any of their concerns. Label then, stick them in a group, make them go away,

Now, see, howcome it's ok for a group of people to create a label for a wide variety of people with differing viewpoints to them, and call them a biggot because they take issue with a subject....

....yet by doing this, you are not a biggot yourself?

Surely, if she's a biggot, then so is Brown, just coming from a different angle.

Afterall, if she's boxing people into a group, and Brown boxes her into a biggot group for doing so....surely that means brown is a biggot.

I don't believe either are biggots by the way. i think both have their own opinions. One was willing to listen, smile to the cameras, then when in his safehaven, call her a biggot. The other, was willing to air her views to him, in front of cameras, and walk away without being nasty.

It's not just the biggot thing though. He also basically said he will only answer certain questions, also basically showed his bad tempered bully side we have heard so much about, with reference to who set it up pretty much straight away.

Was around 3 blunders in under 30 secs.

tomterm8

ILW wrote: »

I believe we had a 3 year opt out on open door to EU immigration after the Eastern European countries joined. Why did the present government choose not to take it as others did?

Yes, we had a 3 year opt-out after the Eastern European countries joined. By my calculation, since they joined in 2004, this has no impact on the number of people in the UK today. They would still have the right to come to this country. So, again, I ask why did the Tory party chose to take from the british people the right to control our own borders?

ILW

tomterm8 wrote: »

Yes, we had a 3 year opt-out after the Eastern European countries joined. By my calculation, since they joined in 2004, this has no impact on the number of people in the UK today. They would still have the right to come to this country. So, again, I ask why did the Tory party chose to take from the british people the right to control our own borders?

OK I will take your word for it.
Are you saying that the tories are less likely to try to control immigration than labour in the future?

tomterm8

No, I am saying that it doesn't matter which party you vote for, whether Tory, Labour or Liberal Democrat. As long as we are a member of the EU, we can not prevent EU citizens immigrating into the UK.

It's not that the Tories wouldn't want to control immigration, it is that while we remain part of the EU they can't do so. And neither can the Labour party.

ILW

tomterm8 wrote: »

No, I am saying that it doesn't matter which party you vote for, whether Tory, Labour or Liberal Democrat. As long as we are a member of the EU, we can not prevent EU citizens immigrating into the UK.

It's not that the Tories wouldn't want to control immigration, it is that while we remain part of the EU they can't do so. And neither can the Labour party.

Treaties can be renegotiated if the political will is there. Seem to remenber that Thatcher had a fair few opt outs that Blair let go.

lostinrates

tomterm8 wrote: »

Yes, we had a 3 year opt-out after the Eastern European countries joined. By my calculation, since they joined in 2004, this has no impact on the number of people in the UK today. They would still have the right to come to this country. So, again, I ask why did the Tory party chose to take from the british people the right to control our own borders?

I din't know, but maybe its partly because it suits us to have access to jobs and property in Europe, where we have created significant eyesores and social issues...often property related. These should be discussed.

Equaliser123

tomterm8 wrote: »

They are pointed at Russia.

(By the way, the debate is whether we should fork out 100billion for nuclear submarines that probably won't work for the first decade (Labour and Tory policy), or 10 billion for warheads that can attach to our existing scud missiles, which we know will actually work, and can be fired from existing aircraft and submarines. It isn't whether we should abandon nuclear weapons. All three parties want nuclear weapons)

To be accurate, our nuclear deterrent is not "pointed" anywhere.

Also, we don't have scud missiles (which cannot, in any event, be launched by aircraft or submarine).

And since the demise of the Vulcan bomber, we do not have any current airborne nuclear delivery system.

Your arguments are very Lib Dem - great in theory, but can be blown out of the water (excuse the pun) from a technical perspective.

Equaliser123

My view on the Brown debacle is that whilst I have absolutely no sympathy for him, the media (together with his own security contingent) should not have permitted this eavesdropping on a serving prime minister...at least until next week.

Cannot imagine the same thing being allowed to happen to Obama or any other head of government.

lostinrates

Equaliser123 wrote: »

My view on the Brown debacle is that whilst I have absolutely no sympathy for him, the media (together with his own security contingent) should not have permitted this eavesdropping on a serving prime minister...at least until next week.

Cannot imagine the same thing being allowed to happen to Obama or any other head of government.

It did before...remember the time when Bush and Blair had their microphones on?

edit to add link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071700402_pf.html