Moderator: Jon O'Neill
wtf?Matt Morrison wrote:Michael Wallace wrote:if someone was all "either we'll chop your legs off or we'll chop off the legs of a million other people", you could argue that in principle me losing my legs is better, but I'm going to prefer the other option (assuming they don't all come after me, which they probably won't because they won't have any legs).
click image for full size
This really isn't the place for you to post your advertisements, Matthew.Matt Morrison wrote:
click image for full size
Meh. It was pretty clear to me that he was only invited to be shot down rather than listened to sensibly. Sure, disagree with him, but give him the chance to speak!Mark Harrison wrote:I thought they were reasonably normal questions, if for no other reason than the fact that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time is the big news story of the week in itself. There was a question on something else at the end - there should perhaps have been something on the postal strike, but I didn't think it was unreasonably unrepresentative.Jimmy Gough wrote:Why? I don't see how it is acceptable to create a program about "topical debate" and just use it to persistently attack one guy for an hour and a half to ensure that he and his party look ridiculous. I doubt many politicians from any party at all could've dealt with such a barrage much better. Just seems really unfair to do that because you dislike somebody's political views.Michael Wallace wrote:On the other hand, I'm kinda glad they did do it the way they did - if they'd just asked normal questions he probably would have made far less of a tit of himself, and hopefully a lot of stupid people who'd've watched for the first time last night would have come away just thinking he's a moron (not that I actually expect it to have made any real difference to anything).
He kind of made himself look ridiculous; his party's views are outrageous, and most of the audience and panel disagreed with him enough to openly mock and scorn. That's not to do with the format of the show, that's politics...
This is a completely understandable view and I think especially given what's gone on in recent months with the expenses malarkey, it's one that a lot of other people are going to subscribe to when the election comes round next year. But you know, it's the principle and all that shit, innit? George Jenkins fought Hitler one-on-one in a bare-knuckle fight to make sure you have that vote. You shouldn't waste it.Kirk Bevins wrote:As far as I'm aware they're all liars. I don't know enough about the world for me to warrant voting so I'm not going to.
I don't think I understand you. So you're basically saying democracy is good, but when you find an opinion distasteful we should use propaganda against them? Wasn't that the sort of mentality Hitler had?Michael Wallace wrote:
The following is obviously a gross simplification, and fairly presumptuous, but it illustrates my point.
Option 1) The BBC carefully constructs Question Time to make Nick Griffin look bad, and it causes a huge reduction in BNP support.
Option 2) The BBC runs Question Time as normal, Nick Griffin gets to look like a fairly reasonable person from a fairly reasonable part, and the BNP get lots more supporters.
In principle, option 2 is the 'fair' one. But I would rather they did option 1, because the outcome suits me much better. It's like if someone was all "either we'll chop your legs off or we'll chop off the legs of a million other people", you could argue that in principle me losing my legs is better, but I'm going to prefer the other option (assuming they don't all come after me, which they probably won't because they won't have any legs).
I'm selfish, just like everyone else. Perhaps I'd be more concerned if I paid the licence fee, but I don't, so from my perspective it's just as bad as a newspaper being incredibly biased towards some particular party.Jimmy Gough wrote:I don't think I understand you. So you're basically saying democracy is good, but when you find an opinion distasteful we should use propaganda against them? Wasn't that the sort of mentality Hitler had?
Please don't consider this, if for no other reason than that no human system is ever good enough to prove anything beyond dispute. DNA's good but finds itself in the hands of corruptible people, who may mis-use it. We've had too many miscarriages of justice for this to be an acceptable idea. You can't reprieve and bring back or compensate the dead.Darren Carter wrote:Crime and Justice:Charlie Reams wrote:Examples please!Darren Carter wrote:Some of their non-immigration policies are quite decent though.
- Restore capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers as an option for judges in cases where their guilt is proven beyond dispute (such as with DNA or other compelling evidence).
I find immigration policy tricky. My children have asked me why certain people from abroad can come and work here and others can't, why we can't just up and go and work wherever we please. The facile answer, which doesn't really help defining what the policy should be, is that each country is different, has different needs, resources available to it, etc.Charlie Reams wrote:You've failed to identify anything special about people who were born in Britain. Why do they "deserve" jobs and others don't? How is that separation any more meaningful than separating people on the basis of height, nostril diameter, preferred type of cheese etc? You keep calling them "our" jobs but you haven't made any case for that.
Although they definitely focussed in on Griffin, I think that was fair for two main reasons:Jimmy Gough wrote:Why? I don't see how it is acceptable to create a program about "topical debate" and just use it to persistently attack one guy for an hour and a half to ensure that he and his party look ridiculous. I doubt many politicians from any party at all could've dealt with such a barrage much better. Just seems really unfair to do that because you dislike somebody's political views.Michael Wallace wrote:On the other hand, I'm kinda glad they did do it the way they did - if they'd just asked normal questions he probably would have made far less of a tit of himself, and hopefully a lot of stupid people who'd've watched for the first time last night would have come away just thinking he's a moron (not that I actually expect it to have made any real difference to anything).
It's maybe balanced by the constant rain of shit that the Prime Minister's had to put up with for the last couple of years. Again, probably largely brought on himself. What goes around comes around.Michael Wallace wrote:I'm selfish, just like everyone else. Perhaps I'd be more concerned if I paid the licence fee, but I don't, so from my perspective it's just as bad as a newspaper being incredibly biased towards some particular party.Jimmy Gough wrote:I don't think I understand you. So you're basically saying democracy is good, but when you find an opinion distasteful we should use propaganda against them? Wasn't that the sort of mentality Hitler had?
Well, I did help to put Hitlers fires out.JimBentley wrote:This is a completely understandable view and I think especially given what's gone on in recent months with the expenses malarkey, it's one that a lot of other people are going to subscribe to when the election comes round next year. But you know, it's the principle and all that shit, innit? George Jenkins fought Hitler one-on-one in a bare-knuckle fight to make sure you have that vote. You shouldn't waste it.Kirk Bevins wrote:As far as I'm aware they're all liars. I don't know enough about the world for me to warrant voting so I'm not going to.
The arguments about immigrants stealing jobs is not the most worrying aspect of immigration. I assume that you all know how Australia was invaded by immigrants who became masters of the country, to the detriment of the original inhabitants, the Aborigines. I assume that you all know about America, when in the 1600's, the Pilgrim Fathers landed and were helped to survive by the natives, the so called red Indians. It took just over 200 years for immigrants to take over that vast country, and imprison the native Americans in reservations with apparently no human rights. this tiny country is being invaded by thousands of immigrants, legal and illegal every year. when I was driving trains, I was bringing them up from Dover to london, day after day, week after week, thousands of them. My Guard, also from India, complained that they didn't bother to use the toilets. Their mess was all over floors of the coaches.Phil Reynolds wrote:Someone like Dinos really highlights the difference in attitude between sensible straight guys who are sufficiently comfortable with their sexuality that they can write a double entendre-laden post like this without worrying that they might be seen as gay, and someone like Nick Griffin who finds the sight of two men kissing "creepy". Dinos, you're a hero.
When do you predict this will happen?George Jenkins wrote: when the muslims are in control
An interesting post, George, but I'm curious to know how it relates to the quotation from me with which you began it.George Jenkins wrote:The arguments about immigrants stealing jobs is not the most worrying aspect of immigration. [remainder of post snipped]Phil Reynolds wrote:Someone like Dinos really highlights the difference in attitude between sensible straight guys who are sufficiently comfortable with their sexuality that they can write a double entendre-laden post like this without worrying that they might be seen as gay, and someone like Nick Griffin who finds the sight of two men kissing "creepy". Dinos, you're a hero.
Sorry phil, I suffered from a senior moment. I should have clicked on to a post relating to the subject of immigration. It can only get worse as I get older.Phil Reynolds wrote:An interesting post, George, but I'm curious to know how it relates to the quotation from me with which you began it.George Jenkins wrote:The arguments about immigrants stealing jobs is not the most worrying aspect of immigration. [remainder of post snipped]Phil Reynolds wrote:Someone like Dinos really highlights the difference in attitude between sensible straight guys who are sufficiently comfortable with their sexuality that they can write a double entendre-laden post like this without worrying that they might be seen as gay, and someone like Nick Griffin who finds the sight of two men kissing "creepy". Dinos, you're a hero.
Oh, right. Anyway, you are of course absolutely right to say that, historically, the indigenous populations of countries like Australia and the USA have been largely displaced by "immigrants" from other countries, and I suppose it's not beyond the bounds of possibility to think that such a thing might happen in the future to the UK, although the situation is rather different since we are already a so-called "developed" nation. But so what? We all supposedly originated in a corner of Africa anyway, and have spread out from there over thousands of years to colonise the planet. Even the Australian aborigines and native Americans arrived there from elsewhere.George Jenkins wrote:Sorry phil, I suffered from a senior moment. I should have clicked on to a post relating to the subject of immigration. It can only get worse as I get older.
It will be when muslims have a majority in Parliament. I can understand why people can't see this happening. they live in a comfortable little World where nothing seems to change. It is so gradual they don't see it coming. In fact the World and attitudes are in constant change. that's why we don't hang children any more for stealing bread, but at that time not so long ago, it was quite normal. Not very long before I was born, a farm labourer's wife gave birth to Quintuplets. It was reported that they wil die because he could not afford to feed them, and that was quite normal at that time. It is the same with immigration, it is gradual (if you can call thousands arriving every year as gradual) and we are not supposed to notice. If it was announced that fifty million immigrants were going to be allowed in by next year, there would be an uprising against the government. We are told that the thousands of immigrants arriving every year are counter balanced by thousands emmigrating. It is not specified whether the emmigrants are Asian or black, or native English, but I can't imagine a muslim leaving this country where he is not allowed to starve and he is given money without having to work for it. I am uneasy about the future awaiting my great grandchildren and theirs, and it seems that a lot of people feel the same, considering the increasing support for the B.N.P.Charlie Reams wrote:When do you predict this will happen?George Jenkins wrote: when the muslims are in control
Sorry for being unclear, I meant a specific time. A prediction without a time limit is meaningless because you can always say "Oh that will happen, but later."Charlie Reams wrote:When do you predict this will happen?George Jenkins wrote: when the muslims are in control
Very hard to argue against your logic Phil, but I'm not arguing about banning all immigrants. I'm uneasy about allowing millions of people in who will change the Laws of this country to suit their own religious, murderous beliefs. After all, we don't have Catholics and Protestants murdering each other as they did in the past, so why should we allow a people to take over the country who for one example, murder their own children because it is part of their culturePhil Reynolds wrote:Oh, right. Anyway, you are of course absolutely right to say that, historically, the indigenous populations of countries like Australia and the USA have been largely displaced by "immigrants" from other countries, and I suppose it's not beyond the bounds of possibility to think that such a thing might happen in the future to the UK, although the situation is rather different since we are already a so-called "developed" nation. But so what? We all supposedly originated in a corner of Africa anyway, and have spread out from there over thousands of years to colonise the planet. Even the Australian aborigines and native Americans arrived there from elsewhere.George Jenkins wrote:Sorry phil, I suffered from a senior moment. I should have clicked on to a post relating to the subject of immigration. It can only get worse as I get older.
The laughable thing (all right, one of the many laughable things) about Nick Griffin's argument is that he refers to white British citizens as the "indigenous population" when in fact of course we are no such thing. A large part of the white population of the UK is descended from hostile invading forces who came here from Germany, France, Scandinavia etc. Given that, it makes no sense to suddenly say, at some arbitrary point in history, "Right - everyone who came to live here up to this point is British; everyone who comes here after this point is not."
Summary: Things Change.
Sorry Charlie, I can't quote specific dates etc, but I can quote a precedent for this sort of situation. Years ago, the European leaders got together for a trade discussion, The British Government could not make up it's mind whether to join or not. Finally, Europe lost patience, and we all woke up one day to find that the Common Market had been created without Britain. The Tory Government panicked and decided to join, but De Gaulle said No. It was some years before we were allowed to join after a referendum, for which the British people voted yes, including me. We voted for a trade agreement called the Common Market, and because we were late joining, Britain was penalised by having to pay massive contributions, and because Britain was not a founder member of the Common Market, Britain was a very minor member indeed, and not an equal partner. Europe didn't bother to remember that if it wasn't for us, they would probably be still under the Nazi jackboot.Charlie Reams wrote:Sorry for being unclear, I meant a specific time. A prediction without a time limit is meaningless because you can always say "Oh that will happen, but later."Charlie Reams wrote:When do you predict this will happen?George Jenkins wrote: when the muslims are in control
Dude, move on!George Jenkins wrote:Europe didn't bother to remember that if it wasn't for us, they would probably be still under the Nazi jackboot.
I vote in European elections, and I take note of the fact that the account audits never get signed off.David Williams wrote:I'm sort of with you on the Common Market, George. Free trade, and France and Germany not going to war every thirty years, are things we take for granted now, but they weren't a given in the 1950's. The Common Market achieved that. Bringing Eastern European countries in? Fine. Free movement of labour? Also fine.
But a European Union is something else. There's a big difference between being friendly with your neighbours and making them part of your family. It's barely a democracy. I bet MEP's expenses make MP's look like small change, but no-one knows who they are and no-one cares. No-one knows what powers the European Parliament has, and no-one votes in European elections based on the MEP's performance (correction - no-one votes in European elections).
And if you think the domestic parties are very similar, and you think Europe is the real long-term issue that your vote might make a difference to, who do you vote for?
Quite. Tell me, who's in power now, what's your MEPs' names, what are the major issues facing them at the moment, when are the next elections, what do the opinion polls say? Anyone? And we get snippy with countries that don't embrace democracy.Ian Volante wrote:I vote in European elections, and I take note of the fact that the account audits never get signed off.
So there.
Your youth and lack of experience of real life is showing, so I'll relate to you a bit more of the history of my generation which allowed you in particular, to exist.Charlie Reams wrote:Dude, move on!George Jenkins wrote:Europe didn't bother to remember that if it wasn't for us, they would probably be still under the Nazi jackboot.
George, that is a wonderfully-written post, and has certainly made me think. Although I probably won't experience anything like as much as you have in your life, if I can at least learn to write as well as you over the next 50 years that will be something.George Jenkins wrote:Your youth and lack of experience of real life is showing, so I'll relate to you a bit more of the history of my generation which allowed you in particular, to exist.Charlie Reams wrote:Dude, move on!
When the war ended, All the files stored in offices run by the Nazi S.S. were collected. There was one file which was directly concerned with your future. When Britain and northern Ireland is occupied, all men between the ages of sixteen and sixty five will be deported to Germany for slave labour in factories. We know that would have happened because that system already existed in Germany using slave labour from the occupied countries. [ . . .] That is not your fault of course, but would you agree that all history must be forgotten and all books burnt? The Nazi's thought that, and they staged and filmed the book burning.
Yes, good post, and I probably traded too much clarity in pursuit of pithiness. Obviously one should learn about and from the past. However, you seemed to be implying that Britain's role in the War should entitle us to some kind of presitigous place in what was at the time purely a trading organisation, as if other nations should bend and scrape to our every economic whim in recompense for our participation in a War which was very much in our own interest to join anyway. The attitude of "they owe us" is what I think we should have moved on from by now.George Jenkins wrote: Your youth and lack of experience of real life is showing, so I'll relate to you a bit more of the history of my generation which allowed you in particular, to exist.
When the war ended, All the files stored in offices run by the Nazi S.S. were collected. There was one file which was directly concerned with your future. When Britain and northern Ireland is occupied, all men between the ages of sixteen and sixty five will be deported to Germany for slave labour in factories. We know that would have happened because that system already existed in Germany using slave labour from the occupied countries. One tragedy occurred when the dam busters destroyed one of the dams. The flood waters destroyed buildings housing slave women. Most of them drowned.
So Charlie, your dad or grandad would have been working on behalf of the glorious Reich, and we wouldn't be enjoying the benefit of your witty remarks, in fact I would have been killed long ago when my usefulness to the German war effort came to an end. as for moving on. I assure you that I have, and relish every day I live, with a lovely family and friends, but with memories and history which remind me how lucky I am. It seems that you have no interest in history, and I can understand that, because I don't suppose that you have experienced much to talk about yet. That is not your fault of course, but would you agree that all history must be forgotten and all books burnt? The Nazi's thought that, and they staged and filmed the book burning.
I stand corrected Richard. One of my many faults is that I tend to generalise to much, and I did wonder whether I might get my knuckles rapped over something I've written. I've also read Mein Kampf, and found it heavy going.Richard Brittain wrote:George, I don't wish to contradict you because I see you as an elderly authority and source of wisdom. But having read Hitler's book Mein Kampf in its entirety a few years ago, I got the distinct impression that Hitler greatly admired Britain's empire and its largely Nordic make-up of peoples. Hitler more or less said Britain was his favourite country outside of Germany and Nazi Germany wanted to ally with Britain.
Also, from what I understand, the Nazi book burning was entirely about rejecting modern Jewish and scientific authors, who they deemed overly materialistic and evil. They did not burn general history books, but very much strove to embrace the history and traditions of man.
Derek, Because of you, I have been forced to buy a new hat. The old one is now too small for my head which seems to have swelled up.Derek Hazell wrote:George, that is a wonderfully-written post, and has certainly made me think. Although I probably won't experience anything like as much as you have in your life, if I can at least learn to write as well as you over the next 50 years that will be something.George Jenkins wrote:Your youth and lack of experience of real life is showing, so I'll relate to you a bit more of the history of my generation which allowed you in particular, to exist.Charlie Reams wrote:Dude, move on!
When the war ended, All the files stored in offices run by the Nazi S.S. were collected. There was one file which was directly concerned with your future. When Britain and northern Ireland is occupied, all men between the ages of sixteen and sixty five will be deported to Germany for slave labour in factories. We know that would have happened because that system already existed in Germany using slave labour from the occupied countries. [ . . .] That is not your fault of course, but would you agree that all history must be forgotten and all books burnt? The Nazi's thought that, and they staged and filmed the book burning.
You have just reinforced my decision to make you one of my choices in the favourite members poll.
Aw man, I thought you were going to say you'd eaten it.George Jenkins wrote:Derek, Because of you, I have been forced to buy a new hat. The old one is now too small for my head which seems to have swelled up.
We seemed to have misunderstood each other Charlie and you've cleared your side up. My complaint was aimed at our own dithering M.P,s who apparently couldn't cope with the vision of a united states of Europe. De Gaulle and the others lost their patience and went ahead without Britain. I remember that our Government were shocked at that decision, and then made up their minds to join. That's when De Gaulle started enjoying himself by saying Non. Our Government even tried bribing the Common Market with sharing our rocket, I think called Black Knight, but Europe didn't bite the bait. My point was that if we had joined at the beginning, Britain would have been an equal founder member, As it is, I believe we have to pay huge premiums because of our late entry into the Common Market, but I'm open to corrections on that point.Charlie Reams wrote:Yes, good post, and I probably traded too much clarity in pursuit of pithiness. Obviously one should learn about and from the past. However, you seemed to be implying that Britain's role in the War should entitle us to some kind of prestigious place in what was at the time purely a trading organisation, as if other nations should bend and scrape to our every economic whim in recompense for our participation in a War which was very much in our own interest to join anyway. The attitude of "they owe us" is what I think we should have moved on from by now.George Jenkins wrote: Your youth and lack of experience of real life is showing, so I'll relate to you a bit more of the history of my generation which allowed you in particular, to exist.
When the war ended, All the files stored in offices run by the Nazi S.S. were collected. There was one file which was directly concerned with your future. When Britain and northern Ireland is occupied, all men between the ages of sixteen and sixty five will be deported to Germany for slave labour in factories. We know that would have happened because that system already existed in Germany using slave labour from the occupied countries. One tragedy occurred when the dam busters destroyed one of the dams. The flood waters destroyed buildings housing slave women. Most of them drowned.
So Charlie, your dad or grandad would have been working on behalf of the glorious Reich, and we wouldn't be enjoying the benefit of your witty remarks, in fact I would have been killed long ago when my usefulness to the German war effort came to an end. as for moving on. I assure you that I have, and relish every day I live, with a lovely family and friends, but with memories and history which remind me how lucky I am. It seems that you have no interest in history, and I can understand that, because I don't suppose that you have experienced much to talk about yet. That is not your fault of course, but would you agree that all history must be forgotten and all books burnt? The Nazi's thought that, and they staged and filmed the book burning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr_BaOEQiEQGeorge Jenkins wrote:I'm glad the Germans didn't get here. I've been circumsized because of stricture. (sorry girls)I.ve read that the Nazis would sought the Jews out by telling them to drop their trousers. Phew, what an escape.
As a mother of a disabled child, I'm particularly horrified at that, even if you're probably talking about attitudes a long time ago.George Jenkins wrote: Now a little story of what life might have been like if the Germans were occupying us. I went to Germany to visit my Brother's Mother-in-law. My German Sister-in-law is a cripple. Her Mother told me that she'd had an accident and could not walk. Her mother would place her dinner on the table and tell her to sit at table and eat. If she did not reach the table she would not eat. The Mother told me that she could not see a doctor or take her to a hospital, because she would suffer a "heart attack", as did all cripples, mental patients etc.
Saucy little Devil. I've warned you before when you nearly broke my marriage up, when I dicovered that my lovely Wife loves you more than than she loves me. She only stays with me because I convinced her that I've got more money than you have. GRRRR.Kai Laddiman wrote:Aw man, I thought you were going to say you'd eaten it.George Jenkins wrote:Derek, Because of you, I have been forced to buy a new hat. The old one is now too small for my head which seems to have swelled up.
I told that story Julie, because I had the best possible witness for the truth, a woman who actually lived under the Nazi regime. She also told me about people living in her neighborhood who disappeared. Nobody would question the reason for the disappearances, in case they became known to the Police. What I can't describe in this message, is the fear still in her voice when she told me that the Germans will never again elect another man like Hitler. I watched a television programme a few years ago, investigating the arrest of a woman. Apparently, after the war, a letter was found in the archives, written by a woman who denounced her neighbour on the grounds of suspicious behaviour, of which one example was that she didn't fly any Nazi flags and didn't show any swastikas etc. Also she didn't appear to have any friends and kept herself to her self. The records show that the woman received a visit from the gestapo and was taken away. she died in a concentration camp. The investigators found the woman who'd shopped her neighbor, showed her the letter which she at first denied writing. when she was asked why she wrote it, she claimed that the young woman didn't act like a true German.Julie T wrote:As a mother of a disabled child, I'm particularly horrified at that, even if you're probably talking about attitudes a long time ago.George Jenkins wrote: Now a little story of what life might have been like if the Germans were occupying us. I went to Germany to visit my Brother's Mother-in-law. My German Sister-in-law is a cripple. Her Mother told me that she'd had an accident and could not walk. Her mother would place her dinner on the table and tell her to sit at table and eat. If she did not reach the table she would not eat. The Mother told me that she could not see a doctor or take her to a hospital, because she would suffer a "heart attack", as did all cripples, mental patients etc.
On a subject close to my heart, Hitler banned Home Education in Germany. It is still illegal today. Indeed, a couple of years ago, despite an international outcry among the Home Ed community, a German Home wedded girl was put in a mental institution for not wanting to be sent back to school!
Julie, George was only talking about Hitler's final solution as it applied, at that time, to anybody who was considered "unfit". It is not a general principle that holds in Germany at present.Julie T wrote:As a mother of a disabled child, I'm particularly horrified at that, even if you're probably talking about attitudes a long time ago.George Jenkins wrote: Now a little story of what life might have been like if the Germans were occupying us. I went to Germany to visit my Brother's Mother-in-law. My German Sister-in-law is a cripple. Her Mother told me that she'd had an accident and could not walk. Her mother would place her dinner on the table and tell her to sit at table and eat. If she did not reach the table she would not eat. The Mother told me that she could not see a doctor or take her to a hospital, because she would suffer a "heart attack", as did all cripples, mental patients etc.
On a subject close to my heart, Hitler banned Home Education in Germany. It is still illegal today. Indeed, a couple of years ago, despite an international outcry among the Home Ed community, a German Home edded girl was put in a mental institution for not wanting to be sent back to school!
I wish I understood that.Richard Brittain wrote:Rosemary Roberts is just one small reason why the world is going to end soon. They all add up.
Richard, so far as I can see, my post contained nothing that anybody could take exception to - unless you are bemoaning the fact that Germany no longer follows the true way.Richard Brittain wrote:If you would understand, there wouldn't be a problem to begin with.
If you are saying that it's all in the mind I think you must be right.Richard Brittain wrote:If you really sought to understand, then you would understand.
Link please!Julie T wrote:Indeed, a couple of years ago, despite an international outcry among the Home Ed community, a German Home edded girl was put in a mental institution for not wanting to be sent back to school!
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55730Charlie Reams wrote:Link please!Julie T wrote:Indeed, a couple of years ago, despite an international outcry among the Home Ed community, a German Home edded girl was put in a mental institution for not wanting to be sent back to school!
Jason Larsen wrote:Julie, are you talking about the way George said that?
George can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was relating the attitudes to disability in Germany, just post-war, and saying that these attitudes might have come over here, if the Nazis hadn't been defeated. My example was to highlight that, even in present day Germany, there is still a tendency towards "the state knows best", even if it's not to such an awful degree.Rosemary Roberts wrote:
Julie, George was only talking about Hitler's final solution as it applied, at that time, to anybody who was considered "unfit". It is not a general principle that holds in Germany at present.
, however I couldn't think of a better way of putting it. I'm simply against certain aspects of the way Germany is run, as I am also against some of the ways of our own government.You can always think of questionable reasons for Home Edding, or indeed any other choice in life, although one man's meat is another man's poison. The conclusion shouldn't be that you ban everyone from doing it.Rosemary Roberts wrote:
I was hoping to dredge up that case to give you an update on it but I can't run it down. I don't think it will have been quite so crass as you make it sound. You are quite right, though, about the general situation in Germany: the law demands not "education", but "schooling". The main rationale at present is that some religious groups would like to prevent their children getting a decent education if they could. Think creationism. In fact when we lived in Germany we knew an American who gave up a very prestigious and lucrative job and relocated to the States rather than risk his daughter learning more about sex that he approved of.
Ah... WND. I really don't think it will have been quite so crass as they made it sound.Julie T wrote:http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55730Charlie Reams wrote:Link please!Julie T wrote:Indeed, a couple of years ago, despite an international outcry among the Home Ed community, a German Home edded girl was put in a mental institution for not wanting to be sent back to school!
"You would guess" ??!!Rosemary Roberts wrote: Ah... WND. I really don't think it will have been quite so crass as they made it sound.
Social workers in Germany are not such a law unto themselves as they seem to be in the UK. The court ordered that the girl should be sent for a psychic report or similar assessment, I would guess because the parents claimed in court that she was mentally unable to cope with a mainstream school. It seems quite reasonable for the court to insist that such a statement be checked.
I quit agree that many parents are well able to school their kids and will do them no harm by so doing, but many others are ignorant and/or bigoted and/or have ulterior motives. In most other respects I am as liberal as they come, but I am positively enraged by Islamists who insist that their wives and daughters should remain segregated and uneducated. Ditto creationists, of course.
Since you only gave us the WND link that was all the information I had. As a working rule one can usually discount nine tenths of anything WND says, and I see no reason to give this account any particular credence. My "guess" was based on the knowledge that the German legal system is very rigorous and thorough: the court will have had some reason for making the order.Julie T wrote:"You would guess" ??!!Rosemary Roberts wrote: I would guess
It appears that you are just as keen to fudge things to your way of thinking as you seem to be accusing WND.
There are many other reports detailing the case, e.g. the following:
http://www.netzwerk-bildungsfreiheit.de ... en_en.html
http://www.averynearlytea.com/2007/02/u ... amily.html
And she wasn't just removed for a quick assessment. She was removed from her family for over 2 months, and only returned home when she reached the legal age where she could decide for herself. Her family did not have extremist religious beliefs.
In other cases mentioned there, police removing and accompanying children from home to school each day, has no place in a free country.
Certain checks do need to be made, to make sure that children are not being subjugated, but otherwise, parents should be allowed to teach their children according to their children's needs, not the state's requirements.
I am an atheist and a Darwinist. However, I don't see anything wrong with children being brought up to believe in God, or even Creationism. They can always decide to form their own opinions as they grow older. A loving, nurturing environment is what matters.
How would you determine who was a bigot, and who simply had strong religious beliefs, though?Rosemary Roberts wrote:
I'm sure that there are some children even in Germany who would be better off with home schooling, but I don't see that as a reason to support civil disobedience. I consider it more important to make sure that the unfortunate children born to religious bigots get a fair chance of a general education. The freedom to "form their own opinions" will avail them nothing if they never find out what an opinion is.
Julie, you may not believe it but I am basically on your side. I am deeply thankful that I and my children are way past needing to use the UK school system. Everything I read and hear about Blair's "education, education, education" pisses me off completely and I could never have put up with it. But I don't like to see the German system denigrated, because it is really very good, well balanced and fair and we owe it a lot. I remain convinced that "there will have been reasons" for the case you mentioned - although exactly what they were is naturally a question that cannot be resolved from newspaper reports.Julie T wrote:How would you determine who was a bigot, and who simply had strong religious beliefs, though?Rosemary Roberts wrote:
I'm sure that there are some children even in Germany who would be better off with home schooling, but I don't see that as a reason to support civil disobedience. I consider it more important to make sure that the unfortunate children born to religious bigots get a fair chance of a general education. The freedom to "form their own opinions" will avail them nothing if they never find out what an opinion is.
I was brought up very strictly Catholic, but managed to form my own opinions in my late teens, and became an atheist.
I don't regret being brought up Catholic, though - the faith has a lot of good moral values.
Deciding who would be bringing their children up following a benevolent religious code, and who would be brainwashing their children that no-one else's views mattered, would be rather difficult to do, and the latter would be few and far between. Children always leave home eventually anyway.
A lot of the arguments against further regulation in Home Ed in this country takes the form of "if it happen to us, then who next?".
Meaning that, if these strictures are allowed against Home Edders, then maybe later on they might be applied to all families.
How would you feel, if you were the parent of an under 16 year old, and the state decided that you could be investigated and told how to raise them, against your wishes, even if there is no abuse suspected? And took that child away from you, if you didn't do exactly as they said?
A Home Educating family's home is not a school where rules and regulations are necessary when teachers are professionals educating other people's children. It is a home where parents are caring for, raising and educating their own children. If the government was trying to tell you how to run your family home, I think that you might have a different view about civil disobedience.
Admittedly, I do not know personally the family involved either. And, until I experienced several instances of acquaintances being unjustly accused, I had a similar "no smoke without fire" attitude towards families being so persecuted. The authorities really do, even in the UK, exaggerate or even completely fabricate concerns in order to get their own way.Rosemary Roberts wrote: Julie, you may not believe it but I am basically on your side. I am deeply thankful that I and my children are way past needing to use the UK school system. Everything I read and hear about Blair's "education, education, education" pisses me off completely and I could never have put up with it. But I don't like to see the German system denigrated, because it is really very good, well balanced and fair and we owe it a lot. I remain convinced that "there will have been reasons" for the case you mentioned - although exactly what they were is naturally a question that cannot be resolved from newspaper reports.
As to who is a bigot - in this context, anybody who decides to hide certain information from their children on the basis of a magic book. What they teach is not so much a problem as what they wilfully conceal.
I think that ought to be "particularly in the UK", I haven't heard of it much elsewhere. My theory is that social workers are carefully trained not to get "involved" in the cases they deal with, so they make a snap judgement based on almost no information and stick with it no matter what evidence is uncovered later. A family I know had a six-year-old child adopted against their will - the father was in prison and the mother not entirely stable and not bright enough to know how to object - the whole deal wrapped up in an enormous hurry, apparently because in a couple of more weeks a new law would have come into force that said the child had to be consulted. Since then I don't trust any social workers an inch.Julie T wrote:The authorities really do, even in the UK, exaggerate or even completely fabricate concerns in order to get their own way.
Clearly you have not been following Labour too closely since July '94!Chris Corby wrote:(b) It's not fair that one person should have all that property (Labour)
