Brexit - the next steps

[ProfessorDavey]

For which I have said that I was wrong. However you continue to misrepresent what I said, and quote 'in full' something that you had edited.

I quoted in full the offending comment - in other words the particular section that offended me.

We are in pedantry a-go-go world now. So just to ensure we can now close down this one, here goes:

Here is Rhiannon's post in full:

'Do you have the stats for that?

I've mentioned my mate in Grimsby before. He works as a long haul driver for an agency. One day they are all told that a group of Polish drivers have arrived looking for work, they will do it for less so everyone has to take a wage cut or they won't get work. Not long after, both Brits and Poles are told to take another wage cut because the Romanian drivers have arrived. And the likelihood of this being a rogue employer is what, exactly?

Or in my neck of the woods, the head of Cambs police is on television giving an interview saying that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding. They don't bother the locals, just bring over ancient disagreements from their homelands and stab each other, and as she pointed out, that needs policing in a county where the village bobby on a bike is still a thing. So the character of a place changes.

I love the fact that I can find Polish branded food in my local supermarket. We like to try some of it. But to others that will be a change too. Are we 'overrun'? No, but this is new and there will be people who don't like it, just as much as I think it is something to enjoy.'

The 'offending' comment from the entire post is (in other words the comment that I found offensive) was:

'Or in my neck of the woods, the head of Cambs police is on television giving an interview saying that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding. They don't bother the locals, just bring over ancient disagreements from their homelands and stab each other, and as she pointed out, that needs policing in a county where the village bobby on a bike is still a thing.'

Hope that helps you both sleep soundly.

[Nearly Sane]

Read post 2262 - note the bit I have italicised:

'This was the 'offending' comment from Rhiannon, in full:'

In other words the full comment that offended me and that I felt would act to provide fuel to those (unlike Rhiannon) who are racist or xenophobic.

Which we now know bears no resemblance to what Julie Spence actually said in the 2007 BBC article, which she later further watered down further.

You replied to the post in full at first. Using the words 'in full ' and then not quoting in full as you did is just lying. And then you misrepresented what she said. And have continually not apologized.

[Rhiannon]

You are excellent at taking offence, ProfD. Not so great at admitting when you give it.

[Nearly Sane]

I quoted in full the offending comment - in other words the particular section that offended me.

We are in pedantry a-go-go world now. So just to ensure we can now close down this one, here goes:

Here is Rhiannon's post in full:

'Do you have the stats for that?

I've mentioned my mate in Grimsby before. He works as a long haul driver for an agency. One day they are all told that a group of Polish drivers have arrived looking for work, they will do it for less so everyone has to take a wage cut or they won't get work. Not long after, both Brits and Poles are told to take another wage cut because the Romanian drivers have arrived. And the likelihood of this being a rogue employer is what, exactly?

Or in my neck of the woods, the head of Cambs police is on television giving an interview saying that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding. They don't bother the locals, just bring over ancient disagreements from their homelands and stab each other, and as she pointed out, that needs policing in a county where the village bobby on a bike is still a thing. So the character of a place changes.

I love the fact that I can find Polish branded food in my local supermarket. We like to try some of it. But to others that will be a change too. Are we 'overrun'? No, but this is new and there will be people who don't like it, just as much as I think it is something to enjoy.'

The 'offending' comment from the entire post is (in other words the comment that I found offensive) was:

'Or in my neck of the woods, the head of Cambs police is on television giving an interview saying that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding. They don't bother the locals, just bring over ancient disagreements from their homelands and stab each other, and as she pointed out, that needs policing in a county where the village bobby on a bike is still a thing.'

Hope that helps you both sleep soundly.

I won't have a problem sleeping but then I'm not the one lying about something being 'in full' or misrepresenting what someone said. And the 'offending' comment was stil! A valid reading not something that had nothing to do with the aticle, but then since you seem to have no problem lying or misrepresenting people, then that won't bother you either.


Btw any answer to why I should take the claim of someone saying they weren't lying as objective?

[ProfessorDavey]

You replied to the post in full at first. Using the words 'in full ' and then not quoting in full as you did is just lying. And then you misrepresented what she said. And have continually not apologized.

Is that actually supposed to mean anything.

Actually when I first replied (way back in reply 2200) I selected that comment from the entire post that I found most offending, however pretty well the entire paragraph is pretty offending and unnecessarily inflammatory.

The first and last paragraphs are fine though - just so you understand that response can be nuanced - you can agree with one part of a post, but not another part.

[Nearly Sane]

Is that actually supposed to mean anything.

Actually when I first replied (way back in reply 2200) I selected that comment from the entire post that I found most offending, however pretty well the entire paragraph is pretty offending and unnecessarily inflammatory.

The first and last paragraphs are fine though - just so you understand that response can be nuanced - you can agree with one part of a post, but not another part.

And I wouldn't call it 'in full' because it's incorrect. Since you know that in context  you are lying, and have misrepresented Rhiannon, and refused to apologise.

[ProfessorDavey]

Btw any answer to why I should take the claim of someone saying they weren't lying as objective?

I don't think objectiveness comes in to it when discussing someone's intentions - these are purely subjective matters, but critically subjective, in as much as if someone claims to have done something with (or without) a particular intention who am I (or you) to claim otherwise. I cannot know your intentions and you cannot know mine, but that doesn't mean that each of our opinions are equal on the matter - point being that you can never know my intentions, while I always know them. Sure I could be lying (but you've been rather reticent to accuse me of that directly in this context, although seem happy to do so in other contexts), but again only I can ever know if that is the case.

Oh and by the way it wasn't my intention to be patronising and no I am not lying.

[Rhiannon]

Is that actually supposed to mean anything.

Actually when I first replied (way back in reply 2200) I selected that comment from the entire post that I found most offending, however pretty well the entire paragraph is pretty offending and unnecessarily inflammatory.

The first and last paragraphs are fine though - just so you understand that response can be nuanced - you can agree with one part of a post, but not another part.

Except your offence seems to come from your belief that I'd listened to gossip by a friend of a friend in a pub (or similar) and repeated it. It seems that you didn't believe me when I recalled (imperfectly, but I think it reasonable that my brain at the time connected her comments about people arming themselves with knives for protection and someone dying as a result of a feud) the comments of a senior ranking police officer. So you must have dismissed that as a lie on my part from the off.

Remember this was a part of a discussion about the reasons for why people voted as they did, especially in areas of low migration.

If you said that I was recalling an inflammatory statement given by a senior ranking police officer then I would have agreed with you. If you don't like what she said take it up with her. I'm sure a quick google will bring up her details.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think objectiveness comes in to it when discussing someone's intentions - these are purely subjective matters, but critically subjective, in as much as if someone claims to have done something with (or without) a particular intention who am I (or you) to claim otherwise. I cannot know your intentions and you cannot know mine, but that doesn't mean that each of our opinions are equal on the matter - point being that you can never know my intentions, while I always know them. Sure I could be lying (but you've been rather reticent to accuse me of that directly in this context, although seem happy to do so in other contexts), but again only I can ever know if that is the case.

Oh and by the way it wasn't my intention to be patronising and no I am not lying.

And once you accept that it's subjective the word 'wrong' is inappropriate, and again you just saying you aren't lying is exactly what a liar would say so it moves you nowhere. That you may not have intended to be patronising doesn't mean you weren't being patronising, just that you may not have sufficient self knowledge to know if you were.

And you have still lied about quoting someone 'in full' and misrepresented them. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Except your offence seems to come from your belief that I'd listened to gossip by a friend of a friend in a pub (or similar) and repeated it. It seems that you didn't believe me when I recalled (imperfectly, but I think it reasonable that my brain at the time connected her comments about people arming themselves with knives for protection and someone dying as a result of a feud) the comments of a senior ranking police officer. So you must have dismissed that as a lie on my part from the off.

Remember this was a part of a discussion about the reasons for why people voted as they did.

If you don't like what she said take it up with her. I'm sure a quick google will bring up her details.

I actually said in the original post that I don't believe you are the kind of person who succumbs to the "my mate knows a bloke who had a chat in the pub who told me that all those foreigners are raping our women'

Which was precisely why I was surprised and concerned that someone like you (i.e. not racist or xenophobic) would be coming out with the kind of exaggerated, inflammatory and scare-mongering comments. Hence why I said that you should read you comment again and be careful about posting comments of that sort. Point being that those of us who aren't racist or xenophobic (including you and me) need to take care in our use of language so as to avoid providing fuel to those that are.

As it turns out your comments bear no resemblance to the actual comments of the person (Julie Spence) who you were purporting to be referring to and in fact I can find no news report of a Lithuanian on Lithuanian murder, caused by stabbing in Cambridgeshire recently before her comments (in 2007). The nearest being a poor guy burned to death in his van in Wisbech - which was determined to be manslaughter and remains unsolved.

And I stand by my comment - if you are unclear on details of an interview, perhaps because they are from 11 years ago and heard briefly on a tv report, best not to infer the most lurid (stabbing each other) and extreme (can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding) interpretation (or as it turns out misinterpretation) of what was actually said. Why ... because it is like red meat to the racists and xenophobes.

[ProfessorDavey]

And once you accept that it's subjective the word 'wrong' is inappropriate ...

It might be from where you are standing (as you cannot know whether I am lying nor my intentions), but not from where I am standing.

Are you really saying that if you claim that I like opera that I (who knows whether or not I like opera) cannot tell you whether you are right or wrong - of course I can. And I will know for sure, while you can either accept what I say or claim I am lying (but I will also know for sure whether I am lying or not).

[Nearly Sane]

I actually said in the original post that I don't believe you are the kind of person who succumbs to the "my mate knows a bloke who had a chat in the pub who told me that all those foreigners are raping our women'

Which was precisely why I was surprised and concerned that someone like you (i.e. not racist or xenophobic) would be coming out with the kind of exaggerated, scaremongering and scare-mongering comments. Hence why I said that you should read you comment again and be careful about posting comments of that sort. Point being that those of us who aren't racist or xenophobic (including you and me) need to take care in our use of language so as to avoid providing fuel to those that are.

As it turns out your comments bear no resemblance to the actual comments of the person (Julie Spence) who you were purporting to be referring to and in fact I can find no news report of a Lithuanian on Lithuanian murder, caused by stabbing in Cambridgeshire recently before her comments (in 2007). The nearest being a poor guy burned to death in his van in Wisbech - which was determined to be manslaughter and remains unsolved.

And I stand by my comment - if you are unclear on details of an interview, perhaps because they are from 11 years ago and heard briefly on a tv report, best not to infer the most lurid (stabbing each other) and extreme (can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding) interpretation (or as it turns out misinterpretation) of what was actually said. Why ... because it is like red meat to the racists and xenophobes.

Yes and since Rhiannon didn't say anything like that it was a misrepresentation of her post. Further the grid idea was raised and isn't no part of what was said so that's another misrepresentation.

[Nearly Sane]

It might be from where you are standing (as you cannot know whether I am lying nor my intentions), but not from where I am standing.

Are you really saying that if you claim that I like opera that I (who knows whether or not I like opera) cannot tell you whether you are right or wrong - of course I can. And I will know for sure, while you can either accept what I say or claim I am lying (but I will also know for sure whether I am lying or not).

No, and that's another complete misrepresentation. I'm stating that you just saying you aren't lying is worthless to you showing that you are not lying, and that using a term 'wrong' implies an objectivity that you are in no position  to justify.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes and since Rhiannon didn't say anything like that it was a misrepresentation of her post. Further the grid idea was raised and isn't no part of what was said so that's another misrepresentation.

And I never said she did so how can I be misrepresenting her.

However her 'offending' comment seemed to me to be of a similar exaggerated and scaremongering nature, and so it proved to be. Not through any malign intent but through misremembering what was actually said all those years ago.

[Nearly Sane]

And I never said she did so how can I be misrepresenting her.

However her 'offending' comment seemed to me to be of a similar exaggerated and scaremongering nature, and so it proved to be. Not through any malign intent but through misremembering what was actually said all those years ago.

Because it has nothing to do with someone she knew down the pub reporting something third hand and is indeed backed up by the article. So it was a complete misrepresentation, along with of course your lazy generalisation about Leave voters having to be protected from their inherent racist stupidity 

[ProfessorDavey]

Further the grid idea was raised and isn't no part of what was said so that's another misrepresentation.

The grid idea? - sorry I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain please.

[ProfessorDavey]

Because it has nothing to do with someone she knew down the pub reporting something third hand and is indeed backed up by the article.

It demonstrably isn't back up by the article.

So it was a complete misrepresentation, along with of course your lazy generalisation about Leave voters having to be protected from their inherent racist stupidity

Where exactly have I generalised, lazily or otherwise, that leave voters are inherently racist - I haven't. And isn't Rhiannon a remain voter anyway - I thought she was, but might be wrong - no doubt she will correct me if I an wrong in thinking she was a remain voter.

[Nearly Sane]

It demonstrably isn't back up by the article.
Where exactly have I generalised, lazily or otherwise, that leave voters are inherently racist - I haven't. And isn't Rhiannon a remain voter anyway - I thought she was, but might be wrong - no doubt she will correct me if I an wrong in thinking she was a remain voter.

It is mentioned in the article. Your position is that it is entirely invalid to mention it. That's just incorrect.

Your entire pitch to Rhiannon was that she shouldn't say something about what someone has said to her friend down the pub (which she didn't that was just you lying), and that was somehow bad because it would somehow inflame the people who might be racist inclined which are obviously those leave voters you want to dismiss

[Nearly Sane]

The grid idea? - sorry I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain please.

actual idea. And you have been denying it despite the article ever since.

[ProfessorDavey]

actual idea. And you have been denying it despite the article ever since.

Nope - still haven't got a clue what you are on about - what 'actual idea'?

Anyone else understand what NS is trying to say?

[Nearly Sane]

Nope - still haven't got a clue what you are on about - what 'actual idea'?

Anyone else understand what NS is trying to say?

The actual idea of feuds been carried over is in the article. And you have denied it continually.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your entire pitch to Rhiannon was that she shouldn't say something about what someone has said to her friend down the pub (which she didn't that was just you lying), and that was somehow bad because it would somehow inflame the people who might be racist inclined which are obviously those leave voters you want to dismiss

Blimey you really are putting two and two together and making 76!!

Apart from indicating that I thought that Rhiannon voted remain (although I might be wrong) where in the whole thread since she made her comment on Cambridgeshire police (reply2194) have I made a single comment about leave voters? Hmm, another example of confirmation bias on your part perhaps.

[Nearly Sane]

Blimey you really are putting two and two together and making 76!!

Apart from indicating that I thought that Rhiannon voted remain (although I might be wrong) where in the whole thread since she made her comment on Cambridgeshire police (reply2194) have I made a single comment about leave voters? Hmm, another example of confirmation bias on your part perhaps.

So who were you worrying about when you misrepresented Rhiannin's post as being liable to be stoked up by racism? And when are you going to apologise for misrepresenting her post?

[ProfessorDavey]

The actual idea of feuds been carried over is in the article. And you have denied it continually.

Wrong again - in the article she says that 'that ongoing feuds can also be brought into the country' - note my emphasis - can, not are and into the country, not into Cambridgeshire.

She then makes this claim about a recent murder that was Lithuanian on Lithuanian, which elsewhere is indicated to have been in Wisbech. Problem is the sad death of Dainius Kigas (the only possible recent death in Wisbech) wasn't murder, but manslaughter and also remains unsolved so there is no evidence that the perpetrator was also Lithuanian.

But actually I do not deny that feuds can (and probably) are brought into this country, and perhaps even into Cambridgeshire. Just as feuds from one part of the country might be brought to another part of the country. Nope my issue is with Rhi's claim that 'she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding' (again my emphasis). She never said that, nor in any way implied it. And she would look pretty stupid to have claimed that her policeforce were unable to do their job across the entire county due to a few isolated incidents of gang feuds (if these even ever happened).

[Nearly Sane]

Wrong again - in the article she says that 'that ongoing feuds can also be brought into the country' - note my emphasis - can, not are and into the country, not into Cambridgeshire.

She then makes this claim about a recent murder that was Lithuanian on Lithuanian, which elsewhere is indicated to have been in Wisbech. Problem is the sad death of Dainius Kigas (the only possible recent death in Wisbech) wasn't murder, but manslaughter and also remains unsolved so there is no evidence that the perpetrator was also Lithuanian.

But actually I do not deny that feuds can (and probably) are brought into this country, and perhaps even into Cambridgeshire. Just as feuds from one part of the country might be brought to another part of the country. Nope my issue is with Rhi's claim that 'she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding' (again my emphasis). She never said that, nor in any way implied it. And she would look pretty stupid to have claimed that her policeforce were unable to do their job across the entire county due to a few isolated incidents of gang feuds (if these even ever happened).

I think you are trying a rather desperate reading here which as I covered a number of posts ago makes no sense in context.