School governor forced to resign for joining UKIP

[Hastings gull]

People should really avoid talking about politics in the workplace. I talk about politics all the time on internet forums and occasionally with friends - but I just don't do it at work, I don't think any good can come of it.

Presumably the kids in this school were exposed to his far-right views, which is of course unacceptable - it would be interesting to hear the school's side of the story, because if this was the case it is understandable why he was asked to resign. However if he is simply a UKIP voter, it is ridiculous - freedom of political opinion is so important to society, even if it's wrong.

Please don't forget that the chap is a governor, not a teacher, and as such he would be most unlikely to have influenced children. Governors meet outside of school hours, rarely meet children, other than on arranged visits to the school, usually to look at a particular event or a theme, and this is invariably in conjunction with fellow governors or a class teacher. It would be extremely unusual for a governor to address children on anything, let alone a topic where their political views were laid bare.
I think your last sentence displays a rather superior attitude, if I may say so - I fully agree that if someone votes for this or that party, that is their prerogative, as you also laud political freedom of expression, but you end by saying "even if it is wrong" -you mean, presumably, it is wrong because you don't agree? That doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

 

[daveinprague]

You missed off that someone has a track record of mention a political leader who hasn't been a leader for years and someone who bottles get togethers.

..and again, in case you havnt got it yet, I dont give a **** haha

 

[Buzzer]

Uh-oh. He's punch drunk. Can't see the battle is lost.

 

[daveinprague]

I think the other one flounced off the other night.

What with that and Dave's utter humiliation on this thread it's not been a good week on NSC for our expats.

Humiliation? Utter? haha A bit theatrical. The fact that ive had a reggae thread on this board could have given you a clue to my character. i dont start fights, or any aggression, I will defend myself, with whatever I feel is necessary though. I could have met bushy armed. Its better I didnt dont you think?
I havnt been humilated in the slightest.

 

[Buzzer]

Oh, I think your very public spats with Bushy give an even better clue as to your character, complete with posting in capitals and relentless insulting just to add to the aggression.

 

[Stoo82]

People should really avoid talking about politics in the workplace. I talk about politics all the time on internet forums and occasionally with friends - but I just don't do it at work, I don't think any good can come of it.

Presumably the kids in this school were exposed to his far-right views, which is of course unacceptable - it would be interesting to hear the school's side of the story, because if this was the case it is understandable why he was asked to resign. However if he is simply a UKIP voter, it is ridiculous - freedom of political opinion is so important to society, even if it's wrong.

Nice contradiction.

 

[Buzzer]

Perhaps if the Nazis won the war, following genocides of millions more people, they could be living in a utopia by now. National Socialism could hypothetically be the most effective and rewarding political & economic system ever conceived by man, but we all know it is wrong for obvious reasons.

Obviously the politics of UKIP and the rest of the far-right can't be compared to the Nazis (yet) - but what they represent is wrong and it is possible to be objective about this. Equality, the environment, peace, freedom, human rights - objectively these things are "right" and so any political movement that opposes those values must be "wrong", even if they are proposing a system that might benefit some factions of society for some time.

Ah, matey. Gutted for you but someone's already invoked Godwin's Law. Next time, yeah?

 

[Hastings gull]

Perhaps if the Nazis won the war, following genocides of millions more people, they could be living in a utopia by now. National Socialism could hypothetically be the most effective and rewarding political & economic system ever conceived by man, but we all know it is wrong for obvious reasons.

Obviously the politics of UKIP and the rest of the far-right can't be compared to the Nazis (yet) - but what they represent is wrong and it is possible to be objective about this. Equality, the environment, peace, freedom, human rights - objectively these things are "right" and so any political movement that opposes those values must be "wrong", even if they are proposing a system that might benefit some factions of society for some time.

If the policies cannot be compared to the Nazis. then this makes your first para irrelevant. What is so staggering about this, is the simplicity. Whilst I fully agree that the issues you list are "right" what evidence do you have that Ukip does not want freedom, and if they oppose peace, then presumably they want war? What evidence do you have that they oppose freedom, whatever that means? If you object to clear abuses of the Human Rights Act, then that does not follow that you object to human rights? 23,000 people voted Ukip in the two recent by-elections, including, I might add, 11,000 disenchanted labour voters in the Rochdale area, so all these people are "wrong". They must be wrong, because you say so. Voting Ukip is a protest vote and I doubt that many people are voting for it to benefit themselves, more a sense of frustration. I have no axe to grind whatsoever, as I have voted for both the major parties in the past, but can't help feeling that you are simplifying everything to suit your agenda.

 

[Dave the OAP]

I love nsc

 

[jakarta]

Ah, matey. Gutted for you but someone's already invoked Godwin's Law. Next time, yeah?

True, but he hasn't mentioned AH in comparison to Farage so I can't shout House as yet.....

 

[Westdene Wonder]

This can only provide more support for Ukip,Milliband and Cameron must be having sleepless nights,great stuff

 

[Buzzer]

Can I add this vine to the thread for no other reason that it is also quite funny?

[vine]hOIZEi079Z6[/vine]

 

[Dave the OAP]

Can I add this vine to the thread for no other reason that it is also quite funny?

[vine]hOIZEi079Z6[/vine]

Awesome dude!

 

[Buzzer]

Awesome dude!



It gets funnier with each watch!

 

[Hastings gull]

The first paragraph was an extreme example of how we can be objective about morality and ethics in politics.

The proof with UKIP is in the pudding, their policies. Some examples:

Peace

Increase military spending by 40%, double the size of the TA and increase total armed forces numbers by 25%
Buy three new aircraft carriers and 50 more Lightning fighter jets
Arm four new submarines with US nuclear missiles
Greater celebration of the armed forces

Thank you for your response and I certainly did not mean that you should go to such lengths. I am taking this example as this has been a theme in previous posts. Again, I repeat that it is far too simplistic to say that because someone wishes to build up the Armed Forces that they want war and/or are necessarily against peace. Don't forget that this country has had much bigger armies, navies and etc than is now the case -in fact the Army has been cut by more than 25% in the last few years, so this is hardly anything revolutionary. The RAF too has had similar reductions. The Army, for example, has been much bigger under successive governments in the past - were Harold Wilson, Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair all against peace?
The balance of power throughout the Cold War period kept the peace - you might not like it, but a strong military presence does rather deter the bully, and is not necessarily a sign of aggression. The larger European countries have armies which are more numerous than ours - are they against peace? Hitler knew he could bully Poland and Czech, and Stalin knew he could do likewise with Finland and then the Eastern Europe satellites, because they were perceived as militarily weaker.
I repeat -I have no axe to grind whatsoever, but do feel your statements such that we must oppose a party which wants more military spending, because it must follow that they don't want peace, is far too simplistic and in Britain's case, not even true.

 

[daveinprague]

Oh, I think your very public spats with Bushy give an even better clue as to your character, complete with posting in capitals and relentless insulting just to add to the aggression.

Posting in capitals? OMG!!!
I wont lie, I do enjoy poking at him, as he never fails to react. Sorry, but it makes me laugh.
Im not the first person he has had a public spat with, and I very much doubt if im the last.

 

[Hastings gull]

Interesting that you chose that "category" of far-right politics to focus your point on, please don't ignore the others though.

Of course military presence is important in regards to influence on the global affairs - and also can be a deterrent like you say. However, we need to remember what UKIP and other far-right movements represent. War is not only an option, it is encouraged, because the end goal is an aggressive, authoritarian state which rewards the lucky few at the expense of everyone else.

You seem like an intelligent guy, you know as well as I do that UKIP are obviously sugar coating and euphemising their policies to win votes, so it's important to remain aware of what their brand of politics represents.

By dissecting the policies that they have compiled and are ready to reveal to us, we can already see that they are ultra-nationalist. They are cleverly disguising their authoritarian aspirations by including aspects of liberty in their policies - and they are focusing their oppression on certain groups that the majority of the voting population will readily disregard - the unemployed, immigrants, criminals, etc. I feel we can be confident that if they hypothetically got into power the oppression would extend to other factions of the population that aren't privileged enough to be part of their elusive club.

Remember, demilitarisation is key to world peace. Do not trust any politician who wants to bolster our military by such an extent while not in war - think about how we should really be spending our wealth. Do not trust any politician who wants make laws harsher and put more people in prison - because the law is not always right. Do not trust any politician who favours the wellbeing of the rich, before the poor. Do not trust any politician who encourages the oppression of minority groups, because one day, you might be one.

Thanks for this. You too seem an intelligent person which makes this wild, idealistic and sweeping conjecture all the more staggering, mixed with an element of condescension, with the use of the word "we" and how I should be thinking about this and that. History has taught us that demilitarisation is the key to world peace only in theory and history has also taught us that not every one wants to demilitarise. You can pontificate all you want, but the reality is that there will never be demilitarisation. Telling me that it is key is no more than a pipedream.

 

[BN9 BHA]

Can I add this vine to the thread for no other reason that it is also quite funny?

[vine]hOIZEi079Z6[/vine]

That is very funny I waste far too much time watching this sort of stuff on Twitter.

 

[BadFish]

Aww, Nice to know I am missed.

 

[perseus]

UKIP remind you of the German National Socialists of the 1930s?

Or did I misread your post?

Faragism is right wing