Flintoff's bizzare anti immigration rant

[Sanz]

Can't see how these examples are related. One person is working and has settled full time in one country and cannot speak the local language, whereas in Freddie's case he was scheduled to be in the country for 6 weeks. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be related.

You are making too many assumptions here such, how do you know that the job was a full time job ? Is it not possible that it probably was a business requirement/decision to have a non-English speaker as the receptionist (such as this one - Russian Speaking Receptionist job in London, England | SimplyHired UK) ?

Personally I find it hard to believe that anyone would get a receptionist job in England without being able to speak some form of English.

 

[Sanz]

I have never listened to any rap of any kind so my knowledge about this is less than zero. I think children from the less privileged families might get wrong ideas from these songs. In India we have this issue, like the rest of the world, of growing number of youngsters smoking. The previous health minister banned smoking scenes in movies as he believed that heroes smoking was having a wrong influence on children. This is pretty similar to that.

NO. They get it from their own family, society rather than from films or music. The previous Home Minister was an Idiot. It is common in India to smoke/drink in front of children, kids are often asked to go and bring 'Cigarettes' Tobacco etc from the local shop, or drop a Drunk uncle to his home. It always pissed me off big time.

 

[Sanz]

Rap didn't cause violence in that instance, they used rap as a means to promote their own intentions.

I'll bet you anything you like these guys weren't good citizens before they started rapping.

Can't Say I disagree with you.

 

[Top_Cat]

Exactly, but that's not music's fault. If it was, we could just play kids John Lennon's 'Imagine' from when the were born until they reached the age of 18 and we'd never have any problems.

Truth is, Bandura's studies were powerful 50 years ago and, much like the 'we only use 10% of our brains' bit, the public is having a really hard time letting go of him and his kid studies. It was so powerful because Baby Boomers and others saw those kids smacking the daylights out of those dolls and thus the concept of minimising the exposure to violent imagery gained traction. Problem is that it, as I know you're aware, ignores ontogenic factors.

But then, so does playing 'Imagine' until 18. If a kid really is screwed-up from early childhood/birth, no amount of avoidance of violent imagery/music will change them. What remains unclear is just how many people who are eventually violent types were born bad or were made bad. Modern studies of video game violence have been almost as guilty of minimising social factors as Bandura and contemporaries have been of minimising the ontogenic ones. Both sides are just as guilty of evangelising as the other, from what I've seen.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I have never listened to any rap of any kind so my knowledge about this is less than zero. I think children from the less privileged families might get wrong ideas from these songs. In India we have this issue, like the rest of the world, of growing number of youngsters smoking. The previous health minister banned smoking scenes in movies as he believed that heroes smoking was having a wrong influence on children. This is pretty similar to that.

The biggest influence on kids smoking is peer pressure as far as I'm concerned. I think there are similar bans in place in different places though. We've banned cigarette advertising.

As Sanz menitoned before too, seeing your family puffing away like mad doesn't exactly help either. It's not good when such things are 'normalised' in the home environment. The same goes with violence imo. If you live with violence then you're more likely to embrace it. You might get an idea for carrying out a certain violent act from a movie but I think all it does is change the way you went about it, it doesn't change the fact that it would have happened anyway.

Personally, I've never smoked but my mum did. She actually gave up when I came home from school when I was 7 and told her she was going to die if she kept smoking - I have a lot of respect for her for being strong enough to do so. Me not smoking didn't change when I saw things in movies. I know people can be susceptible to suggestion though depending on their own individual circumstances. It doesn't help to throw the baby out with the bathwater though.

I get annoyed when music or TV is blamed for something as it seems to at least partially absolve those who are actually at fault from taking responisibilty.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Can't Say I disagree with you.

 

[Sanz]

You don't think that someone working in a service industry in an English-speaking country needs to be able to speak English? We're not dealing with what language they are speaking at home, with their family, or with friends, but in a job where they have to directly speak and communicate with an English-speaking public.

I understand what you are suggesting here and agree with it. At the same time I dont think the non-English speaking receptionist was hired because the hotel wanted to promote multi-cultural society in England. It probably was a business decision.

 

[Cruxdude]

The biggest influence on kids smoking is peer pressure as far as I'm concerned. I think there are similar bans in place in different places though. We've banned cigarette advertising.

As Sanz menitoned before too, seeing your family puffing away like mad doesn't exactly help either. It's not good when such things are 'normalised' in the home environment. The same goes with violence imo. If you live with violence then you're more likely to embrace it. You might get an idea for carrying out a certain violent act from a movie but I think all it does is change the way you went about it, it doesn't change the fact that it would have happened anyway.

Personally, I've never smoked but my mum did. Didn't change when I saw things in movies. I know people can be susceptible to suggestion though depending on their own individual circumstances. It doesn't help to throw the baby out with the bathwater though.

I get annoyed when music or TV is blamed for something as it seems to at least partially absolve those who are actually at fault from taking responisibilty.

I agree that the previous health minister is a fool. Just saying that some people have these weird ideas but with the right intentions.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I agree that the previous health minister is a fool. Just saying that some people have these weird ideas but with the right intentions.

Yes they do! I don't know anything about the precious health minister in India by the way, so I won't call him a fool myself. It's always done with the best of intentions. I just hate seeing people being handed excuses.

 

[Goughy]

I dont know UKIP so I just read their policies and manifesto.

I dont know how they are percieved or what political skills they have to make it happen, but their policies seem to fit together well and present an organised alternative to the current system.

 

[Uppercut]

Truth is, Bandura's studies were powerful 50 years ago and, much like the 'we only use 10% of our brains' bit, the public is having a really hard time letting go of him and his kid studies. It was so powerful because Baby Boomers and others saw those kids smacking the daylights out of those dolls and thus the concept of minimising the exposure to violent imagery gained traction. Problem is that it, as I know you're aware, ignores ontogenic factors.

But then, so does playing 'Imagine' until 18. If a kid really is screwed-up from early childhood/birth, no amount of avoidance of violent imagery/music will change them. What remains unclear is just how many people who are eventually violent types were born bad or were made bad. Modern studies of video game violence have been almost as guilty of minimising social factors as Bandura and contemporaries have been of minimising the ontogenic ones. Both sides are just as guilty of evangelising as the other, from what I've seen.

Personally i don't think it matters whether they cause violence or not. You can't ban rap, video games or violence in movies because it might incite someone to commit a crime, just like you can't arrest someone for no reason because they might commit a crime.

 

[zaremba]

the Conservatives and LDs completely supported both wars.

The Lib Dems strongly opposed the Iraq war.

 

[Uppercut]

The Lib Dems strongly opposed the Iraq war.

Really? I'll take your word for that. My memory is failing me it seems.

 

[zaremba]

Yep. The Tories, like Labour, took the view "Give War a Chance" but the Lib Dems were dead against it.

 

[GIMH]

Yep. Remember watching the debate and Blair sneering at them, "oh yes...the Liberal Democrats!"

 

[rivera213]

The Lib Dems do have some pithy ideas though.

On a related note, Brian Paddick knocked on my door and I spoke to him for 10 minutes when the "ward" voting came around a couple of months ago.

Nice guy, not cut-throat enough for politics.

 

[malcolmmarshall]

Andrew Flintoff in bizarre anti-immigration outburst in GQ magazine - Telegraph

What a tosspot. I'm quite taken aback by his comments about rap music. is he 30, or 90?

 

[Richard]

LOL @ the way that you say "even the Tories" as if they are on the brink of extremism but not quite there! They have governed this country more than any other party in modern times you know. (gonna cop huge flak from all parts here but meh, everyone knows I want David Cameron's babies)

I've far more Tory-respect now than I ever have at any other point in my life (still can't possibly bring myself to vote that way, obviously) but I still can't resist the odd jibe such as the above. The Tories are clearly far from extremist, but it's fun to faintly praise them while fulsomely praising Lib Dems etc.

Anyway, I don't really think that Flintoff should be blamed or criticised if BNP use his words for their own gain. Propaganda monkeys can pretty much do that with anything. If someone was stupid enough to vote BNP on the basis of what Flintoff said then I imagine the BNP leaflets would have already persuaded them anyway.

I doubt it TBH. Many BNP voters are so simplistic they could quite easily "CBA" if it was a case of pushing through doors without hearing comments such as these Flintoff ones but if doing so after such a thing they might just pay a bit more attention. Might not, of course - I'm just saying without it the risk is always lower.

 

[Richard]

The BNP is a nothing organisation. You sound like a writer for a tabloid newspaper or a lib dem councillor.

The BNP having done anything of real note to suggest they will be anything but a pocket. There's always going to be racism, sorry but that's the fact of life. There's no suggestion they'll be the Nazi party mk.2.

A 0.5% gain over 4 years is nothing. UKIP and even the Green party are more of a force.

I'm all for free speech and if people wnat to vote BNP, so be it, though I guarantee they will do absolutely nothing of note so it's as much a wasted vote as voting for another 1 of the small parties.

That's bollocks.

Sorry, but if Flintoff thinks something which is a legit point, he's allowed to say it. Considering he's good friends with Muttiah Muralitharan, I think common sense would say he isn't racist.

He has said nothing wrong therefore has done nothing wrong. Just because a number of people **** themselves everytime something which isn't politically correct is said, that doesn't mean saying it is wrong.

And again, the BNP are a nothing organisation. I don't know why you're so scared, even in London they are a very small minority of people.

With the number of people who not only disagree with their pro-white views, their anti-homosexual views they have zero chance of being more than a pocket who gain 1 local ward every 4 years (and lose some at the same time so there wont be continual gains).

No-one is suggesting for a second that Flintoff is a racist, just that dangerous racist organisations could use his words to their advantage.

And you seriously underestimate the BNP, as well as misunderstanding their threat. The threat is not that they'll make the UK a repeat of Germany circa 1930s - they are not going to be winning general elections, nor coming close, any time soon.

However, even the tiniest pocket of gain (which they can have no more aspiration than) will damage the country. I really can't be bothered going through why, because I've done so many times and it's a laborious business, and in my experience those who are keen to bury heads in sand will continue to do so and will continue to paint those who realise the full threat as scaremongers. If anyone is interested, this site probably paints the most accurate picture of anywhere.

 

[rivera213]

Both you and that site overestimate the enormity of the BNP in following or clout. That's every bit as bad in propaganda as the BNP are. I'm all for free speech, just because you don't like what they say you don't have the right the stop them saying it.

There will always be pockets of racism, that's life, but they wont be anything but a niche party.

Even in Lancashire where the BNP are strongest, they only took 1 of 3 seats. The other 2 were Lib Dem, who are as opposite from the BNP as you can get.