In reply to DancingOnRock:
> Just accuse anyone who isn’t a rampant lefty of being a racisit, Brexiter Tory. There’s no point in entering into discussion with them anymore. Trying to point out there are other points of view, that are equally valid, is like trying to talk to a flat earther most days.
I actually agree with you, but to a point. There are certain views of the far right and certain, different, views of the far left that are destructive and illiberal. Pursuing said policies have a direct negative effect on other people's lives, most of the time without any *actual* benefit to the people that support them beyond anachronistic views of "how things used to be". Those point of view are not "equally valid", literal wars have been fought because these views are not considered to be "equally valid" by the liberal west.
Let's take this particular example here. A person moved to the country in 2003. Tried to follow all the rules required of them. The Home Office screwed up and held their passport for longer than they should have, which resulted in an absence longer than the Home Office itself allows. In order to appease people that feel we should be tough on immigration, the Home Office refuses to back down, even when the actual grounds of refusal have been deemed illegal according to the laws that government itself has passed. I post a link to the story. Some people downvote without actually commenting, because they have a valid point of view supporting this scenario that would be shot down? What valid point of view would that be?
There are a couple of posters here that were really active a few months ago, that really excused everything the HO was doing, basically pushing a view that people must always follow the rules and that the HO is not vindictive. The view that people must follow the rules is perfectly valid, provided the HO actually follows the rules and enforces the laws itself, rather than actively trying to nitpick to meet some arbitrary targets. Here we have a specific example where the person affected did their utmost to follow all the rules, has won appeals yet their case is consistently rejected by the HO.
Martin above hit the nail on the head when he said that they are under-resourced, they almost definitely are, so mistakes happen. So, why are the mistakes pursued, to great cost to the tax payer, rather than admitted? What view could possibly justify this that you would consider to be a valid point of view? Here we have someone that did everything in their power to follow the rules and is at thread of being removed from the country through no fault of their own. A tax payer, who has not even accessed public funds. What would justify this, I am genuinely curious?
To get back to my point to you, I understand what you are saying, shutting down discussion by calling people racist etc. is counter productive, I agree with this. However, not all points of view are equally valid, no matter how many people hold them. Let's take a quick example where much (not all)* of the left and a lot (not all) of the right agree on: Homosexuality. A few decades ago it was officially illegal and contemptible. Now, all the major parties, the Conservatives included, at least officially agree that that view is dangerous and outdated. There are still some Moggs in there that hold these views and the current PM is known to written horrifically homophobic articles, but equality there remains the official party view, *regardless* of the fact that there are very significant parts of the population that disagree with this.
* For example, the Communist Party of Greece, which is a full on remnant of the Soviets, do not support equality.
Post edited at 14:32
