Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
I think, while it still has measurable detrimental effects on the descendants of the victims. And I'm afraid there is a direct line of causation between your ancestors and mine running a slaving based economy, and shooting George Floyd being more OK than shooting a white version of him.
And Africans who enslaved other Africans? By repute the slave ships were buying already enslaved Africans on the coast.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake. I cannot apologise for what my ancestors did. I can try and make things better now.
I don't think if it were me I would be expecting an apology, but just acknowledgment or at least non-denial. I unexpectedly infuriated a righty PBer the other day, can't remember who, by making the point that there isn't much to choose in terms of ill fortune between waiting for a death camp train in 1941 Germany and waiting to be picked up by a British slave ship on the 18th century Slave Coast. I assume he saw the latter as: free all expenses paid trade wind passage on a classic tall ship followed by guaranteed lifetime employment in a Caribbean paradise.
Interesting point and a good analogy. Not exactly a Royal Caribbean cruise... But should we expect a twenty year old German to apologise for the Nazis?
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you also don't revel in the glories of a country unless you partook at least in some small way.
I'm ok with that, but not with those who celebrate their country's greatness without also feeling shame for her squalor.
Thankfully we haven't constructed an honours system based around the British Empire under which much of the horrors of transantlantic slavery took place.
We haven't, right?
I was struck by Duke of Rothesay’s speech in Barbados. I cannot recall a member of the British Establishment being so clear on the disgraceful role played by said Establishment in the slave trade.
Maybe he’ll not be such a poor monarch after all?
Charlie does show occasional glimmers of membership of the human race, his brothers not so much. The cynic in me thinks that they're well advised and realise that the continuation of 'the Firm' means that they get with the programme. See also young bawheid's conversion to the green agenda.
Charles is a very bad man, not only is he a fornicator and adulterer but....
The Prince of Wales unwittingly triggered the royal family’s rift with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when he speculated about the skin tone of their future children, a book claims.
I know it's only a subset of Conservative activists, but to have Truss, Frost, Trevelyan and Dorries as the top four suggests they have lost the plot.
I'd think the same if an equivalent Labour survey in 2019 had Pidcock, Burgon, Abbott and Lavery in the top four positions - which was plausible back then.
Two out of four have done an absolutely fantastic job.
The third I'm not sure about, the fourth is simply amusing because of how apoplectic she drives opponents.
Cabinets are a team building exercise and most PMs seem to find it useful to have a Minister for stupidity who makes everyone else feel better about themselves. Its a morale thing, I think. After the departure of Williamson there was a vacancy and Mad Nad seems destined to fill it.
Culture is something Britain is very good at. An example of soft power. Media is vital in the world we live in. And sport too matters.
All 3 deserve a Cabinet Minister of real clout, intelligence and standing not the office joke. This government has cut spending on arts education thus styming opportunities for the young. Culture is not an optional extra. It is vital to a rounded education, an intelligent nation, a country's well being, a country which punches above its weight. That a government led by a man who boasts about his knowledge of the classics and had one of the best educations money can buy should appoint an ignorant dimwit like Dorries to the role is depressing.
Why do we no longer aspire to anything beyond the second-rate at best?
As for the Shadow Cabinet, pleased about Streeting and Philippson. Let's see what they make of their new roles. Cooper has been forensic in her demolition of Patel in Select Committees. But she now has the infinitely harder task of coming up with a migration/refugee policy which is both popular and effective. Is she up to it?
As for Lammy, am in 2 minds about him. He can be very good on some things. But he can also be an arse on others. His recent statements about womens bodies and women "hoarding rights" like dinosaurs has marked him down considerably in my eyes.
Starmer has not been good at choosing people so far. His initial instincts have been poor and he has had to make quite a few changes in 2 years. That is not a great sign of someone who is good at assessing people. May be it is because he felt forced to do so. I'm not sure about that. Still let's see.
Yet Dorries is a best selling author.
It may not be an aspect of culture some are interested in but culture should encompass the widest range of things and isn't only for those with a knowledge of the classics and expensive educations.
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
I think, while it still has measurable detrimental effects on the descendants of the victims. And I'm afraid there is a direct line of causation between your ancestors and mine running a slaving based economy, and shooting George Floyd being more OK than shooting a white version of him.
And Africans who enslaved other Africans? By repute the slave ships were buying already enslaved Africans on the coast.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake. I cannot apologise for what my ancestors did. I can try and make things better now.
I don't think if it were me I would be expecting an apology, but just acknowledgment or at least non-denial. I unexpectedly infuriated a righty PBer the other day, can't remember who, by making the point that there isn't much to choose in terms of ill fortune between waiting for a death camp train in 1941 Germany and waiting to be picked up by a British slave ship on the 18th century Slave Coast. I assume he saw the latter as: free all expenses paid trade wind passage on a classic tall ship followed by guaranteed lifetime employment in a Caribbean paradise.
Interesting point and a good analogy. Not exactly a Royal Caribbean cruise... But should we expect a twenty year old German to apologise for the Nazis?
My view has long been that once you get past the generation that perpetrated the crimes, one should no longer expect people to apologise for something they had no part of and which they could do nothing to stop. I don't expect the modern Spaniards to apologise for the Conquistadors, nor the Italians to apologise for the Roman Empire. If you could do nothing to prevent it then you should not apologise for it. Of course the obverse also applies. I do not see the point of being proud of the achievements of our ancestors. Things happened - for good and bad - and if we had no part in them then why should we take either credit or blame for them.
This doesn't mean one should not express some form of regret that they occurred and endeavour to ensure they are not repeated but this should not involve any feeling of guilt or personal responsibility. It is meaningless.
Surely if it is different for those that derive immense power from a hereditary principle? Their power is directly linked to an idea that spans many lifetimes. Either they are responsible for apologising for the institutions behaviour (not their ancestors behaviour), or the institutions should not select on a hereditary basis.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you also don't revel in the glories of a country unless you partook at least in some small way.
I'm ok with that, but not with those who celebrate their country's greatness without also feeling shame for her squalor.
Thankfully we haven't constructed an honours system based around the British Empire under which much of the horrors of transantlantic slavery took place.
We haven't, right?
I was struck by Duke of Rothesay’s speech in Barbados. I cannot recall a member of the British Establishment being so clear on the disgraceful role played by said Establishment in the slave trade.
Maybe he’ll not be such a poor monarch after all?
Charlie does show occasional glimmers of membership of the human race, his brothers not so much. The cynic in me thinks that they're well advised and realise that the continuation of 'the Firm' means that they get with the programme. See also young bawheid's conversion to the green agenda.
Charles is a very bad man, not only is he a fornicator and adulterer but....
The Prince of Wales unwittingly triggered the royal family’s rift with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when he speculated about the skin tone of their future children, a book claims.
Just fucking end democracy now, the people are idiots.
Missed you question last night. So in answer to "What is my favourite alkane?" - currently any dimethylsubstituted nonanoic acid, as part of a synthetic capsaicinoid project (which is limping along).
And this is why I'm no longer in the field. By my final year I couldn't wait for it to be over. It was such a huge error, I should have done physics where I have a really genuine interest and the optional modules were great. Though I imagine the social life would have been quite different.
You've probably earned far more money than me too (and you are younger). I still get the buzz when we get a good result. Thats how I know I am in the right job.
It's not so much the money, for the first 5 years out of uni I was a developer on not very much money it's the second part for me. I just didn't care about my experimental results, I didn't care if they failed. I remember talking to the PhD who was helping me with my final year project and she literally said "you really just don't give a fuck" when something was going badly wrong, she wasn't being rude but more just a realisation that I couldn't wait to be done with it all and never be in a lab again.
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
I think, while it still has measurable detrimental effects on the descendants of the victims. And I'm afraid there is a direct line of causation between your ancestors and mine running a slaving based economy, and shooting George Floyd being more OK than shooting a white version of him.
And Africans who enslaved other Africans? By repute the slave ships were buying already enslaved Africans on the coast.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake. I cannot apologise for what my ancestors did. I can try and make things better now.
I don't think if it were me I would be expecting an apology, but just acknowledgment or at least non-denial. I unexpectedly infuriated a righty PBer the other day, can't remember who, by making the point that there isn't much to choose in terms of ill fortune between waiting for a death camp train in 1941 Germany and waiting to be picked up by a British slave ship on the 18th century Slave Coast. I assume he saw the latter as: free all expenses paid trade wind passage on a classic tall ship followed by guaranteed lifetime employment in a Caribbean paradise.
I do wonder if the Caribbean slave owners and slave traders realised they were creating the basis for future Black Republics.
One thing I've never seen is an analysis as to what date the lives of slaves and their descendants became preferable to what they would have been in their ancestors had not been transported.
It would be different dates depending on location of course - slavery and its aftermath was different between Missouri, Jamaica, Haiti and Brazil.
Mauretania was the last country to outlaw slavery, as recently as 1981.
But still exists:
In 1981, Mauritania made slavery illegal, the last country in the world to do so. Nonetheless, tens of thousands of people – mostly from the minority Haratine or Afro-Mauritanian groups – still live as bonded labourers, domestic servants or child brides. Local rights groups estimate that up to 20% of the population is enslaved, with one in two Haratines forced to work on farms or in homes with no possibility of freedom, education or pay.
On topic: A very interesting poll. It shows that party members are getting fed up with the chaos which was the inevitable and completely predictable consequence of their choice of party leader last time, but it also shows that they are still in total denial about the path they have taken. The fact that Lord Frost is so highly rated shows that things haven't improved in the party since the day I resigned from the party:
The election of Boris Johnson as leader is irresponsible and unworthy in itself: many of those who voted for him are fully aware that he is unfit to be PM. But, worse than that, it is a symptom of a much deeper malaise in the party, one that goes to the very heart of what the Conservative Party should be about. It is a choice of denial as well as of desperation, showing that party members have lost interest in dealing with the world as it is, not as it they would like it to be.
The practical consequence of this - apart from the fact that we will be saddled with bad government irrespective of whether Boris gets ditched - relates to betting on next leader. Although it's unlikely that Boris will go anytime soon, the poll suggests that it wouldn't make much difference anyway; the party is still addicted to being told porkies, and the winner of any leadership contest in the foreseeable future will be someone who can deny reality with gusto. Probably someone who is less of an obvious embarrassment on the international stage, but still someone unwilling or politically unable to deal with the world as it is.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
I think, while it still has measurable detrimental effects on the descendants of the victims. And I'm afraid there is a direct line of causation between your ancestors and mine running a slaving based economy, and shooting George Floyd being more OK than shooting a white version of him.
And Africans who enslaved other Africans? By repute the slave ships were buying already enslaved Africans on the coast.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake. I cannot apologise for what my ancestors did. I can try and make things better now.
I don't think if it were me I would be expecting an apology, but just acknowledgment or at least non-denial. I unexpectedly infuriated a righty PBer the other day, can't remember who, by making the point that there isn't much to choose in terms of ill fortune between waiting for a death camp train in 1941 Germany and waiting to be picked up by a British slave ship on the 18th century Slave Coast. I assume he saw the latter as: free all expenses paid trade wind passage on a classic tall ship followed by guaranteed lifetime employment in a Caribbean paradise.
Interesting point and a good analogy. Not exactly a Royal Caribbean cruise... But should we expect a twenty year old German to apologise for the Nazis?
My view has long been that once you get past the generation that perpetrated the crimes, one should no longer expect people to apologise for something they had no part of and which they could do nothing to stop. I don't expect the modern Spaniards to apologise for the Conquistadors, nor the Italians to apologise for the Roman Empire. If you could do nothing to prevent it then you should not apologise for it. Of course the obverse also applies. I do not see the point of being proud of the achievements of our ancestors. Things happened - for good and bad - and if we had no part in them then why should we take either credit or blame for them.
This doesn't mean one should not express some form of regret that they occurred and endeavour to ensure they are not repeated but this should not involve any feeling of guilt or personal responsibility. It is meaningless.
As Ishmael points out, though that's really not what this is about. Rather it is acknowledgment, and letting go of the denial of the past.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you also don't revel in the glories of a country unless you partook at least in some small way.
I'm ok with that, but not with those who celebrate their country's greatness without also feeling shame for her squalor.
Thankfully we haven't constructed an honours system based around the British Empire under which much of the horrors of transantlantic slavery took place.
We haven't, right?
I was struck by Duke of Rothesay’s speech in Barbados. I cannot recall a member of the British Establishment being so clear on the disgraceful role played by said Establishment in the slave trade.
Maybe he’ll not be such a poor monarch after all?
Charlie does show occasional glimmers of membership of the human race, his brothers not so much. The cynic in me thinks that they're well advised and realise that the continuation of 'the Firm' means that they get with the programme. See also young bawheid's conversion to the green agenda.
Charles is a very bad man, not only is he a fornicator and adulterer but....
The Prince of Wales unwittingly triggered the royal family’s rift with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when he speculated about the skin tone of their future children, a book claims.
Mr. Eagles, ha. It was Meghan and her husband who flounced once they were told they couldn't be celebrities with a sideline in the odd royal duty, when they felt like it.
Wait until you hear what Prince Andrew gets up to.
Judging by some of the BTL comments on the previous thread, he'd fit right in with some of the posters on this forum.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
I think, while it still has measurable detrimental effects on the descendants of the victims. And I'm afraid there is a direct line of causation between your ancestors and mine running a slaving based economy, and shooting George Floyd being more OK than shooting a white version of him.
And Africans who enslaved other Africans? By repute the slave ships were buying already enslaved Africans on the coast.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake. I cannot apologise for what my ancestors did. I can try and make things better now.
I don't think if it were me I would be expecting an apology, but just acknowledgment or at least non-denial. I unexpectedly infuriated a righty PBer the other day, can't remember who, by making the point that there isn't much to choose in terms of ill fortune between waiting for a death camp train in 1941 Germany and waiting to be picked up by a British slave ship on the 18th century Slave Coast. I assume he saw the latter as: free all expenses paid trade wind passage on a classic tall ship followed by guaranteed lifetime employment in a Caribbean paradise.
I do wonder if the Caribbean slave owners and slave traders realised they were creating the basis for future Black Republics.
One thing I've never seen is an analysis as to what date the lives of slaves and their descendants became preferable to what they would have been in their ancestors had not been transported.
It would be different dates depending on location of course - slavery and its aftermath was different between Missouri, Jamaica, Haiti and Brazil.
PB Tory tries to promote benefits of transatlantic slave trade.
Next they’ll be telling us Franco was an ace dude.
‘Christmas parties and other social events in the festive period should not go ahead if they are not necessary in order to help slow the spread of the new Covid variant, one of the UK’s most senior health officials has suggested.
‘Jenny Harries, the chief executive of the UK Health Security Agency, urged everyone in the UK to cut down their social contact – even if only by a little – as fears grow that existing vaccines will prove less effective against Omicron than against other variants.’
I know it's only a subset of Conservative activists, but to have Truss, Frost, Trevelyan and Dorries as the top four suggests they have lost the plot.
I'd think the same if an equivalent Labour survey in 2019 had Pidcock, Burgon, Abbott and Lavery in the top four positions - which was plausible back then.
Two out of four have done an absolutely fantastic job.
The third I'm not sure about, the fourth is simply amusing because of how apoplectic she drives opponents.
Cabinets are a team building exercise and most PMs seem to find it useful to have a Minister for stupidity who makes everyone else feel better about themselves. Its a morale thing, I think. After the departure of Williamson there was a vacancy and Mad Nad seems destined to fill it.
Culture is something Britain is very good at. An example of soft power. Media is vital in the world we live in. And sport too matters.
All 3 deserve a Cabinet Minister of real clout, intelligence and standing not the office joke. This government has cut spending on arts education thus styming opportunities for the young. Culture is not an optional extra. It is vital to a rounded education, an intelligent nation, a country's well being, a country which punches above its weight. That a government led by a man who boasts about his knowledge of the classics and had one of the best educations money can buy should appoint an ignorant dimwit like Dorries to the role is depressing.
Why do we no longer aspire to anything beyond the second-rate at best?
As for the Shadow Cabinet, pleased about Streeting and Philippson. Let's see what they make of their new roles. Cooper has been forensic in her demolition of Patel in Select Committees. But she now has the infinitely harder task of coming up with a migration/refugee policy which is both popular and effective. Is she up to it?
As for Lammy, am in 2 minds about him. He can be very good on some things. But he can also be an arse on others. His recent statements about womens bodies and women "hoarding rights" like dinosaurs has marked him down considerably in my eyes.
Starmer has not been good at choosing people so far. His initial instincts have been poor and he has had to make quite a few changes in 2 years. That is not a great sign of someone who is good at assessing people. May be it is because he felt forced to do so. I'm not sure about that. Still let's see.
Yet Dorries is a best selling author.
It may not be an aspect of culture some are interested in but culture should encompass the widest range of things and isn't only for those with a knowledge of the classics and expensive educations.
Of course - but do you really claim that Dorries' interest in culture is anywhere near so broad ?
On topic: A very interesting poll. It shows that party members are getting fed up with the chaos which was the inevitable and completely predictable consequence of their choice of party leader last time, but it also shows that they are still in total denial about the path they have taken. The fact that Lord Frost is so highly rated shows that things haven't improved in the party since the day I resigned from the party:
The election of Boris Johnson as leader is irresponsible and unworthy in itself: many of those who voted for him are fully aware that he is unfit to be PM. But, worse than that, it is a symptom of a much deeper malaise in the party, one that goes to the very heart of what the Conservative Party should be about. It is a choice of denial as well as of desperation, showing that party members have lost interest in dealing with the world as it is, not as it they would like it to be.
The practical consequence of this - apart from the fact that we will be saddled with bad government irrespective of whether Boris gets ditched - relates to betting on next leader. Although it's unlikely that Boris will go anytime soon, the poll suggests that it wouldn't make much difference anyway; the party is still addicted to being told porkies, and the winner of any leadership contest in the foreseeable future will be someone who can deny reality with gusto. Probably someone who is less of an obvious embarrassment on the international stage, but still someone unwilling or politically unable to deal with the world as it is.
Great post, and it has betting implications.
Who, among the leadership candidates, and judging from their public comments, is good at “denying reality with gusto”?
The E.U. has created a shadow immigration system that stops migrants before they reach Europe’s shores. A new investigation goes inside a secretive prison for migrants, controlled by one of Libya’s most powerful militias.
this image is... interesting. As is the section where it discuss the sale of prison labour in Libya. As an auction. In a market....
Who funded this? Is this the Italian funded first one, or the EuCo follow on?
Read the article - it is a matrix of funding. All carefully indirect.
Interesting that the EU has created the "Offshore Gulags" for immigrants that some people here are getting bent out of shape about in the UK context.
Also in the article, the Libyan "Coast Guard" which is being funded by this - *shooting* at immigrants in boats....
Or to put it another way, people who touch themselves inappropriately at the thought of the UK taking such actions but get bent out of shape about it in the EU context.
I'm not sure I've seen anyone "bent out of shape". Just reading the article and asking questions.
I am defending the borders of the EU You are mistreating immigrants He/She is running gulags, drowning and freezing the innocent
Interesting that Oz is stopping its PNG offshore processing centre, and will use Nauru only.
Press reports say it has cost them "tens of billions" of dollars. No idea if that's true.
Plus a derisory number of migrants actually processed in the dozens or hundreds I think
Isn't a derisory number being processed the entire point of having offshore processing?
Since people cease to make the journey that way, they cease to require to be processed anymore.
Most Australian asylum seekers are in the community, on bridging visas that allow them to work while awaiting an outcome of their application. Only a few hundred are on Nauru.
I came on here this morning expecting to see hundreds, if not thousands, of repetitive posts on the extent to which the new mask-wearing mandate is being complied with in shops and on trains and buses. Yet nothing at all, I think. What's going on? Have PBers finally got bored with mask updates? If so, yippee.
(I already regret this post if it provokes an outpouring of mask anecdotes).
Mask update:
Got an email from the school over the weekend announcing they were requiring masks on the school premises again. I don't like masks, but will wear one on private premises if they say they require it - their premise, their rules. Monday I picked my daughter up from an afterschool club and was one of only two parents there wearing a mask.
I asked the Head Teacher if they wear requiring masks when picking up and dropping off and she said no, because we're outside so it isn't required; it is only required indoors.
So no mask today when dropping off. Glad they're being smart about it. 👍
‘Christmas parties and other social events in the festive period should not go ahead if they are not necessary in order to help slow the spread of the new Covid variant, one of the UK’s most senior health officials has suggested.
‘Jenny Harries, the chief executive of the UK Health Security Agency, urged everyone in the UK to cut down their social contact – even if only by a little – as fears grow that existing vaccines will prove less effective against Omicron than against other variants.’
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
I always wear a mask on the Tube, bus and rail, and also at the shops.
Since August I've tended not to wear a mask when going for walks, unless I go to the shops on the way home. Furthest I've walked maskless was a return trip from Gants Hill to just outside the Moby Dick pub via the Eastern Avenue, roughly a month ago.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you also don't revel in the glories of a country unless you partook at least in some small way.
I'm ok with that, but not with those who celebrate their country's greatness without also feeling shame for her squalor.
Thankfully we haven't constructed an honours system based around the British Empire under which much of the horrors of transantlantic slavery took place.
We haven't, right?
I was struck by Duke of Rothesay’s speech in Barbados. I cannot recall a member of the British Establishment being so clear on the disgraceful role played by said Establishment in the slave trade.
Maybe he’ll not be such a poor monarch after all?
Charlie does show occasional glimmers of membership of the human race, his brothers not so much. The cynic in me thinks that they're well advised and realise that the continuation of 'the Firm' means that they get with the programme. See also young bawheid's conversion to the green agenda.
Charles is a very bad man, not only is he a fornicator and adulterer but....
The Prince of Wales unwittingly triggered the royal family’s rift with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when he speculated about the skin tone of their future children, a book claims.
I thought that "fornicator and adulterer" used to be pretty much mandatory for heads of state?
It still is for the French Presidency.
But the President of France isn't Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I miss the days when we ousted Kings who wanted to marry divorcées.
We need high standards of moral hygiene if we want to remain a Christian country.
Henry VIII was a divorcee
The whole reason for the Church of England is that the Monarch can marry/divorce whoever he/she wants.
Otherwise, might as well re-franchise with the Roman chaps....
Its a bit more complex than that - the whole Protestant vs Catholic interpretation, purgatory, absolution, etc.
But yes, it was a convenient way for Hal to get his end away...
It's curious how rubbish many history books are on the Reformation. In many, Henry invented Protestantism in 20 minutes at the suggestion of his new squeeze.
It says something when you find the backstory in James Anthony Froude. Not exactly an impartial historian, but he covers the history back to the Lollards and the linkages between monarchy, church reform and heresy going back centuries.
I know it's only a subset of Conservative activists, but to have Truss, Frost, Trevelyan and Dorries as the top four suggests they have lost the plot.
I'd think the same if an equivalent Labour survey in 2019 had Pidcock, Burgon, Abbott and Lavery in the top four positions - which was plausible back then.
Two out of four have done an absolutely fantastic job.
The third I'm not sure about, the fourth is simply amusing because of how apoplectic she drives opponents.
Cabinets are a team building exercise and most PMs seem to find it useful to have a Minister for stupidity who makes everyone else feel better about themselves. Its a morale thing, I think. After the departure of Williamson there was a vacancy and Mad Nad seems destined to fill it.
Culture is something Britain is very good at. An example of soft power. Media is vital in the world we live in. And sport too matters.
All 3 deserve a Cabinet Minister of real clout, intelligence and standing not the office joke. This government has cut spending on arts education thus styming opportunities for the young. Culture is not an optional extra. It is vital to a rounded education, an intelligent nation, a country's well being, a country which punches above its weight. That a government led by a man who boasts about his knowledge of the classics and had one of the best educations money can buy should appoint an ignorant dimwit like Dorries to the role is depressing.
Why do we no longer aspire to anything beyond the second-rate at best?
As for the Shadow Cabinet, pleased about Streeting and Philippson. Let's see what they make of their new roles. Cooper has been forensic in her demolition of Patel in Select Committees. But she now has the infinitely harder task of coming up with a migration/refugee policy which is both popular and effective. Is she up to it?
As for Lammy, am in 2 minds about him. He can be very good on some things. But he can also be an arse on others. His recent statements about womens bodies and women "hoarding rights" like dinosaurs has marked him down considerably in my eyes.
Starmer has not been good at choosing people so far. His initial instincts have been poor and he has had to make quite a few changes in 2 years. That is not a great sign of someone who is good at assessing people. May be it is because he felt forced to do so. I'm not sure about that. Still let's see.
Yet Dorries is a best selling author.
It may not be an aspect of culture some are interested in but culture should encompass the widest range of things and isn't only for those with a knowledge of the classics and expensive educations.
Of course - but do you really claim that Dorries' interest in culture is anywhere near so broad ?
I actually have some esteem for Dorries given that she’s written a best selling book. It’s not nothing.
However, in all other respects she appears to be both stupid and a philistine. Boris has only put in her that post because he wants a flunky and for “the laffs”.
I know it's only a subset of Conservative activists, but to have Truss, Frost, Trevelyan and Dorries as the top four suggests they have lost the plot.
I'd think the same if an equivalent Labour survey in 2019 had Pidcock, Burgon, Abbott and Lavery in the top four positions - which was plausible back then.
Two out of four have done an absolutely fantastic job.
The third I'm not sure about, the fourth is simply amusing because of how apoplectic she drives opponents.
Cabinets are a team building exercise and most PMs seem to find it useful to have a Minister for stupidity who makes everyone else feel better about themselves. Its a morale thing, I think. After the departure of Williamson there was a vacancy and Mad Nad seems destined to fill it.
Culture is something Britain is very good at. An example of soft power. Media is vital in the world we live in. And sport too matters.
All 3 deserve a Cabinet Minister of real clout, intelligence and standing not the office joke. This government has cut spending on arts education thus styming opportunities for the young. Culture is not an optional extra. It is vital to a rounded education, an intelligent nation, a country's well being, a country which punches above its weight. That a government led by a man who boasts about his knowledge of the classics and had one of the best educations money can buy should appoint an ignorant dimwit like Dorries to the role is depressing.
Why do we no longer aspire to anything beyond the second-rate at best?
As for the Shadow Cabinet, pleased about Streeting and Philippson. Let's see what they make of their new roles. Cooper has been forensic in her demolition of Patel in Select Committees. But she now has the infinitely harder task of coming up with a migration/refugee policy which is both popular and effective. Is she up to it?
As for Lammy, am in 2 minds about him. He can be very good on some things. But he can also be an arse on others. His recent statements about womens bodies and women "hoarding rights" like dinosaurs has marked him down considerably in my eyes.
Starmer has not been good at choosing people so far. His initial instincts have been poor and he has had to make quite a few changes in 2 years. That is not a great sign of someone who is good at assessing people. May be it is because he felt forced to do so. I'm not sure about that. Still let's see.
Yet Dorries is a best selling author.
It may not be an aspect of culture some are interested in but culture should encompass the widest range of things and isn't only for those with a knowledge of the classics and expensive educations.
Of course - but do you really claim that Dorries' interest in culture is anywhere near so broad ?
The only good culture is completely inaccessible to *everyone*. Slightly Ok culture is accessible to 3 experts in the field.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you also don't revel in the glories of a country unless you partook at least in some small way.
I'm ok with that, but not with those who celebrate their country's greatness without also feeling shame for her squalor.
Thankfully we haven't constructed an honours system based around the British Empire under which much of the horrors of transantlantic slavery took place.
We haven't, right?
I was struck by Duke of Rothesay’s speech in Barbados. I cannot recall a member of the British Establishment being so clear on the disgraceful role played by said Establishment in the slave trade.
Maybe he’ll not be such a poor monarch after all?
Well, over the years, he has indulged in such stupid irrelevancies as cross-cultural relations, the environment and housing.
And made some people very angry because he wrote letters to ministers asking about the same.
If he manages to wind up Tories I might become a fan of the Rothesays.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
I think, while it still has measurable detrimental effects on the descendants of the victims. And I'm afraid there is a direct line of causation between your ancestors and mine running a slaving based economy, and shooting George Floyd being more OK than shooting a white version of him.
And Africans who enslaved other Africans? By repute the slave ships were buying already enslaved Africans on the coast.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake. I cannot apologise for what my ancestors did. I can try and make things better now.
I don't think if it were me I would be expecting an apology, but just acknowledgment or at least non-denial. I unexpectedly infuriated a righty PBer the other day, can't remember who, by making the point that there isn't much to choose in terms of ill fortune between waiting for a death camp train in 1941 Germany and waiting to be picked up by a British slave ship on the 18th century Slave Coast. I assume he saw the latter as: free all expenses paid trade wind passage on a classic tall ship followed by guaranteed lifetime employment in a Caribbean paradise.
I do wonder if the Caribbean slave owners and slave traders realised they were creating the basis for future Black Republics.
One thing I've never seen is an analysis as to what date the lives of slaves and their descendants became preferable to what they would have been in their ancestors had not been transported.
It would be different dates depending on location of course - slavery and its aftermath was different between Missouri, Jamaica, Haiti and Brazil.
Haiti?
Did you add that later or did I miss it? Of course, AIUI, the USA tried to make sure Haiti didn't prosper. For obvious reasons.
Added it later to include a French slave colony.
Now you could also contrast the lives of the slaves and their descendants on Haiti compared with Martinique or Guadeloupe.
It just strikes me that the current lives of tens of millions of slave descendants are primarily determined by what country their ancestors were transported to.
Are you suggesting that we did the slaves a favour, or at least their descendants?
Also have you considered that without the slave trade decimating their societies that a lot of African countries would be in a much better place now?
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
I think, while it still has measurable detrimental effects on the descendants of the victims. And I'm afraid there is a direct line of causation between your ancestors and mine running a slaving based economy, and shooting George Floyd being more OK than shooting a white version of him.
And Africans who enslaved other Africans? By repute the slave ships were buying already enslaved Africans on the coast.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake. I cannot apologise for what my ancestors did. I can try and make things better now.
I don't think if it were me I would be expecting an apology, but just acknowledgment or at least non-denial. I unexpectedly infuriated a righty PBer the other day, can't remember who, by making the point that there isn't much to choose in terms of ill fortune between waiting for a death camp train in 1941 Germany and waiting to be picked up by a British slave ship on the 18th century Slave Coast. I assume he saw the latter as: free all expenses paid trade wind passage on a classic tall ship followed by guaranteed lifetime employment in a Caribbean paradise.
Interesting point and a good analogy. Not exactly a Royal Caribbean cruise... But should we expect a twenty year old German to apologise for the Nazis?
My view has long been that once you get past the generation that perpetrated the crimes, one should no longer expect people to apologise for something they had no part of and which they could do nothing to stop. I don't expect the modern Spaniards to apologise for the Conquistadors, nor the Italians to apologise for the Roman Empire. If you could do nothing to prevent it then you should not apologise for it. Of course the obverse also applies. I do not see the point of being proud of the achievements of our ancestors. Things happened - for good and bad - and if we had no part in them then why should we take either credit or blame for them.
This doesn't mean one should not express some form of regret that they occurred and endeavour to ensure they are not repeated but this should not involve any feeling of guilt or personal responsibility. It is meaningless.
As Ishmael points out, though that's really not what this is about. Rather it is acknowledgment, and letting go of the denial of the past.
I'm still putting you down as a 'possible'. For old time's sake. Less sure about TSE.
On topic: A very interesting poll. It shows that party members are getting fed up with the chaos which was the inevitable and completely predictable consequence of their choice of party leader last time, but it also shows that they are still in total denial about the path they have taken. The fact that Lord Frost is so highly rated shows that things haven't improved in the party since the day I resigned from the party:
The election of Boris Johnson as leader is irresponsible and unworthy in itself: many of those who voted for him are fully aware that he is unfit to be PM. But, worse than that, it is a symptom of a much deeper malaise in the party, one that goes to the very heart of what the Conservative Party should be about. It is a choice of denial as well as of desperation, showing that party members have lost interest in dealing with the world as it is, not as it they would like it to be.
The practical consequence of this - apart from the fact that we will be saddled with bad government irrespective of whether Boris gets ditched - relates to betting on next leader. Although it's unlikely that Boris will go anytime soon, the poll suggests that it wouldn't make much difference anyway; the party is still addicted to being told porkies, and the winner of any leadership contest in the foreseeable future will be someone who can deny reality with gusto. Probably someone who is less of an obvious embarrassment on the international stage, but still someone unwilling or politically unable to deal with the world as it is.
The fact Lord Frost is so highly rated is because he's done such a good job.
When it comes to denying the world as it is, you're the one I'm afraid who needs to take the beam out of your own eye.
Frost was one of Johnson's best appointments precisely because he deals with the world as it is. Unlike what you were advocating for, he didn't see mythical "goodwill" he's dealt with Europe with realpolitik instead which is the only thing that works.
The problem many of Johnson's critics on the pro-European side have is they're still in denial of reality. Reality is we voted for Leave. Reality is that we can only get what Britain wants by standing firm. Reality is "goodwill" means getting taken for a ride.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you also don't revel in the glories of a country unless you partook at least in some small way.
I'm ok with that, but not with those who celebrate their country's greatness without also feeling shame for her squalor.
Thankfully we haven't constructed an honours system based around the British Empire under which much of the horrors of transantlantic slavery took place.
We haven't, right?
I was struck by Duke of Rothesay’s speech in Barbados. I cannot recall a member of the British Establishment being so clear on the disgraceful role played by said Establishment in the slave trade.
Maybe he’ll not be such a poor monarch after all?
Charlie does show occasional glimmers of membership of the human race, his brothers not so much. The cynic in me thinks that they're well advised and realise that the continuation of 'the Firm' means that they get with the programme. See also young bawheid's conversion to the green agenda.
Charles is a very bad man, not only is he a fornicator and adulterer but....
The Prince of Wales unwittingly triggered the royal family’s rift with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when he speculated about the skin tone of their future children, a book claims.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you also don't revel in the glories of a country unless you partook at least in some small way.
I'm ok with that, but not with those who celebrate their country's greatness without also feeling shame for her squalor.
Thankfully we haven't constructed an honours system based around the British Empire under which much of the horrors of transantlantic slavery took place.
We haven't, right?
I was struck by Duke of Rothesay’s speech in Barbados. I cannot recall a member of the British Establishment being so clear on the disgraceful role played by said Establishment in the slave trade.
Maybe he’ll not be such a poor monarch after all?
Well, over the years, he has indulged in such stupid irrelevancies as cross-cultural relations, the environment and housing.
And made some people very angry because he wrote letters to ministers asking about the same.
If he manages to wind up Tories I might become a fan of the Rothesays.
IIRC he used to upset ministers in the various Thatcher governments, mildly, with his enthusiasms on a moderately regular basis.
Blair & Co got upset when it he kept sending the same letters, asking the same questions.
Same experience here, Northern line fully masked, Redemption Roasters not so much.
Edit - On Redemption Roasters, everyone who works in the City should go there, great coffee and it supports ex-convicts back into work. The prices are better than Pret as well as the coffee being way, way better.
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
What offence do you think he is guilty of here? Or do you think it is unwise of him to get involved with any sort of business at all? Even the help-an-entrepreneur scheme backed by KPMG?
The Sussexes have also got themselves involved with a financial advice company in the US, though it is not clear exactly what they are doing. And with the film and TV industry - an industry not exactly noteworthy for its whiter than white behaviour.
Now I would not get involved with the likes of Mr Rowland and I think Andrew and Charles have been very badly advised on some of their associations. But I'd like to understand what exactly you think he has done wrong.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you also don't revel in the glories of a country unless you partook at least in some small way.
I'm ok with that, but not with those who celebrate their country's greatness without also feeling shame for her squalor.
Thankfully we haven't constructed an honours system based around the British Empire under which much of the horrors of transantlantic slavery took place.
We haven't, right?
I was struck by Duke of Rothesay’s speech in Barbados. I cannot recall a member of the British Establishment being so clear on the disgraceful role played by said Establishment in the slave trade.
Maybe he’ll not be such a poor monarch after all?
Charlie does show occasional glimmers of membership of the human race, his brothers not so much. The cynic in me thinks that they're well advised and realise that the continuation of 'the Firm' means that they get with the programme. See also young bawheid's conversion to the green agenda.
Charles is a very bad man, not only is he a fornicator and adulterer but....
The Prince of Wales unwittingly triggered the royal family’s rift with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when he speculated about the skin tone of their future children, a book claims.
North Shropshire: Make of this what you will, driving throught the eastern part of the seat was surprised to see very few Cons posters in the farm fields, normally there are plenty. Didn't count but there appeared to be more Lib Dem ones. Probably a meaningless statistic but is it? Most bookies have reduced odds on the latter party to under 3-1, more 2-1 really. Hardly worth a punt, unless a double ie Cons to lose both by elections.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
I think, while it still has measurable detrimental effects on the descendants of the victims. And I'm afraid there is a direct line of causation between your ancestors and mine running a slaving based economy, and shooting George Floyd being more OK than shooting a white version of him.
And Africans who enslaved other Africans? By repute the slave ships were buying already enslaved Africans on the coast.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake. I cannot apologise for what my ancestors did. I can try and make things better now.
I don't think if it were me I would be expecting an apology, but just acknowledgment or at least non-denial. I unexpectedly infuriated a righty PBer the other day, can't remember who, by making the point that there isn't much to choose in terms of ill fortune between waiting for a death camp train in 1941 Germany and waiting to be picked up by a British slave ship on the 18th century Slave Coast. I assume he saw the latter as: free all expenses paid trade wind passage on a classic tall ship followed by guaranteed lifetime employment in a Caribbean paradise.
I do wonder if the Caribbean slave owners and slave traders realised they were creating the basis for future Black Republics.
One thing I've never seen is an analysis as to what date the lives of slaves and their descendants became preferable to what they would have been in their ancestors had not been transported.
It would be different dates depending on location of course - slavery and its aftermath was different between Missouri, Jamaica, Haiti and Brazil.
Haiti?
Did you add that later or did I miss it? Of course, AIUI, the USA tried to make sure Haiti didn't prosper. For obvious reasons.
Added it later to include a French slave colony.
Now you could also contrast the lives of the slaves and their descendants on Haiti compared with Martinique or Guadeloupe.
It just strikes me that the current lives of tens of millions of slave descendants are primarily determined by what country their ancestors were transported to.
Are you suggesting that we did the slaves a favour, or at least their descendants?
Also have you considered that without the slave trade decimating their societies that a lot of African countries would be in a much better place now?
To propose any such analysis rather ignores the various African colonial adventures of the European powers, too. Alt history is pretty well a waste of time for anything else other than entertainment.
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
What offence do you think he is guilty of here? Or do you think it is unwise of him to get involved with any sort of business at all? Even the help-an-entrepreneur scheme backed by KPMG?
The Sussexes have also got themselves involved with a financial advice company in the US, though it is not clear exactly what they are doing. And with the film and TV industry - an industry not exactly noteworthy for its whiter than white behaviour.
Now I would not get involved with the likes of Mr Rowland and I think Andrew and Charles have been very badly advised on some of their associations. But I'd like to understand what exactly you think he has done wrong.
Isn’t the issue that Prince Andrew is essentially being bankrolled by some dodgy businessman?
The royals must be above this thing, and sadly Andrew has forfeited his royal privilege.
Charles and William have a massive job righting the ship.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
What offence do you think he is guilty of here? Or do you think it is unwise of him to get involved with any sort of business at all? Even the help-an-entrepreneur scheme backed by KPMG?
The Sussexes have also got themselves involved with a financial advice company in the US, though it is not clear exactly what they are doing. And with the film and TV industry - an industry not exactly noteworthy for its whiter than white behaviour.
Now I would not get involved with the likes of Mr Rowland and I think Andrew and Charles have been very badly advised on some of their associations. But I'd like to understand what exactly you think he has done wrong.
The Sussexes only got themselves with the film and TV industry after stepping down from royal duties,
The Duke of York's shenanigans were while he was still on active duty representing the Crown.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
I think, while it still has measurable detrimental effects on the descendants of the victims. And I'm afraid there is a direct line of causation between your ancestors and mine running a slaving based economy, and shooting George Floyd being more OK than shooting a white version of him.
And Africans who enslaved other Africans? By repute the slave ships were buying already enslaved Africans on the coast.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake. I cannot apologise for what my ancestors did. I can try and make things better now.
I don't think if it were me I would be expecting an apology, but just acknowledgment or at least non-denial. I unexpectedly infuriated a righty PBer the other day, can't remember who, by making the point that there isn't much to choose in terms of ill fortune between waiting for a death camp train in 1941 Germany and waiting to be picked up by a British slave ship on the 18th century Slave Coast. I assume he saw the latter as: free all expenses paid trade wind passage on a classic tall ship followed by guaranteed lifetime employment in a Caribbean paradise.
Interesting point and a good analogy. Not exactly a Royal Caribbean cruise... But should we expect a twenty year old German to apologise for the Nazis?
My view has long been that once you get past the generation that perpetrated the crimes, one should no longer expect people to apologise for something they had no part of and which they could do nothing to stop. I don't expect the modern Spaniards to apologise for the Conquistadors, nor the Italians to apologise for the Roman Empire. If you could do nothing to prevent it then you should not apologise for it. Of course the obverse also applies. I do not see the point of being proud of the achievements of our ancestors. Things happened - for good and bad - and if we had no part in them then why should we take either credit or blame for them.
This doesn't mean one should not express some form of regret that they occurred and endeavour to ensure they are not repeated but this should not involve any feeling of guilt or personal responsibility. It is meaningless.
As Ishmael points out, though that's really not what this is about. Rather it is acknowledgment, and letting go of the denial of the past.
Yep I don't disagree with what Ishmael is saying. It was more in response to the comments about apologies and a more general observation.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
I think, while it still has measurable detrimental effects on the descendants of the victims. And I'm afraid there is a direct line of causation between your ancestors and mine running a slaving based economy, and shooting George Floyd being more OK than shooting a white version of him.
And Africans who enslaved other Africans? By repute the slave ships were buying already enslaved Africans on the coast.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake. I cannot apologise for what my ancestors did. I can try and make things better now.
I don't think if it were me I would be expecting an apology, but just acknowledgment or at least non-denial. I unexpectedly infuriated a righty PBer the other day, can't remember who, by making the point that there isn't much to choose in terms of ill fortune between waiting for a death camp train in 1941 Germany and waiting to be picked up by a British slave ship on the 18th century Slave Coast. I assume he saw the latter as: free all expenses paid trade wind passage on a classic tall ship followed by guaranteed lifetime employment in a Caribbean paradise.
Interesting point and a good analogy. Not exactly a Royal Caribbean cruise... But should we expect a twenty year old German to apologise for the Nazis?
My view has long been that once you get past the generation that perpetrated the crimes, one should no longer expect people to apologise for something they had no part of and which they could do nothing to stop. I don't expect the modern Spaniards to apologise for the Conquistadors, nor the Italians to apologise for the Roman Empire. If you could do nothing to prevent it then you should not apologise for it. Of course the obverse also applies. I do not see the point of being proud of the achievements of our ancestors. Things happened - for good and bad - and if we had no part in them then why should we take either credit or blame for them.
This doesn't mean one should not express some form of regret that they occurred and endeavour to ensure they are not repeated but this should not involve any feeling of guilt or personal responsibility. It is meaningless.
As Ishmael points out, though that's really not what this is about. Rather it is acknowledgment, and letting go of the denial of the past.
I'm still putting you down as a 'possible'. For old time's sake. Less sure about TSE.
Oops, that should have been Dr Nabavi.
Yes, I really don't think I'm a possible for you at the next election, though never say never. A damascene conversion of the Tory electorate, sweeping D. Herdson to power, along with the newly enabled TSE ...
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
What offence do you think he is guilty of here? Or do you think it is unwise of him to get involved with any sort of business at all? Even the help-an-entrepreneur scheme backed by KPMG?
The Sussexes have also got themselves involved with a financial advice company in the US, though it is not clear exactly what they are doing. And with the film and TV industry - an industry not exactly noteworthy for its whiter than white behaviour.
Now I would not get involved with the likes of Mr Rowland and I think Andrew and Charles have been very badly advised on some of their associations. But I'd like to understand what exactly you think he has done wrong.
Isn’t the issue that Prince Andrew is essentially being bankrolled by some dodgy businessman?
The royals must be above this thing, and sadly Andrew has forfeited his royal privilege.
Charles and William have a massive job righting the ship.
I remember when Charles suggested his plan would be to give up the Civil list, and the Monarchy would self fund from the Crown estates. With a cut down list of Royals.
Blair was nearly stupid enough to fall for that - until someone pointed out the financial and constitutional implications.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
I think, while it still has measurable detrimental effects on the descendants of the victims. And I'm afraid there is a direct line of causation between your ancestors and mine running a slaving based economy, and shooting George Floyd being more OK than shooting a white version of him.
And Africans who enslaved other Africans? By repute the slave ships were buying already enslaved Africans on the coast.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake. I cannot apologise for what my ancestors did. I can try and make things better now.
I don't think if it were me I would be expecting an apology, but just acknowledgment or at least non-denial. I unexpectedly infuriated a righty PBer the other day, can't remember who, by making the point that there isn't much to choose in terms of ill fortune between waiting for a death camp train in 1941 Germany and waiting to be picked up by a British slave ship on the 18th century Slave Coast. I assume he saw the latter as: free all expenses paid trade wind passage on a classic tall ship followed by guaranteed lifetime employment in a Caribbean paradise.
Interesting point and a good analogy. Not exactly a Royal Caribbean cruise... But should we expect a twenty year old German to apologise for the Nazis?
My view has long been that once you get past the generation that perpetrated the crimes, one should no longer expect people to apologise for something they had no part of and which they could do nothing to stop. I don't expect the modern Spaniards to apologise for the Conquistadors, nor the Italians to apologise for the Roman Empire. If you could do nothing to prevent it then you should not apologise for it. Of course the obverse also applies. I do not see the point of being proud of the achievements of our ancestors. Things happened - for good and bad - and if we had no part in them then why should we take either credit or blame for them.
This doesn't mean one should not express some form of regret that they occurred and endeavour to ensure they are not repeated but this should not involve any feeling of guilt or personal responsibility. It is meaningless.
Surely if it is different for those that derive immense power from a hereditary principle? Their power is directly linked to an idea that spans many lifetimes. Either they are responsible for apologising for the institutions behaviour (not their ancestors behaviour), or the institutions should not select on a hereditary basis.
Nah. That is just what all of us either benefit or suffer from. None of us would be where we are without the actions - for better or worse - of our ancestors and that applies to every single person on earth. The fact that you live a healthy and wealthy first world life is entirely drawn from the actions of your ancestors. But that is just life. I see no reason for either shame or pride in that. Perhaps gratitude in our cases or regret in the case of those less fortunate than ourselves. But that is, to quote Esther Rantzen, Life.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you also don't revel in the glories of a country unless you partook at least in some small way.
I'm ok with that, but not with those who celebrate their country's greatness without also feeling shame for her squalor.
Thankfully we haven't constructed an honours system based around the British Empire under which much of the horrors of transantlantic slavery took place.
We haven't, right?
I was struck by Duke of Rothesay’s speech in Barbados. I cannot recall a member of the British Establishment being so clear on the disgraceful role played by said Establishment in the slave trade.
Maybe he’ll not be such a poor monarch after all?
Charlie does show occasional glimmers of membership of the human race, his brothers not so much. The cynic in me thinks that they're well advised and realise that the continuation of 'the Firm' means that they get with the programme. See also young bawheid's conversion to the green agenda.
Charles is a very bad man, not only is he a fornicator and adulterer but....
The Prince of Wales unwittingly triggered the royal family’s rift with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when he speculated about the skin tone of their future children, a book claims.
I thought that "fornicator and adulterer" used to be pretty much mandatory for heads of state?
It still is for the French Presidency.
But the President of France isn't Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I miss the days when we ousted Kings who wanted to marry divorcées.
We need high standards of moral hygiene if we want to remain a Christian country.
Henry VIII was a divorcee
The whole reason for the Church of England is that the Monarch can marry/divorce whoever he/she wants.
Otherwise, might as well re-franchise with the Roman chaps....
Its a bit more complex than that - the whole Protestant vs Catholic interpretation, purgatory, absolution, etc.
But yes, it was a convenient way for Hal to get his end away...
It's curious how rubbish many history books are on the Reformation. In many, Henry invented Protestantism in 20 minutes at the suggestion of his new squeeze.
It says something when you find the backstory in James Anthony Froude. Not exactly an impartial historian, but he covers the history back to the Lollards and the linkages between monarchy, church reform and heresy going back centuries.
Currently reading 'England, Arise" by Juliet Barker, about the 1381 revolts. Lots of back story about the wealth of the church and so on. Reformation was a long time coming.
Politics For All @PoliticsForAlI BREAKING: Boris Johnson press conference on Coronavirus today
===
Why aren't you locking us down? How can we possibly have xmas now? When you say 'don't panic' doesn't that show that we should panic?
etc etc...
I just filled up with fuel and got a telling off for not wearing a mask when paying in the shop (I had a voucher so didn't pay at pump). I have to say, I really couldn't give a ****.
I know it's only a subset of Conservative activists, but to have Truss, Frost, Trevelyan and Dorries as the top four suggests they have lost the plot.
I'd think the same if an equivalent Labour survey in 2019 had Pidcock, Burgon, Abbott and Lavery in the top four positions - which was plausible back then.
Two out of four have done an absolutely fantastic job.
The third I'm not sure about, the fourth is simply amusing because of how apoplectic she drives opponents.
Cabinets are a team building exercise and most PMs seem to find it useful to have a Minister for stupidity who makes everyone else feel better about themselves. Its a morale thing, I think. After the departure of Williamson there was a vacancy and Mad Nad seems destined to fill it.
Culture is something Britain is very good at. An example of soft power. Media is vital in the world we live in. And sport too matters.
All 3 deserve a Cabinet Minister of real clout, intelligence and standing not the office joke. This government has cut spending on arts education thus styming opportunities for the young. Culture is not an optional extra. It is vital to a rounded education, an intelligent nation, a country's well being, a country which punches above its weight. That a government led by a man who boasts about his knowledge of the classics and had one of the best educations money can buy should appoint an ignorant dimwit like Dorries to the role is depressing.
Why do we no longer aspire to anything beyond the second-rate at best?
As for the Shadow Cabinet, pleased about Streeting and Philippson. Let's see what they make of their new roles. Cooper has been forensic in her demolition of Patel in Select Committees. But she now has the infinitely harder task of coming up with a migration/refugee policy which is both popular and effective. Is she up to it?
As for Lammy, am in 2 minds about him. He can be very good on some things. But he can also be an arse on others. His recent statements about womens bodies and women "hoarding rights" like dinosaurs has marked him down considerably in my eyes.
Starmer has not been good at choosing people so far. His initial instincts have been poor and he has had to make quite a few changes in 2 years. That is not a great sign of someone who is good at assessing people. May be it is because he felt forced to do so. I'm not sure about that. Still let's see.
Yet Dorries is a best selling author.
It may not be an aspect of culture some are interested in but culture should encompass the widest range of things and isn't only for those with a knowledge of the classics and expensive educations.
Of course - but do you really claim that Dorries' interest in culture is anywhere near so broad ?
I wouldn't know and don't care.
But it reeks of the snobbishness which considers Harold Pinter more important than Coronation Street.
Many of the things now regarded as cultural exports from the Beatles to football were looked down on not long ago.
And it still happens - Iron Maiden have been a huge UK cultural export for decades but you'll struggle to find references to them in the media's cultural sections.
And if you go back to Shakespeare wasn't he sneered at for having 'little Latin and no Greek' ? Or you might say for not having a broad interest in culture.
ETA chief whip. Made such a name for himself he ranks below M&S in a google search
Mark Spencer? His parents really weren't thinking when they named him.
Used to work with a chap who went out with a girl called Caroline Puller. Found out Caroline's dad was called Richard.
The grandparents must've been complete idiots.
Used to come across a guy called Philip Green. He seemed to have got used to the sniggers, which persisted, to my knowledge, into his 40's.
One of my residents was a John Thomas, although he used his middle name routinely and got very upset when I canvassed him as John Thomas based on the electoral register entry; a fact I carefully remembered for all future elections.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
I don't think I had to say anything I didn't believe in my vows. Said Amen a few times in the service, of course. The vicar is aware of my lack of belief (that was important to me).
Baptism was trickier, as I had to commit to bringing the children up in the family of God etc, but I'm subcontracting that to my wife. They know our differences in belief.
My wife also not a churchgoer, massive hypocrite, I'd say
I know it's only a subset of Conservative activists, but to have Truss, Frost, Trevelyan and Dorries as the top four suggests they have lost the plot.
I'd think the same if an equivalent Labour survey in 2019 had Pidcock, Burgon, Abbott and Lavery in the top four positions - which was plausible back then.
Two out of four have done an absolutely fantastic job.
The third I'm not sure about, the fourth is simply amusing because of how apoplectic she drives opponents.
Cabinets are a team building exercise and most PMs seem to find it useful to have a Minister for stupidity who makes everyone else feel better about themselves. Its a morale thing, I think. After the departure of Williamson there was a vacancy and Mad Nad seems destined to fill it.
Culture is something Britain is very good at. An example of soft power. Media is vital in the world we live in. And sport too matters.
All 3 deserve a Cabinet Minister of real clout, intelligence and standing not the office joke. This government has cut spending on arts education thus styming opportunities for the young. Culture is not an optional extra. It is vital to a rounded education, an intelligent nation, a country's well being, a country which punches above its weight. That a government led by a man who boasts about his knowledge of the classics and had one of the best educations money can buy should appoint an ignorant dimwit like Dorries to the role is depressing.
Why do we no longer aspire to anything beyond the second-rate at best?
As for the Shadow Cabinet, pleased about Streeting and Philippson. Let's see what they make of their new roles. Cooper has been forensic in her demolition of Patel in Select Committees. But she now has the infinitely harder task of coming up with a migration/refugee policy which is both popular and effective. Is she up to it?
As for Lammy, am in 2 minds about him. He can be very good on some things. But he can also be an arse on others. His recent statements about womens bodies and women "hoarding rights" like dinosaurs has marked him down considerably in my eyes.
Starmer has not been good at choosing people so far. His initial instincts have been poor and he has had to make quite a few changes in 2 years. That is not a great sign of someone who is good at assessing people. May be it is because he felt forced to do so. I'm not sure about that. Still let's see.
Yet Dorries is a best selling author.
It may not be an aspect of culture some are interested in but culture should encompass the widest range of things and isn't only for those with a knowledge of the classics and expensive educations.
Of course - but do you really claim that Dorries' interest in culture is anywhere near so broad ?
I wouldn't know and don't care.
But it reeks of the snobbishness which considers Harold Pinter more important than Coronation Street.
Many of the things now regarded as cultural exports from the Beatles to football were looked down on not long ago.
And it still happens - Iron Maiden have been a huge UK cultural export for decades but you'll struggle to find references to them in the media's cultural sections.
And if you go back to Shakespeare wasn't he sneered at for having 'little Latin and no Greek' ? Or you might say for not having a broad interest in culture.
Nadine doesn’t need to be Alan Yentob. But she could start by not calling journalists “fuckwits” on Twitter.
She also appears - judging by her comments about Ch 4 - to not have the slightest clue what she’s doing.
ETA chief whip. Made such a name for himself he ranks below M&S in a google search
Mark Spencer? His parents really weren't thinking when they named him.
Used to work with a chap who went out with a girl called Caroline Puller. Found out Caroline's dad was called Richard.
The grandparents must've been complete idiots.
Used to come across a guy called Philip Green. He seemed to have got used to the sniggers, which persisted, to my knowledge, into his 40's.
One of my residents was a John Thomas, although he used his middle name routinely and got very upset when I canvassed him as John Thomas based on the electoral register entry; a fact I carefully remembered for all future elections.
I came on here this morning expecting to see hundreds, if not thousands, of repetitive posts on the extent to which the new mask-wearing mandate is being complied with in shops and on trains and buses. Yet nothing at all, I think. What's going on? Have PBers finally got bored with mask updates? If so, yippee.
(I already regret this post if it provokes an outpouring of mask anecdotes).
Makes no difference to me as I have not stopped wearing a mask in shops and don't use public transport. Anecdotally in the campus shop everyone was wearing a mask (most students haven't been) but it was at 8.15, so they were mostly still in bed...
I’m travelling back from the capital; on the buses I’d say we’re now at 85-90% and on the trains over 90%, although once sitting the carriages are sparsely occupied and I expect some passengers are taking a break when there’s no-one around.
ETA chief whip. Made such a name for himself he ranks below M&S in a google search
Mark Spencer? His parents really weren't thinking when they named him.
Used to work with a chap who went out with a girl called Caroline Puller. Found out Caroline's dad was called Richard.
The grandparents must've been complete idiots.
Used to come across a guy called Philip Green. He seemed to have got used to the sniggers, which persisted, to my knowledge, into his 40's.
One of my residents was a John Thomas, although he used his middle name routinely and got very upset when I canvassed him as John Thomas based on the electoral register entry; a fact I carefully remembered for all future elections.
I really think it's too early to be making these pronouncements. We simply have too little data. It's irresponsible to be putting forwards theories in either direction that it's going to kill us all so let's have a mega lockdown or to say it's super mild so who gives a fuck.
I know it's only a subset of Conservative activists, but to have Truss, Frost, Trevelyan and Dorries as the top four suggests they have lost the plot.
I'd think the same if an equivalent Labour survey in 2019 had Pidcock, Burgon, Abbott and Lavery in the top four positions - which was plausible back then.
Two out of four have done an absolutely fantastic job.
The third I'm not sure about, the fourth is simply amusing because of how apoplectic she drives opponents.
Cabinets are a team building exercise and most PMs seem to find it useful to have a Minister for stupidity who makes everyone else feel better about themselves. Its a morale thing, I think. After the departure of Williamson there was a vacancy and Mad Nad seems destined to fill it.
Culture is something Britain is very good at. An example of soft power. Media is vital in the world we live in. And sport too matters.
All 3 deserve a Cabinet Minister of real clout, intelligence and standing not the office joke. This government has cut spending on arts education thus styming opportunities for the young. Culture is not an optional extra. It is vital to a rounded education, an intelligent nation, a country's well being, a country which punches above its weight. That a government led by a man who boasts about his knowledge of the classics and had one of the best educations money can buy should appoint an ignorant dimwit like Dorries to the role is depressing.
Why do we no longer aspire to anything beyond the second-rate at best?
As for the Shadow Cabinet, pleased about Streeting and Philippson. Let's see what they make of their new roles. Cooper has been forensic in her demolition of Patel in Select Committees. But she now has the infinitely harder task of coming up with a migration/refugee policy which is both popular and effective. Is she up to it?
As for Lammy, am in 2 minds about him. He can be very good on some things. But he can also be an arse on others. His recent statements about womens bodies and women "hoarding rights" like dinosaurs has marked him down considerably in my eyes.
Starmer has not been good at choosing people so far. His initial instincts have been poor and he has had to make quite a few changes in 2 years. That is not a great sign of someone who is good at assessing people. May be it is because he felt forced to do so. I'm not sure about that. Still let's see.
Yet Dorries is a best selling author.
It may not be an aspect of culture some are interested in but culture should encompass the widest range of things and isn't only for those with a knowledge of the classics and expensive educations.
Of course - but do you really claim that Dorries' interest in culture is anywhere near so broad ?
I wouldn't know and don't care.
But it reeks of the snobbishness which considers Harold Pinter more important than Coronation Street.
Many of the things now regarded as cultural exports from the Beatles to football were looked down on not long ago.
And it still happens - Iron Maiden have been a huge UK cultural export for decades but you'll struggle to find references to them in the media's cultural sections.
And if you go back to Shakespeare wasn't he sneered at for having 'little Latin and no Greek' ? Or you might say for not having a broad interest in culture.
Nadine doesn’t need to be Alan Yentob. But she could start by not calling journalists “fuckwits” on Twitter.
She also appears - judging by her comments about Ch 4 - to not have the slightest clue what she’s doing.
The last year and half should have proven beyond doubt that most journalists are fuckwits. The whole petrol shortage saga was confected by attention seeking journalists.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you also don't revel in the glories of a country unless you partook at least in some small way.
I'm ok with that, but not with those who celebrate their country's greatness without also feeling shame for her squalor.
Thankfully we haven't constructed an honours system based around the British Empire under which much of the horrors of transantlantic slavery took place.
We haven't, right?
I was struck by Duke of Rothesay’s speech in Barbados. I cannot recall a member of the British Establishment being so clear on the disgraceful role played by said Establishment in the slave trade.
Maybe he’ll not be such a poor monarch after all?
Charlie does show occasional glimmers of membership of the human race, his brothers not so much. The cynic in me thinks that they're well advised and realise that the continuation of 'the Firm' means that they get with the programme. See also young bawheid's conversion to the green agenda.
Charles is a very bad man, not only is he a fornicator and adulterer but....
The Prince of Wales unwittingly triggered the royal family’s rift with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when he speculated about the skin tone of their future children, a book claims.
I thought that "fornicator and adulterer" used to be pretty much mandatory for heads of state?
It still is for the French Presidency.
But the President of France isn't Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I miss the days when we ousted Kings who wanted to marry divorcées.
We need high standards of moral hygiene if we want to remain a Christian country.
Henry VIII was a divorcee
The whole reason for the Church of England is that the Monarch can marry/divorce whoever he/she wants.
Otherwise, might as well re-franchise with the Roman chaps....
Its a bit more complex than that - the whole Protestant vs Catholic interpretation, purgatory, absolution, etc.
But yes, it was a convenient way for Hal to get his end away...
It's curious how rubbish many history books are on the Reformation. In many, Henry invented Protestantism in 20 minutes at the suggestion of his new squeeze.
It says something when you find the backstory in James Anthony Froude. Not exactly an impartial historian, but he covers the history back to the Lollards and the linkages between monarchy, church reform and heresy going back centuries.
Currently reading 'England, Arise" by Juliet Barker, about the 1381 revolts. Lots of back story about the wealth of the church and so on. Reformation was a long time coming.
I'll have to get a copy.
Who would have thought - a parallel power structure complete with legal immunity, upsetting those it rode over?
One telling point that is often missed is that "clerics" weren't all (or mostly) shaven headed friars wondering around in robes saying "Pax Vobiscum" at intervals.
I really think it's too early to be making these pronouncements. We simply have too little data. It's irresponsible to be putting forwards theories in either direction that it's going to kill us all so let's have a mega lockdown or to say it's super mild so who gives a fuck.
On topic: A very interesting poll. It shows that party members are getting fed up with the chaos which was the inevitable and completely predictable consequence of their choice of party leader last time, but it also shows that they are still in total denial about the path they have taken. The fact that Lord Frost is so highly rated shows that things haven't improved in the party since the day I resigned from the party:
The election of Boris Johnson as leader is irresponsible and unworthy in itself: many of those who voted for him are fully aware that he is unfit to be PM. But, worse than that, it is a symptom of a much deeper malaise in the party, one that goes to the very heart of what the Conservative Party should be about. It is a choice of denial as well as of desperation, showing that party members have lost interest in dealing with the world as it is, not as it they would like it to be.
The practical consequence of this - apart from the fact that we will be saddled with bad government irrespective of whether Boris gets ditched - relates to betting on next leader. Although it's unlikely that Boris will go anytime soon, the poll suggests that it wouldn't make much difference anyway; the party is still addicted to being told porkies, and the winner of any leadership contest in the foreseeable future will be someone who can deny reality with gusto. Probably someone who is less of an obvious embarrassment on the international stage, but still someone unwilling or politically unable to deal with the world as it is.
The fact Lord Frost is so highly rated is because he's done such a good job.
When it comes to denying the world as it is, you're the one I'm afraid who needs to take the beam out of your own eye.
Frost was one of Johnson's best appointments precisely because he deals with the world as it is. Unlike what you were advocating for, he didn't see mythical "goodwill" he's dealt with Europe with realpolitik instead which is the only thing that works.
The problem many of Johnson's critics on the pro-European side have is they're still in denial of reality. Reality is we voted for Leave. Reality is that we can only get what Britain wants by standing firm. Reality is "goodwill" means getting taken for a ride.
+1
I am no intrinsic Tory but Frost has been an excellent negotiator. He has achieved many things that we were previously told the EU would never consent to, through sheer hard nosed negotiation. I don't think any UK negotiator has stood up for British interest with the EU this much since Thatcher.
I really think it's too early to be making these pronouncements. We simply have too little data. It's irresponsible to be putting forwards theories in either direction that it's going to kill us all so let's have a mega lockdown or to say it's super mild so who gives a fuck.
It is very early, but I just think of Northern Italy in Feb 2020 and the ambulances.
Omicron would have been in SA for at leat 6 weeks and there does not seem to be any sign of a similar happening.
Mr. Eagles, the allegations are very serious, and, coincidentally, totally irrelevant to the Hollywood celebrity who had a gap year as a royal.
Bollocks, this is disgraceful and a million times worse than anything alleged against the Sussexeses.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
I don't think I had to say anything I didn't believe in my vows. Said Amen a few times in the service, of course. The vicar is aware of my lack of belief (that was important to me).
Baptism was trickier, as I had to commit to bringing the children up in the family of God etc, but I'm subcontracting that to my wife. They know our differences in belief.
My wife also not a churchgoer, massive hypocrite, I'd say
Anyway, massive tangent so I'll stop now.
You could have opted for the "Blessing"; that's what it is there for .
‘Christmas parties and other social events in the festive period should not go ahead if they are not necessary in order to help slow the spread of the new Covid variant, one of the UK’s most senior health officials has suggested.
‘Jenny Harries, the chief executive of the UK Health Security Agency, urged everyone in the UK to cut down their social contact – even if only by a little – as fears grow that existing vaccines will prove less effective against Omicron than against other variants.’
BTW that’s Jenny ‘masks are totally useless’ Harries
I think I remember her saying earlier in the year that "low cost" measures like social distancing should be maintained for the long term, although I may be misremembering.
Politics For All @PoliticsForAlI BREAKING: Boris Johnson press conference on Coronavirus today
===
Why aren't you locking us down? How can we possibly have xmas now? When you say 'don't panic' doesn't that show that we should panic?
etc etc...
I just filled up with fuel and got a telling off for not wearing a mask when paying in the shop (I had a voucher so didn't pay at pump). I have to say, I really couldn't give a ****.
What a rebel you are! This is how revolutionary change starts, with minor law-breaking. 'Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your masks'.
I know it's only a subset of Conservative activists, but to have Truss, Frost, Trevelyan and Dorries as the top four suggests they have lost the plot.
I'd think the same if an equivalent Labour survey in 2019 had Pidcock, Burgon, Abbott and Lavery in the top four positions - which was plausible back then.
Two out of four have done an absolutely fantastic job.
The third I'm not sure about, the fourth is simply amusing because of how apoplectic she drives opponents.
Cabinets are a team building exercise and most PMs seem to find it useful to have a Minister for stupidity who makes everyone else feel better about themselves. Its a morale thing, I think. After the departure of Williamson there was a vacancy and Mad Nad seems destined to fill it.
Culture is something Britain is very good at. An example of soft power. Media is vital in the world we live in. And sport too matters.
All 3 deserve a Cabinet Minister of real clout, intelligence and standing not the office joke. This government has cut spending on arts education thus styming opportunities for the young. Culture is not an optional extra. It is vital to a rounded education, an intelligent nation, a country's well being, a country which punches above its weight. That a government led by a man who boasts about his knowledge of the classics and had one of the best educations money can buy should appoint an ignorant dimwit like Dorries to the role is depressing.
Why do we no longer aspire to anything beyond the second-rate at best?
As for the Shadow Cabinet, pleased about Streeting and Philippson. Let's see what they make of their new roles. Cooper has been forensic in her demolition of Patel in Select Committees. But she now has the infinitely harder task of coming up with a migration/refugee policy which is both popular and effective. Is she up to it?
As for Lammy, am in 2 minds about him. He can be very good on some things. But he can also be an arse on others. His recent statements about womens bodies and women "hoarding rights" like dinosaurs has marked him down considerably in my eyes.
Starmer has not been good at choosing people so far. His initial instincts have been poor and he has had to make quite a few changes in 2 years. That is not a great sign of someone who is good at assessing people. May be it is because he felt forced to do so. I'm not sure about that. Still let's see.
Yet Dorries is a best selling author.
It may not be an aspect of culture some are interested in but culture should encompass the widest range of things and isn't only for those with a knowledge of the classics and expensive educations.
Of course - but do you really claim that Dorries' interest in culture is anywhere near so broad ?
I wouldn't know and don't care.
But it reeks of the snobbishness which considers Harold Pinter more important than Coronation Street...
Balls. I happen to have no great enthusiasm for either of those. As Culture Minister, though, I'd be rightly criticised if I were to express unthinking contempt for either.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
I really think it's too early to be making these pronouncements. We simply have too little data. It's irresponsible to be putting forwards theories in either direction that it's going to kill us all so let's have a mega lockdown or to say it's super mild so who gives a fuck.
I agree, that said the leading indicators like wastewater sampling don't look good.
Right now it would be sensible to assume that moribidity is about the same until we know otherwise, and that transmissibility is likely a bit higher than current delta if only because vaccines are likely to be less effective. Anything beyond that is either speculative or inferred from too little data.
I know it's only a subset of Conservative activists, but to have Truss, Frost, Trevelyan and Dorries as the top four suggests they have lost the plot.
I'd think the same if an equivalent Labour survey in 2019 had Pidcock, Burgon, Abbott and Lavery in the top four positions - which was plausible back then.
Two out of four have done an absolutely fantastic job.
The third I'm not sure about, the fourth is simply amusing because of how apoplectic she drives opponents.
Cabinets are a team building exercise and most PMs seem to find it useful to have a Minister for stupidity who makes everyone else feel better about themselves. Its a morale thing, I think. After the departure of Williamson there was a vacancy and Mad Nad seems destined to fill it.
Culture is something Britain is very good at. An example of soft power. Media is vital in the world we live in. And sport too matters.
All 3 deserve a Cabinet Minister of real clout, intelligence and standing not the office joke. This government has cut spending on arts education thus styming opportunities for the young. Culture is not an optional extra. It is vital to a rounded education, an intelligent nation, a country's well being, a country which punches above its weight. That a government led by a man who boasts about his knowledge of the classics and had one of the best educations money can buy should appoint an ignorant dimwit like Dorries to the role is depressing.
Why do we no longer aspire to anything beyond the second-rate at best?
As for the Shadow Cabinet, pleased about Streeting and Philippson. Let's see what they make of their new roles. Cooper has been forensic in her demolition of Patel in Select Committees. But she now has the infinitely harder task of coming up with a migration/refugee policy which is both popular and effective. Is she up to it?
As for Lammy, am in 2 minds about him. He can be very good on some things. But he can also be an arse on others. His recent statements about womens bodies and women "hoarding rights" like dinosaurs has marked him down considerably in my eyes.
Starmer has not been good at choosing people so far. His initial instincts have been poor and he has had to make quite a few changes in 2 years. That is not a great sign of someone who is good at assessing people. May be it is because he felt forced to do so. I'm not sure about that. Still let's see.
Yet Dorries is a best selling author.
It may not be an aspect of culture some are interested in but culture should encompass the widest range of things and isn't only for those with a knowledge of the classics and expensive educations.
Of course - but do you really claim that Dorries' interest in culture is anywhere near so broad ?
I wouldn't know and don't care.
But it reeks of the snobbishness which considers Harold Pinter more important than Coronation Street.
Many of the things now regarded as cultural exports from the Beatles to football were looked down on not long ago.
And it still happens - Iron Maiden have been a huge UK cultural export for decades but you'll struggle to find references to them in the media's cultural sections.
And if you go back to Shakespeare wasn't he sneered at for having 'little Latin and no Greek' ? Or you might say for not having a broad interest in culture.
Nadine doesn’t need to be Alan Yentob. But she could start by not calling journalists “fuckwits” on Twitter.
She also appears - judging by her comments about Ch 4 - to not have the slightest clue what she’s doing.
Exaggeration?
I think she called one journo - James O'Brien - a "public school fuckwit", which seems fair enough and very defensible for accuracy in the knockabout commentary stakes.
I cannot understand why irreligious people have religious weddings – as Tubbs says you are lying in front of all your loved ones while making the biggest commitment of your life.
I really think it's too early to be making these pronouncements. We simply have too little data. It's irresponsible to be putting forwards theories in either direction that it's going to kill us all so let's have a mega lockdown or to say it's super mild so who gives a fuck.
It is very early, but I just think of Northern Italy in Feb 2020 and the ambulances.
Omicron would have been in SA for at leat 6 weeks and there does not seem to be any sign of a similar happening.
I predict that the Winnie-The-Pooh variant will cause +-1,000,000,000 excess deaths in the UK, before Christmas
Politics For All @PoliticsForAlI BREAKING: Boris Johnson press conference on Coronavirus today
===
Why aren't you locking us down? How can we possibly have xmas now? When you say 'don't panic' doesn't that show that we should panic?
etc etc...
I just filled up with fuel and got a telling off for not wearing a mask when paying in the shop (I had a voucher so didn't pay at pump). I have to say, I really couldn't give a ****.
What a rebel you are! This is how revolutionary change starts, with minor law-breaking. 'Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your masks'.
To be honest, I'm pleased that masks have made a come back. Our last all staff call was a bit fractious as the senior leaders are very keen on us being back in the office two days a week. As long as masks are compulsory, I won't go into the office.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
Just be grateful HYUFD was never elevated to the ministry.
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
The pastorate in the CofE have beliefs nearly as varied as the congregation.
Just had a look at UC stats since January 2020. Across GB the caseload has roughly doubled (108%) to October 2021.
London 147%, North East England only 75%.
I'd suggest the £20 cut to UC will have hit the south far harder than elsewhere due to the number of people newly claiming UC down there, and the London-based media hasn't picked up on this difference.
I think Tees valley (etc) will remain Tory at the next election based on this and other news like the plant at Sunderland.
I cannot understand why irreligious people have religious weddings – as Tubbs says you are lying in front of all your loved ones while making the biggest commitment of your life.
I know it's only a subset of Conservative activists, but to have Truss, Frost, Trevelyan and Dorries as the top four suggests they have lost the plot.
I'd think the same if an equivalent Labour survey in 2019 had Pidcock, Burgon, Abbott and Lavery in the top four positions - which was plausible back then.
Two out of four have done an absolutely fantastic job.
The third I'm not sure about, the fourth is simply amusing because of how apoplectic she drives opponents.
Cabinets are a team building exercise and most PMs seem to find it useful to have a Minister for stupidity who makes everyone else feel better about themselves. Its a morale thing, I think. After the departure of Williamson there was a vacancy and Mad Nad seems destined to fill it.
Culture is something Britain is very good at. An example of soft power. Media is vital in the world we live in. And sport too matters.
All 3 deserve a Cabinet Minister of real clout, intelligence and standing not the office joke. This government has cut spending on arts education thus styming opportunities for the young. Culture is not an optional extra. It is vital to a rounded education, an intelligent nation, a country's well being, a country which punches above its weight. That a government led by a man who boasts about his knowledge of the classics and had one of the best educations money can buy should appoint an ignorant dimwit like Dorries to the role is depressing.
Why do we no longer aspire to anything beyond the second-rate at best?
As for the Shadow Cabinet, pleased about Streeting and Philippson. Let's see what they make of their new roles. Cooper has been forensic in her demolition of Patel in Select Committees. But she now has the infinitely harder task of coming up with a migration/refugee policy which is both popular and effective. Is she up to it?
As for Lammy, am in 2 minds about him. He can be very good on some things. But he can also be an arse on others. His recent statements about womens bodies and women "hoarding rights" like dinosaurs has marked him down considerably in my eyes.
Starmer has not been good at choosing people so far. His initial instincts have been poor and he has had to make quite a few changes in 2 years. That is not a great sign of someone who is good at assessing people. May be it is because he felt forced to do so. I'm not sure about that. Still let's see.
Yet Dorries is a best selling author.
It may not be an aspect of culture some are interested in but culture should encompass the widest range of things and isn't only for those with a knowledge of the classics and expensive educations.
Of course - but do you really claim that Dorries' interest in culture is anywhere near so broad ?
I wouldn't know and don't care.
But it reeks of the snobbishness which considers Harold Pinter more important than Coronation Street.
Many of the things now regarded as cultural exports from the Beatles to football were looked down on not long ago.
And it still happens - Iron Maiden have been a huge UK cultural export for decades but you'll struggle to find references to them in the media's cultural sections.
And if you go back to Shakespeare wasn't he sneered at for having 'little Latin and no Greek' ? Or you might say for not having a broad interest in culture.
Nadine doesn’t need to be Alan Yentob. But she could start by not calling journalists “fuckwits” on Twitter.
She also appears - judging by her comments about Ch 4 - to not have the slightest clue what she’s doing.
Exaggeration?
I think she called one journo - James O'Brien - a "public school fuckwit", which seems fair enough and very defensible for accuracy in the knockabout commentary stakes.
That might be your level for ministerial gravitas, it’s not mine.
I really think it's too early to be making these pronouncements. We simply have too little data. It's irresponsible to be putting forwards theories in either direction that it's going to kill us all so let's have a mega lockdown or to say it's super mild so who gives a fuck.
I agree, that said the leading indicators like wastewater sampling don't look good.
Right now it would be sensible to assume that moribidity is about the same until we know otherwise, and that transmissibility is likely a bit higher than current delta if only because vaccines are likely to be less effective. Anything beyond that is either speculative or inferred from too little data.
Doesn't the wastewater sampling mean that Omicron is widespread in SA?
It just doesn't sit well for me. A bit like non-religious people getting married in church, and mentioning God in their vows, when they don't believe in God. Bit fake.
Yeah, I did that. Do I get let off because I did it for my wife and she is a believer? Our children are baptised, too.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Personal choice. I could not do it as I would have been making the most important commitment of my life and lying for part of it. Happily for me my wife thinks the same as me. You made your choice to make your wife happy.
Agree. I couldn't either as I would feel a hypocrite but I have no objection to those non believers who do as I don't feel the hypocrisy is really that bad, after all you don't believe so it just becomes an event and is not real. My wife's family do this. It is a celebration of the event for them. It does however seem a bit disrespectful of those performing the service though.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
Yep. I made sure the vicar was aware of my lack of belief. He was happy to go ahead.
The pastorate in the CofE have beliefs nearly as varied as the congregation.
I remember being amused at the Bishop who professed to believe in God, but not that Jesus was the Son of God.
Someone got very bent out of shape when I pointed out that this meant that the CoE had appointed a Jewish Bishop...
I really think it's too early to be making these pronouncements. We simply have too little data. It's irresponsible to be putting forwards theories in either direction that it's going to kill us all so let's have a mega lockdown or to say it's super mild so who gives a fuck.
It is very early, but I just think of Northern Italy in Feb 2020 and the ambulances.
Omicron would have been in SA for at leat 6 weeks and there does not seem to be any sign of a similar happening.
South Africa has very different demographics from Northern Italy, so unless you have data for age bands it is very hard to extrapolate what might happen elsewhere.
I cannot understand why irreligious people have religious weddings – as Tubbs says you are lying in front of all your loved ones while making the biggest commitment of your life.
Better venues for instagram.
Really? Lots of gorgeous hotels for atheist weddings.
Desmond Swayne had been on air telling JHB that he won’t wear a mask because of his “genetic tendency to liberty”, and encouraging viewers to do the same.
That doesn’t seem compatible with taking the Tory whip, frankly.
Huge moment. ‘An appalling atrocity,' says Prince Charles of transatlantic slavery. No British royal - or Prime Minister - has come as close to apologising for the 250 years of state-sanctioned exploitation and murder. #Barbados https://t.co/gMBibgB3QY
Costs little, but I'm still not a fan. When/where do you draw the line? Should the Italians apologise for the Roman empire? How about the Egyptians enslaving the people of Israel? If you personally have done something wrong, then apologising is the right thing. When our ancestors did something to their ancestors, I'm not so sure.
If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you also don't revel in the glories of a country unless you partook at least in some small way.
I'm ok with that, but not with those who celebrate their country's greatness without also feeling shame for her squalor.
Thankfully we haven't constructed an honours system based around the British Empire under which much of the horrors of transantlantic slavery took place.
We haven't, right?
I was struck by Duke of Rothesay’s speech in Barbados. I cannot recall a member of the British Establishment being so clear on the disgraceful role played by said Establishment in the slave trade.
Maybe he’ll not be such a poor monarch after all?
Charlie does show occasional glimmers of membership of the human race, his brothers not so much. The cynic in me thinks that they're well advised and realise that the continuation of 'the Firm' means that they get with the programme. See also young bawheid's conversion to the green agenda.
Charles is a very bad man, not only is he a fornicator and adulterer but....
The Prince of Wales unwittingly triggered the royal family’s rift with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when he speculated about the skin tone of their future children, a book claims.
I really think it's too early to be making these pronouncements. We simply have too little data. It's irresponsible to be putting forwards theories in either direction that it's going to kill us all so let's have a mega lockdown or to say it's super mild so who gives a fuck.
I agree, that said the leading indicators like wastewater sampling don't look good.
Right now it would be sensible to assume that moribidity is about the same until we know otherwise, and that transmissibility is likely a bit higher than current delta if only because vaccines are likely to be less effective. Anything beyond that is either speculative or inferred from too little data.
Doesn't the wastewater sampling mean that Omicron is widespread in SA?
Thats my take, and that is good news, as the apocalypse hasn't happened.
I really think it's too early to be making these pronouncements. We simply have too little data. It's irresponsible to be putting forwards theories in either direction that it's going to kill us all so let's have a mega lockdown or to say it's super mild so who gives a fuck.
I agree, that said the leading indicators like wastewater sampling don't look good.
Right now it would be sensible to assume that moribidity is about the same until we know otherwise, and that transmissibility is likely a bit higher than current delta if only because vaccines are likely to be less effective. Anything beyond that is either speculative or inferred from too little data.
Doesn't the wastewater sampling mean that Omicron is widespread in SA?
Yes it looks quite like the Delta outbreak from earlier in the year, but it is a leading indicator, so tests, hospitalisation, and deaths will rise afterwards.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7W7q7pWygU
It may not be an aspect of culture some are interested in but culture should encompass the widest range of things and isn't only for those with a knowledge of the classics and expensive educations.
The Duke of York tried to help a Conservative donor open a bank in Monaco, according to leaked emails.
Prince Andrew corresponded with the palace in Monte Carlo and offered to raise the topic when he met Prince Albert.
The duke risks looking compromised by his relationship with David Rowland whose family bank went on to lend the British Royal £1.5 million and then wrote off the loan.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-used-royal-link-to-help-tycoon-set-up-a-bank-8wx8swms7
From my neck of the woods, and roughly the same age as me.
I've told @HYUFD on many occasions that Down is more Protestant than Antrim, using 2011 community background data and 2011 ward boundaries.
In 1981, Mauritania made slavery illegal, the last country in the world to do so. Nonetheless, tens of thousands of people – mostly from the minority Haratine or Afro-Mauritanian groups – still live as bonded labourers, domestic servants or child brides. Local rights groups estimate that up to 20% of the population is enslaved, with one in two Haratines forced to work on farms or in homes with no possibility of freedom, education or pay.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/jun/08/the-unspeakable-truth-about-slavery-in-mauritania
The election of Boris Johnson as leader is irresponsible and unworthy in itself: many of those who voted for him are fully aware that he is unfit to be PM. But, worse than that, it is a symptom of a much deeper malaise in the party, one that goes to the very heart of what the Conservative Party should be about. It is a choice of denial as well as of desperation, showing that party members have lost interest in dealing with the world as it is, not as it they would like it to be.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/07/24/why-ive-resigned-from-the-conservative-party/
The practical consequence of this - apart from the fact that we will be saddled with bad government irrespective of whether Boris gets ditched - relates to betting on next leader. Although it's unlikely that Boris will go anytime soon, the poll suggests that it wouldn't make much difference anyway; the party is still addicted to being told porkies, and the winner of any leadership contest in the foreseeable future will be someone who can deny reality with gusto. Probably someone who is less of an obvious embarrassment on the international stage, but still someone unwilling or politically unable to deal with the world as it is.
Rather it is acknowledgment, and letting go of the denial of the past.
But yes, it was a convenient way for Hal to get his end away...
Next they’ll be telling us Franco was an ace dude.
Plus ça change.
Whereas nobody at Pret was, even the staff.
Who, among the leadership candidates, and judging from their public comments, is good at “denying reality with gusto”?
Truss? Yes.
Rishi? No.
Patel? Yes.
Javid? No.
Got an email from the school over the weekend announcing they were requiring masks on the school premises again. I don't like masks, but will wear one on private premises if they say they require it - their premise, their rules. Monday I picked my daughter up from an afterschool club and was one of only two parents there wearing a mask.
I asked the Head Teacher if they wear requiring masks when picking up and dropping off and she said no, because we're outside so it isn't required; it is only required indoors.
So no mask today when dropping off. Glad they're being smart about it. 👍
We can comment on Caesar's genocide without expecting modern day Italians to apologise.
(I do also know and get on with the vicar really well and the pre-marriage church workshops did change some things for us - complete pooling of finances where we previously had joint account only for shared bills)
Since August I've tended not to wear a mask when going for walks, unless I go to the shops on the way home.
Furthest I've walked maskless was a return trip from Gants Hill to just outside the Moby Dick pub via the Eastern Avenue, roughly a month ago.
It says something when you find the backstory in James Anthony Froude. Not exactly an impartial historian, but he covers the history back to the Lollards and the linkages between monarchy, church reform and heresy going back centuries.
However, in all other respects she appears to be both stupid and a philistine. Boris has only put in her that post because he wants a flunky and for “the laffs”.
Slightly Ok culture is accessible to 3 experts in the field.
Also have you considered that without the slave trade decimating their societies that a lot of African countries would be in a much better place now?
Oops, that should have been Dr Nabavi.
When it comes to denying the world as it is, you're the one I'm afraid who needs to take the beam out of your own eye.
Frost was one of Johnson's best appointments precisely because he deals with the world as it is. Unlike what you were advocating for, he didn't see mythical "goodwill" he's dealt with Europe with realpolitik instead which is the only thing that works.
The problem many of Johnson's critics on the pro-European side have is they're still in denial of reality. Reality is we voted for Leave. Reality is that we can only get what Britain wants by standing firm. Reality is "goodwill" means getting taken for a ride.
Blair & Co got upset when it he kept sending the same letters, asking the same questions.
Edit - On Redemption Roasters, everyone who works in the City should go there, great coffee and it supports ex-convicts back into work. The prices are better than Pret as well as the coffee being way, way better.
The Sussexes have also got themselves involved with a financial advice company in the US, though it is not clear exactly what they are doing. And with the film and TV industry - an industry not exactly noteworthy for its whiter than white behaviour.
Now I would not get involved with the likes of Mr Rowland and I think Andrew and Charles have been very badly advised on some of their associations. But I'd like to understand what exactly you think he has done wrong.
The comment struck me as gauche but essentially harmless.
Meghan Markle has, I think, psychological issues. Which is terribly sad as I believed she could be a massive force for good.
Make of this what you will, driving throught the eastern part of the seat was surprised to see very few Cons posters in the farm fields, normally there are plenty. Didn't count but there appeared to be more Lib Dem ones. Probably a meaningless statistic but is it?
Most bookies have reduced odds on the latter party to under 3-1, more 2-1 really. Hardly worth a punt, unless a double ie Cons to lose both by elections.
Alt history is pretty well a waste of time for anything else other than entertainment.
They can spend their time telling the Conservative Party what it wants to hear. And they do so, loudly and confidently.
That sort of self-indulgence normally goes with a party that's just had a defeat, like the Conservatives in 1997 or Labour in the 1980's or post 2015.
The royals must be above this thing, and sadly Andrew has forfeited his royal privilege.
Charles and William have a massive job righting the ship.
You made your choice to make your wife happy.
The Duke of York's shenanigans were while he was still on active duty representing the Crown.
Its silly to compare the two.
They have a track record of delivering.
@PoliticsForAlI
BREAKING: Boris Johnson press conference on Coronavirus today
===
Why aren't you locking us down?
How can we possibly have xmas now?
When you say 'don't panic' doesn't that show that we should panic?
etc etc...
Last time I saw this chart, Boris sacked all the people at the bottom of it.
https://twitter.com/Lobby_Hodder/status/1465633377936154625
https://www.cityam.com/covid-death-rate-not-rising-swap-travel-restrictions-and-mass-hysteria-for-cautious-optimism-as-omicron-mutation-is-super-mild-variant-who-and-coronavirus-experts-say/
Blair was nearly stupid enough to fall for that - until someone pointed out the financial and constitutional implications.
But it reeks of the snobbishness which considers Harold Pinter more important than Coronation Street.
Many of the things now regarded as cultural exports from the Beatles to football were looked down on not long ago.
And it still happens - Iron Maiden have been a huge UK cultural export for decades but you'll struggle to find references to them in the media's cultural sections.
And if you go back to Shakespeare wasn't he sneered at for having 'little Latin and no Greek' ? Or you might say for not having a broad interest in culture.
Baptism was trickier, as I had to commit to bringing the children up in the family of God etc, but I'm subcontracting that to my wife. They know our differences in belief.
My wife also not a churchgoer, massive hypocrite, I'd say
Anyway, massive tangent so I'll stop now.
But she could start by not calling journalists “fuckwits” on Twitter.
She also appears - judging by her comments about Ch 4 - to not have the slightest clue what she’s doing.
TSE: Sad it has come to this, I suspect I’ll be joining you on the 31st of October.
The truly tragic thing is that we’re ensuring a Corbyn Premiership with Johnson’s approach.
Or eek: Wait to you see the results of the next election - I suspect May's result will look like paradise in comparison...
Dr Pangloss
Who would have thought - a parallel power structure complete with legal immunity, upsetting those it rode over?
One telling point that is often missed is that "clerics" weren't all (or mostly) shaven headed friars wondering around in robes saying "Pax Vobiscum" at intervals.
I am no intrinsic Tory but Frost has been an excellent negotiator. He has achieved many things that we were previously told the EU would never consent to, through sheer hard nosed negotiation. I don't think any UK negotiator has stood up for British interest with the EU this much since Thatcher.
Omicron would have been in SA for at leat 6 weeks and there does not seem to be any sign of a similar happening.
I happen to have no great enthusiasm for either of those. As Culture Minister, though, I'd be rightly criticised if I were to express unthinking contempt for either.
I am happy to sit in a church for someone else's wedding and christening. I don't take part in prayers etc, but I don't make it obvious that I think it is all nonsense.
steve_garner
Pathetic. Nabavi won't even give Boris a chance to show what he can do as PM.
Right now it would be sensible to assume that moribidity is about the same until we know otherwise, and that transmissibility is likely a bit higher than current delta if only because vaccines are likely to be less effective. Anything beyond that is either speculative or inferred from too little data.
I think she called one journo - James O'Brien - a "public school fuckwit", which seems fair enough and very defensible for accuracy in the knockabout commentary stakes.
London 147%, North East England only 75%.
I'd suggest the £20 cut to UC will have hit the south far harder than elsewhere due to the number of people newly claiming UC down there, and the London-based media hasn't picked up on this difference.
I think Tees valley (etc) will remain Tory at the next election based on this and other news like the plant at Sunderland.
Someone got very bent out of shape when I pointed out that this meant that the CoE had appointed a Jewish Bishop...
That doesn’t seem compatible with taking the Tory whip, frankly.