Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
Mrs Thatcher almost won all 4 seats in 1987.
Mirrors the national trend. Cities have moved more to Labour since the 1980s, Northern and Midlands ex mining and industrial areas have moved more to the Conservatives
Why?
Are you saying the people there change views, or the demographic itself changed? Like children of miners now live in conorbations not their area of birth? Like me! Last 40 years have made a big movement around?
If we had babies there is no family for nearly hundred miles who could help.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
And we wonder why Catholics are outbreeding Protestants in Northern Ireland...
You mean Roman Catholics, I presume. As an Anglican you are just as much a Catholic as a RC. Unless you know something about Church of Ireland Episcopalians we don't.
*edit* checked: yes, Episcopalians are Catholic too. So scratch that last.
No we are not as the Head of our Church on earth is not the Pope.
There are also plenty of Protestant evangelicals too who would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
I rather think the chaps at the C of E know better:
"The Church claims to be both Catholic and Reformed. It upholds teachings found in early Christian doctrines, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Church also reveres 16th century Protestant Reformation ideas outlined in texts, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer."
And their Irish colleagues:
"1. Is the Church of Ireland Protestant or Catholic?
It is both Protestant and Catholic. For this reason it is incorrect to refer to members of the Church of Ireland as ‘non–Catholic’.
The terms Protestant and Catholic are not really opposites.
There are Catholics who accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. Often in consequence they are called Roman Catholics. But there are other Catholics who do not accept the Pope’s jurisdiction or certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Some are called Protestant or Reformed Catholics. Among them are members of the Church of Ireland and the other Churches of the Anglican Communion.
It follows therefore that the terms ‘Protestant’ and ‘Reformed’ should be contrasted with ‘Roman’ and not with ‘Catholic’.
The Church of Ireland is Catholic because it is in possession of a continuous tradition of faith and practice, based on Scripture and early traditions, enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, together with the sacraments and apostolic ministry. "
Yet it is still not fully Catholic as the Pope is not its Head. Evangelicals, as opposed to Anglo Catholics and most liberals within even the Anglican Church would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense.
Protestant evangelical Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans etc would also not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
You are confusing Catholicism in general with the specific kind mediated through the Roman Papacy. I'm sure the nice chap in Lambeth Palace can explain it all to you.
Allegedly mediated through the Roman Papacy
(I may not be helping here)
They would consider themselves catholic, but probably using a different word, and not Catholic.
Always thought the Anglican Church was "a" Catholic church as opposed to "the" Catholic church,
Anglo Catholic Anglicans would think that, evangelicals in the Church of England would not
The C of E itself officially says that Sunil is right. As I pointed out earlier this evening.
'It claims to be Catholic and Reformed.'
The Anglo Catholics and liberals within the Church of England consider it to be more the former, the evangelicals within the Church of England would consider it to be solely the latter.
If the Church of England was disestablished almost all the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholics (not least as most of them are still opposed to women priests), most of the evangelicals would become Baptists or Pentecostals and the remaining liberals would support gay marriages and blessings etc much like the Episcopalian Church in the US or the Church of Wales already does.
Does anyone have any rough idea when gas wholesale prices may restabilise at a lower level?
Are we talking eg 3, 6, 12, 24 or 48 months?
Approximately six months after the US rig count reaches pre-pandemic levels.
There were - pre-pandemic - around 180-200 natural gas rigs drilling in the US. At the absolute lows 3Q2020, there were maybe two dozen actual working rigs.
We're now back over 100, and I suspect we'll reach 160-170 by the autumn. So, early Spring 2023.
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
Didn't see it. Did they have Gregor Fisher as the ghillie, I wonder?
Is there a law under which jurors can be prosecuted for being a bunch of knobheads?
The joy of the jury system is that the jury can acquit for whatever reason they like.
You could flip that the opposite way and that they can convict for any reason they like.
It’s not for juries to be setting laws. That’s why we have elections.
Who should be deciding if people have broken the law, if not a jury of the accused's peers?
Juries will occasionally acquit for reasons we find incomprehensible.
That's a feature, not a bug.
People who know what the law is, and have much better than average education and intelligence. What is this shit about "peers"? Who should be the judge of whether I have, let's say, MS? A specialist surgeon or 12 random wankers?
How we all cheered when good old Fred was acquitted in 1993.
Awful example in terms of your argument as West was NOT acquitted by a jury in 1993 - the trial collapsed and the jury was dismissed by the very experts to whom you refer (although not blaming them - it appears key witnesses simply wouldn't testify).
I think you misunderstand the role and value of a jury. Juries are not opining on what the law is. Largely, their role is determining who to believe, and it isn't obvious that people of "better than average education and intelligence" as you put it are better at that. I would suggest that, in fact, such people are simply more likely to believe people of better than average education and intelligence. A typical jury will have more of a range - from the very intelligent and erudite to the wide-boy who gets how sometimes fights in pubs get out of hand... which is actually pretty relevant life experience for a juror, even though I don't have it myself.
Very occasionally you get a case like the Colston Four where jurors possibly (and we don't know the debate in the jury room) feel the defendant is technically guilty but just don't want them to get a criminal record as they have sympathy, don't feel it's fair, and want to throw them a bit of mercy. As has been said, I think as long as that is rare it's a feature, not a bug. Whether or not you agree with this jury (and I myself am unsure) I don't see it as a bad thing that a dozen people just occasionally do that as it maintains a sense that the courts are considering, as well as black letter law, the fairness to the individual defendant.
OK but if they are thought to be of average intelligence why the withholding of plainly relevant evidence as I the Harper trial, because it is prejudicial? Anyone too stupid to sort the prejudicial from the probative is surely also too stupid to sort the probative from the non probative.
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
Which suggests slavery wasn’t a motivating factor in putting it up.
I like where you are going with this. The politics might have been we are putting this up to score points off our wokish political opponents? The opponents were what - republican, anti Empire, anti capitalism?
The motivating factor in putting it up at the time was the elites of Bristol patting themselves on the back and pushing any discussion of the seedy origins of their wealth outside of the acceptable discourse in the city. A state of affairs that obviously continued for some time.
Do you think that all the statues of Southern generals that were erected in the US during the late C19th / early C20th had nothing whatsoever to do with the history of slavery there either? Are you actually that naïve?
Only if you are naive, because I agree with you on the last point. Isn’t there a statue of a civil war general in the middle of a motorway?
An allegory of the American South: In 1998, a fierce racist (who also happened to be the former attorney of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassin) named Jack Kershaw created a monument for another bad man, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest. The resulting statue is so hilariously stupid that we should keep it forever.
It’s an interesting one art is founded upon to an extent. What you see for yourself without knowing anything. Then the knowledge behind it changing what you see.
Wow. That is so beautiful. Yes. It was invented by Satan to lead the human race astray. Oh. Does it now look as beautiful as before?
One hilarious example comes to mind.....
Tony Blair at an exhibition of Aztec items at (I think) the British Museum praised a particular bowl as beautiful example of the art of a vibrant, lost culture.
It was the bowl into which the hearts torn from the sacrificial victims were placed. Thousands upon thousands of victims (lots of slaves, incidentally) murdered in those rituals.
That’s a great example.
And yes this golden horse with Cartoon confederate on back. Yes absolutely. All the knowledge behind its creation tells you it’s malign. But do you get that from observing it, without the knowledge? You could so easily think it a pastiche of the confederates? And a joyful and funny one at that.
What you know definitely changes what you see, any argument with that bit? But should it also change your enjoyment?
For example Screaming Eagles most favourite Soccer Mom movie - can he enjoy just as much when learning its director was a racist, and funding came from brexiteer who gave the most to Brexit campaign?
From loving it, to straight in the bin. How Should knowledge of artists and creatives change your enjoyment of their art?
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
Which suggests slavery wasn’t a motivating factor in putting it up.
I like where you are going with this. The politics might have been we are putting this up to score points off our wokish political opponents? The opponents were what - republican, anti Empire, anti capitalism?
The motivating factor in putting it up at the time was the elites of Bristol patting themselves on the back and pushing any discussion of the seedy origins of their wealth outside of the acceptable discourse in the city. A state of affairs that obviously continued for some time.
Do you think that all the statues of Southern generals that were erected in the US during the late C19th / early C20th had nothing whatsoever to do with the history of slavery there either? Are you actually that naïve?
Only if you are naive, because I agree with you on the last point. Isn’t there a statue of a civil war general in the middle of a motorway?
An allegory of the American South: In 1998, a fierce racist (who also happened to be the former attorney of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassin) named Jack Kershaw created a monument for another bad man, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest. The resulting statue is so hilariously stupid that we should keep it forever.
It’s an interesting one art is founded upon to an extent. What you see for yourself without knowing anything. Then the knowledge behind it changing what you see.
Wow. That is so beautiful. Yes. It was invented by Satan to lead the human race astray. Oh. Does it now look as beautiful as before?
One hilarious example comes to mind.....
Tony Blair at an exhibition of Aztec items at (I think) the British Museum praised a particular bowl as beautiful example of the art of a vibrant, lost culture.
It was the bowl into which the hearts torn from the sacrificial victims were placed. Thousands upon thousands of victims (lots of slaves, incidentally) murdered in those rituals.
That’s a great example.
And yes this golden horse with Cartoon confederate on back. Yes absolutely. All the knowledge behind its creation tells you it’s malign. But do you get that from observing it, without the knowledge? You could so easily think it a pastiche of the confederates? And a joyful and funny one at that.
What you know definitely changes what you see, any argument with that bit? But should it also change your enjoyment?
For example Screaming Eagles most favourite Soccer Mom movie - can he enjoy just as much when learning its director was a racist, and funding came from brexiteer who gave the most to Brexit campaign?
From loving it, to straight in the bin. How Should knowledge of artists and creatives change your enjoyment of their art?
It will be seen that what the defenders of Dali are claiming is a kind of benefit of clergy. The artist is to be exempt from the moral laws that are binding on ordinary people.
EDIT: the provenance of the artwork makes it *better* - a stupid racist tried to honour an evil racist and made himself (the stupid racist) look like an idiot and made the evil racist look like an idiot as well. "Evil doth often evil marr"...
Now for a fun one. This makes me laugh damn hard....
But the Nazi movement in Germany was about history though, Hail Hitler = Hail Caesar (from the Holy Roman Empire)
What’s that on his face?
I found a better resolution and (although it's still not clear) it looks like the painting has been scratched.
I'll be honest, before I zoomed in I'd convinced myself it was Tommie Smith or John Carlos superimposed over his face, which would have been quite fun.
Wiki says a US soldier damaged it with a bayonet after the end of the war, oddly it now resides in the US Army art collection. I wonder if the soldier was tried for criminal damage..
Priti would lock him up for 10 years.
And that is one of the problems with her law. No jury would convict.
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
Which suggests slavery wasn’t a motivating factor in putting it up.
I like where you are going with this. The politics might have been we are putting this up to score points off our wokish political opponents? The opponents were what - republican, anti Empire, anti capitalism?
The motivating factor in putting it up at the time was the elites of Bristol patting themselves on the back and pushing any discussion of the seedy origins of their wealth outside of the acceptable discourse in the city. A state of affairs that obviously continued for some time.
Do you think that all the statues of Southern generals that were erected in the US during the late C19th / early C20th had nothing whatsoever to do with the history of slavery there either? Are you actually that naïve?
Only if you are naive, because I agree with you on the last point. Isn’t there a statue of a civil war general in the middle of a motorway?
An allegory of the American South: In 1998, a fierce racist (who also happened to be the former attorney of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassin) named Jack Kershaw created a monument for another bad man, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest. The resulting statue is so hilariously stupid that we should keep it forever.
It’s an interesting one art is founded upon to an extent. What you see for yourself without knowing anything. Then the knowledge behind it changing what you see.
Wow. That is so beautiful. Yes. It was invented by Satan to lead the human race astray. Oh. Does it now look as beautiful as before?
One hilarious example comes to mind.....
Tony Blair at an exhibition of Aztec items at (I think) the British Museum praised a particular bowl as beautiful example of the art of a vibrant, lost culture.
It was the bowl into which the hearts torn from the sacrificial victims were placed. Thousands upon thousands of victims (lots of slaves, incidentally) murdered in those rituals.
That’s a great example.
And yes this golden horse with Cartoon confederate on back. Yes absolutely. All the knowledge behind its creation tells you it’s malign. But do you get that from observing it, without the knowledge? You could so easily think it a pastiche of the confederates? And a joyful and funny one at that.
What you know definitely changes what you see, any argument with that bit? But should it also change your enjoyment?
For example Screaming Eagles most favourite Soccer Mom movie - can he enjoy just as much when learning its director was a racist, and funding came from brexiteer who gave the most to Brexit campaign?
From loving it, to straight in the bin. How Should knowledge of artists and creatives change your enjoyment of their art?
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
Which suggests slavery wasn’t a motivating factor in putting it up.
I like where you are going with this. The politics might have been we are putting this up to score points off our wokish political opponents? The opponents were what - republican, anti Empire, anti capitalism?
The motivating factor in putting it up at the time was the elites of Bristol patting themselves on the back and pushing any discussion of the seedy origins of their wealth outside of the acceptable discourse in the city. A state of affairs that obviously continued for some time.
Do you think that all the statues of Southern generals that were erected in the US during the late C19th / early C20th had nothing whatsoever to do with the history of slavery there either? Are you actually that naïve?
Only if you are naive, because I agree with you on the last point. Isn’t there a statue of a civil war general in the middle of a motorway?
An allegory of the American South: In 1998, a fierce racist (who also happened to be the former attorney of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassin) named Jack Kershaw created a monument for another bad man, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest. The resulting statue is so hilariously stupid that we should keep it forever.
It’s an interesting one art is founded upon to an extent. What you see for yourself without knowing anything. Then the knowledge behind it changing what you see.
Wow. That is so beautiful. Yes. It was invented by Satan to lead the human race astray. Oh. Does it now look as beautiful as before?
One hilarious example comes to mind.....
Tony Blair at an exhibition of Aztec items at (I think) the British Museum praised a particular bowl as beautiful example of the art of a vibrant, lost culture.
It was the bowl into which the hearts torn from the sacrificial victims were placed. Thousands upon thousands of victims (lots of slaves, incidentally) murdered in those rituals.
That’s a great example.
And yes this golden horse with Cartoon confederate on back. Yes absolutely. All the knowledge behind its creation tells you it’s malign. But do you get that from observing it, without the knowledge? You could so easily think it a pastiche of the confederates? And a joyful and funny one at that.
What you know definitely changes what you see, any argument with that bit? But should it also change your enjoyment?
For example Screaming Eagles most favourite Soccer Mom movie - can he enjoy just as much when learning its director was a racist, and funding came from brexiteer who gave the most to Brexit campaign?
From loving it, to straight in the bin. How Should knowledge of artists and creatives change your enjoyment of their art?
It will be seen that what the defenders of Dali are claiming is a kind of benefit of clergy. The artist is to be exempt from the moral laws that are binding on ordinary people.
EDIT: the provenance of the artwork makes it *better* - a stupid racist tried to honour an evil racist and made himself (the stupid racist) look like an idiot and made the evil racist look like an idiot as well. "Evil doth often evil marr"...
Now for a fun one. This makes me laugh damn hard....
But the Nazi movement in Germany was about history though, Hail Hitler = Hail Caesar (from the Holy Roman Empire)
What’s that on his face?
I found a better resolution and (although it's still not clear) it looks like the painting has been scratched.
I'll be honest, before I zoomed in I'd convinced myself it was Tommie Smith or John Carlos superimposed over his face, which would have been quite fun.
Wiki says a US soldier damaged it with a bayonet after the end of the war, oddly it now resides in the US Army art collection. I wonder if the soldier was tried for criminal damage..
Probably not - there was a lot of looting and smashing up of Nazi stuff and nobody gave a damn.
My dog took a crap on that podium back in September.
So. Who are the other 25 tennis players who tried the same trick? Will they be deported toute suite?
Apparently the majority demonstrated that they'd recently tested positive and recovered from Covid, which is a valid exemption. We'll see if there's any more blowback though.
I don't know much about the Colston case; but as other people have pointed out it is a feature of jury trials that this type of verdict can happen. I would rather just accept that, than have a 'better' or 'more accurate' system of justice. Generally speaking the obsession with slavery 300 years ago is curious. It is an unfortunate feature of human development and the real story is that Britain took the lead in abolishing it. It is one of the few areas in which human society progressed. The debate about the rights and wrongs of it was finished generations ago. Trying to bring all this back up is just the sign of a society that has no confidence in itself; what it is and what it has achieved; it is just sad.
No, quite specifically, fuck off about that. Why "the real story is that Britain took the lead in abolishing it" rather than "the real story is that Britain took the lead in establishing it"? Do you dispute that Britain shipped more Africans across the Atlantic than anyone except Portugal? Why does shipping 3m slaves suddenly not count because you decide not to ship any more?
Are you seriously suggesting that Britain invented slavery?
What a fucking stupid question. Are you seriously suggesting that Britain invented oppositon to slavery?
I think that was Moses, but Britain was not far behind.
Numbers game, love. We transported about 3.4m slaves. Add in the misery of their descendants, and there's a bigger crime than the holocaust. But ab fab that we thereafter decided it was a baaad thing to do. Yay for us.,
I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
Great minds think alike. I just asked that same question, only come to a completely different answers to you 🙂
Whoever put them up Alastair obviously making the political point it’s not morally repugnant. You see what I mean?
In 1895 who are the people putting them up? They are clearly thumbing their noses at someone as they do this? Weren’t the Liberals in 1895 nearly as Republican as Screaming Eagles now is?
The 1890's were a period of rampant, competitive statue building mania across the country. With each town furiously throwing up hideous representations of ever more obscure local "personalities". They really weren't considering why. For some reason these monstrosities are now sacrosanct.
Is that true?
Both the attempt to cover the earth in them. And the No real motivation such as to counter opponents?
1870-1914 is generally held to be the period of "statue mania". It is when various groups wanting to make a political point raised money to put a statue up. Often for long forgotten reasons. Sometimes not. There are so many of Columbus in the USA, because new Italian immigrants wanted to be included in the history of "white" America. Even though he never set foot there. They weren't really thought of as white back then. Often though they were put up because the neighbouring town had one. I dislike them as a rule. Most are of little artistic value, nor much relevance to today.
Beacon Park in Lichfield is full of them, including Captain Smith of the Titanic.
To be honest, they aren't terribly noteworthy, they just fade into the background. Or at least, they do for me. Maybe others notice them more.
Beacon Park was very generous in accepting Captain Smith when everyone else was embarrassed by him.
Is there a law under which jurors can be prosecuted for being a bunch of knobheads?
The joy of the jury system is that the jury can acquit for whatever reason they like.
You could flip that the opposite way and that they can convict for any reason they like.
It’s not for juries to be setting laws. That’s why we have elections.
Who should be deciding if people have broken the law, if not a jury of the accused's peers?
Juries will occasionally acquit for reasons we find incomprehensible.
That's a feature, not a bug.
People who know what the law is, and have much better than average education and intelligence. What is this shit about "peers"? Who should be the judge of whether I have, let's say, MS? A specialist surgeon or 12 random wankers?
How we all cheered when good old Fred was acquitted in 1993.
Awful example in terms of your argument as West was NOT acquitted by a jury in 1993 - the trial collapsed and the jury was dismissed by the very experts to whom you refer (although not blaming them - it appears key witnesses simply wouldn't testify).
I think you misunderstand the role and value of a jury. Juries are not opining on what the law is. Largely, their role is determining who to believe, and it isn't obvious that people of "better than average education and intelligence" as you put it are better at that. I would suggest that, in fact, such people are simply more likely to believe people of better than average education and intelligence. A typical jury will have more of a range - from the very intelligent and erudite to the wide-boy who gets how sometimes fights in pubs get out of hand... which is actually pretty relevant life experience for a juror, even though I don't have it myself.
Very occasionally you get a case like the Colston Four where jurors possibly (and we don't know the debate in the jury room) feel the defendant is technically guilty but just don't want them to get a criminal record as they have sympathy, don't feel it's fair, and want to throw them a bit of mercy. As has been said, I think as long as that is rare it's a feature, not a bug. Whether or not you agree with this jury (and I myself am unsure) I don't see it as a bad thing that a dozen people just occasionally do that as it maintains a sense that the courts are considering, as well as black letter law, the fairness to the individual defendant.
OK but if they are thought to be of average intelligence why the withholding of plainly relevant evidence as I the Harper trial, because it is prejudicial? Anyone too stupid to sort the prejudicial from the probative is surely also too stupid to sort the probative from the non probative.
You know, I'm kinda getting the impression that you're none too impressed with the intelligence of your fellow man.
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
Which suggests slavery wasn’t a motivating factor in putting it up.
I like where you are going with this. The politics might have been we are putting this up to score points off our wokish political opponents? The opponents were what - republican, anti Empire, anti capitalism?
The motivating factor in putting it up at the time was the elites of Bristol patting themselves on the back and pushing any discussion of the seedy origins of their wealth outside of the acceptable discourse in the city. A state of affairs that obviously continued for some time.
Do you think that all the statues of Southern generals that were erected in the US during the late C19th / early C20th had nothing whatsoever to do with the history of slavery there either? Are you actually that naïve?
Only if you are naive, because I agree with you on the last point. Isn’t there a statue of a civil war general in the middle of a motorway?
An allegory of the American South: In 1998, a fierce racist (who also happened to be the former attorney of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassin) named Jack Kershaw created a monument for another bad man, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest. The resulting statue is so hilariously stupid that we should keep it forever.
It’s an interesting one art is founded upon to an extent. What you see for yourself without knowing anything. Then the knowledge behind it changing what you see.
Wow. That is so beautiful. Yes. It was invented by Satan to lead the human race astray. Oh. Does it now look as beautiful as before?
One hilarious example comes to mind.....
Tony Blair at an exhibition of Aztec items at (I think) the British Museum praised a particular bowl as beautiful example of the art of a vibrant, lost culture.
It was the bowl into which the hearts torn from the sacrificial victims were placed. Thousands upon thousands of victims (lots of slaves, incidentally) murdered in those rituals.
That’s a great example.
And yes this golden horse with Cartoon confederate on back. Yes absolutely. All the knowledge behind its creation tells you it’s malign. But do you get that from observing it, without the knowledge? You could so easily think it a pastiche of the confederates? And a joyful and funny one at that.
What you know definitely changes what you see, any argument with that bit? But should it also change your enjoyment?
For example Screaming Eagles most favourite Soccer Mom movie - can he enjoy just as much when learning its director was a racist, and funding came from brexiteer who gave the most to Brexit campaign?
From loving it, to straight in the bin. How Should knowledge of artists and creatives change your enjoyment of their art?
It is stupid and wrong to punt this out as a genuine recording of the PM. For the Times and for PB
I listened to it and thought, a third of the way in, "this must be edited", but I also thought "if it isn't my God he must be sectioned"
Not responsible. Big time Fail. TSK
It's 46 seconds edited from a 4 minute segment. Still not good but not as bad as it seemed.
I get that now, but it is not obvious from the recording (tho highly suggestive)
At a time of acute national crisis PB should not be the Daily Express (or the Morning Star) promoting insane bollocks about the prime minister. This is not a recording of Boris, it is a doctored recording of his "ers" (which are bad enough, but not clearly mental)
The people who thought judges were enemies of the people and that activist lawyers are frustrating the noble intentions of HMG will be moving on to the juries. Who's left in the legal system to demonise, court ushers?
It's such a shame that the gammon society is upset...
Cheap shot. I don't know much about 'Save Our Statues' but they're making a substantive point that should be addressed.
It isn't open season on statues.
It does show however that juries will use their powers to acquit people if laws are used harshly to suppress legitimate dissent. Indeed that is how the original Penn case came to set the precedent.
Sorry but it strikes me as populist justice. There are plenty of ways people could show 'legitimate dissent' without having to tear the statue down.
No it is a long established principle that juries can refuse to enforce oppressive laws. It is the sort of ancient British custom that supposed patriots dislike.
Well that depends on your definition of oppression. I don't think a law against destroying public monuments qualifies.
I can't help but feel there are a fair number of middle class parents on here with woke(ish) kids who are worried about the idea of Cassia or Tarquin having their collars felt. Surely that must be wrong.
My main concern is with a politicised justice system in which jury members decide to use their position to make a political point. How about a Tommy Robinson type on trial for something but the jury (probably not in Bristol) acquits because although the evidence suggests he's guilty, they're convinced he's a good 'un with the right ideas so doesn't deserve to go down.
Bearing in mind that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has several convictions, I think the evidence is that juries are happy to convict him.
I find the use of his original name strangely irritating. Is he not allowed to use a different name because you think he is an utter shit? Would you refer to say Elton John as Reg Dwight?
I agree that "Tommy Robinson" is a created character.
Yes, and that is his choice for how he is known, so why do so many like to report him by his original name? Don’t know why it annoys me so much, but it does. Pobably says more about me than anything else...
Reg Dwight adopted a stage name. Yaxley-Lennon created an alias to draw a veil over his criminal convictions for violence.
o/t but interesting - chameleon car (at least in changing colour rather than camouflage, though blocks work well in urban backgrounds like the painting of British Chieftain tanks in Berlin).
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
Mrs Thatcher almost won all 4 seats in 1987.
Mirrors the national trend. Cities have moved more to Labour since the 1980s, Northern and Midlands ex mining and industrial areas have moved more to the Conservatives
Why?
Are you saying the people there change views, or the demographic itself changed? Like children of miners now live in conorbations not their area of birth? Like me! Last 40 years have made a big movement around?
If we had babies there is no family for nearly hundred miles who could help.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
And we wonder why Catholics are outbreeding Protestants in Northern Ireland...
You mean Roman Catholics, I presume. As an Anglican you are just as much a Catholic as a RC. Unless you know something about Church of Ireland Episcopalians we don't.
*edit* checked: yes, Episcopalians are Catholic too. So scratch that last.
No we are not as the Head of our Church on earth is not the Pope.
There are also plenty of Protestant evangelicals too who would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
I rather think the chaps at the C of E know better:
"The Church claims to be both Catholic and Reformed. It upholds teachings found in early Christian doctrines, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Church also reveres 16th century Protestant Reformation ideas outlined in texts, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer."
And their Irish colleagues:
"1. Is the Church of Ireland Protestant or Catholic?
It is both Protestant and Catholic. For this reason it is incorrect to refer to members of the Church of Ireland as ‘non–Catholic’.
The terms Protestant and Catholic are not really opposites.
There are Catholics who accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. Often in consequence they are called Roman Catholics. But there are other Catholics who do not accept the Pope’s jurisdiction or certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Some are called Protestant or Reformed Catholics. Among them are members of the Church of Ireland and the other Churches of the Anglican Communion.
It follows therefore that the terms ‘Protestant’ and ‘Reformed’ should be contrasted with ‘Roman’ and not with ‘Catholic’.
The Church of Ireland is Catholic because it is in possession of a continuous tradition of faith and practice, based on Scripture and early traditions, enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, together with the sacraments and apostolic ministry. "
Yet it is still not fully Catholic as the Pope is not its Head. Evangelicals, as opposed to Anglo Catholics and most liberals within even the Anglican Church would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense.
Protestant evangelical Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans etc would also not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
You are confusing Catholicism in general with the specific kind mediated through the Roman Papacy. I'm sure the nice chap in Lambeth Palace can explain it all to you.
Allegedly mediated through the Roman Papacy
(I may not be helping here)
They would consider themselves catholic, but probably using a different word, and not Catholic.
Always thought the Anglican Church was "a" Catholic church as opposed to "the" Catholic church,
About right; I was responding to:
"Protestant evangelical Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans etc would also not consider themselves Catholic in any sense"
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
Didn't see it. Did they have Gregor Fisher as the ghillie, I wonder?
Urgh. Even the name Dun Dunbar castle ... it's like saying Fort Fort William.
When the issue of renaming American army bases named after Confederates came up, a number of people said they should rename one after - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fort
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
Which suggests slavery wasn’t a motivating factor in putting it up.
I like where you are going with this. The politics might have been we are putting this up to score points off our wokish political opponents? The opponents were what - republican, anti Empire, anti capitalism?
The motivating factor in putting it up at the time was the elites of Bristol patting themselves on the back and pushing any discussion of the seedy origins of their wealth outside of the acceptable discourse in the city. A state of affairs that obviously continued for some time.
Do you think that all the statues of Southern generals that were erected in the US during the late C19th / early C20th had nothing whatsoever to do with the history of slavery there either? Are you actually that naïve?
Only if you are naive, because I agree with you on the last point. Isn’t there a statue of a civil war general in the middle of a motorway?
An allegory of the American South: In 1998, a fierce racist (who also happened to be the former attorney of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassin) named Jack Kershaw created a monument for another bad man, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest. The resulting statue is so hilariously stupid that we should keep it forever.
It’s an interesting one art is founded upon to an extent. What you see for yourself without knowing anything. Then the knowledge behind it changing what you see.
Wow. That is so beautiful. Yes. It was invented by Satan to lead the human race astray. Oh. Does it now look as beautiful as before?
One hilarious example comes to mind.....
Tony Blair at an exhibition of Aztec items at (I think) the British Museum praised a particular bowl as beautiful example of the art of a vibrant, lost culture.
It was the bowl into which the hearts torn from the sacrificial victims were placed. Thousands upon thousands of victims (lots of slaves, incidentally) murdered in those rituals.
That’s a great example.
And yes this golden horse with Cartoon confederate on back. Yes absolutely. All the knowledge behind its creation tells you it’s malign. But do you get that from observing it, without the knowledge? You could so easily think it a pastiche of the confederates? And a joyful and funny one at that.
What you know definitely changes what you see, any argument with that bit? But should it also change your enjoyment?
For example Screaming Eagles most favourite Soccer Mom movie - can he enjoy just as much when learning its director was a racist, and funding came from brexiteer who gave the most to Brexit campaign?
From loving it, to straight in the bin. How Should knowledge of artists and creatives change your enjoyment of their art?
Is there a law under which jurors can be prosecuted for being a bunch of knobheads?
The joy of the jury system is that the jury can acquit for whatever reason they like.
You could flip that the opposite way and that they can convict for any reason they like.
It’s not for juries to be setting laws. That’s why we have elections.
Not so simple. Juries can indeed acquit for whatever reason they like, and don't ever give a reason. And it is generally against the law to try to find out.
But they can't just convict any old how. There is a double safety net. To get to a jury decision there has to be evidence upon which a properly directed jury can properly convict. If there isn't the judge chucks it out on application at the close of the prosecution case.
Secondly a conviction can be appealed. An acquittal can't. (Unless very exceptionally compelling new facts arise).
Is this not all simply around the idea that in our system Juries get to decide? And we accept that juries occasionally taking it upon themselves to make exceptionally good or exceptionally perverse decisions is a price we pay for not having Officials make the decisions.
Certainly you are right that there is no fail safe method, and the failings of one have to be weighted against the potential failings of the alternative.
I think - as in so much of the legal setup - the Americans are centuries behind here with their "Grand Juries", which are the wrong aspect to preserve.
Talking of the US and juries, I see that one of the Maxwell jurors has revealed they were sexually abused in the past, and it isn’t clear whether they failed to declare it or it was declared but they failed to look into or act on the information. Potentially it gives Maxwell’s lawyers an anomaly to knaw at, increasing the chances of an appeal being allowed.
The /r/tennis subreddit has a post-match thread for the Australian Border Control versus N. Djokovic. I'm not sure it entirely makes up for social media slowly but surely destroying democracy, but at least there will be laughs on the way to hell.
o/t but interesting - chameleon car (at least in changing colour rather than camouflage, though blocks work well in urban backgrounds like the painting of British Chieftain tanks in Berlin).
I don't know much about the Colston case; but as other people have pointed out it is a feature of jury trials that this type of verdict can happen. I would rather just accept that, than have a 'better' or 'more accurate' system of justice. Generally speaking the obsession with slavery 300 years ago is curious. It is an unfortunate feature of human development and the real story is that Britain took the lead in abolishing it. It is one of the few areas in which human society progressed. The debate about the rights and wrongs of it was finished generations ago. Trying to bring all this back up is just the sign of a society that has no confidence in itself; what it is and what it has achieved; it is just sad.
No, quite specifically, fuck off about that. Why "the real story is that Britain took the lead in abolishing it" rather than "the real story is that Britain took the lead in establishing it"? Do you dispute that Britain shipped more Africans across the Atlantic than anyone except Portugal? Why does shipping 3m slaves suddenly not count because you decide not to ship any more?
Are you seriously suggesting that Britain invented slavery?
What a fucking stupid question. Are you seriously suggesting that Britain invented oppositon to slavery?
I think that was Moses, but Britain was not far behind.
Numbers game, love. We transported about 3.4m slaves. Add in the misery of their descendants, and there's a bigger crime than the holocaust. But ab fab that we thereafter decided it was a baaad thing to do. Yay for us.,
I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
Mmm, I expect the transportees felt much better for that thought.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
Mrs Thatcher almost won all 4 seats in 1987.
Mirrors the national trend. Cities have moved more to Labour since the 1980s, Northern and Midlands ex mining and industrial areas have moved more to the Conservatives
Why?
Are you saying the people there change views, or the demographic itself changed? Like children of miners now live in conorbations not their area of birth? Like me! Last 40 years have made a big movement around?
If we had babies there is no family for nearly hundred miles who could help.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
And we wonder why Catholics are outbreeding Protestants in Northern Ireland...
You mean Roman Catholics, I presume. As an Anglican you are just as much a Catholic as a RC. Unless you know something about Church of Ireland Episcopalians we don't.
*edit* checked: yes, Episcopalians are Catholic too. So scratch that last.
No we are not as the Head of our Church on earth is not the Pope.
There are also plenty of Protestant evangelicals too who would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
I rather think the chaps at the C of E know better:
"The Church claims to be both Catholic and Reformed. It upholds teachings found in early Christian doctrines, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Church also reveres 16th century Protestant Reformation ideas outlined in texts, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer."
And their Irish colleagues:
"1. Is the Church of Ireland Protestant or Catholic?
It is both Protestant and Catholic. For this reason it is incorrect to refer to members of the Church of Ireland as ‘non–Catholic’.
The terms Protestant and Catholic are not really opposites.
There are Catholics who accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. Often in consequence they are called Roman Catholics. But there are other Catholics who do not accept the Pope’s jurisdiction or certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Some are called Protestant or Reformed Catholics. Among them are members of the Church of Ireland and the other Churches of the Anglican Communion.
It follows therefore that the terms ‘Protestant’ and ‘Reformed’ should be contrasted with ‘Roman’ and not with ‘Catholic’.
The Church of Ireland is Catholic because it is in possession of a continuous tradition of faith and practice, based on Scripture and early traditions, enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, together with the sacraments and apostolic ministry. "
Yet it is still not fully Catholic as the Pope is not its Head. Evangelicals, as opposed to Anglo Catholics and most liberals within even the Anglican Church would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense.
Protestant evangelical Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans etc would also not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
You are confusing Catholicism in general with the specific kind mediated through the Roman Papacy. I'm sure the nice chap in Lambeth Palace can explain it all to you.
Allegedly mediated through the Roman Papacy
(I may not be helping here)
They would consider themselves catholic, but probably using a different word, and not Catholic.
Always thought the Anglican Church was "a" Catholic church as opposed to "the" Catholic church,
Anglo Catholic Anglicans would think that, evangelicals in the Church of England would not
The C of E itself officially says that Sunil is right. As I pointed out earlier this evening.
'It claims to be Catholic and Reformed.'
The Anglo Catholics and liberals within the Church of England consider it to be more the former, the evangelicals within the Church of England would consider it to be solely the latter.
If the Church of England was disestablished almost all the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholics (not least as most of them are still opposed to women priests), most of the evangelicals would become Baptists or Pentecostals and the remaining liberals would support gay marriages and blessings etc much like the Episcopalian Church in the US or the Church of Wales already does.
Another for the HY “But where’s the downside?” (HYBWTD) collection…
o/t but interesting - chameleon car (at least in changing colour rather than camouflage, though blocks work well in urban backgrounds like the painting of British Chieftain tanks in Berlin).
o/t but interesting - chameleon car (at least in changing colour rather than camouflage, though blocks work well in urban backgrounds like the painting of British Chieftain tanks in Berlin).
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
Didn't see it. Did they have Gregor Fisher as the ghillie, I wonder?
Urgh. Even the name Dun Dunbar castle ... it's like saying Fort Fort William.
When the issue of renaming American army bases named after Confederates came up, a number of people said they should rename one after - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fort
Just so you could have Fort Fort.....
There is of course Townsville in North Queensland...
The /r/tennis subreddit has a post-match thread for the Australian Border Control versus N. Djokovic. I'm not sure it entirely makes up for social media slowly but surely destroying democracy, but at least there will be laughs on the way to hell.
The Colston verdicts are clearly insane but that is juries. So be it
On the plus side I can say after getting hammered in the pubs of Soho, and meeting a self selecting group of young bohemian people who go to the French House on a Wednesday in early January, that Generation Z:
1. Are not at all Woke as we know it
2. Don't give a fuck about Covid
3, Are absolutely never going to obey another lockdown, so it is pointless
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
I am 1. a professional historian and 2. the beneficiary of a reasonable chunk of a 19th century "cotton merchant's" fortune.
Thanks for the advice though.
The traditional approach to inheriting a “reasonable chunk” is to give it away
Really, Charles? How many people who you know who have inherited a reasonable chunk have given it away vs clung on to it?
I can only speak to our family traditions. But we tithe while alive and give a minimum of 80% away on death.
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Indeed, every Bristol seat was won by Corbyn Labour even in 2019. The jury verdict was always likely to favour the protestors.
Though at least the statue is still in a museum even if probably rightly no longer on public display
Mrs Thatcher almost won all 4 seats in 1987.
Mirrors the national trend. Cities have moved more to Labour since the 1980s, Northern and Midlands ex mining and industrial areas have moved more to the Conservatives
Why?
Are you saying the people there change views, or the demographic itself changed? Like children of miners now live in conorbations not their area of birth? Like me! Last 40 years have made a big movement around?
If we had babies there is no family for nearly hundred miles who could help.
I might just get a pet to piss off the pope. Is that the right Anglican thing to do HY?
And we wonder why Catholics are outbreeding Protestants in Northern Ireland...
You mean Roman Catholics, I presume. As an Anglican you are just as much a Catholic as a RC. Unless you know something about Church of Ireland Episcopalians we don't.
*edit* checked: yes, Episcopalians are Catholic too. So scratch that last.
No we are not as the Head of our Church on earth is not the Pope.
There are also plenty of Protestant evangelicals too who would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
I rather think the chaps at the C of E know better:
"The Church claims to be both Catholic and Reformed. It upholds teachings found in early Christian doctrines, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Church also reveres 16th century Protestant Reformation ideas outlined in texts, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer."
And their Irish colleagues:
"1. Is the Church of Ireland Protestant or Catholic?
It is both Protestant and Catholic. For this reason it is incorrect to refer to members of the Church of Ireland as ‘non–Catholic’.
The terms Protestant and Catholic are not really opposites.
There are Catholics who accept the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. Often in consequence they are called Roman Catholics. But there are other Catholics who do not accept the Pope’s jurisdiction or certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Some are called Protestant or Reformed Catholics. Among them are members of the Church of Ireland and the other Churches of the Anglican Communion.
It follows therefore that the terms ‘Protestant’ and ‘Reformed’ should be contrasted with ‘Roman’ and not with ‘Catholic’.
The Church of Ireland is Catholic because it is in possession of a continuous tradition of faith and practice, based on Scripture and early traditions, enshrined in the Catholic Creeds, together with the sacraments and apostolic ministry. "
Yet it is still not fully Catholic as the Pope is not its Head. Evangelicals, as opposed to Anglo Catholics and most liberals within even the Anglican Church would not consider themselves Catholic in any sense.
Protestant evangelical Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans etc would also not consider themselves Catholic in any sense
You are confusing Catholicism in general with the specific kind mediated through the Roman Papacy. I'm sure the nice chap in Lambeth Palace can explain it all to you.
Allegedly mediated through the Roman Papacy
(I may not be helping here)
They would consider themselves catholic, but probably using a different word, and not Catholic.
Always thought the Anglican Church was "a" Catholic church as opposed to "the" Catholic church,
About right; I was responding to:
"Protestant evangelical Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans etc would also not consider themselves Catholic in any sense"
Is there a law under which jurors can be prosecuted for being a bunch of knobheads?
The joy of the jury system is that the jury can acquit for whatever reason they like.
You could flip that the opposite way and that they can convict for any reason they like.
It’s not for juries to be setting laws. That’s why we have elections.
Not so simple. Juries can indeed acquit for whatever reason they like, and don't ever give a reason. And it is generally against the law to try to find out.
But they can't just convict any old how. There is a double safety net. To get to a jury decision there has to be evidence upon which a properly directed jury can properly convict. If there isn't the judge chucks it out on application at the close of the prosecution case.
Secondly a conviction can be appealed. An acquittal can't. (Unless very exceptionally compelling new facts arise).
Is this not all simply around the idea that in our system Juries get to decide? And we accept that juries occasionally taking it upon themselves to make exceptionally good or exceptionally perverse decisions is a price we pay for not having Officials make the decisions.
Yep and long may it continue. As I said earlier personally I would have chosen to convict. But I am not from Bristol, I don't know all the facts and arguments as presented in court and, most importantly, I wasn't present in the jury room when it was being discussed. I would rather see 100 cases like this which go in a way I don't agree with rather than the system changed so juries must convict based on the letter of the law rather than their own judgements.
Hey-hey! Resolved the PB.com login issue on my new MacBook - I had to allow cross-site tracking. (Not sure if I should be worried about doing that or not 😟)
Bristol is probably where you'd want to be tried if you were a lefty vegan knitting statue botherer.
Maybe not the best place to locate a statue of a slave trader then. Perhaps they could have moved it to somewhere where white supremacists who murder children for profit are accorded the respect they're due.
God, but you're lovely when you're angry.
The whole point about Colston was that he was quite markedly less of a c--t than about 98% of his fellow slave traders in that he spent yuge sums of money on Bristol centric philanthropy rather than just being a rich c--t.
Also, are slave traders white supremacists? Do they murder children (seems a negation of their basic business model) and where's the money in child murder anyway?
I think you need to educate yourself about slavery and the slave trade.
I am 1. a professional historian and 2. the beneficiary of a reasonable chunk of a 19th century "cotton merchant's" fortune.
Thanks for the advice though.
The traditional approach to inheriting a “reasonable chunk” is to give it away
Really, Charles? How many people who you know who have inherited a reasonable chunk have given it away vs clung on to it?
I can only speak to our family traditions. But we tithe while alive and give a minimum of 80% away on death.
Well, yes, but I thought you were speaking about a "traditional approach" and that you were an historian?
Is there a law under which jurors can be prosecuted for being a bunch of knobheads?
The joy of the jury system is that the jury can acquit for whatever reason they like.
Yes.
Fred West was acquitted of a rape charge by a jury, a couple of years before the remains of his first murder victim were discovered. Anyone who fails to see the joy in that is a fun sponge to the max.
I don't really follow your point. It's not like juries are required to convict anyone who is on trial, however much we'd all have liked them to in that case with the benefit of hindsight. And there's no guarantee a lack of a jury would have seen him convicted earlier is there? Judges also fail to find people guilty sometimes. Or convict innocent people sometimes.
Not sure how long this will last but you can still lay Jokovic on Betfair. Assuming he is toast, pretty easy money. DAYOR.
If a player does not start a tournament then all bets on that player will be void. For the avoidance of doubt, qualifying is not considered part of the tournament.
Not sure how long this will last but you can still lay Jokovic on Betfair. Assuming he is toast, pretty easy money. DAYOR.
If a player does not start a tournament then all bets on that player will be void. For the avoidance of doubt, qualifying is not considered part of the tournament.
Is that the betfair rules? In which case I should take my profit soon...
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
Didn't see it. Did they have Gregor Fisher as the ghillie, I wonder?
Urgh. Even the name Dun Dunbar castle ... it's like saying Fort Fort William.
When the issue of renaming American army bases named after Confederates came up, a number of people said they should rename one after - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fort
Just so you could have Fort Fort.....
There is a place called Forty Fort, which has a very boatey mcboatface vibe to it. Ahead of its time perhaps.
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
Which suggests slavery wasn’t a motivating factor in putting it up.
I like where you are going with this. The politics might have been we are putting this up to score points off our wokish political opponents? The opponents were what - republican, anti Empire, anti capitalism?
The motivating factor in putting it up at the time was the elites of Bristol patting themselves on the back and pushing any discussion of the seedy origins of their wealth outside of the acceptable discourse in the city. A state of affairs that obviously continued for some time.
Do you think that all the statues of Southern generals that were erected in the US during the late C19th / early C20th had nothing whatsoever to do with the history of slavery there either? Are you actually that naïve?
Only if you are naive, because I agree with you on the last point. Isn’t there a statue of a civil war general in the middle of a motorway?
An allegory of the American South: In 1998, a fierce racist (who also happened to be the former attorney of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassin) named Jack Kershaw created a monument for another bad man, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest. The resulting statue is so hilariously stupid that we should keep it forever.
It’s an interesting one art is founded upon to an extent. What you see for yourself without knowing anything. Then the knowledge behind it changing what you see.
Wow. That is so beautiful. Yes. It was invented by Satan to lead the human race astray. Oh. Does it now look as beautiful as before?
One hilarious example comes to mind.....
Tony Blair at an exhibition of Aztec items at (I think) the British Museum praised a particular bowl as beautiful example of the art of a vibrant, lost culture.
It was the bowl into which the hearts torn from the sacrificial victims were placed. Thousands upon thousands of victims (lots of slaves, incidentally) murdered in those rituals.
That’s a great example.
And yes this golden horse with Cartoon confederate on back. Yes absolutely. All the knowledge behind its creation tells you it’s malign. But do you get that from observing it, without the knowledge? You could so easily think it a pastiche of the confederates? And a joyful and funny one at that.
What you know definitely changes what you see, any argument with that bit? But should it also change your enjoyment?
For example Screaming Eagles most favourite Soccer Mom movie - can he enjoy just as much when learning its director was a racist, and funding came from brexiteer who gave the most to Brexit campaign?
From loving it, to straight in the bin. How Should knowledge of artists and creatives change your enjoyment of their art?
Gaugin was a shit.
Here’s one for you 🙂
You really can't beat the Spanish for portraiture, can you
Not sure how long this will last but you can still lay Jokovic on Betfair. Assuming he is toast, pretty easy money. DAYOR.
If a player does not start a tournament then all bets on that player will be void. For the avoidance of doubt, qualifying is not considered part of the tournament.
Also, presumably the cancellation shouldn’t happen before the tournament starts, so there is time...
Not sure how long this will last but you can still lay Jokovic on Betfair. Assuming he is toast, pretty easy money. DAYOR.
Ooh ta!
Although see the rules about cancelling bets if he doesn’t start. I think there is risk free profit here, but you may need to cash out at the right time...
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
Didn't see it. Did they have Gregor Fisher as the ghillie, I wonder?
Urgh. Even the name Dun Dunbar castle ... it's like saying Fort Fort William.
When the issue of renaming American army bases named after Confederates came up, a number of people said they should rename one after - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fort
Just so you could have Fort Fort.....
There is of course Townsville in North Queensland...
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
Didn't see it. Did they have Gregor Fisher as the ghillie, I wonder?
Urgh. Even the name Dun Dunbar castle ... it's like saying Fort Fort William.
When the issue of renaming American army bases named after Confederates came up, a number of people said they should rename one after - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fort
Just so you could have Fort Fort.....
There is a place called Forty Fort, which has a very boatey mcboatface vibe to it. Ahead of its time perhaps.
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
Didn't see it. Did they have Gregor Fisher as the ghillie, I wonder?
Urgh. Even the name Dun Dunbar castle ... it's like saying Fort Fort William.
When the issue of renaming American army bases named after Confederates came up, a number of people said they should rename one after - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fort
Just so you could have Fort Fort.....
There is a place called Forty Fort, which has a very boatey mcboatface vibe to it. Ahead of its time perhaps.
Not sure how long this will last but you can still lay Jokovic on Betfair. Assuming he is toast, pretty easy money. DAYOR.
Ooh ta!
Although see the rules about cancelling bets if he doesn’t start. I think there is risk free profit here, but you may need to cash out at the right time...
"Cashing out" means a back and a lay on the same player. Those bets should both be void according to the rules.
The statue was erected in 1895, I'm fairly certain in 1895 we as a nation had decided Slavery was morally repugnent.
Which suggests slavery wasn’t a motivating factor in putting it up.
I like where you are going with this. The politics might have been we are putting this up to score points off our wokish political opponents? The opponents were what - republican, anti Empire, anti capitalism?
The motivating factor in putting it up at the time was the elites of Bristol patting themselves on the back and pushing any discussion of the seedy origins of their wealth outside of the acceptable discourse in the city. A state of affairs that obviously continued for some time.
Do you think that all the statues of Southern generals that were erected in the US during the late C19th / early C20th had nothing whatsoever to do with the history of slavery there either? Are you actually that naïve?
Only if you are naive, because I agree with you on the last point. Isn’t there a statue of a civil war general in the middle of a motorway?
An allegory of the American South: In 1998, a fierce racist (who also happened to be the former attorney of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassin) named Jack Kershaw created a monument for another bad man, Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest. The resulting statue is so hilariously stupid that we should keep it forever.
It’s an interesting one art is founded upon to an extent. What you see for yourself without knowing anything. Then the knowledge behind it changing what you see.
Wow. That is so beautiful. Yes. It was invented by Satan to lead the human race astray. Oh. Does it now look as beautiful as before?
One hilarious example comes to mind.....
Tony Blair at an exhibition of Aztec items at (I think) the British Museum praised a particular bowl as beautiful example of the art of a vibrant, lost culture.
It was the bowl into which the hearts torn from the sacrificial victims were placed. Thousands upon thousands of victims (lots of slaves, incidentally) murdered in those rituals.
That’s a great example.
And yes this golden horse with Cartoon confederate on back. Yes absolutely. All the knowledge behind its creation tells you it’s malign. But do you get that from observing it, without the knowledge? You could so easily think it a pastiche of the confederates? And a joyful and funny one at that.
What you know definitely changes what you see, any argument with that bit? But should it also change your enjoyment?
For example Screaming Eagles most favourite Soccer Mom movie - can he enjoy just as much when learning its director was a racist, and funding came from brexiteer who gave the most to Brexit campaign?
From loving it, to straight in the bin. How Should knowledge of artists and creatives change your enjoyment of their art?
Gaugin was a shit.
Here’s one for you 🙂
You really can't beat the Spanish for portraiture, can you
That's the problem with family oil paintings. There's always someone not looking at the artist.
Not sure how long this will last but you can still lay Jokovic on Betfair. Assuming he is toast, pretty easy money. DAYOR.
Ooh ta!
Although see the rules about cancelling bets if he doesn’t start. I think there is risk free profit here, but you may need to cash out at the right time...
"Cashing out" means a back and a lay on the same player. Those bets should both be void according to the rules.
Hmm. Am I being exposed as not knowing enough about how the betting market works? Looks like it!
Not sure how long this will last but you can still lay Jokovic on Betfair. Assuming he is toast, pretty easy money. DAYOR.
Ooh ta!
Although see the rules about cancelling bets if he doesn’t start. I think there is risk free profit here, but you may need to cash out at the right time...
"Cashing out" means a back and a lay on the same player. Those bets should both be void according to the rules.
Hmm. Am I being exposed as not knowing enough about how the betting market works? Looks like it!
Well Djokovic price is ~ 2-1, the market is at 116%. So you could back everyone else instead of laying him but there might be some rule 4 equiv in the small print or some such.
In theory I ought to be annoyed by the Coulson verdict but actually I'm not bothered by it because there are more important things for everyone to be worried about than a statue.
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
Didn't see it. Did they have Gregor Fisher as the ghillie, I wonder?
Urgh. Even the name Dun Dunbar castle ... it's like saying Fort Fort William.
When the issue of renaming American army bases named after Confederates came up, a number of people said they should rename one after - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fort
Just so you could have Fort Fort.....
There is a place called Forty Fort, which has a very boatey mcboatface vibe to it. Ahead of its time perhaps.
The people who thought judges were enemies of the people and that activist lawyers are frustrating the noble intentions of HMG will be moving on to the juries. Who's left in the legal system to demonise, court ushers?
It's such a shame that the gammon society is upset...
Cheap shot. I don't know much about 'Save Our Statues' but they're making a substantive point that should be addressed.
It isn't open season on statues.
It does show however that juries will use their powers to acquit people if laws are used harshly to suppress legitimate dissent. Indeed that is how the original Penn case came to set the precedent.
Sorry but it strikes me as populist justice. There are plenty of ways people could show 'legitimate dissent' without having to tear the statue down.
No it is a long established principle that juries can refuse to enforce oppressive laws. It is the sort of ancient British custom that supposed patriots dislike.
Not sure how long this will last but you can still lay Jokovic on Betfair. Assuming he is toast, pretty easy money. DAYOR.
Ooh ta!
Although see the rules about cancelling bets if he doesn’t start. I think there is risk free profit here, but you may need to cash out at the right time...
"Cashing out" means a back and a lay on the same player. Those bets should both be void according to the rules.
The Colston verdicts are clearly insane but that is juries. So be it
On the plus side I can say after getting hammered in the pubs of Soho, and meeting a self selecting group of young bohemian people who go to the French House on a Wednesday in early January, that Generation Z:
1. Are not at all Woke as we know it
2. Don't give a fuck about Covid
3, Are absolutely never going to obey another lockdown, so it is pointless
Good for them. They are fun
The vast majority, never mind Gen z, will not obey another lockdown and Whitty knows this.
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
Didn't see it. Did they have Gregor Fisher as the ghillie, I wonder?
Urgh. Even the name Dun Dunbar castle ... it's like saying Fort Fort William.
When the issue of renaming American army bases named after Confederates came up, a number of people said they should rename one after - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fort
Just so you could have Fort Fort.....
There is of course Townsville in North Queensland...
In theory I ought to be annoyed by the Coulson verdict but actually I'm not bothered by it because there are more important things for everyone to be worried about than a statue.
I think there are conflicting principles. I don’t think you should be able to do what they did without consequences. I do understand the politically and emotionally charged reasons.
Not sure how long this will last but you can still lay Jokovic on Betfair. Assuming he is toast, pretty easy money. DAYOR.
Ooh ta!
Although see the rules about cancelling bets if he doesn’t start. I think there is risk free profit here, but you may need to cash out at the right time...
"Cashing out" means a back and a lay on the same player. Those bets should both be void according to the rules.
Hmmmm, ive just done a cashout button hit after solely lay Novax and that's done about 24 bets to cash me out.
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
Didn't see it. Did they have Gregor Fisher as the ghillie, I wonder?
Urgh. Even the name Dun Dunbar castle ... it's like saying Fort Fort William.
When the issue of renaming American army bases named after Confederates came up, a number of people said they should rename one after - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fort
Just so you could have Fort Fort.....
There is of course Townsville in North Queensland...
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
Didn't see it. Did they have Gregor Fisher as the ghillie, I wonder?
Urgh. Even the name Dun Dunbar castle ... it's like saying Fort Fort William.
When the issue of renaming American army bases named after Confederates came up, a number of people said they should rename one after - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fort
Just so you could have Fort Fort.....
There is of course Townsville in North Queensland...
BREAKING: Italy makes COVID-19 vaccination legally mandatory for those 50 and older
Any reports of how it will be enforced? And does this not discriminate (age)? And isn’t this othering @Charles?
It’s not othering - I don’t think it is right to require mandatory vaccination but that’s a different topic.
I’ve resisted using the obvious example because people jump to the wrong conclusion based on it. I’m am not making any comparison between the potential treatment of the unvaccinated and this example. However it may serve to make the concept clearer to you: the best recent example of othering is requiring Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany to wear yellow stars, clearly marking them out as being different to most Germans. That created a class of people who were “other” and who, over time.l, faced discrimination and worse.
There seems to be something badly wrong with that: I doubt that more than half of all the covid cases that France has ever had are currently active in any meaningful sense.
The Colston verdicts are clearly insane but that is juries. So be it
On the plus side I can say after getting hammered in the pubs of Soho, and meeting a self selecting group of young bohemian people who go to the French House on a Wednesday in early January, that Generation Z:
1. Are not at all Woke as we know it
2. Don't give a fuck about Covid
3, Are absolutely never going to obey another lockdown, so it is pointless
Good for them. They are fun
The vast majority, never mind Gen z, will not obey another lockdown and Whitty knows this.
Doesn't really matter what Whitty thinks. But, seriously. Does anyone think there is a prospect at all of a lockdown now? (Barring summat unforeseen and catastrophic). Folk need to find summat more plausible to rail against.
Not sure how long this will last but you can still lay Jokovic on Betfair. Assuming he is toast, pretty easy money. DAYOR.
Ooh ta!
Although see the rules about cancelling bets if he doesn’t start. I think there is risk free profit here, but you may need to cash out at the right time...
"Cashing out" means a back and a lay on the same player. Those bets should both be void according to the rules.
Hmmmm, ive just done a cashout button hit after solely lay Novax and that's done about 24 bets to cash me out.
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
Didn't see it. Did they have Gregor Fisher as the ghillie, I wonder?
Urgh. Even the name Dun Dunbar castle ... it's like saying Fort Fort William.
When the issue of renaming American army bases named after Confederates came up, a number of people said they should rename one after - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fort
Just so you could have Fort Fort.....
There is of course Townsville in North Queensland...
BREAKING: Italy makes COVID-19 vaccination legally mandatory for those 50 and older
Any reports of how it will be enforced? And does this not discriminate (age)? And isn’t this othering @Charles?
It’s not othering - I don’t think it is right to require mandatory vaccination but that’s a different topic.
I’ve resisted using the obvious example because people jump to the wrong conclusion based on it. I’m am not making any comparison between the potential treatment of the unvaccinated and this example. However it may serve to make the concept clearer to you: the best recent example of othering is requiring Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany to wear yellow stars, clearly marking them out as being different to most Germans. That created a class of people who were “other” and who, over time.l, faced discrimination and worse.
How is he not discriminated against here? He is not allowed to compete simply because of his vaccination status.
Not sure how long this will last but you can still lay Jokovic on Betfair. Assuming he is toast, pretty easy money. DAYOR.
Ooh ta!
Although see the rules about cancelling bets if he doesn’t start. I think there is risk free profit here, but you may need to cash out at the right time...
Example of a council diverging from national advice. Paraphrased:
If a household member tests positive, child should stay off school, obtain a PCR test on days 3-5 and only return of this is negative and no symptoms develop.
Except for single vaccinated 12-15 year olds and any child already positive in the previous 90 days.
This "is slightly different to the national guidance".
Now, I proposed a widespread leisure ban based on vaccination status this morning, but I'm not all that easy with secondary children's access to education being discriminated on the basis of vaccination status, even on an advisory level.
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
Didn't see it. Did they have Gregor Fisher as the ghillie, I wonder?
Urgh. Even the name Dun Dunbar castle ... it's like saying Fort Fort William.
When the issue of renaming American army bases named after Confederates came up, a number of people said they should rename one after - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fort
Just so you could have Fort Fort.....
There is a place called Forty Fort, which has a very boatey mcboatface vibe to it. Ahead of its time perhaps.
The Colston verdicts are clearly insane but that is juries. So be it
On the plus side I can say after getting hammered in the pubs of Soho, and meeting a self selecting group of young bohemian people who go to the French House on a Wednesday in early January, that Generation Z:
1. Are not at all Woke as we know it
2. Don't give a fuck about Covid
3, Are absolutely never going to obey another lockdown, so it is pointless
Good for them. They are fun
The vast majority, never mind Gen z, will not obey another lockdown and Whitty knows this.
This is an old idea.
I remember in March (?) 2020 behavioural scientists types suggesting the three week lockdown had to be timed perfectly.
Lasted longer and said scientists were surprised by our good behaviour.
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
Didn't see it. Did they have Gregor Fisher as the ghillie, I wonder?
Urgh. Even the name Dun Dunbar castle ... it's like saying Fort Fort William.
When the issue of renaming American army bases named after Confederates came up, a number of people said they should rename one after - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fort
Just so you could have Fort Fort.....
There is a place called Forty Fort, which has a very boatey mcboatface vibe to it. Ahead of its time perhaps.
The Colston verdicts are clearly insane but that is juries. So be it
On the plus side I can say after getting hammered in the pubs of Soho, and meeting a self selecting group of young bohemian people who go to the French House on a Wednesday in early January, that Generation Z:
1. Are not at all Woke as we know it
2. Don't give a fuck about Covid
3, Are absolutely never going to obey another lockdown, so it is pointless
Good for them. They are fun
The vast majority, never mind Gen z, will not obey another lockdown and Whitty knows this.
Yes, the era of lockdowns is over (unless an incredibly hideous new variant blah blah)
Look at the Netherlands. They had a curfew followed by a four week lockdown and where are they? -
"Covid live: France, Italy, Portugal, Turkey and Netherlands report record daily cases as Omicron surges"
The lockdown was entirely pointless, unless you think it is socio-mentally worth shutting down your whole economy to delay an inevitable flu wave by about 2-3 weeks, at best
What did they gain? What did they LOSE? No wonder there were savage riots in Amsterdam. And it's not a nation of semi detached houses with nice gardens
BREAKING: Italy makes COVID-19 vaccination legally mandatory for those 50 and older
Any reports of how it will be enforced? And does this not discriminate (age)? And isn’t this othering @Charles?
It’s not othering - I don’t think it is right to require mandatory vaccination but that’s a different topic.
I’ve resisted using the obvious example because people jump to the wrong conclusion based on it. I’m am not making any comparison between the potential treatment of the unvaccinated and this example. However it may serve to make the concept clearer to you: the best recent example of othering is requiring Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany to wear yellow stars, clearly marking them out as being different to most Germans. That created a class of people who were “other” and who, over time.l, faced discrimination and worse.
How is he not discriminated against here? He is not allowed to compete simply because of his vaccination status.
Nope. He's not allowed in the country because of his vaccination status.
BREAKING: Italy makes COVID-19 vaccination legally mandatory for those 50 and older
Any reports of how it will be enforced? And does this not discriminate (age)? And isn’t this othering @Charles?
It’s not othering - I don’t think it is right to require mandatory vaccination but that’s a different topic.
I’ve resisted using the obvious example because people jump to the wrong conclusion based on it. I’m am not making any comparison between the potential treatment of the unvaccinated and this example. However it may serve to make the concept clearer to you: the best recent example of othering is requiring Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany to wear yellow stars, clearly marking them out as being different to most Germans. That created a class of people who were “other” and who, over time.l, faced discrimination and worse.
How is he not discriminated against here? He is not allowed to compete simply because of his vaccination status.
Nope. He's not allowed in the country because of his vaccination status.
The Colston verdicts are clearly insane but that is juries. So be it
On the plus side I can say after getting hammered in the pubs of Soho, and meeting a self selecting group of young bohemian people who go to the French House on a Wednesday in early January, that Generation Z:
1. Are not at all Woke as we know it
2. Don't give a fuck about Covid
3, Are absolutely never going to obey another lockdown, so it is pointless
Good for them. They are fun
The vast majority, never mind Gen z, will not obey another lockdown and Whitty knows this.
Yes, the era of lockdowns is over (unless an incredibly hideous new variant blah blah)
Look at the Netherlands. They had a curfew followed by a four week lockdown and where are they? -
"Covid live: France, Italy, Portugal, Turkey and Netherlands report record daily cases as Omicron surges"
The lockdown was entirely pointless, unless you think it is socio-mentally worth shutting down your whole economy to delay an inevitable flu wave by about 2-3 weeks, at best
What did they gain? What did they LOSE? No wonder there were savage riots in Amsterdam. And it's not a nation of semi detached houses with nice gardens
I think we have come full circle. iirc the original flu-style pandemic planning accepted from the get go that lockdown and mass quarantine would not work and it was about mitigating and planning essential services.
Here we are 2 years later with omi, which seems more like v bad flu season...
No one I have spoken to in last two weeks will do another lockdown under current data and circumstances.
BREAKING: Italy makes COVID-19 vaccination legally mandatory for those 50 and older
Any reports of how it will be enforced? And does this not discriminate (age)? And isn’t this othering @Charles?
It’s not othering - I don’t think it is right to require mandatory vaccination but that’s a different topic.
I’ve resisted using the obvious example because people jump to the wrong conclusion based on it. I’m am not making any comparison between the potential treatment of the unvaccinated and this example. However it may serve to make the concept clearer to you: the best recent example of othering is requiring Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany to wear yellow stars, clearly marking them out as being different to most Germans. That created a class of people who were “other” and who, over time.l, faced discrimination and worse.
How is he not discriminated against here? He is not allowed to compete simply because of his vaccination status.
Nope. He's not allowed in the country because of his vaccination status.
Same thing, decfacto.
Anyone with a similar vaccination status is in the same boat though.
The people who thought judges were enemies of the people and that activist lawyers are frustrating the noble intentions of HMG will be moving on to the juries. Who's left in the legal system to demonise, court ushers?
It's such a shame that the gammon society is upset...
Cheap shot. I don't know much about 'Save Our Statues' but they're making a substantive point that should be addressed.
It isn't open season on statues.
It does show however that juries will use their powers to acquit people if laws are used harshly to suppress legitimate dissent. Indeed that is how the original Penn case came to set the precedent.
Sorry but it strikes me as populist justice. There are plenty of ways people could show 'legitimate dissent' without having to tear the statue down.
No it is a long established principle that juries can refuse to enforce oppressive laws. It is the sort of ancient British custom that supposed patriots dislike.
Causing criminal damage is an oppressive law?
No but criminalising protest is.
As is planned via the new Police Bill.
But surely wat they did was more than protest?
In effect the jury decided their protesting actions were legal.
BREAKING: Italy makes COVID-19 vaccination legally mandatory for those 50 and older
Any reports of how it will be enforced? And does this not discriminate (age)? And isn’t this othering @Charles?
It’s not othering - I don’t think it is right to require mandatory vaccination but that’s a different topic.
I’ve resisted using the obvious example because people jump to the wrong conclusion based on it. I’m am not making any comparison between the potential treatment of the unvaccinated and this example. However it may serve to make the concept clearer to you: the best recent example of othering is requiring Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany to wear yellow stars, clearly marking them out as being different to most Germans. That created a class of people who were “other” and who, over time.l, faced discrimination and worse.
How is he not discriminated against here? He is not allowed to compete simply because of his vaccination status.
Nope. He's not allowed in the country because of his vaccination status.
Same thing, decfacto.
Anyone with a similar vaccination status is in the same boat though.
My point is @Charles banging on about othering people. Is this not what I propose for this country, I.e. unvaccinated get restrictions on their lives. And yet I am told this is not othering by @Charles. Genuinely not understanding the difference.
I thought it was dire, but because of the atrocious plot, acting, sets, continuity etc. However, I thought the male lead, an Englishman apparently, did a good Scottish accent. He’d been totally slated in social media, but I thought he was one of the less annoying features.
Didn't see it. Did they have Gregor Fisher as the ghillie, I wonder?
Urgh. Even the name Dun Dunbar castle ... it's like saying Fort Fort William.
When the issue of renaming American army bases named after Confederates came up, a number of people said they should rename one after - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fort
Just so you could have Fort Fort.....
There is a place called Forty Fort, which has a very boatey mcboatface vibe to it. Ahead of its time perhaps.
Comments
The Anglo Catholics and liberals within the Church of England consider it to be more the former, the evangelicals within the Church of England would consider it to be solely the latter.
If the Church of England was disestablished almost all the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholics (not least as most of them are still opposed to women priests), most of the evangelicals would become Baptists or Pentecostals and the remaining liberals would support gay marriages and blessings etc much like the Episcopalian Church in the US or the Church of Wales already does.
There were - pre-pandemic - around 180-200 natural gas rigs drilling in the US. At the absolute lows 3Q2020, there were maybe two dozen actual working rigs.
We're now back over 100, and I suspect we'll reach 160-170 by the autumn. So, early Spring 2023.
Will they be deported toute suite?
I listened to it and thought, a third of the way in, "this must be edited", but I also thought "if it isn't my God he must be sectioned"
Not responsible. Big time Fail. TSK
At a time of acute national crisis PB should not be the Daily Express (or the Morning Star) promoting insane bollocks about the prime minister. This is not a recording of Boris, it is a doctored recording of his "ers" (which are bad enough, but not clearly mental)
Tut
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jan/05/bmw-unveils-car-that-changes-colour-at-the-touch-of-a-button
"Protestant evangelical Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans etc would also not consider themselves Catholic in any sense"
Just so you could have Fort Fort.....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/05/ghislaine-maxwell-trial-prosecutors-judge-inquiry-juror
They invent an infinite range of variable colours, and every single one turns out to be a shade of grey.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Towns
On the plus side I can say after getting hammered in the pubs of Soho, and meeting a self selecting group of young bohemian people who go to the French House on a Wednesday in early January, that Generation Z:
1. Are not at all Woke as we know it
2. Don't give a fuck about Covid
3, Are absolutely never going to obey another lockdown, so it is pointless
Good for them. They are fun
(Which works on so many levels.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_Fort,_Pennsylvania
i. Everyone know each other anyway.
ii. It costs about 100k
iii. You have to go if it's on because everyone else does.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/france/
WTF?
This will get interesting.
I’ve resisted using the obvious example because people jump to the wrong conclusion based on it. I’m am not making any comparison between the potential treatment of the unvaccinated and this example. However it may serve to make the concept clearer to you: the best recent example of othering is requiring Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany to wear yellow stars, clearly marking them out as being different to most Germans. That created a class of people who were “other” and who, over time.l, faced discrimination and worse.
But, seriously. Does anyone think there is a prospect at all of a lockdown now? (Barring summat unforeseen and catastrophic).
Folk need to find summat more plausible to rail against.
https://twitter.com/DivertingLife/status/1478422758971346948
If a household member tests positive, child should stay off school, obtain a PCR test on days 3-5 and only return of this is negative and no symptoms develop.
Except for single vaccinated 12-15 year olds and any child already positive in the previous 90 days.
This "is slightly different to the national guidance".
Now, I proposed a widespread leisure ban based on vaccination status this morning, but I'm not all that easy with secondary children's access to education being discriminated on the basis of vaccination status, even on an advisory level.
I remember in March (?) 2020 behavioural scientists types suggesting the three week lockdown had to be timed perfectly.
Lasted longer and said scientists were surprised by our good behaviour.
It's anything but a factory farm as it happens - very traditional beef and dairy IIRC.
Look at the Netherlands. They had a curfew followed by a four week lockdown and where are they? -
"Covid live: France, Italy, Portugal, Turkey and Netherlands report record daily cases as Omicron surges"
https://twitter.com/StefaniaFalone/status/1478847339699789824?s=20
The lockdown was entirely pointless, unless you think it is socio-mentally worth shutting down your whole economy to delay an inevitable flu wave by about 2-3 weeks, at best
What did they gain? What did they LOSE? No wonder there were savage riots in Amsterdam. And it's not a nation of semi detached houses with nice gardens
He's not allowed in the country because of his vaccination status.
Here we are 2 years later with omi, which seems more like v bad flu season...
No one I have spoken to in last two weeks will do another lockdown under current data and circumstances.
MAIL: We have lift-off, Britain!
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1478859019804717057?s=20
The card I use is a 3090 that cost £1000 from Amazon warehouse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Major_Major_Major