politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Will Sunak leave the Treasury this year? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,049
edited February 2022 in General
imageWill Sunak leave the Treasury this year? – politicalbetting.com

Cabinet ministers have accused Rishi Sunak of plotting to replace Boris Johnson as prime minister https://t.co/aNGqtbQhnn

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,018
    First like Senegal.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,032
    Of all the sports which are not sports, ice dancing is the least a sport. It even has the word 'dancing' in the title.
    Anything in which sequins and cosmetics feature heavily is not a sport.
    Very clever, certainly, I'll grant you. But so is chess. And no one claims that is a sport.
    Though I'd rather watch chess than ice dancing.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,093
    I'm sure we're all looking forward to when "things get properly shit with the economy"...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    "...belittling Sunak" lol!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,052
    I can't see Sunak leaving the Treasury voluntarily unless he becomes PM.

    He is too powerful for Boris to remove. Only way he does is if he and Boris get fined for attending he birthday party and both have to leave the government
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,369
    Does becoming PM count as leaving the Treasury?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    FPT:
    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Aslan said:

    moonshine said:

    Why is the use of the word gammon as a pejorative considered acceptable? Normally by the very same people who would keel over in shock at the hint of racial based language being used in any other instance?

    Because it's against white people and the people you are talking about are fine with racism against white people. It is why no Labour MP calls for the ousting of Diane Abbott.
    1. It's not racism though is it? It's directed at a group of people who choose to think and act in a particular way. The important word here is 'choose'. Comparable to calling someone a white-supremacist, a label no doubt only ever aimed at white people, but who would suggest to call someone a white-supremacist is racist?

    2. You think racism is not called out if it's directed against white people? Check out the Holocaust.
    It's not a descriptive word that I use. It is offensive without having any substance in refuting what is said.
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't use it either. But it's not racist.
    I would say it was.

    I can't see how. It doesn't fit any definition of racism I know of, e.g.:

    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,796
    pm215 said:

    I'm sure we're all looking forward to when "things get properly shit with the economy"...

    In an evening of strange posts that's up there with the strangest
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,481
    As I have posted before. Sunak needs to seize the day, because if he dithers now he will never get the crown.

    Why is he waiting for Johnson to sack him?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    edited February 2022
    tlg86 said:

    First like Senegal.

    I haven't watched the match, just checked the result but oh dear, a major final decided on penalties - in the words of Brenda from Bristol "Not another one?!"

    There has to be a better way surely...

    Run the penalty shoot-out at 90 mins then play 30 mins of extra time to give those who missed their penalties a shot (!) at redemption.

    or

    Have a count-back on corners or fouls or both ffs.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,706
    Andy_JS said:

    Does becoming PM count as leaving the Treasury?

    Is the 1st lord of the treasury ,.......in the treasury?.........
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,138
    Benpointer said:

    tlg86 said:

    First like Senegal.

    I haven't watched the match, just checked the result but oh dear, a major final decided on penalties - in the words of Brenda from Bristol "Not another one?!"

    There has to be a better way surely...

    Run the penalty shoot-out at 90 mins then play 30 mins of extra time to give those who missed their penalties a shot (!) at redemption.

    or

    Have a count-back on corners or fouls or both ffs.
    First half of extra time 10 v 10, second half 9 v 9.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,910
    Benpointer said:

    tlg86 said:

    First like Senegal.

    I haven't watched the match, just checked the result but oh dear, a major final decided on penalties - in the words of Brenda from Bristol "Not another one?!"

    There has to be a better way surely...

    Run the penalty shoot-out at 90 mins then play 30 mins of extra time to give those who missed their penalties a shot (!) at redemption.

    or

    Have a count-back on corners or fouls or both ffs.
    Take a player off from each side every 5 mins during extra time. Keep going until someone scores. Pretty sure we’d not get much past 6 or 7 a side.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    rottenborough said:

    As I have posted before. Sunak needs to seize the day, because if he dithers now he will never get the crown.

    Why is he waiting for Johnson to sack him?

    I think you 'needs' should now be in the past tense. Too late for Sunak already.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,138
    Cookie said:

    Of all the sports which are not sports, ice dancing is the least a sport. It even has the word 'dancing' in the title.
    Anything in which sequins and cosmetics feature heavily is not a sport.
    Very clever, certainly, I'll grant you. But so is chess. And no one claims that is a sport.
    Though I'd rather watch chess than ice dancing.

    IOC recognises chess as a sport.....
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    pm215 said:

    I'm sure we're all looking forward to when "things get properly shit with the economy"...

    Yes. From a cabinet minister, that’s rather terrifying.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    turbotubbs said:

    Benpointer said:

    tlg86 said:

    First like Senegal.

    I haven't watched the match, just checked the result but oh dear, a major final decided on penalties - in the words of Brenda from Bristol "Not another one?!"

    There has to be a better way surely...

    Run the penalty shoot-out at 90 mins then play 30 mins of extra time to give those who missed their penalties a shot (!) at redemption.

    or

    Have a count-back on corners or fouls or both ffs.
    Take a player off from each side every 5 mins during extra time. Keep going until someone scores. Pretty sure we’d not get much past 6 or 7 a side.
    Yes, I would support that one. What entertainment it would be if we get to 1 v 1 too!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,796
    edited February 2022
    There's the 'Singapore Girls'!

    In the days of casual sexism and racism a well known creative did a critique on the 'Singapore Girls' commercial for the advertising journal 'Campaign'.

    He wrote "It's not the Singapore Girls we're worried about. It's the Singapore bloke who's flying the plane!"
  • eekeek Posts: 27,481
    edited February 2022
    rottenborough said:

    As I have posted before. Sunak needs to seize the day, because if he dithers now he will never get the crown.

    Why is he waiting for Johnson to sack him?

    As TSE pointed out on Friday, you want a VONC triggered on Monday to Wednesday as that gives Bozo less than 24 hours to fight a rearguard action to remain in power.

    Trigger it on a Thursday or Friday and he has 72 to 96 hours to argue his case.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,093
    Roger said:

    pm215 said:

    I'm sure we're all looking forward to when "things get properly shit with the economy"...

    In an evening of strange posts that's up there with the strangest
    I thought the cabinet minister being quoted there was being overly flippant, so figured I'd flag it up.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,706
    Benpointer said:

    "...belittling Sunak" lol!

    How dare you be sizist......

    :wink:
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    Cookie said:

    Of all the sports which are not sports, ice dancing is the least a sport. It even has the word 'dancing' in the title.
    Anything in which sequins and cosmetics feature heavily is not a sport.
    Very clever, certainly, I'll grant you. But so is chess. And no one claims that is a sport.
    Though I'd rather watch chess than ice dancing.

    Er... Your 3rd sentence contradicts your 1st; ice dancing is full-on sequins and cosmetics.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,481
    Daveyboy1961 said:

    Benpointer said:

    "...belittling Sunak" lol!

    How dare you be sizist......

    :wink:
    Surely heightist
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,429
    Benpointer said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Aslan said:

    moonshine said:

    Why is the use of the word gammon as a pejorative considered acceptable? Normally by the very same people who would keel over in shock at the hint of racial based language being used in any other instance?

    Because it's against white people and the people you are talking about are fine with racism against white people. It is why no Labour MP calls for the ousting of Diane Abbott.
    1. It's not racism though is it? It's directed at a group of people who choose to think and act in a particular way. The important word here is 'choose'. Comparable to calling someone a white-supremacist, a label no doubt only ever aimed at white people, but who would suggest to call someone a white-supremacist is racist?

    2. You think racism is not called out if it's directed against white people? Check out the Holocaust.
    It's not a descriptive word that I use. It is offensive without having any substance in refuting what is said.
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't use it either. But it's not racist.
    I would say it was.

    I can't see how. It doesn't fit any definition of racism I know of, e.g.:

    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
    I believe that for legal and regulatory purposes, the UK (and many other countries) include religion in their definitions of racism.

    As in racism against Muslims, for example.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Benpointer said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Aslan said:

    moonshine said:

    Why is the use of the word gammon as a pejorative considered acceptable? Normally by the very same people who would keel over in shock at the hint of racial based language being used in any other instance?

    Because it's against white people and the people you are talking about are fine with racism against white people. It is why no Labour MP calls for the ousting of Diane Abbott.
    1. It's not racism though is it? It's directed at a group of people who choose to think and act in a particular way. The important word here is 'choose'. Comparable to calling someone a white-supremacist, a label no doubt only ever aimed at white people, but who would suggest to call someone a white-supremacist is racist?

    2. You think racism is not called out if it's directed against white people? Check out the Holocaust.
    It's not a descriptive word that I use. It is offensive without having any substance in refuting what is said.
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't use it either. But it's not racist.
    I would say it was.

    I can't see how. It doesn't fit any definition of racism I know of, e.g.:

    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
    Prejudice against (a subset of) white people, but their whiteness is inherent to the prejudice.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    Applicant said:

    Benpointer said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Aslan said:

    moonshine said:

    Why is the use of the word gammon as a pejorative considered acceptable? Normally by the very same people who would keel over in shock at the hint of racial based language being used in any other instance?

    Because it's against white people and the people you are talking about are fine with racism against white people. It is why no Labour MP calls for the ousting of Diane Abbott.
    1. It's not racism though is it? It's directed at a group of people who choose to think and act in a particular way. The important word here is 'choose'. Comparable to calling someone a white-supremacist, a label no doubt only ever aimed at white people, but who would suggest to call someone a white-supremacist is racist?

    2. You think racism is not called out if it's directed against white people? Check out the Holocaust.
    It's not a descriptive word that I use. It is offensive without having any substance in refuting what is said.
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't use it either. But it's not racist.
    I would say it was.

    I can't see how. It doesn't fit any definition of racism I know of, e.g.:

    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
    Prejudice against (a subset of) white people, but their whiteness is inherent to the prejudice.
    So if a call someone a white-supremacist, is that racism?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,761
    edited February 2022
    Benpointer said:

    tlg86 said:

    First like Senegal.

    I haven't watched the match, just checked the result but oh dear, a major final decided on penalties - in the words of Brenda from Bristol "Not another one?!"

    There has to be a better way surely...

    Run the penalty shoot-out at 90 mins then play 30 mins of extra time to give those who missed their penalties a shot (!) at redemption.

    or

    Have a count-back on corners or fouls or both ffs.
    It was a pretty good match to watch. Some great defending* and goalkeeping kept it at nil nil. Good officials too.

    *Leicester City could do with that Egyptian defensive coach.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    I think Sunak has blown it and his popularity is rapidly falling into the toilet.

    Quite frankly I think the Tories are quite possibly doomed.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,761
    Benpointer said:

    Applicant said:

    Benpointer said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Aslan said:

    moonshine said:

    Why is the use of the word gammon as a pejorative considered acceptable? Normally by the very same people who would keel over in shock at the hint of racial based language being used in any other instance?

    Because it's against white people and the people you are talking about are fine with racism against white people. It is why no Labour MP calls for the ousting of Diane Abbott.
    1. It's not racism though is it? It's directed at a group of people who choose to think and act in a particular way. The important word here is 'choose'. Comparable to calling someone a white-supremacist, a label no doubt only ever aimed at white people, but who would suggest to call someone a white-supremacist is racist?

    2. You think racism is not called out if it's directed against white people? Check out the Holocaust.
    It's not a descriptive word that I use. It is offensive without having any substance in refuting what is said.
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't use it either. But it's not racist.
    I would say it was.

    I can't see how. It doesn't fit any definition of racism I know of, e.g.:

    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
    Prejudice against (a subset of) white people, but their whiteness is inherent to the prejudice.
    So if a call someone a white-supremacist, is that racism?
    No. Being a white-supremacist is an ideology, being a gammon is a pejorative description of appearance.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    Malmesbury said:

    Benpointer said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Aslan said:

    moonshine said:

    Why is the use of the word gammon as a pejorative considered acceptable? Normally by the very same people who would keel over in shock at the hint of racial based language being used in any other instance?

    Because it's against white people and the people you are talking about are fine with racism against white people. It is why no Labour MP calls for the ousting of Diane Abbott.
    1. It's not racism though is it? It's directed at a group of people who choose to think and act in a particular way. The important word here is 'choose'. Comparable to calling someone a white-supremacist, a label no doubt only ever aimed at white people, but who would suggest to call someone a white-supremacist is racist?

    2. You think racism is not called out if it's directed against white people? Check out the Holocaust.
    It's not a descriptive word that I use. It is offensive without having any substance in refuting what is said.
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't use it either. But it's not racist.
    I would say it was.

    I can't see how. It doesn't fit any definition of racism I know of, e.g.:

    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
    I believe that for legal and regulatory purposes, the UK (and many other countries) include religion in their definitions of racism.

    As in racism against Muslims, for example.
    I'm not sure that's quite true. Religion or belief is a separate 'protected characteristic'.

    (which does raise the interesting conundrum of what happens of a white-supremacist claims 'white supremacy' is his or her belief, but I'm going to pass on that one; let someone try it and see what the courts decide.)
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,706
    Applicant said:

    Benpointer said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Aslan said:

    moonshine said:

    Why is the use of the word gammon as a pejorative considered acceptable? Normally by the very same people who would keel over in shock at the hint of racial based language being used in any other instance?

    Because it's against white people and the people you are talking about are fine with racism against white people. It is why no Labour MP calls for the ousting of Diane Abbott.
    1. It's not racism though is it? It's directed at a group of people who choose to think and act in a particular way. The important word here is 'choose'. Comparable to calling someone a white-supremacist, a label no doubt only ever aimed at white people, but who would suggest to call someone a white-supremacist is racist?

    2. You think racism is not called out if it's directed against white people? Check out the Holocaust.
    It's not a descriptive word that I use. It is offensive without having any substance in refuting what is said.
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't use it either. But it's not racist.
    I would say it was.

    I can't see how. It doesn't fit any definition of racism I know of, e.g.:

    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
    Prejudice against (a subset of) white people, but their whiteness is inherent to the prejudice.
    Are you saying only white people are brexiters who are blind to the outcomes of their decisions?





  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,271
    Applicant said:

    Benpointer said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Aslan said:

    moonshine said:

    Why is the use of the word gammon as a pejorative considered acceptable? Normally by the very same people who would keel over in shock at the hint of racial based language being used in any other instance?

    Because it's against white people and the people you are talking about are fine with racism against white people. It is why no Labour MP calls for the ousting of Diane Abbott.
    1. It's not racism though is it? It's directed at a group of people who choose to think and act in a particular way. The important word here is 'choose'. Comparable to calling someone a white-supremacist, a label no doubt only ever aimed at white people, but who would suggest to call someone a white-supremacist is racist?

    2. You think racism is not called out if it's directed against white people? Check out the Holocaust.
    It's not a descriptive word that I use. It is offensive without having any substance in refuting what is said.
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't use it either. But it's not racist.
    I would say it was.

    I can't see how. It doesn't fit any definition of racism I know of, e.g.:

    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
    Prejudice against (a subset of) white people, but their whiteness is inherent to the prejudice.
    If we're still talking about gammons, surely it's their redness rather than their whiteness that is inherent to the prejudice?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 94,987
    rottenborough said:

    As I have posted before. Sunak needs to seize the day, because if he dithers now he will never get the crown.

    Why is he waiting for Johnson to sack him?

    I don't think he is necessarily as disloyal as imagined. Clearly ambitious, quite possibly taking some underhand actions, but talk of him acting or not acting sometimes seems like it is wishful thinking from people who hope he will act. To me it is far from clear that he is unhappy with things.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Applicant said:

    Benpointer said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Aslan said:

    moonshine said:

    Why is the use of the word gammon as a pejorative considered acceptable? Normally by the very same people who would keel over in shock at the hint of racial based language being used in any other instance?

    Because it's against white people and the people you are talking about are fine with racism against white people. It is why no Labour MP calls for the ousting of Diane Abbott.
    1. It's not racism though is it? It's directed at a group of people who choose to think and act in a particular way. The important word here is 'choose'. Comparable to calling someone a white-supremacist, a label no doubt only ever aimed at white people, but who would suggest to call someone a white-supremacist is racist?

    2. You think racism is not called out if it's directed against white people? Check out the Holocaust.
    It's not a descriptive word that I use. It is offensive without having any substance in refuting what is said.
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't use it either. But it's not racist.
    I would say it was.

    I can't see how. It doesn't fit any definition of racism I know of, e.g.:

    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
    Prejudice against (a subset of) white people, but their whiteness is inherent to the prejudice.
    So if a call someone a white-supremacist, is that racism?
    No. Being a white-supremacist is an ideology, being a gammon is a pejorative description of appearance.
    Well we will have have to disagree for once @Foxy.

    In any-case, I wouldn't use the term, preferring swivel-eyed loon or little-Englander... but both of those are probably going to get me into trouble!
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,871
    Fort the PB brains:

    What's this rubbish Macron's coming out with?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60281863

    I thought we'd move on? Haven't Russia missed the boat?
    What 'security' concerns is Macron going on about? Does he mean the EU/NATO will guarantee never to let the Ukraine in? Which can only be guaranteed as long as the current leadership is in power really. Or does he mean something else, like guaranteeing not to respond if Russia does go rolling in?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,796
    edited February 2022
    The BBC are pulling out all the stops. Boris Johnson has never looked so bad. Positively sickly! Plump balding puffy eyed double chinned.....amazing what a little tweek in telecine can do when you appoint Nadine Dorries as Minister of Culture.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 94,987
    edited February 2022
    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Applicant said:

    Benpointer said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Aslan said:

    moonshine said:

    Why is the use of the word gammon as a pejorative considered acceptable? Normally by the very same people who would keel over in shock at the hint of racial based language being used in any other instance?

    Because it's against white people and the people you are talking about are fine with racism against white people. It is why no Labour MP calls for the ousting of Diane Abbott.
    1. It's not racism though is it? It's directed at a group of people who choose to think and act in a particular way. The important word here is 'choose'. Comparable to calling someone a white-supremacist, a label no doubt only ever aimed at white people, but who would suggest to call someone a white-supremacist is racist?

    2. You think racism is not called out if it's directed against white people? Check out the Holocaust.
    It's not a descriptive word that I use. It is offensive without having any substance in refuting what is said.
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't use it either. But it's not racist.
    I would say it was.

    I can't see how. It doesn't fit any definition of racism I know of, e.g.:

    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
    Prejudice against (a subset of) white people, but their whiteness is inherent to the prejudice.
    So if a call someone a white-supremacist, is that racism?
    No. Being a white-supremacist is an ideology, being a gammon is a pejorative description of appearance.
    Oh, totally cool then?

    I've certainly used the term myself, though until the last day or two I swear it seemed to have dies a little bit of a death which seems the right way, but even if it is not racist, its use does seem to be mainly on the basis it upsets people, and diminishes opportunity for those using it (or underplaying its purpose to rile up an opponent) to claim a moral high ground when it comes to juvenile political posturing. It's 'upsets the right kind of people' gameplaying, and no one looks good playing that game.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,553
    Farooq said:

    "Savile row". I sew what you did there.

    Yay, someone spotted my subtle pun.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,028
    edited February 2022
    Farooq said:

    Reeves and Lammy are correct:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/06/labour-calls-on-tories-to-return-money-from-donors-linked-to-russia

    The Conservatives need to be much more careful about where their money is coming from.

    Lammy was on Trevor Phillip's this morning demanding the repayment of £145,000 donated to the conservatives, and when Phillips, in his usual calm manner, enquired if Lammy would be demanding Obama, Clinton, Biden and Harris also returned Russian money they too have been donated, embarrassment followed

    Though I do disagree with the point your are making
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,553
    Andy_JS said:

    Does becoming PM count as leaving the Treasury?

    Yes.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,553
    Benpointer said:

    "...belittling Sunak" lol!

    I've always wanted to get that into a thread header, and 'snitches get stitches'.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Applicant said:

    Benpointer said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Aslan said:

    moonshine said:

    Why is the use of the word gammon as a pejorative considered acceptable? Normally by the very same people who would keel over in shock at the hint of racial based language being used in any other instance?

    Because it's against white people and the people you are talking about are fine with racism against white people. It is why no Labour MP calls for the ousting of Diane Abbott.
    1. It's not racism though is it? It's directed at a group of people who choose to think and act in a particular way. The important word here is 'choose'. Comparable to calling someone a white-supremacist, a label no doubt only ever aimed at white people, but who would suggest to call someone a white-supremacist is racist?

    2. You think racism is not called out if it's directed against white people? Check out the Holocaust.
    It's not a descriptive word that I use. It is offensive without having any substance in refuting what is said.
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't use it either. But it's not racist.
    I would say it was.

    I can't see how. It doesn't fit any definition of racism I know of, e.g.:

    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
    Prejudice against (a subset of) white people, but their whiteness is inherent to the prejudice.
    So if a call someone a white-supremacist, is that racism?
    No. Being a white-supremacist is an ideology, being a gammon is a pejorative description of appearance.
    But with respect(!) that's rubbish.

    The term as an insult is not directed at, say people suffering from rosea or acne, it's directed at people with right-wing views, especially those who get agitated by 'political correctness' regardless of the actual pinkness of their skin.

    Were I to use the term I might direct it at @Leon (sorry Leon). I have no idea of Leon's completion or even his skin colour, nor does it matter for the purposes of my insult.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Farooq said:

    "Savile row". I sew what you did there.

    Yay, someone spotted my subtle pun.
    There was a subtle pun too?
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,706
    Farooq said:

    Daveyboy1961 said:

    Applicant said:

    Benpointer said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Aslan said:

    moonshine said:

    Why is the use of the word gammon as a pejorative considered acceptable? Normally by the very same people who would keel over in shock at the hint of racial based language being used in any other instance?

    Because it's against white people and the people you are talking about are fine with racism against white people. It is why no Labour MP calls for the ousting of Diane Abbott.
    1. It's not racism though is it? It's directed at a group of people who choose to think and act in a particular way. The important word here is 'choose'. Comparable to calling someone a white-supremacist, a label no doubt only ever aimed at white people, but who would suggest to call someone a white-supremacist is racist?

    2. You think racism is not called out if it's directed against white people? Check out the Holocaust.
    It's not a descriptive word that I use. It is offensive without having any substance in refuting what is said.
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't use it either. But it's not racist.
    I would say it was.

    I can't see how. It doesn't fit any definition of racism I know of, e.g.:

    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
    Prejudice against (a subset of) white people, but their whiteness is inherent to the prejudice.
    Are you saying only white people are brexiters who are blind to the outcomes of their decisions?





    You've left an awful lot of white space in that post. Racist.
    Touché
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 94,987
    TheValiant said:

    Fort the PB brains:

    What's this rubbish Macron's coming out with?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60281863

    I thought we'd move on? Haven't Russia missed the boat?
    What 'security' concerns is Macron going on about? Does he mean the EU/NATO will guarantee never to let the Ukraine in? Which can only be guaranteed as long as the current leadership is in power really. Or does he mean something else, like guaranteeing not to respond if Russia does go rolling in?

    Mr Macron told the Journal du Dimanche newspaper that Russia's objective was "not Ukraine, but a clarification of the rules... with Nato and the EU".

    If that is true, then what is the purpose of the 100k soldiers?

    I do kind of feel for Macron in that I get the impression he is trying to find a solution recognising practical reality that Ukraine is never getting Crimera back, and no one really wants to have the fight expand any further from the bits already taken by Russia, but it is pretty impossible to sound like you are finding a reasonable compromise when the demands coming your way from the sole aggressor are inherently unreasonable. You might well consider helping Putin save face the least worst option, but it doesn't make you look any good.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,553
    Also proud of this.

    Sunak might also resign as he cannot stomach Boris the cant (sic).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,576
    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Applicant said:

    Benpointer said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Aslan said:

    moonshine said:

    Why is the use of the word gammon as a pejorative considered acceptable? Normally by the very same people who would keel over in shock at the hint of racial based language being used in any other instance?

    Because it's against white people and the people you are talking about are fine with racism against white people. It is why no Labour MP calls for the ousting of Diane Abbott.
    1. It's not racism though is it? It's directed at a group of people who choose to think and act in a particular way. The important word here is 'choose'. Comparable to calling someone a white-supremacist, a label no doubt only ever aimed at white people, but who would suggest to call someone a white-supremacist is racist?

    2. You think racism is not called out if it's directed against white people? Check out the Holocaust.
    It's not a descriptive word that I use. It is offensive without having any substance in refuting what is said.
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't use it either. But it's not racist.
    I would say it was.

    I can't see how. It doesn't fit any definition of racism I know of, e.g.:

    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
    Prejudice against (a subset of) white people, but their whiteness is inherent to the prejudice.
    So if a call someone a white-supremacist, is that racism?
    No. Being a white-supremacist is an ideology, being a gammon is a pejorative description of appearance.
    But with respect(!) that's rubbish.

    The term as an insult is not directed at, say people suffering from rosea or acne, it's directed at people with right-wing views, especially those who get agitated by 'political correctness' regardless of the actual pinkness of their skin.

    Were I to use the term I might direct it at @Leon (sorry Leon). I have no idea of Leon's completion or even his skin colour, nor does it matter for the purposes of my insult.
    By virtue of them going a particular color, something that they cannot help. It's fine to ridicule someone based on their beliefs, but based on a characteristic they have no control over?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Benpointer said:

    "...belittling Sunak" lol!

    I've always wanted to get that into a thread header, and 'snitches get stitches'.
    @TSE I have a question about the PB gathering in March (building access). I PM'ed OGH but he's not seen it, which is fair enough.

    Are you able to prompt him to take a look? Or could I PM the question to you? Thanks
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,553
    Benpointer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Benpointer said:

    "...belittling Sunak" lol!

    I've always wanted to get that into a thread header, and 'snitches get stitches'.
    @TSE I have a question about the PB gathering in March (building access). I PM'ed OGH but he's not seen it, which is fair enough.

    Are you able to prompt him to take a look? Or could I PM the question to you? Thanks
    Send your message to me and I'll call Mike tomorrow and get you an answer.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,028
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Farooq said:

    Reeves and Lammy are correct:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/06/labour-calls-on-tories-to-return-money-from-donors-linked-to-russia

    The Conservatives need to be much more careful about where their money is coming from.

    Lammy was on Trevor Phillip's this morning demanding the repayment of £145,000 donated to the conservatives, and when Phillips, in his usual calm manner, enquired if Lammy would be demanding Obama, Clinton, Biden and Harris also returned Russian money they too have been donated, embarrassment followed

    Though I do disagree with the point your are making
    I do agree with the point you are making

    Messed up my edit
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    RobD said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Applicant said:

    Benpointer said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Aslan said:

    moonshine said:

    Why is the use of the word gammon as a pejorative considered acceptable? Normally by the very same people who would keel over in shock at the hint of racial based language being used in any other instance?

    Because it's against white people and the people you are talking about are fine with racism against white people. It is why no Labour MP calls for the ousting of Diane Abbott.
    1. It's not racism though is it? It's directed at a group of people who choose to think and act in a particular way. The important word here is 'choose'. Comparable to calling someone a white-supremacist, a label no doubt only ever aimed at white people, but who would suggest to call someone a white-supremacist is racist?

    2. You think racism is not called out if it's directed against white people? Check out the Holocaust.
    It's not a descriptive word that I use. It is offensive without having any substance in refuting what is said.
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't use it either. But it's not racist.
    I would say it was.

    I can't see how. It doesn't fit any definition of racism I know of, e.g.:

    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
    Prejudice against (a subset of) white people, but their whiteness is inherent to the prejudice.
    So if a call someone a white-supremacist, is that racism?
    No. Being a white-supremacist is an ideology, being a gammon is a pejorative description of appearance.
    But with respect(!) that's rubbish.

    The term as an insult is not directed at, say people suffering from rosea or acne, it's directed at people with right-wing views, especially those who get agitated by 'political correctness' regardless of the actual pinkness of their skin.

    Were I to use the term I might direct it at @Leon (sorry Leon). I have no idea of Leon's completion or even his skin colour, nor does it matter for the purposes of my insult.
    By virtue of them going a particular color, something that they cannot help. It's fine to ridicule someone based on their beliefs, but based on a characteristic they have no control over?
    I am going a rather puce shade of purple at the obstinacy of people who cannot see THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SKIN COLOUR.

    So I'll admit defeat before I have a coronary - it's a horrible racist term and should never be used. I certainly never have or will use it.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,796
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Benpointer said:

    "...belittling Sunak" lol!

    I've always wanted to get that into a thread header, and 'snitches get stitches'.
    'Cutting him down to size' too obvious?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,553
    Roger said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Benpointer said:

    "...belittling Sunak" lol!

    I've always wanted to get that into a thread header, and 'snitches get stitches'.
    'Cutting him down to size' too obvious?
    I'm saving that for a future thread header.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Benpointer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Benpointer said:

    "...belittling Sunak" lol!

    I've always wanted to get that into a thread header, and 'snitches get stitches'.
    @TSE I have a question about the PB gathering in March (building access). I PM'ed OGH but he's not seen it, which is fair enough.

    Are you able to prompt him to take a look? Or could I PM the question to you? Thanks
    Send your message to me and I'll call Mike tomorrow and get you an answer.
    Thanks - have done so - much appreciated.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,576
    edited February 2022
    Benpointer said:

    RobD said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Applicant said:

    Benpointer said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Aslan said:

    moonshine said:

    Why is the use of the word gammon as a pejorative considered acceptable? Normally by the very same people who would keel over in shock at the hint of racial based language being used in any other instance?

    Because it's against white people and the people you are talking about are fine with racism against white people. It is why no Labour MP calls for the ousting of Diane Abbott.
    1. It's not racism though is it? It's directed at a group of people who choose to think and act in a particular way. The important word here is 'choose'. Comparable to calling someone a white-supremacist, a label no doubt only ever aimed at white people, but who would suggest to call someone a white-supremacist is racist?

    2. You think racism is not called out if it's directed against white people? Check out the Holocaust.
    It's not a descriptive word that I use. It is offensive without having any substance in refuting what is said.
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't use it either. But it's not racist.
    I would say it was.

    I can't see how. It doesn't fit any definition of racism I know of, e.g.:

    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
    Prejudice against (a subset of) white people, but their whiteness is inherent to the prejudice.
    So if a call someone a white-supremacist, is that racism?
    No. Being a white-supremacist is an ideology, being a gammon is a pejorative description of appearance.
    But with respect(!) that's rubbish.

    The term as an insult is not directed at, say people suffering from rosea or acne, it's directed at people with right-wing views, especially those who get agitated by 'political correctness' regardless of the actual pinkness of their skin.

    Were I to use the term I might direct it at @Leon (sorry Leon). I have no idea of Leon's completion or even his skin colour, nor does it matter for the purposes of my insult.
    By virtue of them going a particular color, something that they cannot help. It's fine to ridicule someone based on their beliefs, but based on a characteristic they have no control over?
    I am going a rather puce shade of purple at the obstinacy of people who cannot see THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SKIN COLOUR.

    So I'll admit defeat before I have a coronary - it's a horrible racist term and should never be used. I certainly never have or will use it.
    It doesn't? The phrase was coined because of the way a certain group of people looked.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    Roger said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Benpointer said:

    "...belittling Sunak" lol!

    I've always wanted to get that into a thread header, and 'snitches get stitches'.
    'Cutting him down to size' too obvious?
    Maybe we should cut Sunak some slack about his failure to date to put his head above the parapet?
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Benpointer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Benpointer said:

    "...belittling Sunak" lol!

    I've always wanted to get that into a thread header, and 'snitches get stitches'.
    @TSE I have a question about the PB gathering in March (building access). I PM'ed OGH but he's not seen it, which is fair enough.

    Are you able to prompt him to take a look? Or could I PM the question to you? Thanks
    Send your message to me and I'll call Mike tomorrow and get you an answer.
    Note I am hoping that we will have a post up in the next couple of days on the arrangements for next month's PB party.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,028
    I think that is the first Sky 10 o' clock I have watched for a very long time that made no reference to Boris
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,481
    At This Point, I’ll Bet on Susan Collins Over the Resistance

    "I also admire Cheney’s direct anti-Trumpism, as I’ve admired it from Mitt Romney, and now even a little from Mike Pence. (Yes, it’s a low bar.) But if you believe, reasonably, that the immediate danger posed by Trump’s demagogy involves an attempted Electoral College theft in 2024, then Cheney’s work is a lot less important than the bipartisan effort underway in the Senate to reform the Electoral Count Act. And that effort is being steered, with some success so far, by Collins."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/opinion/jeff-zucker-susan-collins-trump-cheney.html
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I think that is the first Sky 10 o' clock I have watched for a very long time that made no reference to Boris

    Expect more photos tomorrow then 🤣
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,481

    Harry Cole
    @MrHarryCole
    ·
    13m

    PM plotting mini Cabinet tweak in next stage of shake-up

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1490452328377458692
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 94,987
    Farooq said:

    Benpointer said:

    Roger said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Benpointer said:

    "...belittling Sunak" lol!

    I've always wanted to get that into a thread header, and 'snitches get stitches'.
    'Cutting him down to size' too obvious?
    Maybe we should cut Sunak some slack about his failure to date to put his head above the parapet?
    Could you all stop making such a big deal about this?
    Agreed, it diminishes himus
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,705
    rottenborough said:


    Harry Cole
    @MrHarryCole
    ·
    13m

    PM plotting mini Cabinet tweak in next stage of shake-up

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1490452328377458692

    All the Cabinet members are Steve Barclay?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 94,987
    rottenborough said:


    Harry Cole
    @MrHarryCole
    ·
    13m

    PM plotting mini Cabinet tweak in next stage of shake-up

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1490452328377458692

    Oh come on, a 'mini' tweak?

    Either a meaningless shuffle, or he also likes short gags about Sunak; either way, weak.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,481
    A leadership race possible in next couple of weeks you say?



    Liz Truss
    @trussliz

    United Kingdom government official
    We completely reject any questions over sovereignty of the Falklands.

    The Falklands are part of the British family and we will defend their right to self determination.

    China must respect the Falklands' sovereignty

    https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1490432163623456771
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,028
    Benpointer said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I think that is the first Sky 10 o' clock I have watched for a very long time that made no reference to Boris

    Expect more photos tomorrow then 🤣
    Looks as if Guto Harri is taking on Cummings directly

    It will be interesting
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,429
    kle4 said:

    TheValiant said:

    Fort the PB brains:

    What's this rubbish Macron's coming out with?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60281863

    I thought we'd move on? Haven't Russia missed the boat?
    What 'security' concerns is Macron going on about? Does he mean the EU/NATO will guarantee never to let the Ukraine in? Which can only be guaranteed as long as the current leadership is in power really. Or does he mean something else, like guaranteeing not to respond if Russia does go rolling in?

    Mr Macron told the Journal du Dimanche newspaper that Russia's objective was "not Ukraine, but a clarification of the rules... with Nato and the EU".

    If that is true, then what is the purpose of the 100k soldiers?

    I do kind of feel for Macron in that I get the impression he is trying to find a solution recognising practical reality that Ukraine is never getting Crimera back, and no one really wants to have the fight expand any further from the bits already taken by Russia, but it is pretty impossible to sound like you are finding a reasonable compromise when the demands coming your way from the sole aggressor are inherently unreasonable. You might well consider helping Putin save face the least worst option, but it doesn't make you look any good.
    Indeed - the sensible option would be to offer Putin some concessions, such as

    1) The EU relinquishes all claims to Russian territory - the far side of the Urals.
    2) The US will only aim nuclear weapons of 1.2 megatons or less at Russia*.
    3) Estonia will stop it's ambitions to become a nuclear state.
    4) All Western magazines will stop printing the picture of Putin stripped to waist on horseback, complete with remarks about how gay it looks.

    etc etc - insane concessions to match the demands.

    *For those who don't get it, the US does not have any weapons bigger than 1.2 megatons.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,028
    rottenborough said:


    Harry Cole
    @MrHarryCole
    ·
    13m

    PM plotting mini Cabinet tweak in next stage of shake-up

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1490452328377458692

    Now if JLM and Dorries go we could all cheer that
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    As you say a meh market

    Worth remarking on the response to his remark on Thursday though. I mean, saying I wouldn't have said it is like saying I wouldn't have kicked a disabled 2 year old child to death. It's just obvious common sense, and hard to see why it gets dressed up as a cunning plot against the pm
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,379
    Malmesbury said:

    kle4 said:

    TheValiant said:

    Fort the PB brains:

    What's this rubbish Macron's coming out with?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60281863

    I thought we'd move on? Haven't Russia missed the boat?
    What 'security' concerns is Macron going on about? Does he mean the EU/NATO will guarantee never to let the Ukraine in? Which can only be guaranteed as long as the current leadership is in power really. Or does he mean something else, like guaranteeing not to respond if Russia does go rolling in?

    Mr Macron told the Journal du Dimanche newspaper that Russia's objective was "not Ukraine, but a clarification of the rules... with Nato and the EU".

    If that is true, then what is the purpose of the 100k soldiers?

    I do kind of feel for Macron in that I get the impression he is trying to find a solution recognising practical reality that Ukraine is never getting Crimera back, and no one really wants to have the fight expand any further from the bits already taken by Russia, but it is pretty impossible to sound like you are finding a reasonable compromise when the demands coming your way from the sole aggressor are inherently unreasonable. You might well consider helping Putin save face the least worst option, but it doesn't make you look any good.
    Indeed - the sensible option would be to offer Putin some concessions, such as

    1) The EU relinquishes all claims to Russian territory - the far side of the Urals.
    2) The US will only aim nuclear weapons of 1.2 megatons or less at Russia*.
    3) Estonia will stop it's ambitions to become a nuclear state.
    4) All Western magazines will stop printing the picture of Putin stripped to waist on horseback, complete with remarks about how gay it looks.

    etc etc - insane concessions to match the demands.

    *For those who don't get it, the US does not have any weapons bigger than 1.2 megatons.
    I'm not liking your avatar, just sayin'
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,611
    Argentia has joined China's Belt and Road Initiative, and China "reaffirmed its support for Argentina's demand to fully exercise sovereignty on the Malvinas Islands".

    https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-02-06/China-Argentina-to-deepen-comprehensive-strategic-partnership-17qINrzqQVy/index.html
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,429
    IshmaelZ said:

    As you say a meh market

    Worth remarking on the response to his remark on Thursday though. I mean, saying I wouldn't have said it is like saying I wouldn't have kicked a disabled 2 year old child to death. It's just obvious common sense, and hard to see why it gets dressed up as a cunning plot against the pm

    Well, if you are in a shit place, everything that isn't outright support can look like an attack...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 27,708
    rottenborough said:


    Harry Cole
    @MrHarryCole
    ·
    13m

    PM plotting mini Cabinet tweak in next stage of shake-up

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1490452328377458692

    Could that mini Cabinet tweak be his own resignation?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,429
    Benpointer said:

    Malmesbury said:

    kle4 said:

    TheValiant said:

    Fort the PB brains:

    What's this rubbish Macron's coming out with?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60281863

    I thought we'd move on? Haven't Russia missed the boat?
    What 'security' concerns is Macron going on about? Does he mean the EU/NATO will guarantee never to let the Ukraine in? Which can only be guaranteed as long as the current leadership is in power really. Or does he mean something else, like guaranteeing not to respond if Russia does go rolling in?

    Mr Macron told the Journal du Dimanche newspaper that Russia's objective was "not Ukraine, but a clarification of the rules... with Nato and the EU".

    If that is true, then what is the purpose of the 100k soldiers?

    I do kind of feel for Macron in that I get the impression he is trying to find a solution recognising practical reality that Ukraine is never getting Crimera back, and no one really wants to have the fight expand any further from the bits already taken by Russia, but it is pretty impossible to sound like you are finding a reasonable compromise when the demands coming your way from the sole aggressor are inherently unreasonable. You might well consider helping Putin save face the least worst option, but it doesn't make you look any good.
    Indeed - the sensible option would be to offer Putin some concessions, such as

    1) The EU relinquishes all claims to Russian territory - the far side of the Urals.
    2) The US will only aim nuclear weapons of 1.2 megatons or less at Russia*.
    3) Estonia will stop it's ambitions to become a nuclear state.
    4) All Western magazines will stop printing the picture of Putin stripped to waist on horseback, complete with remarks about how gay it looks.

    etc etc - insane concessions to match the demands.

    *For those who don't get it, the US does not have any weapons bigger than 1.2 megatons.
    I'm not liking your avatar, just sayin'
    Nucleomitophobic bigot.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,481
    this is not bad, graphically...


  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,869
    Only two places for Rishi Rich to go. Next door or out the back door.

    It's time to go shit or bust. Orchestrate the letters, vote against the clown and take your chances against The Truss et al.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,481
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    rottenborough said:


    Harry Cole
    @MrHarryCole
    ·
    13m

    PM plotting mini Cabinet tweak in next stage of shake-up

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1490452328377458692

    Now if JLM and Dorries go we could all cheer that
    Think it is just the Chief Whip to be honest.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,028
    rottenborough said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    rottenborough said:


    Harry Cole
    @MrHarryCole
    ·
    13m

    PM plotting mini Cabinet tweak in next stage of shake-up

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1490452328377458692

    Now if JLM and Dorries go we could all cheer that
    Think it is just the Chief Whip to be honest.
    Probably but we can dream
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,481
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Benpointer said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I think that is the first Sky 10 o' clock I have watched for a very long time that made no reference to Boris

    Expect more photos tomorrow then 🤣
    Looks as if Guto Harri is taking on Cummings directly

    It will be interesting
    One of them has the video and photo evidence though.

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,869
    rottenborough said:

    this is not bad, graphically...


    Not the best ad for a barber shop.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,028
    rottenborough said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Benpointer said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I think that is the first Sky 10 o' clock I have watched for a very long time that made no reference to Boris

    Expect more photos tomorrow then 🤣
    Looks as if Guto Harri is taking on Cummings directly

    It will be interesting
    One of them has the video and photo evidence though.

    Maybe both have different videos and photos but it is all so tedious
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,429
    SandyRentool said:

    rottenborough said:

    this is not bad, graphically...


    Not the best ad for a barber shop.
    Citizen Smith is the first thing it made me think of.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,369
    O/T

    "Levi Bellfield confesses to Lin and Megan Russell murders, lawyer says

    The man serving life for the murder of schoolgirl Millie Dowler has confessed to killing mother and daughter Lin and Megan Russell, a lawyer has said. Another man, Michael Stone, has twice been found guilty of the murders of Ms Russell and her six-year-old daughter in Kent in July 1996. His solicitor says he has now received a statement written by Levi Bellfield which details the killings. Stone was also found guilty of trying to murder Megan's sister Josie. He has always protested his innocence. His solicitor Paul Bacon says he has now received a four-page statement from Bellfield in which he claims to have carried out the attacks, including details of what he was wearing and how he made his escape."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-60278013
  • Gary_BurtonGary_Burton Posts: 737
    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    "Levi Bellfield confesses to Lin and Megan Russell murders, lawyer says

    The man serving life for the murder of schoolgirl Millie Dowler has confessed to killing mother and daughter Lin and Megan Russell, a lawyer has said. Another man, Michael Stone, has twice been found guilty of the murders of Ms Russell and her six-year-old daughter in Kent in July 1996. His solicitor says he has now received a statement written by Levi Bellfield which details the killings. Stone was also found guilty of trying to murder Megan's sister Josie. He has always protested his innocence. His solicitor Paul Bacon says he has now received a four-page statement from Bellfield in which he claims to have carried out the attacks, including details of what he was wearing and how he made his escape."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-60278013

    It's interesting because one of his former girlfriends Jo Collings claimed he had an alibi for that day.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,517
    RobD said:

    Benpointer said:

    RobD said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Applicant said:

    Benpointer said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Aslan said:

    moonshine said:

    Why is the use of the word gammon as a pejorative considered acceptable? Normally by the very same people who would keel over in shock at the hint of racial based language being used in any other instance?

    Because it's against white people and the people you are talking about are fine with racism against white people. It is why no Labour MP calls for the ousting of Diane Abbott.
    1. It's not racism though is it? It's directed at a group of people who choose to think and act in a particular way. The important word here is 'choose'. Comparable to calling someone a white-supremacist, a label no doubt only ever aimed at white people, but who would suggest to call someone a white-supremacist is racist?

    2. You think racism is not called out if it's directed against white people? Check out the Holocaust.
    It's not a descriptive word that I use. It is offensive without having any substance in refuting what is said.
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't use it either. But it's not racist.
    I would say it was.

    I can't see how. It doesn't fit any definition of racism I know of, e.g.:

    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
    Prejudice against (a subset of) white people, but their whiteness is inherent to the prejudice.
    So if a call someone a white-supremacist, is that racism?
    No. Being a white-supremacist is an ideology, being a gammon is a pejorative description of appearance.
    But with respect(!) that's rubbish.

    The term as an insult is not directed at, say people suffering from rosea or acne, it's directed at people with right-wing views, especially those who get agitated by 'political correctness' regardless of the actual pinkness of their skin.

    Were I to use the term I might direct it at @Leon (sorry Leon). I have no idea of Leon's completion or even his skin colour, nor does it matter for the purposes of my insult.
    By virtue of them going a particular color, something that they cannot help. It's fine to ridicule someone based on their beliefs, but based on a characteristic they have no control over?
    I am going a rather puce shade of purple at the obstinacy of people who cannot see THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SKIN COLOUR.

    So I'll admit defeat before I have a coronary - it's a horrible racist term and should never be used. I certainly never have or will use it.
    It doesn't? The phrase was coined because of the way a certain group of people looked.
    Surely the proof that it isn't racist is that I am white and I am not gammon. However if l got angry about foreigners, gays, woke, etc, etc I would be gammon. My race hasn't changed.

    It's just a representation of an angry man going red because of his anger as we all do. Nothing to do with race or disability.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 94,987
    Since Barbados decided not to wait for the Queen to die before becoming a republic, and given several of the caribbean nations have had political consensus to make the same changes (but inexplicably dragged their feet, like Jamaica), I wonder if any others will decide the jubilee year is as good a time as any.

    There should be a market on how many commonwealth realms there will be by the time Charles takes over. I'm going with 7-8 down from 14, losing most of the Caribbean.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,481
    SandyRentool said:

    Only two places for Rishi Rich to go. Next door or out the back door.

    It's time to go shit or bust. Orchestrate the letters, vote against the clown and take your chances against The Truss et al.

    This. 100x this.

    He hesitates. He will be back at Goldman within a year at this rate.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,576
    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    Benpointer said:

    RobD said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Applicant said:

    Benpointer said:

    FPT:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Foxy said:

    Benpointer said:

    Aslan said:

    moonshine said:

    Why is the use of the word gammon as a pejorative considered acceptable? Normally by the very same people who would keel over in shock at the hint of racial based language being used in any other instance?

    Because it's against white people and the people you are talking about are fine with racism against white people. It is why no Labour MP calls for the ousting of Diane Abbott.
    1. It's not racism though is it? It's directed at a group of people who choose to think and act in a particular way. The important word here is 'choose'. Comparable to calling someone a white-supremacist, a label no doubt only ever aimed at white people, but who would suggest to call someone a white-supremacist is racist?

    2. You think racism is not called out if it's directed against white people? Check out the Holocaust.
    It's not a descriptive word that I use. It is offensive without having any substance in refuting what is said.
    Oh, I agree. I wouldn't use it either. But it's not racist.
    I would say it was.

    I can't see how. It doesn't fit any definition of racism I know of, e.g.:

    "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
    Prejudice against (a subset of) white people, but their whiteness is inherent to the prejudice.
    So if a call someone a white-supremacist, is that racism?
    No. Being a white-supremacist is an ideology, being a gammon is a pejorative description of appearance.
    But with respect(!) that's rubbish.

    The term as an insult is not directed at, say people suffering from rosea or acne, it's directed at people with right-wing views, especially those who get agitated by 'political correctness' regardless of the actual pinkness of their skin.

    Were I to use the term I might direct it at @Leon (sorry Leon). I have no idea of Leon's completion or even his skin colour, nor does it matter for the purposes of my insult.
    By virtue of them going a particular color, something that they cannot help. It's fine to ridicule someone based on their beliefs, but based on a characteristic they have no control over?
    I am going a rather puce shade of purple at the obstinacy of people who cannot see THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SKIN COLOUR.

    So I'll admit defeat before I have a coronary - it's a horrible racist term and should never be used. I certainly never have or will use it.
    It doesn't? The phrase was coined because of the way a certain group of people looked.
    Surely the proof that it isn't racist is that I am white and I am not gammon. However if l got angry about foreigners, gays, woke, etc, etc I would be gammon. My race hasn't changed.

    It's just a representation of an angry man going red because of his anger as we all do. Nothing to do with race or disability.
    Yes, it is only be applied to a subset of a specific group. It doesn’t have to be applicable to all of them to be racist.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,601
    rottenborough said:

    this is not bad, graphically...


    Good to see the classic material coming through. I remember Nellist from 1987 when I was LAB 👍
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    kle4 said:

    Since Barbados decided not to wait for the Queen to die before becoming a republic, and given several of the caribbean nations have had political consensus to make the same changes (but inexplicably dragged their feet, like Jamaica), I wonder if any others will decide the jubilee year is as good a time as any.

    There should be a market on how many commonwealth realms there will be by the time Charles takes over. I'm going with 7-8 down from 14, losing most of the Caribbean.

    Australia next surely. Isn't it Labor party policy to have a referendum? And Scotty from Marketing is looking like a dead platypus.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,052
    edited February 2022
    kle4 said:

    Since Barbados decided not to wait for the Queen to die before becoming a republic, and given several of the caribbean nations have had political consensus to make the same changes (but inexplicably dragged their feet, like Jamaica), I wonder if any others will decide the jubilee year is as good a time as any.

    There should be a market on how many commonwealth realms there will be by the time Charles takes over. I'm going with 7-8 down from 14, losing most of the Caribbean.

    Most Commonwealth realms became republics or had their own monarchs in the reign of the Queen and her father anyway, certainly the vast majority of the non white, non British origin majority ones.

    I would expect the remaining Caribbean realms to do so too but remaining in the Commonwealth like Barbados. For Canada however and Australia and New Zealand keeping the monarch as their head of state is a way of distinguishing them from the USA and Asia and also maintaining links to their British heritage
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,052
    edited February 2022
    londonpubman said:

    rottenborough said:

    this is not bad, graphically...


    Good to see the classic material coming through. I remember Nellist from 1987 when I was LAB 👍
    Heard him speak at a debate once, he was in the original Militant tendency which Kinnock had to expel from Labour, returned to Labour under Corbyn and has now left again. He is a diehard Socialist ideologue
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,842
    rottenborough said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Only two places for Rishi Rich to go. Next door or out the back door.

    It's time to go shit or bust. Orchestrate the letters, vote against the clown and take your chances against The Truss et al.

    This. 100x this.

    He hesitates. He will be back at Goldman within a year at this rate.
    rottenborough. I completely disagree. Rishi needs to wait for a VOC to happen - precipitated perhaps by another cabinet minister resigning and calling for Boris' departure. But Rishi cannot be the knife wielder. His tentative comments implying criticism of Boris have already weakened his chances of succeeding. Loyalty is the key to inheriting the crown, until a vacancy arises.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,052
    edited February 2022
    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    Since Barbados decided not to wait for the Queen to die before becoming a republic, and given several of the caribbean nations have had political consensus to make the same changes (but inexplicably dragged their feet, like Jamaica), I wonder if any others will decide the jubilee year is as good a time as any.

    There should be a market on how many commonwealth realms there will be by the time Charles takes over. I'm going with 7-8 down from 14, losing most of the Caribbean.

    Australia next surely. Isn't it Labor party policy to have a referendum? And Scotty from Marketing is looking like a dead platypus.
    Scott Morrison still leads as preferred PM over Albanese, in my view he will be re elected. The best PM guide was more accurate than the 2PP at the last election.

    Albanese is too leftwing populist for most Australians, basically the next Mark Latham, Labor should have gone with the more centrist Tanya Pilbersek. There likely will be another referendum in Australia but not yet and certainly not with a Coalition govenment, of course the monarchists won the last one 55% to 45% in 1999
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,742
    londonpubman said:

    rottenborough said:

    this is not bad, graphically...


    Good to see the classic material coming through. I remember Nellist from 1987 when I was LAB 👍
    Wasn't he the model for Dave Spart?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,480
    While everyone says that he who wields the knife never gets the crown it's worth remembering that wasn't the case last time. Boris helped wield the knife, repeatedly, versus Theresa May and got the crown and an eighty seat majority afterwards.

    Gordon Brown effectively wielded the knife versus Tony Blair too, didn't win a majority but did get to be PM.

    Heseltine isn't the only precedence.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,052
    MarqueeMark said:

    williamglenn said:

    Argentia has joined China's Belt and Road Initiative, and China "reaffirmed its support for Argentina's demand to fully exercise sovereignty on the Malvinas Islands".

    https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-02-06/China-Argentina-to-deepen-comprehensive-strategic-partnership-17qINrzqQVy/index.html

    And Argentina's claim to the Falklands has about as much validity as China's claim to the South China Sea because it has China in the title....
    Argentina also backed China's claim to Taiwan I see under their terrible President Fernandez and his deputy Kirchner who pulls the strings
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,742
    IshmaelZ said:

    As you say a meh market

    Worth remarking on the response to his remark on Thursday though. I mean, saying I wouldn't have said it is like saying I wouldn't have kicked a disabled 2 year old child to death. It's just obvious common sense, and hard to see why it gets dressed up as a cunning plot against the pm

    The laws regarding kicking disabled 2 year old children to death do not apply to the Prime Minister. As with lockdown parties.....
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,028
    stjohn said:

    rottenborough said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Only two places for Rishi Rich to go. Next door or out the back door.

    It's time to go shit or bust. Orchestrate the letters, vote against the clown and take your chances against The Truss et al.

    This. 100x this.

    He hesitates. He will be back at Goldman within a year at this rate.
    rottenborough. I completely disagree. Rishi needs to wait for a VOC to happen - precipitated perhaps by another cabinet minister resigning and calling for Boris' departure. But Rishi cannot be the knife wielder. His tentative comments implying criticism of Boris have already weakened his chances of succeeding. Loyalty is the key to inheriting the crown, until a vacancy arises.
    I would just observe that from 'chat' and e mails from a couple of conservative mps and the mood music in the mail and others I expect Boris will survive the next couple of weeks or more, unless something very dramatic comes to light, eg a FPN
This discussion has been closed.