"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
Royal Town Planning Institute @RTPIPlanners New research by @TfNHomes finds that many new housing estates are built around the car - not around walking, cycling & public transport.
RTPI Infrastructure Specialist @_HarrySteele was part of the 'Building Car Dependency' steering group.
Good afternoon. My local Tory council has kindly replaced the Council Tax Benefit form, previously a single A4 sheet, with a 48 page document, requiring multiple forms of ID, including passport or driving licence, and every bank account statements from within 4 weeks to be handed to the Council for an unspecified length of time. With no guarantee of security or safe return. Nor time scale. All of which replicates, and, in the case of ID and bank statements, far exceeds the info to claim UC. Which can be done Online, or on the day at interview. Tories bloody love red tape. Don't let them tell you otherwise.
I mean there are rape jokes all the way through Jimmy Carr (no I'm not going to annotate the whole thing as it's playing). And everyone is laughing in a mixed (colour-wise not sure, that said) audience.
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?
They should run that question past a thousand Scots.
Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
So we get one every hundred years. How fair.
Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.
You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland
I am sure there are Scots that don't like to be reminded that Tony Blair was born in Scotland of a Scottish family, but I guess to the more prejudiced (meaning most Scottish Nationalists) he didn't sound Scottish enough or wear his tartan on his sleeve. Then there is also that very English sounding name Cameron who was PM fairly recently, plus the many many Scots who were leading members of the last Labour government. No doubt none of these people were "Scottish enough" and are probably all race traitors
Hat-tip please to John Smith, who was one of the best Labour Leaders ever, even if only briefly.
And as a point of order to the Scottish Nationalist fake news purveyors there have been 47 British PMs and 7 of them Scottish.
So 14%, when Scotland is only 7% of the UK population.
Essex has 1.4 million people and has not yet had a single PM born and raised in the county! Priti would be the first if she ever got there. Churchill was MP for Epping but was born at Blenheim Palace and raised in London
Priti was born and raised in Hertfordshire. AFAIK she didn't come to Essex until she did a post-grad at Essex Uni. Still doesn't live in the County.
So we are left with Andrew Rosindell then (if you still count Romford as Essex). Philip Hammond was raised in Essex but obviously has now missed his chance
Or possibly/more likely Wes Streeting, born in the part of Essex later taken over by London.
Stepney?
To the East of the City, hence, at one time Essex. But, I grant you, effectively part of London for a long time. Stepney born lads, count though, as potential Essex cricketers. Although where one find a green space big enough for cricket there now....
Incidentally, one of the odder bus conversations I've overheard concerned two young women, one of who had not long before given birth to a boy and was, apparently, considering calling the little chap 'Stepney'.
Stepney is west of the Lea so would be Middlesex in cricket county terms?
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘s recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
It's a really funny phenomenon the Jimmy Carr show. Making fun of everything, strokes, rapists, then the holocaust to come. He is careful around BLM that said.
I'm guessing it's a really right on (dare I say woke) audience, the sort who would apply for tickets to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue and think the R4 midweek 6.30 comedy shows are funny.
And they are applauding jokes about rapists, people with hypochondroplasia (! - not what he calls it) and eventually apparently the holocaust.
In the pub or a dinner party these people would be shocked at the content even if delivered as expertly as Carr delivers his material.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
I once had some good fun - I got some people really rilled up against Seventh Day Adventists. Foaming at the mouth about their ghastly beliefs and practices. One person even suggest they should have children taken away from them....
Then I showed them a picture of me helping out at a community event that involved the local Seventh Day Adventist church. When they saw who made up the church, they got very, very upset. With me.....
As indeed they might - you and your little games.
Well, if you are going to express bigotry concerning religious minorities, don't be shocked if they turn out to be racial minorities as well.
Assuming that funky brands of Christianity are white-people-only or that there isn't a nasty history of oppression of such groups.......
That the reactionary wing of Christianity very much isn't whites only certainly isn't news to me.
Most religions are "reactionary" in the sense of the not being on the politically/socially progressive side.
If you are up for condemning religions based on them being reactionary, then you will have to be comfortable with saying that religion X, primarily practised by ethnic minority Y, is a crock of shit.
Personally, I find condemning other peoples religions somewhere between rude and a waste of time.....
I split Religion into 2 parts when I think about it or comment on it. The faith in a higher power and the belief system as it applies to life on earth. The faith bit I like. I don't have it but wish I did. I don't find it irrational or to be criticized or mocked in any way. The belief system is also fine by me so long as it's based on equality and tolerance and kindness. If it isn't - and sadly this is sometimes the case - that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so.
"The belief system is fine, as long as it coincides with my own belief system."
Well I'm not going to refrain from criticizing what others believe - religious variety or otherwise - just because they believe it.
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘s recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
It's a really funny phenomenon the Jimmy Carr show. Making fun of everything, strokes, rapists, then the holocaust to come. He is careful around BLM that said.
I'm guessing it's a really right on (dare I say woke) audience, the sort who would apply for tickets to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue and think the R4 midweek 6.30 comedy shows are funny.
And they are applauding jokes about rapists, people with hypochondroplasia (! - not what he calls it) and eventually apparently the holocaust.
In the pub or a dinner party these people would be shocked at the content even if delivered as expertly as Carr delivers his material.
Until this outcry, Carr has occupied a quite strange / special place. He is very offensive, he is very crude, he makes jokes that are taboo, all of that would normally get you in trouble a lot sooner. But not only is he popular, he is popular with a crowd that would never go and see certain comedians they deem as right wing verging on bigots or just really crude who do quite similar material.
Is it because of all his tv work? I don't know.
But most of the comedians on those panel shows these days, their live acts are tediously "right-on" and vanilla e.g. Russell Howard latest special is like a name check of all the "correct" causes, BLM, trans-rights, and the only mocking of those topics are in the context of thick right wing bigots.
I used to like Mark Thomas because although he miles to the left of me and will have plenty of a pop at right wing / Tories / rich, he also loves having a dig at some of the loons on his own side. Most of his stories are flavoured with the idiotic things some leftie hippy type did at a protest.
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
This is why England has lost her spunk. It was always a big boy what done it and run away.
View from my office window just now, as the sun goes down…
The Burj is a truly magnificent building
I still find it hard to like Dubai, however
It’s a place where it’s very easy to come and just see shiny new tall buildings, 5* beach resorts and huge glitzy shopping malls, like Las Vegas with no casinos.
Finding the culture here takes effort, but it’s something that is constantly getting better. The World’s Fair is here at the moment, and open for next couple of months. It’s a bit cold today though, only 25°C at the moment.
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘a recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
Who is going to grant this "referendum"?
Certainly not the Tories. Even if Boris goes, any Tory replacement will encounter the same logic. Why risk the Union, when there is a perfectly good argument ("once a generation") to say no to a vote?
Not gonna happen. That takes us to 2024. If the Tories win, then again they will say No for the same reason
So you need Starmer to win. If he gets a majority he will also say No, for the same reasons, with the ADDED incentive that one day the Labour Party needs to win again in Scotland, not secede it forever
So that leaves just one shot, Starmer as PM of a NOM Labour govt, dependant on the SNP for any votes. In that situation it is, I suppose, just about conceivable he might yield a vote, but I gravely doubt it as there is no way the Nats will vote him down and put Boris/Tories back in, so he is assured of their support if it comes to the crunch
AT SOME POINT if the Scots keep electing a Nat government which wants another indyref then yes, Westminster will reluctantly yield, but they won't do that until the "generation" argument is exhausted, and they are even less likely to do that any time the polls look good for the Nats
So you're a bit fucked. I reckon Sindyref2 will happen in the 2030s and this time London will be much harder in negotiating the timing, the question and the suffrage
Good afternoon. My local Tory council has kindly replaced the Council Tax Benefit form, previously a single A4 sheet, with a 48 page document, requiring multiple forms of ID, including passport or driving licence, and every bank account statements from within 4 weeks to be handed to the Council for an unspecified length of time. With no guarantee of security or safe return. Nor time scale. All of which replicates, and, in the case of ID and bank statements, far exceeds the info to claim UC. Which can be done Online, or on the day at interview. Tories bloody love red tape. Don't let them tell you otherwise.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
I once had some good fun - I got some people really rilled up against Seventh Day Adventists. Foaming at the mouth about their ghastly beliefs and practices. One person even suggest they should have children taken away from them....
Then I showed them a picture of me helping out at a community event that involved the local Seventh Day Adventist church. When they saw who made up the church, they got very, very upset. With me.....
As indeed they might - you and your little games.
Well, if you are going to express bigotry concerning religious minorities, don't be shocked if they turn out to be racial minorities as well.
Assuming that funky brands of Christianity are white-people-only or that there isn't a nasty history of oppression of such groups.......
That the reactionary wing of Christianity very much isn't whites only certainly isn't news to me.
Most religions are "reactionary" in the sense of the not being on the politically/socially progressive side.
If you are up for condemning religions based on them being reactionary, then you will have to be comfortable with saying that religion X, primarily practised by ethnic minority Y, is a crock of shit.
Personally, I find condemning other peoples religions somewhere between rude and a waste of time.....
I split Religion into 2 parts when I think about it or comment on it. The faith in a higher power and the belief system as it applies to life on earth. The faith bit I like. I don't have it but wish I did. I don't find it irrational or to be criticized or mocked in any way. The belief system is also fine by me so long as it's based on equality and tolerance and kindness. If it isn't - and sadly this is sometimes the case - that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so.
"I don't have it but wish I did" - interesting. An atheist who wishes he wasn't?
"that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so" - do you really criticise the major interpretation of all the Abrahamic religions (for example) ? Brave, if so.
No, I'm not an atheist. I'm a nothing. A big fat nothing. Yes, I'm ok with criticizing any beliefs propounded by any religion if they get up my nose. I don't think this is brave tbh - but I'll take that label if you insist.
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘s recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
Oh, where's he been putting his tuba then?
It was him who kicked off this whole pensions nonsense last week. He lives in a time warp. Bit sad really.
(Has he defected to the Tories? I’m sure I read that somewhere, but his Wiki bio still has him as Labour.)
It's a really funny phenomenon the Jimmy Carr show. Making fun of everything, strokes, rapists, then the holocaust to come. He is careful around BLM that said.
I'm guessing it's a really right on (dare I say woke) audience, the sort who would apply for tickets to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue and think the R4 midweek 6.30 comedy shows are funny.
And they are applauding jokes about rapists, people with hypochondroplasia (! - not what he calls it) and eventually apparently the holocaust.
In the pub or a dinner party these people would be shocked at the content even if delivered as expertly as Carr delivers his material.
Until this outcry, Carr has occupied a quite strange / special place. He is very offensive, he is very crude, he makes jokes that are taboo, all of that would normally get you in trouble a lot sooner. But not only is he popular, he is popular with a crowd that would never go and see certain comedians they deem as right wing verging on bigots or just really crude.
Is it because of all his tv work? I don't know.
But most of the comedians on those panel shows these days, their live acts are tediously "right-on" and vanilla e.g. Russell Howard latest special is like a name check of all the "correct" causes, BLM, trans-rights, and the only mocking of those topics are in the context of thick right wing bigots.
Yep it's perhaps a release valve. In a comedy theatre with all the paraphenalia of a "proper" show and then finding that the content is actually funny (it undoubtedly is) and you are allowed to laugh.
I would really like to see the camera pan out to the audience to get a feel for the audience mix. It (the Netflix show) was filmed in Southend so would be interesting to see who came to see it.
Imagine the fuss around here if a poster linked to a great article on the moral cowardice and venality of England.
Good to see Scotland's version of Lenin-in-exile wading forth on the great issues of the day. When are you getting on your sealed train to head back to the Finland Station (aka Edinburgh Waverley)?
My little bit of evidence, plus intuition reckons no VONC this week, or next week, but the week after, W/c 21st Feb.
You can get 5/4 on Boris Johnson lasting the year. I think that's excellent value. We can discount the idea he will go voluntarily.
So the only way he goes is if a majority of Tory MPs don't want him. And at the moment, they can't even get 50 in favour to have a vote.
If there is a vote, he's surely going to win it.
And he's not like Theresa May or Margaret Thatcher... he isn't going to stand down because he feels like he's not the best person to lead... or because he only narrowly won a vote of no confidence.
I agree with all this as far as it goes.
But the Met investigation or Sue Gray's full report could easily change the dynamics this year.
What's the worst case scenario of the Met investigation for Boris Johnson? I think it's just that lots of people at Downing Street (many of whom have left) are fined £10k. Maybe Boris Johnson gets a £10k fine as well.
He pays it. Apologizes in a half-hearted way, and then accuses Keir Starmer of *insert hot button issue here*. The Telegraph writes articles about forgiveness and rehabilitation. The end.
I really don't see Tory MPs acting if they haven't already. If anything, once the investigation is over, the issue is resolved.
I might be totally wrong about this, but I think people are underestimating the tribal loyalty of Tory MPs.
Boris gets a big fine. Or even a small one. In accepting it, he has to admit that he has lied to the House. There were parties in Downing Street during lockdown, at which he was present.
He tries to defy the convention that if you have demonstrably lied to the House, you must resign. At which point, an avalanche of letters go in.
The penalties, should he get one, would be for breaches of the relevant Act. Not parties. So does it necessarily follow that getting fine means he's lied to the house about parties? - No. The Gray report refers to the events as gatherings. Parties are not mentioned.
Indeed. Getting a fine is evidence of law-breaking, not lying. Lawbreaking should be enough to get a PM to resign anyway.
The people hanging their hat on lying are creating two hoops to jump through, when just one should suffice. Both the lawbreaking has to be proven, which ought to be enough, then that Boris knew what he said to be false at the time that he said it.
Its entirely possible to say something that is untrue, but not to have lied, because you were unaware it was untrue when you said it. That is not lying. Ignorance is no defence for breaking the law, but it is a defence against accusations of lying.
And its all utterly unnecessary. Lawmakers can't be lawbreakers, that's the only thing that should be said, ad nauseum. He made the rules, he broke them, he must go. No ifs, no buts, no equivocation.
It's pretty obvious he has broken the rules and lied. A police investigation might officially declare rules broken and fine him.
But still sceptical that will sway Tory MPs.
It will be... "we all bent the rules a bit..." and "he's paid his fine, time to move on"...
There will be a VoNC, but I think he will win, and so survive. Anyone expecting Boris Johnson "to do the decent thing" hasn't been paying attention.
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
This is why England has lost her spunk. It was always a big boy what done it and run away.
It really is tragic to witness.
Which of England or Scotland voted to “Leave” in 2016 & 2014?
View from my office window just now, as the sun goes down…
I saw on YouTube the video of the ad with the flight crew lady on top of the Burj holding up the signs. Bloody hell that’s a long way up.
828m, half a mile up. The ‘short’ buildings in the picture all all taller than the tallest building in the UK, which IIRC is the 300m ‘Shard’ in London.
Yes that advert is brilliant, Emirates airline are very good at marketing. They did a behind the scenes ad too, for when everyone said it was done with CGI and not by putting a woman at the top of the tower!
The only fakery is that she isn’t actually a cabin crew, she’s an instructor at the skydiving centre!
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘s recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
Oh, where's he been putting his tuba then?
It was him who kicked off this whole pensions nonsense last week. He lives in a time warp. Bit sad really.
(Has he defected to the Tories? I’m sure I read that somewhere, but his Wiki bio still has him as Labour.)
Ah, I was wondering what it was all about - now I see. The tuba yet again.
As for defecting to the Tories, does it really make any difference in Scotland?
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
This is why England has lost her spunk. It was always a big boy what done it and run away.
It really is tragic to witness.
Which of England or Scotland voted to “Leave” in 2016 & 2014?
Who has lost their spunk?
There is undoubtedly a connection between the 2014 and the 2016 plebiscites. If the former had never taken place, neither would the latter. Cheers Dave!
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Just think about how many lives were lost because Nicola & the SG didn’t always precede AstraZeneca with Oxford? All were due to red faced chaps having choking incidents, but still..
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘s recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
Oh, where's he been putting his tuba then?
It was him who kicked off this whole pensions nonsense last week. He lives in a time warp. Bit sad really.
(Has he defected to the Tories? I’m sure I read that somewhere, but his Wiki bio still has him as Labour.)
Ah, I was wondering what it was all about - now I see. The tuba yet again.
As for defecting to the Tories, does it really make any difference in Scotland?
No. Two faces of the same dud coin. The Orange Lodge is the rim.
Good afternoon. My local Tory council has kindly replaced the Council Tax Benefit form, previously a single A4 sheet, with a 48 page document, requiring multiple forms of ID, including passport or driving licence, and every bank account statements from within 4 weeks to be handed to the Council for an unspecified length of time. With no guarantee of security or safe return. Nor time scale. All of which replicates, and, in the case of ID and bank statements, far exceeds the info to claim UC. Which can be done Online, or on the day at interview. Tories bloody love red tape. Don't let them tell you otherwise.
Now that's a lovely Freedom of Information Request.
How long does each renewal / claim of the new benefit system take to process compared to the old one. What is the cost of processing each application. How many people have failed to renew.
Insert other questions here - there are more but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
I once had some good fun - I got some people really rilled up against Seventh Day Adventists. Foaming at the mouth about their ghastly beliefs and practices. One person even suggest they should have children taken away from them....
Then I showed them a picture of me helping out at a community event that involved the local Seventh Day Adventist church. When they saw who made up the church, they got very, very upset. With me.....
As indeed they might - you and your little games.
Well, if you are going to express bigotry concerning religious minorities, don't be shocked if they turn out to be racial minorities as well.
Assuming that funky brands of Christianity are white-people-only or that there isn't a nasty history of oppression of such groups.......
That the reactionary wing of Christianity very much isn't whites only certainly isn't news to me.
Most religions are "reactionary" in the sense of the not being on the politically/socially progressive side.
If you are up for condemning religions based on them being reactionary, then you will have to be comfortable with saying that religion X, primarily practised by ethnic minority Y, is a crock of shit.
Personally, I find condemning other peoples religions somewhere between rude and a waste of time.....
I split Religion into 2 parts when I think about it or comment on it. The faith in a higher power and the belief system as it applies to life on earth. The faith bit I like. I don't have it but wish I did. I don't find it irrational or to be criticized or mocked in any way. The belief system is also fine by me so long as it's based on equality and tolerance and kindness. If it isn't - and sadly this is sometimes the case - that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so.
You DO have faith in a higher power, you just don't realise. For you it is scientific materialism. The "established science" that has gone from saying the world is flat, to the world is round, to the world is the centre of everything, no it isn't the sun is, no it isn't the galaxy is all there is, no it isn't - errr - and from there to saying Newtonian Physics is the complete answer to No Newtownian Physics is nonsense Einstein is the answer and it is all relative and space time are a continuum No Wait things can be dead and alive at the same time and light is both wave and particle and errrrr the universe is mainly made up of dark matter we do not see and cannot understand NO WAIT there isn't just one universe there are MULTIPLE UNIVERSES AND MAYBE AN INFINITE NUMBER GOD KNOWS HOW MANY and also the virus came from an animal in a market and anyone that says otherwise should be CANCELLED oh wait OK Trump has gone so the virus, in fact, came from a lab
Yes, although science moves - and will keep moving - it's never rational for a layman to dispute what it's saying at any given point in time.
Eg, back when the world was flat, if some vivacious autodidact, having had a few tankards at his local tavern, had started opining floridly to all and sundry that it wasn't, it would be sensible to ignore him.
But that wasn't what I was talking about. By 'higher power' I mean something beyond all of that. Something we have neither words to explain nor even the theoretical ability to comprehend. I mean God. God.
View from my office window just now, as the sun goes down…
I saw on YouTube the video of the ad with the flight crew lady on top of the Burj holding up the signs. Bloody hell that’s a long way up.
828m, half a mile up. The ‘short’ buildings in the picture all all taller than the tallest building in the UK, which IIRC is the 300m ‘Shard’ in London.
Yes that advert is brilliant, Emirates airline are very good at marketing. They did a behind the scenes ad too, for when everyone said it was done with CGI and not by putting a woman at the top of the tower!
The only fakery is that she isn’t actually a cabin crew, she’s an instructor at the skydiving centre!
Ah that would make the relaxed smile much more understandable. I will look out the "making of" vid. I daren't ask where her 'chute was hidden.....!
Good afternoon. My local Tory council has kindly replaced the Council Tax Benefit form, previously a single A4 sheet, with a 48 page document, requiring multiple forms of ID, including passport or driving licence, and every bank account statements from within 4 weeks to be handed to the Council for an unspecified length of time. With no guarantee of security or safe return. Nor time scale. All of which replicates, and, in the case of ID and bank statements, far exceeds the info to claim UC. Which can be done Online, or on the day at interview. Tories bloody love red tape. Don't let them tell you otherwise.
That is terrible.
Yep. As a volunteer, it now takes me a full 3 hour slot to help one client fill it out. Most don't have the ID to hand either. It's crazy. Because if you get UC, you are eligible anyway. And acceptable ID for DWP, and by extension HMRC just isn't good enough for the Council. They want a level of detail far in excess of a UC claim. They also want to see, and keep, your original bank statements from every account. Replicated for every member of your household, too.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
I once had some good fun - I got some people really rilled up against Seventh Day Adventists. Foaming at the mouth about their ghastly beliefs and practices. One person even suggest they should have children taken away from them....
Then I showed them a picture of me helping out at a community event that involved the local Seventh Day Adventist church. When they saw who made up the church, they got very, very upset. With me.....
As indeed they might - you and your little games.
Well, if you are going to express bigotry concerning religious minorities, don't be shocked if they turn out to be racial minorities as well.
Assuming that funky brands of Christianity are white-people-only or that there isn't a nasty history of oppression of such groups.......
That the reactionary wing of Christianity very much isn't whites only certainly isn't news to me.
Most religions are "reactionary" in the sense of the not being on the politically/socially progressive side.
If you are up for condemning religions based on them being reactionary, then you will have to be comfortable with saying that religion X, primarily practised by ethnic minority Y, is a crock of shit.
Personally, I find condemning other peoples religions somewhere between rude and a waste of time.....
I split Religion into 2 parts when I think about it or comment on it. The faith in a higher power and the belief system as it applies to life on earth. The faith bit I like. I don't have it but wish I did. I don't find it irrational or to be criticized or mocked in any way. The belief system is also fine by me so long as it's based on equality and tolerance and kindness. If it isn't - and sadly this is sometimes the case - that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so.
"I don't have it but wish I did" - interesting. An atheist who wishes he wasn't?
"that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so" - do you really criticise the major interpretation of all the Abrahamic religions (for example) ? Brave, if so.
No, I'm not an atheist. I'm a nothing. A big fat nothing. Yes, I'm ok with criticizing any beliefs propounded by any religion if they get up my nose. I don't think this is brave tbh - but I'll take that label if you insist.
Interesting - so do you criticise the major sects of Judaism, Islam and Christianity over their attitudes towards gay people?
If so, that puts you in the brave column, in the modern UK.
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Just think about how many lives were lost because Nicola & the SG didn’t always precede AstraZeneca with Oxford? All were due to red faced chaps having choking incidents, but still..
Indeed. We were talking about Pravda upthread, but those boys aren’t a patch on the BBC.
Let’s see how many red-faced Herd members have a wee choking fit.
Apparently he’s a bit of a nutter, not taken particularly seriously.
A "friend" - expert on the area (you gotta trust me on this) tells me he doesn't expect Russia to invade. If they wanted to they would have already. We were having a boozy lunch so I didn't grill him on it much further but he has been speaking to key influencers in the matter.
Says Biden is handling it well allowing compromise and face saving.
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘a recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
Who is going to grant this "referendum"?
Certainly not the Tories. Even if Boris goes, any Tory replacement will encounter the same logic. Why risk the Union, when there is a perfectly good argument ("once a generation") to say no to a vote?
Not gonna happen. That takes us to 2024. If the Tories win, then again they will say No for the same reason
So you need Starmer to win. If he gets a majority he will also say No, for the same reasons, with the ADDED incentive that one day the Labour Party needs to win again in Scotland, not secede it forever
So that leaves just one shot, Starmer as PM of a NOM Labour govt, dependant on the SNP for any votes. In that situation it is, I suppose, just about conceivable he might yield a vote, but I gravely doubt it as there is no way the Nats will vote him down and put Boris/Tories back in, so he is assured of their support if it comes to the crunch
AT SOME POINT if the Scots keep electing a Nat government which wants another indyref then yes, Westminster will reluctantly yield, but they won't do that until the "generation" argument is exhausted, and they are even less likely to do that any time the polls look good for the Nats
So you're a bit fucked. I reckon Sindyref2 will happen in the 2030s and this time London will be much harder in negotiating the timing, the question and the suffrage
I think you're right, in terms of what will happen, but the once in a generation argument is not a good one, nor is it sustainable for harmonious relationships between the constituent countries. It risks storing up a lot of resentments and greivances (what harm one more, I hear you say?) for the future and I think will make a future sindyRef both more likely to occur and harder to win.
The big problem, as I see it, is the constitution. Perniciously, it's not Scotland's place within it that is the problem but (essentially) England's. A new constitutional settlement between the Nations is required, one that allows a mechanism for the expression of English will outside of the national government but that will be inclusive to all the nations. Unfortunately, constitutional issues do not drive English politics and so it is difficult to see a democratic way through the impasse.
The only future for the United Kingdom is Federal. Without some major constitutional overhaul, all Westminster can do is refuse referenda and offer the devolved government more power by turn.
From super affluent San Francisco, ruined by Fentanyl, to impoverished Sierra Leone, destroying itself with "Kush" - a new drug (which is related to Spice as we know it in the UK?)
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Just think about how many lives were lost because Nicola & the SG didn’t always precede AstraZeneca with Oxford? All were due to red faced chaps having choking incidents, but still..
Why are both of you defending anti-science nonsense propagated by idiots? Or are you suggesting that the German and French leadership are so immature and stupid that, in the absence of adults, they can't help it?
From super affluent San Francisco, ruined by Fentanyl, to impoverished Sierra Leone, destroying itself with "Kush" - a new drug (which is related to Spice as we know it in the UK?)
View from my office window just now, as the sun goes down…
I saw on YouTube the video of the ad with the flight crew lady on top of the Burj holding up the signs. Bloody hell that’s a long way up.
828m, half a mile up. The ‘short’ buildings in the picture all all taller than the tallest building in the UK, which IIRC is the 300m ‘Shard’ in London.
Yes that advert is brilliant, Emirates airline are very good at marketing. They did a behind the scenes ad too, for when everyone said it was done with CGI and not by putting a woman at the top of the tower!
The only fakery is that she isn’t actually a cabin crew, she’s an instructor at the skydiving centre!
Well, the other fakery is that she only has two cards. The messages on the cards are CGI'd as necessary. Still, has got to be my favourite ad of 2021.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
I once had some good fun - I got some people really rilled up against Seventh Day Adventists. Foaming at the mouth about their ghastly beliefs and practices. One person even suggest they should have children taken away from them....
Then I showed them a picture of me helping out at a community event that involved the local Seventh Day Adventist church. When they saw who made up the church, they got very, very upset. With me.....
As indeed they might - you and your little games.
Well, if you are going to express bigotry concerning religious minorities, don't be shocked if they turn out to be racial minorities as well.
Assuming that funky brands of Christianity are white-people-only or that there isn't a nasty history of oppression of such groups.......
That the reactionary wing of Christianity very much isn't whites only certainly isn't news to me.
Most religions are "reactionary" in the sense of the not being on the politically/socially progressive side.
If you are up for condemning religions based on them being reactionary, then you will have to be comfortable with saying that religion X, primarily practised by ethnic minority Y, is a crock of shit.
Personally, I find condemning other peoples religions somewhere between rude and a waste of time.....
I split Religion into 2 parts when I think about it or comment on it. The faith in a higher power and the belief system as it applies to life on earth. The faith bit I like. I don't have it but wish I did. I don't find it irrational or to be criticized or mocked in any way. The belief system is also fine by me so long as it's based on equality and tolerance and kindness. If it isn't - and sadly this is sometimes the case - that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so.
You DO have faith in a higher power, you just don't realise. For you it is scientific materialism. The "established science" that has gone from saying the world is flat, to the world is round, to the world is the centre of everything, no it isn't the sun is, no it isn't the galaxy is all there is, no it isn't - errr - and from there to saying Newtonian Physics is the complete answer to No Newtownian Physics is nonsense Einstein is the answer and it is all relative and space time are a continuum No Wait things can be dead and alive at the same time and light is both wave and particle and errrrr the universe is mainly made up of dark matter we do not see and cannot understand NO WAIT there isn't just one universe there are MULTIPLE UNIVERSES AND MAYBE AN INFINITE NUMBER GOD KNOWS HOW MANY and also the virus came from an animal in a market and anyone that says otherwise should be CANCELLED oh wait OK Trump has gone so the virus, in fact, came from a lab
Yes, although science moves - and will keep moving - it's never rational for a layman to dispute what it's saying at any given point in time.
Eg, back when the world was flat, if some vivacious autodidact, having had a few tankards at his local tavern, had started opining floridly to all and sundry that it wasn't, it would be sensible to ignore him.
But that wasn't what I was talking about. By 'higher power' I mean something beyond all of that. Something we have neither words to explain nor even the theoretical ability to comprehend. I mean God. God.
At its more florid and extreme, physics easily becomes as inexplicable and subject-to-faith as religion
I mean, "an infinite number of parallel universes". Really? How is that any less outlandish and beyond human comprehension than a "Creator"?
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Just think about how many lives were lost because Nicola & the SG didn’t always precede AstraZeneca with Oxford? All were due to red faced chaps having choking incidents, but still..
Why are both of you defending anti-science nonsense propagated by idiots? Or are you suggesting that the German and French leadership are so immature and stupid that, in the absence of adults, they can't help it?
Are you seriously contending that the German and French leaderships are more immature and stupider than the English leadership? Because that’s a pretty impressive threshold they have to exceed.
Boris Johnson’s cabinet of course are renowned for their academic, pro-science vigour; lack of nonsense; maturity; and absence of idiocy. Er…
"A last minute intervention in Whitehall has delayed plans to tackle the backlog of patients on hospital waiting lists in England. Details of the NHS England scheme were expected to be published on Monday. The health secretary denied reports the Treasury had blocked the announcement, blaming the Omicron wave for the delay."
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
I once had some good fun - I got some people really rilled up against Seventh Day Adventists. Foaming at the mouth about their ghastly beliefs and practices. One person even suggest they should have children taken away from them....
Then I showed them a picture of me helping out at a community event that involved the local Seventh Day Adventist church. When they saw who made up the church, they got very, very upset. With me.....
As indeed they might - you and your little games.
Well, if you are going to express bigotry concerning religious minorities, don't be shocked if they turn out to be racial minorities as well.
Assuming that funky brands of Christianity are white-people-only or that there isn't a nasty history of oppression of such groups.......
That the reactionary wing of Christianity very much isn't whites only certainly isn't news to me.
Most religions are "reactionary" in the sense of the not being on the politically/socially progressive side.
If you are up for condemning religions based on them being reactionary, then you will have to be comfortable with saying that religion X, primarily practised by ethnic minority Y, is a crock of shit.
Personally, I find condemning other peoples religions somewhere between rude and a waste of time.....
I split Religion into 2 parts when I think about it or comment on it. The faith in a higher power and the belief system as it applies to life on earth. The faith bit I like. I don't have it but wish I did. I don't find it irrational or to be criticized or mocked in any way. The belief system is also fine by me so long as it's based on equality and tolerance and kindness. If it isn't - and sadly this is sometimes the case - that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so.
"I don't have it but wish I did" - interesting. An atheist who wishes he wasn't?
"that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so" - do you really criticise the major interpretation of all the Abrahamic religions (for example) ? Brave, if so.
No, I'm not an atheist. I'm a nothing. A big fat nothing. Yes, I'm ok with criticizing any beliefs propounded by any religion if they get up my nose. I don't think this is brave tbh - but I'll take that label if you insist.
Interesting - so do you criticise the major sects of Judaism, Islam and Christianity over their attitudes towards gay people?
If so, that puts you in the brave column, in the modern UK.
Yes I do (!) criticize the major sects of Judaism, Islam and Christianity over their attitudes towards gay people.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
I once had some good fun - I got some people really rilled up against Seventh Day Adventists. Foaming at the mouth about their ghastly beliefs and practices. One person even suggest they should have children taken away from them....
Then I showed them a picture of me helping out at a community event that involved the local Seventh Day Adventist church. When they saw who made up the church, they got very, very upset. With me.....
As indeed they might - you and your little games.
Well, if you are going to express bigotry concerning religious minorities, don't be shocked if they turn out to be racial minorities as well.
Assuming that funky brands of Christianity are white-people-only or that there isn't a nasty history of oppression of such groups.......
That the reactionary wing of Christianity very much isn't whites only certainly isn't news to me.
Most religions are "reactionary" in the sense of the not being on the politically/socially progressive side.
If you are up for condemning religions based on them being reactionary, then you will have to be comfortable with saying that religion X, primarily practised by ethnic minority Y, is a crock of shit.
Personally, I find condemning other peoples religions somewhere between rude and a waste of time.....
I split Religion into 2 parts when I think about it or comment on it. The faith in a higher power and the belief system as it applies to life on earth. The faith bit I like. I don't have it but wish I did. I don't find it irrational or to be criticized or mocked in any way. The belief system is also fine by me so long as it's based on equality and tolerance and kindness. If it isn't - and sadly this is sometimes the case - that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so.
You DO have faith in a higher power, you just don't realise. For you it is scientific materialism. The "established science" that has gone from saying the world is flat, to the world is round, to the world is the centre of everything, no it isn't the sun is, no it isn't the galaxy is all there is, no it isn't - errr - and from there to saying Newtonian Physics is the complete answer to No Newtownian Physics is nonsense Einstein is the answer and it is all relative and space time are a continuum No Wait things can be dead and alive at the same time and light is both wave and particle and errrrr the universe is mainly made up of dark matter we do not see and cannot understand NO WAIT there isn't just one universe there are MULTIPLE UNIVERSES AND MAYBE AN INFINITE NUMBER GOD KNOWS HOW MANY and also the virus came from an animal in a market and anyone that says otherwise should be CANCELLED oh wait OK Trump has gone so the virus, in fact, came from a lab
Yes, although science moves - and will keep moving - it's never rational for a layman to dispute what it's saying at any given point in time.
Eg, back when the world was flat, if some vivacious autodidact, having had a few tankards at his local tavern, had started opining floridly to all and sundry that it wasn't, it would be sensible to ignore him.
But that wasn't what I was talking about. By 'higher power' I mean something beyond all of that. Something we have neither words to explain nor even the theoretical ability to comprehend. I mean God. God.
At its more florid and extreme, physics easily becomes as inexplicable and subject-to-faith as religion
I mean, "an infinite number of parallel universes". Really? How is that any less outlandish and beyond human comprehension than a "Creator"?
I think people who don't believe in god spend zero time on such questions. While we know that the "correct" position is agnosticism because "no one knows", we do actually know. And even writing three lines on the matter has been a waste of my time.
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Just think about how many lives were lost because Nicola & the SG didn’t always precede AstraZeneca with Oxford? All were due to red faced chaps having choking incidents, but still..
Why are both of you defending anti-science nonsense propagated by idiots? Or are you suggesting that the German and French leadership are so immature and stupid that, in the absence of adults, they can't help it?
Are you seriously contending that the German and French leaderships are more immature and stupider than the English leadership? Because that’s a pretty impressive threshold they have to exceed.
Boris Johnson’s cabinet of course are renowned for their academic, pro-science vigour; lack of nonsense; maturity; and absence of idiocy. Er…
You won't criticise Macron's deadly idiocy because Boris? Ok..
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
I once had some good fun - I got some people really rilled up against Seventh Day Adventists. Foaming at the mouth about their ghastly beliefs and practices. One person even suggest they should have children taken away from them....
Then I showed them a picture of me helping out at a community event that involved the local Seventh Day Adventist church. When they saw who made up the church, they got very, very upset. With me.....
As indeed they might - you and your little games.
Well, if you are going to express bigotry concerning religious minorities, don't be shocked if they turn out to be racial minorities as well.
Assuming that funky brands of Christianity are white-people-only or that there isn't a nasty history of oppression of such groups.......
That the reactionary wing of Christianity very much isn't whites only certainly isn't news to me.
Most religions are "reactionary" in the sense of the not being on the politically/socially progressive side.
If you are up for condemning religions based on them being reactionary, then you will have to be comfortable with saying that religion X, primarily practised by ethnic minority Y, is a crock of shit.
Personally, I find condemning other peoples religions somewhere between rude and a waste of time.....
I split Religion into 2 parts when I think about it or comment on it. The faith in a higher power and the belief system as it applies to life on earth. The faith bit I like. I don't have it but wish I did. I don't find it irrational or to be criticized or mocked in any way. The belief system is also fine by me so long as it's based on equality and tolerance and kindness. If it isn't - and sadly this is sometimes the case - that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so.
You DO have faith in a higher power, you just don't realise. For you it is scientific materialism. The "established science" that has gone from saying the world is flat, to the world is round, to the world is the centre of everything, no it isn't the sun is, no it isn't the galaxy is all there is, no it isn't - errr - and from there to saying Newtonian Physics is the complete answer to No Newtownian Physics is nonsense Einstein is the answer and it is all relative and space time are a continuum No Wait things can be dead and alive at the same time and light is both wave and particle and errrrr the universe is mainly made up of dark matter we do not see and cannot understand NO WAIT there isn't just one universe there are MULTIPLE UNIVERSES AND MAYBE AN INFINITE NUMBER GOD KNOWS HOW MANY and also the virus came from an animal in a market and anyone that says otherwise should be CANCELLED oh wait OK Trump has gone so the virus, in fact, came from a lab
Yes, although science moves - and will keep moving - it's never rational for a layman to dispute what it's saying at any given point in time.
Eg, back when the world was flat, if some vivacious autodidact, having had a few tankards at his local tavern, had started opining floridly to all and sundry that it wasn't, it would be sensible to ignore him.
But that wasn't what I was talking about. By 'higher power' I mean something beyond all of that. Something we have neither words to explain nor even the theoretical ability to comprehend. I mean God. God.
Certain religious types are very smug about the two millennia (back at least as far as Aristotle, to the mid 20th century) it took for science to admit the Bible had it right all along, and the universe had a beginning.
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Just think about how many lives were lost because Nicola & the SG didn’t always precede AstraZeneca with Oxford? All were due to red faced chaps having choking incidents, but still..
Why are both of you defending anti-science nonsense propagated by idiots? Or are you suggesting that the German and French leadership are so immature and stupid that, in the absence of adults, they can't help it?
Because according to SD and TUD, who cares if European politicians potentially cost hundreds of thousands of lives just to save face? At least they're not an English politician governing plague island and holding Scotland to ransom.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
I once had some good fun - I got some people really rilled up against Seventh Day Adventists. Foaming at the mouth about their ghastly beliefs and practices. One person even suggest they should have children taken away from them....
Then I showed them a picture of me helping out at a community event that involved the local Seventh Day Adventist church. When they saw who made up the church, they got very, very upset. With me.....
As indeed they might - you and your little games.
Well, if you are going to express bigotry concerning religious minorities, don't be shocked if they turn out to be racial minorities as well.
Assuming that funky brands of Christianity are white-people-only or that there isn't a nasty history of oppression of such groups.......
That the reactionary wing of Christianity very much isn't whites only certainly isn't news to me.
Most religions are "reactionary" in the sense of the not being on the politically/socially progressive side.
If you are up for condemning religions based on them being reactionary, then you will have to be comfortable with saying that religion X, primarily practised by ethnic minority Y, is a crock of shit.
Personally, I find condemning other peoples religions somewhere between rude and a waste of time.....
I split Religion into 2 parts when I think about it or comment on it. The faith in a higher power and the belief system as it applies to life on earth. The faith bit I like. I don't have it but wish I did. I don't find it irrational or to be criticized or mocked in any way. The belief system is also fine by me so long as it's based on equality and tolerance and kindness. If it isn't - and sadly this is sometimes the case - that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so.
"I don't have it but wish I did" - interesting. An atheist who wishes he wasn't?
"that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so" - do you really criticise the major interpretation of all the Abrahamic religions (for example) ? Brave, if so.
No, I'm not an atheist. I'm a nothing. A big fat nothing. Yes, I'm ok with criticizing any beliefs propounded by any religion if they get up my nose. I don't think this is brave tbh - but I'll take that label if you insist.
It's perfectly acceptable to criticise a religion if you think it's wrong. But it's not the fact that that its belief system is not based on equality and tolerance that makes it wrong. The lack of equality and tolerance is because that's the way which those particular believers understand that their Gog wants them to behave. Faith isn't a little quirk of a fundamentally straightforward 20th century lifestyle. It is a fundamentally strange belief system - that there is an invisible higher power who requires certain things. Saying 'well that's ok as long as it doesn't fundamentally contradict 21st century western liberal views' rather misses the point.
There was a Marcus Brigstocke book about this. I got very angry with it. The sub-heading could have been 'ha, ha, look at these people, they don't even conform to 21st century liberal views, they can't possibly be right'. It was such a missed opportunity. If believers are wrong, they are wrong because of the fundamental aspect of their belief that rules of behaviour are handed down by a higher power - not because of the rather secondary consideration that they've misinterpreted those rules. If believers are right - well, who are we to know exactly how the higher power wants us to behave? From my point of view on the outside of religion, if there is a higher power, how am I to have any degree of certainty what the rules are? Maybe those of the 21st century Church of England. Maybe those of the taliban. Maybe those of the Orthodox Jews of North London, or the 16th century puritans, of the Catholic Church of the 9th century AD, or one of the tribal religions of South America.
We can't say 'it's ok to take your belief system from faith in a God, as long as that God agrees with 21st century western liberal norms, otherwise your God is wrong'. Does that not sound astonishingly arrogant - that we are the only people in history who might be right? Does it not seem vanishingly unlikely that we were interpreting God's requirements all wrong right up until the second half of the twentieth century, after which we started getting it right?
I should stress that I do believe in 21st century liberal norms. But I believe in them because they strike me as the best way for human society to arrange itself, not because I think a higher power has decreed them.
(And, in all probability, my belief in 21st century liberal norms is probably driven by the context in which I live my life rather than by dispassionate assessment. I'd like to think that I have independently arrived at the conclusion that 21st century societal norms are the correct ones. But transport most of us who believe in 21st century societal norms and have us grow up in ancient Sparta, and what would we believe? Most of us would believe in the norms of ancient Sparta. I'd like to think I'd be one of the few independent thinkers - but the chances of that are pretty slim.)
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Just think about how many lives were lost because Nicola & the SG didn’t always precede AstraZeneca with Oxford? All were due to red faced chaps having choking incidents, but still..
Why are both of you defending anti-science nonsense propagated by idiots? Or are you suggesting that the German and French leadership are so immature and stupid that, in the absence of adults, they can't help it?
Are you seriously contending that the German and French leaderships are more immature and stupider than the English leadership? Because that’s a pretty impressive threshold they have to exceed.
Boris Johnson’s cabinet of course are renowned for their academic, pro-science vigour; lack of nonsense; maturity; and absence of idiocy. Er…
Marcon and *some* people in Europe made big mistakes with their public positions on certain vaccines and vaccinations. These positions have had negative repercussions in their own countries and worldwide.
That's worthy of debate.
It's nothing to do with 'John Bull' or anything else you oddly want to bring into it.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
I once had some good fun - I got some people really rilled up against Seventh Day Adventists. Foaming at the mouth about their ghastly beliefs and practices. One person even suggest they should have children taken away from them....
Then I showed them a picture of me helping out at a community event that involved the local Seventh Day Adventist church. When they saw who made up the church, they got very, very upset. With me.....
As indeed they might - you and your little games.
Well, if you are going to express bigotry concerning religious minorities, don't be shocked if they turn out to be racial minorities as well.
Assuming that funky brands of Christianity are white-people-only or that there isn't a nasty history of oppression of such groups.......
That the reactionary wing of Christianity very much isn't whites only certainly isn't news to me.
Most religions are "reactionary" in the sense of the not being on the politically/socially progressive side.
If you are up for condemning religions based on them being reactionary, then you will have to be comfortable with saying that religion X, primarily practised by ethnic minority Y, is a crock of shit.
Personally, I find condemning other peoples religions somewhere between rude and a waste of time.....
I split Religion into 2 parts when I think about it or comment on it. The faith in a higher power and the belief system as it applies to life on earth. The faith bit I like. I don't have it but wish I did. I don't find it irrational or to be criticized or mocked in any way. The belief system is also fine by me so long as it's based on equality and tolerance and kindness. If it isn't - and sadly this is sometimes the case - that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so.
You DO have faith in a higher power, you just don't realise. For you it is scientific materialism. The "established science" that has gone from saying the world is flat, to the world is round, to the world is the centre of everything, no it isn't the sun is, no it isn't the galaxy is all there is, no it isn't - errr - and from there to saying Newtonian Physics is the complete answer to No Newtownian Physics is nonsense Einstein is the answer and it is all relative and space time are a continuum No Wait things can be dead and alive at the same time and light is both wave and particle and errrrr the universe is mainly made up of dark matter we do not see and cannot understand NO WAIT there isn't just one universe there are MULTIPLE UNIVERSES AND MAYBE AN INFINITE NUMBER GOD KNOWS HOW MANY and also the virus came from an animal in a market and anyone that says otherwise should be CANCELLED oh wait OK Trump has gone so the virus, in fact, came from a lab
Yes, although science moves - and will keep moving - it's never rational for a layman to dispute what it's saying at any given point in time.
Eg, back when the world was flat, if some vivacious autodidact, having had a few tankards at his local tavern, had started opining floridly to all and sundry that it wasn't, it would be sensible to ignore him.
But that wasn't what I was talking about. By 'higher power' I mean something beyond all of that. Something we have neither words to explain nor even the theoretical ability to comprehend. I mean God. God.
At its more florid and extreme, physics easily becomes as inexplicable and subject-to-faith as religion
I mean, "an infinite number of parallel universes". Really? How is that any less outlandish and beyond human comprehension than a "Creator"?
That's a good point. Cutting edge physics may as well be God for all I can comprehend it. And it shares a key characteristic with Religion - and indeed Brexit - in that when being pitched to the masses it relies 100% on metaphors because it is otherwise inexplicable.
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Yes but you only need to look at your posts to realise your prejudice is about 10 times worse than any Brexiteer poster on here. Continuously feed yourself on your own version of Scots gammon, a diet of hatred for anything English, in the same way that the more extreme Brexiteers think of foreigners. The hypocrisy would be funny if it were not so toxic. And all from a man who loves his country so much he choses to live in a different one.
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Just think about how many lives were lost because Nicola & the SG didn’t always precede AstraZeneca with Oxford? All were due to red faced chaps having choking incidents, but still..
Why are both of you defending anti-science nonsense propagated by idiots? Or are you suggesting that the German and French leadership are so immature and stupid that, in the absence of adults, they can't help it?
Are you seriously contending that the German and French leaderships are more immature and stupider than the English leadership? Because that’s a pretty impressive threshold they have to exceed.
Boris Johnson’s cabinet of course are renowned for their academic, pro-science vigour; lack of nonsense; maturity; and absence of idiocy. Er…
It's not a comparison. By the standards of rationality, people in the German and French leadership acted in an immature and stupid manner in this matter.
Incidentally, the EU medicines people behaved in a punctiliously correct manner on the same issue.
Apparently he’s a bit of a nutter, not taken particularly seriously.
A "friend" - expert on the area (you gotta trust me on this) tells me he doesn't expect Russia to invade. If they wanted to they would have already. We were having a boozy lunch so I didn't grill him on it much further but he has been speaking to key influencers in the matter.
Says Biden is handling it well allowing compromise and face saving.
Happy to throw my weight behind that. I agree with your friend.
Anyhoo, quite an interesting article here on the potential for soft SNP voters to take a look at Labour again. The pensions brouhaha perhaps a trigger for new thinking? (To be taken with a modest pinch of salt given Scottish Labour's less than stellar recent history though....)
When the SNP announced their pension policy shift, arguing now that UK taxpayers would pick up the bill for Scottish pensions post-independence, it reminded me of two things. First, the moment during the 2014 independence campaign when the baffling currency union policy of sharing the pound and Bank of England post-independence was announced. And second, an old joke, immortalised in Annie Hall, about two women in a restaurant complaining:
Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of ’em says, “Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.” The other one says, “Yeah, I know; and such small portions!”
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Just think about how many lives were lost because Nicola & the SG didn’t always precede AstraZeneca with Oxford? All were due to red faced chaps having choking incidents, but still..
Why are both of you defending anti-science nonsense propagated by idiots? Or are you suggesting that the German and French leadership are so immature and stupid that, in the absence of adults, they can't help it?
Are you seriously contending that the German and French leaderships are more immature and stupider than the English leadership? Because that’s a pretty impressive threshold they have to exceed.
Boris Johnson’s cabinet of course are renowned for their academic, pro-science vigour; lack of nonsense; maturity; and absence of idiocy. Er…
You won't criticise Macron's deadly idiocy because Boris? Ok..
He doesn't like the AZ vaccine or want to admit it's brilliance because it is "English" as he sees it. This is the tiny mind of an extreme Scottish Nationalist
Apparently he’s a bit of a nutter, not taken particularly seriously.
A "friend" - expert on the area (you gotta trust me on this) tells me he doesn't expect Russia to invade. If they wanted to they would have already. We were having a boozy lunch so I didn't grill him on it much further but he has been speaking to key influencers in the matter.
Says Biden is handling it well allowing compromise and face saving.
Happy to throw my weight behind that. I agree with your friend.
Been clear for a while that Johnson and Truss were on squirrel-spotting duties.
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘s recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
You only need to see the hysteria from Carlotta , she is going mental nowadays , obviously someone worried.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
I once had some good fun - I got some people really rilled up against Seventh Day Adventists. Foaming at the mouth about their ghastly beliefs and practices. One person even suggest they should have children taken away from them....
Then I showed them a picture of me helping out at a community event that involved the local Seventh Day Adventist church. When they saw who made up the church, they got very, very upset. With me.....
As indeed they might - you and your little games.
Well, if you are going to express bigotry concerning religious minorities, don't be shocked if they turn out to be racial minorities as well.
Assuming that funky brands of Christianity are white-people-only or that there isn't a nasty history of oppression of such groups.......
That the reactionary wing of Christianity very much isn't whites only certainly isn't news to me.
Most religions are "reactionary" in the sense of the not being on the politically/socially progressive side.
If you are up for condemning religions based on them being reactionary, then you will have to be comfortable with saying that religion X, primarily practised by ethnic minority Y, is a crock of shit.
Personally, I find condemning other peoples religions somewhere between rude and a waste of time.....
I split Religion into 2 parts when I think about it or comment on it. The faith in a higher power and the belief system as it applies to life on earth. The faith bit I like. I don't have it but wish I did. I don't find it irrational or to be criticized or mocked in any way. The belief system is also fine by me so long as it's based on equality and tolerance and kindness. If it isn't - and sadly this is sometimes the case - that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so.
You DO have faith in a higher power, you just don't realise. For you it is scientific materialism. The "established science" that has gone from saying the world is flat, to the world is round, to the world is the centre of everything, no it isn't the sun is, no it isn't the galaxy is all there is, no it isn't - errr - and from there to saying Newtonian Physics is the complete answer to No Newtownian Physics is nonsense Einstein is the answer and it is all relative and space time are a continuum No Wait things can be dead and alive at the same time and light is both wave and particle and errrrr the universe is mainly made up of dark matter we do not see and cannot understand NO WAIT there isn't just one universe there are MULTIPLE UNIVERSES AND MAYBE AN INFINITE NUMBER GOD KNOWS HOW MANY and also the virus came from an animal in a market and anyone that says otherwise should be CANCELLED oh wait OK Trump has gone so the virus, in fact, came from a lab
Yes, although science moves - and will keep moving - it's never rational for a layman to dispute what it's saying at any given point in time.
Eg, back when the world was flat, if some vivacious autodidact, having had a few tankards at his local tavern, had started opining floridly to all and sundry that it wasn't, it would be sensible to ignore him.
But that wasn't what I was talking about. By 'higher power' I mean something beyond all of that. Something we have neither words to explain nor even the theoretical ability to comprehend. I mean God. God.
At its more florid and extreme, physics easily becomes as inexplicable and subject-to-faith as religion
I mean, "an infinite number of parallel universes". Really? How is that any less outlandish and beyond human comprehension than a "Creator"?
I think people who don't believe in god spend zero time on such questions. While we know that the "correct" position is agnosticism because "no one knows", we do actually know. And even writing three lines on the matter has been a waste of my time.
A lack of faith in God is not a choice, it is a marginally sad mental handicap
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
I once had some good fun - I got some people really rilled up against Seventh Day Adventists. Foaming at the mouth about their ghastly beliefs and practices. One person even suggest they should have children taken away from them....
Then I showed them a picture of me helping out at a community event that involved the local Seventh Day Adventist church. When they saw who made up the church, they got very, very upset. With me.....
As indeed they might - you and your little games.
Well, if you are going to express bigotry concerning religious minorities, don't be shocked if they turn out to be racial minorities as well.
Assuming that funky brands of Christianity are white-people-only or that there isn't a nasty history of oppression of such groups.......
That the reactionary wing of Christianity very much isn't whites only certainly isn't news to me.
Most religions are "reactionary" in the sense of the not being on the politically/socially progressive side.
If you are up for condemning religions based on them being reactionary, then you will have to be comfortable with saying that religion X, primarily practised by ethnic minority Y, is a crock of shit.
Personally, I find condemning other peoples religions somewhere between rude and a waste of time.....
I split Religion into 2 parts when I think about it or comment on it. The faith in a higher power and the belief system as it applies to life on earth. The faith bit I like. I don't have it but wish I did. I don't find it irrational or to be criticized or mocked in any way. The belief system is also fine by me so long as it's based on equality and tolerance and kindness. If it isn't - and sadly this is sometimes the case - that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so.
"I don't have it but wish I did" - interesting. An atheist who wishes he wasn't?
"that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so" - do you really criticise the major interpretation of all the Abrahamic religions (for example) ? Brave, if so.
No, I'm not an atheist. I'm a nothing. A big fat nothing. Yes, I'm ok with criticizing any beliefs propounded by any religion if they get up my nose. I don't think this is brave tbh - but I'll take that label if you insist.
It's perfectly acceptable to criticise a religion if you think it's wrong. But it's not the fact that that its belief system is not based on equality and tolerance that makes it wrong. The lack of equality and tolerance is because that's the way which those particular believers understand that their Gog wants them to behave. Faith isn't a little quirk of a fundamentally straightforward 20th century lifestyle. It is a fundamentally strange belief system - that there is an invisible higher power who requires certain things. Saying 'well that's ok as long as it doesn't fundamentally contradict 21st century western liberal views' rather misses the point.
There was a Marcus Brigstocke book about this. I got very angry with it. The sub-heading could have been 'ha, ha, look at these people, they don't even conform to 21st century liberal views, they can't possibly be right'. It was such a missed opportunity. If believers are wrong, they are wrong because of the fundamental aspect of their belief that rules of behaviour are handed down by a higher power - not because of the rather secondary consideration that they've misinterpreted those rules. If believers are right - well, who are we to know exactly how the higher power wants us to behave? From my point of view on the outside of religion, if there is a higher power, how am I to have any degree of certainty what the rules are? Maybe those of the 21st century Church of England. Maybe those of the taliban. Maybe those of the Orthodox Jews of North London, or the 16th century puritans, of the Catholic Church of the 9th century AD, or one of the tribal religions of South America.
We can't say 'it's ok to take your belief system from faith in a God, as long as that God agrees with 21st century western liberal norms, otherwise your God is wrong'. Does that not sound astonishingly arrogant - that we are the only people in history who might be right? Does it not seem vanishingly unlikely that we were interpreting God's requirements all wrong right up until the second half of the twentieth century, after which we started getting it right?
I should stress that I do believe in 21st century liberal norms. But I believe in them because they strike me as the best way for human society to arrange itself, not because I think a higher power has decreed them.
(And, in all probability, my belief in 21st century liberal norms is probably driven by the context in which I live my life rather than by dispassionate assessment. I'd like to think that I have independently arrived at the conclusion that 21st century societal norms are the correct ones. But transport most of us who believe in 21st century societal norms and have us grow up in ancient Sparta, and what would we believe? Most of us would believe in the norms of ancient Sparta. I'd like to think I'd be one of the few independent thinkers - but the chances of that are pretty slim.)
It should be pointed out that even in the 21st century 84% of the world's population are still religious, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh, Jewish, Buddhist or a folk religion.
However only 9.9% of the global population lives in the liberal West ie western Europe, Israel, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. That is even including the very religious, conservative pro Trump southern and border states USA and Japan and Singapore in the liberal West.
I would suggest therefore religion is rather more secure than western liberalism in the world today
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
I once had some good fun - I got some people really rilled up against Seventh Day Adventists. Foaming at the mouth about their ghastly beliefs and practices. One person even suggest they should have children taken away from them....
Then I showed them a picture of me helping out at a community event that involved the local Seventh Day Adventist church. When they saw who made up the church, they got very, very upset. With me.....
As indeed they might - you and your little games.
Well, if you are going to express bigotry concerning religious minorities, don't be shocked if they turn out to be racial minorities as well.
Assuming that funky brands of Christianity are white-people-only or that there isn't a nasty history of oppression of such groups.......
That the reactionary wing of Christianity very much isn't whites only certainly isn't news to me.
Most religions are "reactionary" in the sense of the not being on the politically/socially progressive side.
If you are up for condemning religions based on them being reactionary, then you will have to be comfortable with saying that religion X, primarily practised by ethnic minority Y, is a crock of shit.
Personally, I find condemning other peoples religions somewhere between rude and a waste of time.....
I split Religion into 2 parts when I think about it or comment on it. The faith in a higher power and the belief system as it applies to life on earth. The faith bit I like. I don't have it but wish I did. I don't find it irrational or to be criticized or mocked in any way. The belief system is also fine by me so long as it's based on equality and tolerance and kindness. If it isn't - and sadly this is sometimes the case - that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so.
You DO have faith in a higher power, you just don't realise. For you it is scientific materialism. The "established science" that has gone from saying the world is flat, to the world is round, to the world is the centre of everything, no it isn't the sun is, no it isn't the galaxy is all there is, no it isn't - errr - and from there to saying Newtonian Physics is the complete answer to No Newtownian Physics is nonsense Einstein is the answer and it is all relative and space time are a continuum No Wait things can be dead and alive at the same time and light is both wave and particle and errrrr the universe is mainly made up of dark matter we do not see and cannot understand NO WAIT there isn't just one universe there are MULTIPLE UNIVERSES AND MAYBE AN INFINITE NUMBER GOD KNOWS HOW MANY and also the virus came from an animal in a market and anyone that says otherwise should be CANCELLED oh wait OK Trump has gone so the virus, in fact, came from a lab
Yes, although science moves - and will keep moving - it's never rational for a layman to dispute what it's saying at any given point in time.
Eg, back when the world was flat, if some vivacious autodidact, having had a few tankards at his local tavern, had started opining floridly to all and sundry that it wasn't, it would be sensible to ignore him.
But that wasn't what I was talking about. By 'higher power' I mean something beyond all of that. Something we have neither words to explain nor even the theoretical ability to comprehend. I mean God. God.
At its more florid and extreme, physics easily becomes as inexplicable and subject-to-faith as religion
I mean, "an infinite number of parallel universes". Really? How is that any less outlandish and beyond human comprehension than a "Creator"?
I think people who don't believe in god spend zero time on such questions. While we know that the "correct" position is agnosticism because "no one knows", we do actually know. And even writing three lines on the matter has been a waste of my time.
A lack of faith in God is not a choice, it is a marginally sad mental handicap
View from my office window just now, as the sun goes down…
I saw on YouTube the video of the ad with the flight crew lady on top of the Burj holding up the signs. Bloody hell that’s a long way up.
828m, half a mile up. The ‘short’ buildings in the picture all all taller than the tallest building in the UK, which IIRC is the 300m ‘Shard’ in London.
Yes that advert is brilliant, Emirates airline are very good at marketing. They did a behind the scenes ad too, for when everyone said it was done with CGI and not by putting a woman at the top of the tower!
The only fakery is that she isn’t actually a cabin crew, she’s an instructor at the skydiving centre!
Ah that would make the relaxed smile much more understandable. I will look out the "making of" vid. I daren't ask where her 'chute was hidden.....!
Don’t think she had a ‘chute, but two climbing harnesses and a metal pole hiding behind her.
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘a recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
Who is going to grant this "referendum"?
Certainly not the Tories. Even if Boris goes, any Tory replacement will encounter the same logic. Why risk the Union, when there is a perfectly good argument ("once a generation") to say no to a vote?
Not gonna happen. That takes us to 2024. If the Tories win, then again they will say No for the same reason
So you need Starmer to win. If he gets a majority he will also say No, for the same reasons, with the ADDED incentive that one day the Labour Party needs to win again in Scotland, not secede it forever
So that leaves just one shot, Starmer as PM of a NOM Labour govt, dependant on the SNP for any votes. In that situation it is, I suppose, just about conceivable he might yield a vote, but I gravely doubt it as there is no way the Nats will vote him down and put Boris/Tories back in, so he is assured of their support if it comes to the crunch
AT SOME POINT if the Scots keep electing a Nat government which wants another indyref then yes, Westminster will reluctantly yield, but they won't do that until the "generation" argument is exhausted, and they are even less likely to do that any time the polls look good for the Nats
So you're a bit fucked. I reckon Sindyref2 will happen in the 2030s and this time London will be much harder in negotiating the timing, the question and the suffrage
I think you're right, in terms of what will happen, but the once in a generation argument is not a good one, nor is it sustainable for harmonious relationships between the constituent countries. It risks storing up a lot of resentments and greivances (what harm one more, I hear you say?) for the future and I think will make a future sindyRef both more likely to occur and harder to win.
The big problem, as I see it, is the constitution. Perniciously, it's not Scotland's place within it that is the problem but (essentially) England's. A new constitutional settlement between the Nations is required, one that allows a mechanism for the expression of English will outside of the national government but that will be inclusive to all the nations. Unfortunately, constitutional issues do not drive English politics and so it is difficult to see a democratic way through the impasse.
The only future for the United Kingdom is Federal. Without some major constitutional overhaul, all Westminster can do is refuse referenda and offer the devolved government more power by turn.
The latter being exactly what a future Starmer led government would likely do, with a Brown led commission for devomax
Listening to a bit of Jimmy Carr. He is undoubtedly funny (haven't got to "the" bit).
As he himself notes however it is slightly "interesting" to have some of the minority jokes come from a straight white man.
One of if not the unfunniest comedienne's I have ever heard, rahter have my doo daa's in a vice than listen to him.
Who's your favourite comedienne, then Malcetta?
Would have said Victoria Wood but she is no longer with us, not that many about just now. I do like Mickey Flanagan and Peter Kay who is not about much these days. If historic , then Chic Murray , Billy Connolly , Tommy Cooper.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
I once had some good fun - I got some people really rilled up against Seventh Day Adventists. Foaming at the mouth about their ghastly beliefs and practices. One person even suggest they should have children taken away from them....
Then I showed them a picture of me helping out at a community event that involved the local Seventh Day Adventist church. When they saw who made up the church, they got very, very upset. With me.....
As indeed they might - you and your little games.
Well, if you are going to express bigotry concerning religious minorities, don't be shocked if they turn out to be racial minorities as well.
Assuming that funky brands of Christianity are white-people-only or that there isn't a nasty history of oppression of such groups.......
That the reactionary wing of Christianity very much isn't whites only certainly isn't news to me.
Most religions are "reactionary" in the sense of the not being on the politically/socially progressive side.
If you are up for condemning religions based on them being reactionary, then you will have to be comfortable with saying that religion X, primarily practised by ethnic minority Y, is a crock of shit.
Personally, I find condemning other peoples religions somewhere between rude and a waste of time.....
I split Religion into 2 parts when I think about it or comment on it. The faith in a higher power and the belief system as it applies to life on earth. The faith bit I like. I don't have it but wish I did. I don't find it irrational or to be criticized or mocked in any way. The belief system is also fine by me so long as it's based on equality and tolerance and kindness. If it isn't - and sadly this is sometimes the case - that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so.
You DO have faith in a higher power, you just don't realise. For you it is scientific materialism. The "established science" that has gone from saying the world is flat, to the world is round, to the world is the centre of everything, no it isn't the sun is, no it isn't the galaxy is all there is, no it isn't - errr - and from there to saying Newtonian Physics is the complete answer to No Newtownian Physics is nonsense Einstein is the answer and it is all relative and space time are a continuum No Wait things can be dead and alive at the same time and light is both wave and particle and errrrr the universe is mainly made up of dark matter we do not see and cannot understand NO WAIT there isn't just one universe there are MULTIPLE UNIVERSES AND MAYBE AN INFINITE NUMBER GOD KNOWS HOW MANY and also the virus came from an animal in a market and anyone that says otherwise should be CANCELLED oh wait OK Trump has gone so the virus, in fact, came from a lab
Yes, although science moves - and will keep moving - it's never rational for a layman to dispute what it's saying at any given point in time.
Eg, back when the world was flat, if some vivacious autodidact, having had a few tankards at his local tavern, had started opining floridly to all and sundry that it wasn't, it would be sensible to ignore him.
But that wasn't what I was talking about. By 'higher power' I mean something beyond all of that. Something we have neither words to explain nor even the theoretical ability to comprehend. I mean God. God.
At its more florid and extreme, physics easily becomes as inexplicable and subject-to-faith as religion
I mean, "an infinite number of parallel universes". Really? How is that any less outlandish and beyond human comprehension than a "Creator"?
That's a good point. Cutting edge physics may as well be God for all I can comprehend it. And it shares a key characteristic with Religion - and indeed Brexit - in that when being pitched to the masses it relies 100% on metaphors because it is otherwise inexplicable.
I believe the issue is the same in both cases
We are a highly evolved bipedal primate - basically a very cheeky monkey - on one planet in one solar system in one galaxy in maybe seventy billion galaxies in one universe, and there may be seventy billion gazillion fucketty-squillion parallel universes all existing at the same time or clustered within atoms or literally orbiting my quite sizeable ego, who the hell knows
The chances are we are nudging up against the limits of human comprehension. The corners of the IQ envelope. Einstein had an IQ of 220, like Newton, so it is thought, but perhaps to understand THE COSMOS you need an IQ of 3,492,558. Or much more
This seems likely to me. It is akin to our senses. We can see better than moles, dog can smell much better than us, we can do maths quite well, a crap computer can now beat anyone at chess, GPT672 will be able to think far in advance of any human brain.
We simply aren't equipped to understand the entire multiverse. Why should we be? Unless you believe that, er, God made us cheeky moneys unique and brilliant and the best species in all of existence anywhere
I don't think that. This is why the outer extremes of physics oddly resemble the fundamental tenets of religion. You are exiting the atmosphere of human comprehension. Everything at this ultra-height appears to deep blue to black, and it is unsurvivable for more than a minute
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
This is why England has lost her spunk. It was always a big boy what done it and run away.
It really is tragic to witness.
You are being needlessly stupid on this. The accusation is that Macron and the German journalist/minister killed their own people by what they said and did. I fail to understand what this has to do with England losing its 'spunk'?
Listening to a bit of Jimmy Carr. He is undoubtedly funny (haven't got to "the" bit).
As he himself notes however it is slightly "interesting" to have some of the minority jokes come from a straight white man.
One of if not the unfunniest comedienne's I have ever heard, rahter have my doo daa's in a vice than listen to him.
Who's your favourite comedienne, then Malcetta?
Would have said Victoria Wood but she is no longer with us, not that many about just now. I do like Mickey Flanagan and Peter Kay who is not about much these days. If historic , then Chic Murray , Billy Connolly , Tommy Cooper.
Royal Town Planning Institute @RTPIPlanners New research by @TfNHomes finds that many new housing estates are built around the car - not around walking, cycling & public transport.
RTPI Infrastructure Specialist @_HarrySteele was part of the 'Building Car Dependency' steering group.
Although it's hardly surprising given that outside the South East few people could get to / from work via a train.
Nothing wrong with having estates built around cars, real life is built around cars and this is the 21st century so of course we should be planning for cars to be a fact of life.
My issue has been the lack of dedicated off road parking suitable for car charging in many estates nowadays. You very often get off road car parks behind housing or similar which is ridiculous when all those cars are going to need charging in a few years time.
Communal car parks may be an efficient use of space to eek out room for one more house on the street but they're not future proofed for electric cars.
Apparently he’s a bit of a nutter, not taken particularly seriously.
A "friend" - expert on the area (you gotta trust me on this) tells me he doesn't expect Russia to invade. If they wanted to they would have already. We were having a boozy lunch so I didn't grill him on it much further but he has been speaking to key influencers in the matter.
Says Biden is handling it well allowing compromise and face saving.
Happy to throw my weight behind that. I agree with your friend.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
I once had some good fun - I got some people really rilled up against Seventh Day Adventists. Foaming at the mouth about their ghastly beliefs and practices. One person even suggest they should have children taken away from them....
Then I showed them a picture of me helping out at a community event that involved the local Seventh Day Adventist church. When they saw who made up the church, they got very, very upset. With me.....
As indeed they might - you and your little games.
Well, if you are going to express bigotry concerning religious minorities, don't be shocked if they turn out to be racial minorities as well.
Assuming that funky brands of Christianity are white-people-only or that there isn't a nasty history of oppression of such groups.......
That the reactionary wing of Christianity very much isn't whites only certainly isn't news to me.
Most religions are "reactionary" in the sense of the not being on the politically/socially progressive side.
If you are up for condemning religions based on them being reactionary, then you will have to be comfortable with saying that religion X, primarily practised by ethnic minority Y, is a crock of shit.
Personally, I find condemning other peoples religions somewhere between rude and a waste of time.....
I split Religion into 2 parts when I think about it or comment on it. The faith in a higher power and the belief system as it applies to life on earth. The faith bit I like. I don't have it but wish I did. I don't find it irrational or to be criticized or mocked in any way. The belief system is also fine by me so long as it's based on equality and tolerance and kindness. If it isn't - and sadly this is sometimes the case - that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so.
You DO have faith in a higher power, you just don't realise. For you it is scientific materialism. The "established science" that has gone from saying the world is flat, to the world is round, to the world is the centre of everything, no it isn't the sun is, no it isn't the galaxy is all there is, no it isn't - errr - and from there to saying Newtonian Physics is the complete answer to No Newtownian Physics is nonsense Einstein is the answer and it is all relative and space time are a continuum No Wait things can be dead and alive at the same time and light is both wave and particle and errrrr the universe is mainly made up of dark matter we do not see and cannot understand NO WAIT there isn't just one universe there are MULTIPLE UNIVERSES AND MAYBE AN INFINITE NUMBER GOD KNOWS HOW MANY and also the virus came from an animal in a market and anyone that says otherwise should be CANCELLED oh wait OK Trump has gone so the virus, in fact, came from a lab
Yes, although science moves - and will keep moving - it's never rational for a layman to dispute what it's saying at any given point in time.
Eg, back when the world was flat, if some vivacious autodidact, having had a few tankards at his local tavern, had started opining floridly to all and sundry that it wasn't, it would be sensible to ignore him.
But that wasn't what I was talking about. By 'higher power' I mean something beyond all of that. Something we have neither words to explain nor even the theoretical ability to comprehend. I mean God. God.
At its more florid and extreme, physics easily becomes as inexplicable and subject-to-faith as religion
I mean, "an infinite number of parallel universes". Really? How is that any less outlandish and beyond human comprehension than a "Creator"?
That's a good point. Cutting edge physics may as well be God for all I can comprehend it. And it shares a key characteristic with Religion - and indeed Brexit - in that when being pitched to the masses it relies 100% on metaphors because it is otherwise inexplicable.
Even at its weirdest end, however, we have substantially more evidence for the universe behaving as cutting-edge physics says it does than we do for the universe behaving as Christianity says it does.
That said, of course, I don't have it personally. I'm reliant on my faith that the various wizards at CERN etc have smashed the atoms together in the way they describe and that the outputs show what they claim they do.
On which subject, a rather pleasing joke from the most recent Half Man Half Biscuit album (it may not be original):
- Large Hardon Collider - Who's there? - Knock, knock.
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘s recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
Oh, where's he been putting his tuba then?
It was him who kicked off this whole pensions nonsense last week. He lives in a time warp. Bit sad really.
(Has he defected to the Tories? I’m sure I read that somewhere, but his Wiki bio still has him as Labour.)
He still has his fans on here (without a vote, unfortunately for him and them). One in particular I imagine staring at pics of him like Nadine does at BJ.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
I once had some good fun - I got some people really rilled up against Seventh Day Adventists. Foaming at the mouth about their ghastly beliefs and practices. One person even suggest they should have children taken away from them....
Then I showed them a picture of me helping out at a community event that involved the local Seventh Day Adventist church. When they saw who made up the church, they got very, very upset. With me.....
As indeed they might - you and your little games.
Well, if you are going to express bigotry concerning religious minorities, don't be shocked if they turn out to be racial minorities as well.
Assuming that funky brands of Christianity are white-people-only or that there isn't a nasty history of oppression of such groups.......
That the reactionary wing of Christianity very much isn't whites only certainly isn't news to me.
Most religions are "reactionary" in the sense of the not being on the politically/socially progressive side.
If you are up for condemning religions based on them being reactionary, then you will have to be comfortable with saying that religion X, primarily practised by ethnic minority Y, is a crock of shit.
Personally, I find condemning other peoples religions somewhere between rude and a waste of time.....
I split Religion into 2 parts when I think about it or comment on it. The faith in a higher power and the belief system as it applies to life on earth. The faith bit I like. I don't have it but wish I did. I don't find it irrational or to be criticized or mocked in any way. The belief system is also fine by me so long as it's based on equality and tolerance and kindness. If it isn't - and sadly this is sometimes the case - that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so.
You DO have faith in a higher power, you just don't realise. For you it is scientific materialism. The "established science" that has gone from saying the world is flat, to the world is round, to the world is the centre of everything, no it isn't the sun is, no it isn't the galaxy is all there is, no it isn't - errr - and from there to saying Newtonian Physics is the complete answer to No Newtownian Physics is nonsense Einstein is the answer and it is all relative and space time are a continuum No Wait things can be dead and alive at the same time and light is both wave and particle and errrrr the universe is mainly made up of dark matter we do not see and cannot understand NO WAIT there isn't just one universe there are MULTIPLE UNIVERSES AND MAYBE AN INFINITE NUMBER GOD KNOWS HOW MANY and also the virus came from an animal in a market and anyone that says otherwise should be CANCELLED oh wait OK Trump has gone so the virus, in fact, came from a lab
Yes, although science moves - and will keep moving - it's never rational for a layman to dispute what it's saying at any given point in time.
Eg, back when the world was flat, if some vivacious autodidact, having had a few tankards at his local tavern, had started opining floridly to all and sundry that it wasn't, it would be sensible to ignore him.
But that wasn't what I was talking about. By 'higher power' I mean something beyond all of that. Something we have neither words to explain nor even the theoretical ability to comprehend. I mean God. God.
At its more florid and extreme, physics easily becomes as inexplicable and subject-to-faith as religion
I mean, "an infinite number of parallel universes". Really? How is that any less outlandish and beyond human comprehension than a "Creator"?
That's a good point. Cutting edge physics may as well be God for all I can comprehend it. And it shares a key characteristic with Religion - and indeed Brexit - in that when being pitched to the masses it relies 100% on metaphors because it is otherwise inexplicable.
Even at its weirdest end, however, we have substantially more evidence for the universe behaving as cutting-edge physics says it does than we do for the universe behaving as Christianity says it does.
That said, of course, I don't have it personally. I'm reliant on my faith that the various wizards at CERN etc have smashed the atoms together in the way they describe and that the outputs show what they claim they do.
On which subject, a rather pleasing joke from the most recent Half Man Half Biscuit album (it may not be original):
- Large Hardon Collider - Who's there? - Knock, knock.
A trust chain over physical, identifiable people is different than trust in a Big Invisible Friend.
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
This is why England has lost her spunk. It was always a big boy what done it and run away.
It really is tragic to witness.
You are being needlessly stupid on this. The accusation is that Macron and the German journalist/minister killed their own people by what they said and did. I fail to understand what this has to do with England losing its 'spunk'?
He is so bitter, as is common in nationalists, that any sense of objectivity is impossible for him to relate to in his pursuit of his divisive attitudes
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
This is why England has lost her spunk. It was always a big boy what done it and run away.
It really is tragic to witness.
You are being needlessly stupid on this. The accusation is that Macron and the German journalist/minister killed their own people by what they said and did. I fail to understand what this has to do with England losing its 'spunk'?
The English live in the heads of the entire world, rent free. Therefore anything bad that anyone does, outside England, isn't their fault. The English did it.
The Macaroon tried not to do it, but the Little Englanders inside his head drove him around like a robot.......
Listening to a bit of Jimmy Carr. He is undoubtedly funny (haven't got to "the" bit).
As he himself notes however it is slightly "interesting" to have some of the minority jokes come from a straight white man.
One of if not the unfunniest comedienne's I have ever heard, rahter have my doo daa's in a vice than listen to him.
Who's your favourite comedienne, then Malcetta?
Would have said Victoria Wood but she is no longer with us, not that many about just now. I do like Mickey Flanagan and Peter Kay who is not about much these days. If historic , then Chic Murray , Billy Connolly , Tommy Cooper.
Royal Town Planning Institute @RTPIPlanners New research by @TfNHomes finds that many new housing estates are built around the car - not around walking, cycling & public transport.
RTPI Infrastructure Specialist @_HarrySteele was part of the 'Building Car Dependency' steering group.
Although it's hardly surprising given that outside the South East few people could get to / from work via a train.
Nothing wrong with having estates built around cars, real life is built around cars and this is the 21st century so of course we should be planning for cars to be a fact of life.
My issue has been the lack of dedicated off road parking suitable for car charging in many estates nowadays. You very often get off road car parks behind housing or similar which is ridiculous when all those cars are going to need charging in a few years time.
Communal car parks may be an efficient use of space to eek out room for one more house on the street but they're not future proofed for electric cars.
Designing with cars primarily in mind is a bad idea. There is a housing development which is in for planning in the village we live for a couple of hundred houses. The primary access to the site is via a main road going away from the village. For anyone in the site to access the village amenities, including schools, they would need to go away from the village, join a main road and then travel quite a distance back down the main road into the centre. At a brisk walk I would put it as 15 minutes to reach any amenity as a result and for some almost 25. Going on the bike then needs to go on the main car route. Who is going to do that with kids?
What are they going to do instead? They are all going to jump in their cars. 1.5 cars per household would mean an extra 300 cars on the road in the local area plus them trying to find car parking spots at school drop off/pick up time. It would cause chaos.
The site has some other issues (e.g. flood risk). It was fortunately sent back to the developers to come back with a new plan in a large part due to the lack of sustainable transport options. Due to the location of the site I don't actually see how they solve the problem.
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘s recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
Oh, where's he been putting his tuba then?
It was him who kicked off this whole pensions nonsense last week. He lives in a time warp. Bit sad really.
(Has he defected to the Tories? I’m sure I read that somewhere, but his Wiki bio still has him as Labour.)
He still has his fans on here (without a vote, unfortunately for him and them). One in particular I imagine staring at pics of him like Nadine does at BJ.
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
This is why England has lost her spunk. It was always a big boy what done it and run away.
It really is tragic to witness.
You are being needlessly stupid on this. The accusation is that Macron and the German journalist/minister killed their own people by what they said and did. I fail to understand what this has to do with England losing its 'spunk'?
He is so bitter, as is common in nationalists, that any sense of objectivity is impossible for him to relate to in his pursuit of his divisive attitudes
It is a little sad that anyone can be so stupid to think a vaccine of all things should be a thing to become nationalistic about (and I include Tories in that), particularly as all pharma companies are about as international as you can get in terms of personnel. I imagine there were probably a fair few Scots in the AZ team, but they are probably not "true" Scots as they live in England and are therefore race traitors.
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Howard (Lord) Flight: It looks as if Boris Johnson may “hang in there” for a while longer, although his days are surely numbered. He has lost the support of the coalition of parties which elected him. The longer he limps on the more damage he does to the Conservatives. A replacement Prime Minister will also need adequate time to settle into the job ahead of a General Election. Johnson will get some credit for his vaccination success, although this is already history. I do not see there being anything he can do to restore his reputation and popularity.
Comments
Maybe Rishi suffers from the Head Boy curse- being good enough to be top isn't quite enough in politics; you also need a certain killer instinct.
I still find it hard to like Dubai, however
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
https://twitter.com/RTPIPlanners/status/1490679103233658882
Royal Town Planning Institute
@RTPIPlanners
New research by
@TfNHomes
finds that many new housing estates are built around the car - not around walking, cycling & public transport.
RTPI Infrastructure Specialist
@_HarrySteele
was part of the 'Building Car Dependency' steering group.
Find out more: https://rtpi.org.uk/news/2022/february/report-highlights-role-of-car-dependency-in-new-housing-developments/
Although it's hardly surprising given that outside the South East few people could get to / from work via a train.
My local Tory council has kindly replaced the Council Tax Benefit form, previously a single A4 sheet, with a 48 page document, requiring multiple forms of ID, including passport or driving licence, and every bank account statements from within 4 weeks to be handed to the Council for an unspecified length of time. With no guarantee of security or safe return. Nor time scale.
All of which replicates, and, in the case of ID and bank statements, far exceeds the info to claim UC. Which can be done Online, or on the day at interview.
Tories bloody love red tape. Don't let them tell you otherwise.
If he resigned today, the letters would come flooding in and there would be a fair chance Johnson would miss the salvation number in a VONC.
If he is still Chancellor when the economic train wrecks, he becomes forever associated with crashing the economy.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘s recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
I'm guessing it's a really right on (dare I say woke) audience, the sort who would apply for tickets to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue and think the R4 midweek 6.30 comedy shows are funny.
And they are applauding jokes about rapists, people with hypochondroplasia (! - not what he calls it) and eventually apparently the holocaust.
In the pub or a dinner party these people would be shocked at the content even if delivered as expertly as Carr delivers his material.
Is it because of all his tv work? I don't know.
But most of the comedians on those panel shows these days, their live acts are tediously "right-on" and vanilla e.g. Russell Howard latest special is like a name check of all the "correct" causes, BLM, trans-rights, and the only mocking of those topics are in the context of thick right wing bigots.
I used to like Mark Thomas because although he miles to the left of me and will have plenty of a pop at right wing / Tories / rich, he also loves having a dig at some of the loons on his own side. Most of his stories are flavoured with the idiotic things some leftie hippy type did at a protest.
It really is tragic to witness.
Finding the culture here takes effort, but it’s something that is constantly getting better. The World’s Fair is here at the moment, and open for next couple of months. It’s a bit cold today though, only 25°C at the moment.
Certainly not the Tories. Even if Boris goes, any Tory replacement will encounter the same logic. Why risk the Union, when there is a perfectly good argument ("once a generation") to say no to a vote?
Not gonna happen. That takes us to 2024. If the Tories win, then again they will say No for the same reason
So you need Starmer to win. If he gets a majority he will also say No, for the same reasons, with the ADDED incentive that one day the Labour Party needs to win again in Scotland, not secede it forever
So that leaves just one shot, Starmer as PM of a NOM Labour govt, dependant on the SNP for any votes. In that situation it is, I suppose, just about conceivable he might yield a vote, but I gravely doubt it as there is no way the Nats will vote him down and put Boris/Tories back in, so he is assured of their support if it comes to the crunch
AT SOME POINT if the Scots keep electing a Nat government which wants another indyref then yes, Westminster will reluctantly yield, but they won't do that until the "generation" argument is exhausted, and they are even less likely to do that any time the polls look good for the Nats
So you're a bit fucked. I reckon Sindyref2 will happen in the 2030s and this time London will be much harder in negotiating the timing, the question and the suffrage
(Has he defected to the Tories? I’m sure I read that somewhere, but his Wiki bio still has him as Labour.)
I would really like to see the camera pan out to the audience to get a feel for the audience mix. It (the Netflix show) was filmed in Southend so would be interesting to see who came to see it.
A police investigation might officially declare rules broken and fine him.
But still sceptical that will sway Tory MPs.
It will be... "we all bent the rules a bit..." and "he's paid his fine, time to move on"...
There will be a VoNC, but I think he will win, and so survive. Anyone expecting Boris Johnson "to do the decent thing" hasn't been paying attention.
Who has lost their spunk?
Yes that advert is brilliant, Emirates airline are very good at marketing. They did a behind the scenes ad too, for when everyone said it was done with CGI and not by putting a woman at the top of the tower!
The only fakery is that she isn’t actually a cabin crew, she’s an instructor at the skydiving centre!
As for defecting to the Tories, does it really make any difference in Scotland?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10484417/Top-hardline-Russian-general-warns-Putin-NOT-invade-Ukraine-accuses-criminal-policy.html
How long does each renewal / claim of the new benefit system take to process compared to the old one.
What is the cost of processing each application.
How many people have failed to renew.
Insert other questions here - there are more but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
Eg, back when the world was flat, if some vivacious autodidact, having had a few tankards at his local tavern, had started opining floridly to all and sundry that it wasn't, it would be sensible to ignore him.
But that wasn't what I was talking about. By 'higher power' I mean something beyond all of that. Something we have neither words to explain nor even the theoretical ability to comprehend. I mean God. God.
And acceptable ID for DWP, and by extension HMRC just isn't good enough for the Council.
They want a level of detail far in excess of a UC claim. They also want to see, and keep, your original bank statements from every account. Replicated for every member of your household, too.
If so, that puts you in the brave column, in the modern UK.
Let’s see how many red-faced Herd members have a wee choking fit.
Says Biden is handling it well allowing compromise and face saving.
The big problem, as I see it, is the constitution. Perniciously, it's not Scotland's place within it that is the problem but (essentially) England's. A new constitutional settlement between the Nations is required, one that allows a mechanism for the expression of English will outside of the national government but that will be inclusive to all the nations. Unfortunately, constitutional issues do not drive English politics and so it is difficult to see a democratic way through the impasse.
The only future for the United Kingdom is Federal. Without some major constitutional overhaul, all Westminster can do is refuse referenda and offer the devolved government more power by turn.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-africa-60260738
I sometimes wonder if humanity itself will survive this wave of synthetic narcotics
The messages on the cards are CGI'd as necessary.
Still, has got to be my favourite ad of 2021.
I mean, "an infinite number of parallel universes". Really? How is that any less outlandish and beyond human comprehension than a "Creator"?
Boris Johnson’s cabinet of course are renowned for their academic, pro-science vigour; lack of nonsense; maturity; and absence of idiocy. Er…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60283636
Please send my George Cross to PO BOX 007 CTP.
Faith isn't a little quirk of a fundamentally straightforward 20th century lifestyle. It is a fundamentally strange belief system - that there is an invisible higher power who requires certain things. Saying 'well that's ok as long as it doesn't fundamentally contradict 21st century western liberal views' rather misses the point.
There was a Marcus Brigstocke book about this. I got very angry with it. The sub-heading could have been 'ha, ha, look at these people, they don't even conform to 21st century liberal views, they can't possibly be right'. It was such a missed opportunity. If believers are wrong, they are wrong because of the fundamental aspect of their belief that rules of behaviour are handed down by a higher power - not because of the rather secondary consideration that they've misinterpreted those rules. If believers are right - well, who are we to know exactly how the higher power wants us to behave? From my point of view on the outside of religion, if there is a higher power, how am I to have any degree of certainty what the rules are? Maybe those of the 21st century Church of England. Maybe those of the taliban. Maybe those of the Orthodox Jews of North London, or the 16th century puritans, of the Catholic Church of the 9th century AD, or one of the tribal religions of South America.
We can't say 'it's ok to take your belief system from faith in a God, as long as that God agrees with 21st century western liberal norms, otherwise your God is wrong'. Does that not sound astonishingly arrogant - that we are the only people in history who might be right? Does it not seem vanishingly unlikely that we were interpreting God's requirements all wrong right up until the second half of the twentieth century, after which we started getting it right?
I should stress that I do believe in 21st century liberal norms. But I believe in them because they strike me as the best way for human society to arrange itself, not because I think a higher power has decreed them.
(And, in all probability, my belief in 21st century liberal norms is probably driven by the context in which I live my life rather than by dispassionate assessment. I'd like to think that I have independently arrived at the conclusion that 21st century societal norms are the correct ones. But transport most of us who believe in 21st century societal norms and have us grow up in ancient Sparta, and what would we believe? Most of us would believe in the norms of ancient Sparta. I'd like to think I'd be one of the few independent thinkers - but the chances of that are pretty slim.)
That's worthy of debate.
It's nothing to do with 'John Bull' or anything else you oddly want to bring into it.
Incidentally, the EU medicines people behaved in a punctiliously correct manner on the same issue.
Anyhoo, quite an interesting article here on the potential for soft SNP voters to take a look at Labour again. The pensions brouhaha perhaps a trigger for new thinking? (To be taken with a modest pinch of salt given Scottish Labour's less than stellar recent history though....)
https://www.labourhame.com/the-beginning-of-the-end/
Extract:
When the SNP announced their pension policy shift, arguing now that UK taxpayers would pick up the bill for Scottish pensions post-independence, it reminded me of two things. First, the moment during the 2014 independence campaign when the baffling currency union policy of sharing the pound and Bank of England post-independence was announced. And second, an old joke, immortalised in Annie Hall, about two women in a restaurant complaining:
Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of ’em says, “Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.” The other one says, “Yeah, I know; and such small portions!”
However only 9.9% of the global population lives in the liberal West ie western Europe, Israel, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. That is even including the very religious, conservative pro Trump southern and border states USA and Japan and Singapore in the liberal West.
I would suggest therefore religion is rather more secure than western liberalism in the world today
We are a highly evolved bipedal primate - basically a very cheeky monkey - on one planet in one solar system in one galaxy in maybe seventy billion galaxies in one universe, and there may be seventy billion gazillion fucketty-squillion parallel universes all existing at the same time or clustered within atoms or literally orbiting my quite sizeable ego, who the hell knows
The chances are we are nudging up against the limits of human comprehension. The corners of the IQ envelope. Einstein had an IQ of 220, like Newton, so it is thought, but perhaps to understand THE COSMOS you need an IQ of 3,492,558. Or much more
This seems likely to me. It is akin to our senses. We can see better than moles, dog can smell much better than us, we can do maths quite well, a crap computer can now beat anyone at chess, GPT672 will be able to think far in advance of any human brain.
We simply aren't equipped to understand the entire multiverse. Why should we be? Unless you believe that, er, God made us cheeky moneys unique and brilliant and the best species in all of existence anywhere
I don't think that. This is why the outer extremes of physics oddly resemble the fundamental tenets of religion. You are exiting the atmosphere of human comprehension. Everything at this ultra-height appears to deep blue to black, and it is unsurvivable for more than a minute
My issue has been the lack of dedicated off road parking suitable for car charging in many estates nowadays. You very often get off road car parks behind housing or similar which is ridiculous when all those cars are going to need charging in a few years time.
Communal car parks may be an efficient use of space to eek out room for one more house on the street but they're not future proofed for electric cars.
I understand Guto asked Boris if he will survive and they then did a duet of 'I will survive'
Boris then appears with his tie stuffed into his shirt and muttering through a face mask, yet again at a hospital
The whole thing is cringeworthy and you long for someone to hook him off
This has to be brought to an end and time for conservative mps to act decisively, notwithstanding their apparent reluctance
Please make it stop
That said, of course, I don't have it personally. I'm reliant on my faith that the various wizards at CERN etc have smashed the atoms together in the way they describe and that the outputs show what they claim they do.
On which subject, a rather pleasing joke from the most recent Half Man Half Biscuit album (it may not be original):
- Large Hardon Collider
- Who's there?
- Knock, knock.
*Although most are simply new wards, or car parks or something. Or maybe built out of cardboard boxes like his buses...
The Macaroon tried not to do it, but the Little Englanders inside his head drove him around like a robot.......
What are they going to do instead? They are all going to jump in their cars. 1.5 cars per household would mean an extra 300 cars on the road in the local area plus them trying to find car parking spots at school drop off/pick up time. It would cause chaos.
The site has some other issues (e.g. flood risk). It was fortunately sent back to the developers to come back with a new plan in a large part due to the lack of sustainable transport options. Due to the location of the site I don't actually see how they solve the problem.