Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
What part of that aren't you understanding? He's entirely right, the fact some fools are pushing the price higher, doesn't make him wrong.
Lol, ok boomer
Apart from the fact I'm a Millenial, that's just a dumb reply.
It's not my fault if you don't understand the technology and choose to make deliberately provocative nonsense posts like "it would still be expensive at $1"
Contrast that with RCS1000s fairly measured take where he worked out a value of (I think it was around) $1500 based on transaction volume and throughput.
You're just hysterical and seem to have an irrational hatred for bitcoin that I find amusing, to say the least. It's not going to $1. Maybe it's going to $1500. Maybe not.
But either way, I'm not inclined to listen to Peter Schiff's bad takes, when he's been proven hilariously wrong so many times, as the 2018 tweet I shared with you demonstrates.
He's not been proved wrong. Just because idiots drive the price of something above what its worth, does not make it magically worth more than its really worth, and the price will inevitably come back down. Gamestop surged to over $350 at one stage, before coming back down to earth.
I understand the technology, but the technology can exist without Bitcoin. How much are shares in MySpace worth today? The Bitcoin technology will exist long after Bitcoin ceases to.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
So few people go to church these days that I doubt they're electorally significant in many constituencies.
Hmm, I can think of one possible constituency. The Conservative Party membership.
My church is changing the centuries old term for the role of "overseer" as not in keeping with the times because of its slavery connotations.
Thinking about it, we realised it wasn't a great term, just time-honoured.
That's interesting. What have you replaced it with, and will you repeat the operation with other titles that are similarly perceived by some as pejorative in other contexts, such as "Elder"?
ISTM that one challenge is that you can end up with a term that is perceived as inoffensive as no one outside understands it, such as "Deacon".
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
What part of that aren't you understanding? He's entirely right, the fact some fools are pushing the price higher, doesn't make him wrong.
Lol, ok boomer
Apart from the fact I'm a Millenial, that's just a dumb reply.
It's not my fault if you don't understand the technology and choose to make deliberately provocative nonsense posts like "it would still be expensive at $1"
Contrast that with RCS1000s fairly measured take where he worked out a value of (I think it was around) $1500 based on transaction volume and throughput.
You're just hysterical and seem to have an irrational hatred for bitcoin that I find amusing, to say the least. It's not going to $1. Maybe it's going to $1500. Maybe not.
But either way, I'm not inclined to listen to Peter Schiff's bad takes, when he's been proven hilariously wrong so many times, as the 2018 tweet I shared with you demonstrates.
As I know you know, there's a difference between value based on cashflows, expected target price based on market sentiment, and a consensus valuation based on business environment. RCS calculated the former, BR is talking about the latter, and the current situation is really based on the middle one.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
So few people go to church these days that I doubt they're electorally significant in many constituencies.
If you add all the congregations together though you probably do get a significant number. And the other point to take into account is that, particularly in the Church of England, a lot of those people are the people who footsoldier for the Tory party.
So year to date the price of oil has gone up 73%, and the value of the pound to the dollar has dropped 11%. No wonder pump prices are going from *stupid* to *really stupid*.
Any chance the government are focused on this crisis this morning...?
The rumours are coming out of the Fed, that they’re seriously considering a full percentage point raise in interest rates tonight. 75bps remains the forecast from most analysts, which is quickly getting priced into the currency markets.
But Is there a difference between slower increases over time based on foresight, big jumps in short space based on lack of foresight?
Or put another one, is their inherent vice in bigger increases over shorter space of time.
The problem is that they were too slow to start raising rates in the first place. The effect of rate rises takes time to manifest itself in the economy, and now the Fed is behind the curve.
The US economy is totally screwed, which those in power are denying because of the elections in November. They are trying to keep the economy pumped up on financial drugs for five months more.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
(1) The place has a population of 200. Not all voters but then not all the demonstrators are. That's 4.5% of the population right there (counting the photographer). (2) It is in a Tory constituency (Mr Jack; Dumfries and Galloway).
Valid question being asked. Why is it that Tories who laud Churchill now attack the European Convention on Human Rights which was one of his finest post-war achievements?
I doubt Churchill would have supported illegal immigration.
Churchill was a huge fan of illegal immigration, he was a fan of the British Empire which was illegal immigration on an industrial scale.
He was also opposed to people taking back control from their unelected rulers.
My church is changing the centuries old term for the role of "overseer" as not in keeping with the times because of its slavery connotations.
Thinking about it, we realised it wasn't a great term, just time-honoured.
That's interesting. What have you replaced it with, and will you repeat the operation with other titles that are similarly perceived by some as pejorative in other contexts, such as "Elder"?
ISTM that one challenge is that you can end up with a term that is perceived as inoffensive as no one outside understands it, such as "Deacon".
That's interesting, I agree. Overseer and elder are, at least, gender-neutral.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Much truth in this. SFAICS this group turned up to vote - only just - for TM because she was one of them and Jezza was the alternative; turned up in force to make sure Brexit got done because that's democracy, and Jezza was kept out; and now form part of the core group of usually Tories who no longer think that Boris is a grown up William Brown and prefer a boring social democrat/liberal democrat to a selfish womanising slob.
Though I should think Augustus Carp and Simeon Whey still vote Tory.
Algarkirk .... or Carkeek?
I am just returned from transferring my worship to St James-the- Lesser-Still, Peckham Rye.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Much truth in this. SFAICS this group turned up to vote - only just - for TM because she was one of them and Jezza was the alternative; turned up in force to make sure Brexit got done because that's democracy, and Jezza was kept out; and now form part of the core group of usually Tories who no longer think that Boris is a grown up William Brown and prefer a boring social democrat/liberal democrat to a selfish womanising slob.
Though I should think Augustus Carp and Simeon Whey still vote Tory.
Algarkirk .... or Carkeek?
I am just returned from transferring my worship to St James-the- Lesser-Still, Peckham Rye.
Valid question being asked. Why is it that Tories who laud Churchill now attack the European Convention on Human Rights which was one of his finest post-war achievements?
I doubt Churchill would have supported illegal immigration.
Churchill was a huge fan of illegal immigration, he was a fan of the British Empire which was illegal immigration on an industrial scale.
Not to mention invading the Mahdi state, Orange Free State, Transvaal, Natal, Iceland ...
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
What part of that aren't you understanding? He's entirely right, the fact some fools are pushing the price higher, doesn't make him wrong.
Lol, ok boomer
Apart from the fact I'm a Millenial, that's just a dumb reply.
It's not my fault if you don't understand the technology and choose to make deliberately provocative nonsense posts like "it would still be expensive at $1"
Contrast that with RCS1000s fairly measured take where he worked out a value of (I think it was around) $1500 based on transaction volume and throughput.
You're just hysterical and seem to have an irrational hatred for bitcoin that I find amusing, to say the least. It's not going to $1. Maybe it's going to $1500. Maybe not.
But either way, I'm not inclined to listen to Peter Schiff's bad takes, when he's been proven hilariously wrong so many times, as the 2018 tweet I shared with you demonstrates.
He's not been proved wrong. Just because idiots drive the price of something above what its worth, does not make it magically worth more than its really worth, and the price will inevitably come back down. Gamestop surged to over $350 at one stage, before coming back down to earth.
I understand the technology, but the technology can exist without Bitcoin. How much are shares in MySpace worth today? The Bitcoin technology will exist long after Bitcoin ceases to.
As Bitcoin requires 0.5% of worldwide energy use to mine it, I can see a situation where Bitcoin is indeed banned by international convention.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
So few people go to church these days that I doubt they're electorally significant in many constituencies.
There are 2-3 million in the UK (publicity tends to focus on CoE weekly attendance which gives only a small % of the total picture) and they generally all vote. If you count occasionals there may be 5million. In 2019 the Tories got 3.65 million more votes than Labour.
In terms of groups churchgoers are massive. The NHS employs 1.4 million. I suggest that we regard that as a big group for voting purposes (or at least I bet Labour does).
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
What part of that aren't you understanding? He's entirely right, the fact some fools are pushing the price higher, doesn't make him wrong.
Lol, ok boomer
Apart from the fact I'm a Millenial, that's just a dumb reply.
It's not my fault if you don't understand the technology and choose to make deliberately provocative nonsense posts like "it would still be expensive at $1"
Contrast that with RCS1000s fairly measured take where he worked out a value of (I think it was around) $1500 based on transaction volume and throughput.
You're just hysterical and seem to have an irrational hatred for bitcoin that I find amusing, to say the least. It's not going to $1. Maybe it's going to $1500. Maybe not.
But either way, I'm not inclined to listen to Peter Schiff's bad takes, when he's been proven hilariously wrong so many times, as the 2018 tweet I shared with you demonstrates.
He's not been proved wrong. Just because idiots drive the price of something above what its worth, does not make it magically worth more than its really worth, and the price will inevitably come back down. Gamestop surged to over $350 at one stage, before coming back down to earth.
I understand the technology, but the technology can exist without Bitcoin. How much are shares in MySpace worth today? The Bitcoin technology will exist long after Bitcoin ceases to.
As Bitcoin requires 0.5% of worldwide energy use to mine it, I can see a situation where Bitcoin is indeed banned by international convention.
And hence I can foresee a Bitcoin value of zero.
I believe the death of Bitcoin would be the equivalent of 20% of all flights being removed from the air.
Valid question being asked. Why is it that Tories who laud Churchill now attack the European Convention on Human Rights which was one of his finest post-war achievements?
I doubt Churchill would have supported illegal immigration.
I doubt you'll find anybody who supports illegal immigration, apart from a handful of nutters.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
So few people go to church these days that I doubt they're electorally significant in many constituencies.
Depending on how you count, a bit more than a million practicing Anglicans, similar number of Catholics, similar number of "others". Let's say three million practicing Christians in total.
Not enough to swing an election- but consider who they are. Predominantly older, generally quite civic-minded, relatively traditional morals. The kind of people who really ought to be voting Conservative. Heck, the roughly equivalent political tradition in many European countries is called Christian Democracy.
They (we) find it hard to vote for Johnson, what with all the lying, bullying and whatnot. But the Rwanda plan is the latest cat poo on top of the trifle. Not just because of the random ineffectual cruelty (though that's relevant, of course that's relevant). But also because Christian ethics have always been very clear- it's not OK to do a bad thing for a good result. The ends can never justify the means. That might be a foolish thing to believe, but that's how it is.
Still, I'm sure that the Conservative Party and their new electorate will be very happy together. But the circumstances that led to the triumph of 2019 (gaining new voters while retaining old ones, having your cake and eating it so to speak) don't look like repeating.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
Much truth in this. SFAICS this group turned up to vote - only just - for TM because she was one of them and Jezza was the alternative; turned up in force to make sure Brexit got done because that's democracy, and Jezza was kept out; and now form part of the core group of usually Tories who no longer think that Boris is a grown up William Brown and prefer a boring social democrat/liberal democrat to a selfish womanising slob.
Though I should think Augustus Carp and Simeon Whey still vote Tory.
Algarkirk .... or Carkeek?
I am just returned from transferring my worship to St James-the- Lesser-Still, Peckham Rye.
I do love that book. HYUFD to a T.
A masterpiece of humour, still relatively unknown. Like the minor works of Jerome K Jerome (try the Diary of a Pilgrimage) or Terry Major-Ball's 'Major Major', an unconsciously hilarious book about his brother John. Unmissable.
My church is changing the centuries old term for the role of "overseer" as not in keeping with the times because of its slavery connotations.
Thinking about it, we realised it wasn't a great term, just time-honoured.
That's interesting. What have you replaced it with, and will you repeat the operation with other titles that are similarly perceived by some as pejorative in other contexts, such as "Elder"?
ISTM that one challenge is that you can end up with a term that is perceived as inoffensive as no one outside understands it, such as "Deacon".
That's interesting, I agree. Overseer and elder are, at least, gender-neutral.
Diakonos is servant. The overseer word being rejected is presumably episkopos, bishop, but why you can't say bishop I have no idea. It seems it's etymologically the same thing but who knew?
Christianity is a slavery friendly religion anyway, the implication of a that go the extra mile stuff is slaves should beaver away for their owners and collect a reward in the kingdom of heaven
So year to date the price of oil has gone up 73%, and the value of the pound to the dollar has dropped 11%. No wonder pump prices are going from *stupid* to *really stupid*.
Any chance the government are focused on this crisis this morning...?
Nope - equally though it's probably best if they don't do anything to solve the crisis as their solution will inevitably make things worse rather than better.
In general, it would be best if the Government continue to follow a policy of shouting loudly about the horrors and iniquities they see everywhere, and then not actually doing anything. The closer they get to doing something, the worse the outcome.
ETA: It's probably electorally best for them, too.
I hate disagreeing with the sensible and thoughtful posters, but isn’t trying to hide lack of delivery with gimmicks so short on shelf life?
For example, “at least we are doing something - now what would you do?” is no defence of a policy, it comes across as admittance you don’t really believe in it yourself! How long can that be kept up before it crashes and burns?
There’s two huge dangers to the the government here, firstly, with their attempt at stopping the gush of asylum seekers, if it gets to having to fly them all back from Rwanda as Pritti Patel has now promised the UK courts, that will be quite a hit for them to take in the credibility stakes and opinion polls - it’s got to stick now, it’s got to work, it’s got to be watertight legal, and this feeds into my second point, all these roads the government are taking this summer, Rwanda Plan, Help on cost of living crisis, increase in interest rates and suppressing pay rises, beating the EU and changing the NIP has to work for them, or else this growing farce and chaos will force their own party to remove this government and try another approach, to save as many MPs as possible. They have taken these roads now, and it’s got to work.
Complimentary when you fly first class on Emirates though.
What don't you pay extra for on Ryanair?
Oxygen but give it time.
There’s a spoof Ryanair safety briefing out there somewhere:
“In the event of a loss of cabin pressure, oxygen masks will be available to rent for only £25. Insert your credit card into the slot in the ceiling and the mask will be deployed. Pull the mask towards you and put over your nose and mouth, then breathe normally. Please rent your own mask before renting masks for others”
My church is changing the centuries old term for the role of "overseer" as not in keeping with the times because of its slavery connotations.
Thinking about it, we realised it wasn't a great term, just time-honoured.
That's interesting. What have you replaced it with, and will you repeat the operation with other titles that are similarly perceived by some as pejorative in other contexts, such as "Elder"?
ISTM that one challenge is that you can end up with a term that is perceived as inoffensive as no one outside understands it, such as "Deacon".
That's interesting, I agree. Overseer and elder are, at least, gender-neutral.
Diakonos is servant. The overseer word being rejected is presumably episkopos, bishop, but why you can't say bishop I have no idea. It seems it's etymologically the same thing but who knew?
Christianity is a slavery friendly religion anyway, the implication of a that go the extra mile stuff is slaves should beaver away for their owners and collect a reward in the kingdom of heaven
St Paul: I Corinthians 7. 21: "Slaves, if you can gain your freedom, do so."
Complimentary when you fly first class on Emirates though.
What don't you pay extra for on Ryanair?
Oxygen but give it time.
There’s a spoof Ryanair safety briefing out there somewhere:
“In the event of a loss of cabin pressure, oxygen masks will be available to rent for only £25. Insert your credit card into the slot in the ceiling and the mask will be deployed. Pull the mask towards you and put over your nose and mouth, then breathe normally. Please rent your own mask before renting masks for others”
Due to the number of oxygen masks damaged or destroyed during rental by consumers a damage deposit of £1000 will be taken per mask.
My church is changing the centuries old term for the role of "overseer" as not in keeping with the times because of its slavery connotations.
Thinking about it, we realised it wasn't a great term, just time-honoured.
That's interesting. What have you replaced it with, and will you repeat the operation with other titles that are similarly perceived by some as pejorative in other contexts, such as "Elder"?
ISTM that one challenge is that you can end up with a term that is perceived as inoffensive as no one outside understands it, such as "Deacon".
That's interesting, I agree. Overseer and elder are, at least, gender-neutral.
Diakonos is servant. The overseer word being rejected is presumably episkopos, bishop, but why you can't say bishop I have no idea. It seems it's etymologically the same thing but who knew?
Christianity is a slavery friendly religion anyway, the implication of a that go the extra mile stuff is slaves should beaver away for their owners and collect a reward in the kingdom of heaven
Presbyterian is of course derived from presbys = elder. Not sure if they would bother changing the Greek words themselves, and at least in the C of S 'deacon' has/had specific meanings already (originally a parish treasurer/auditor; now an auxiliary or extraparochial sort of minister).
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
What part of that aren't you understanding? He's entirely right, the fact some fools are pushing the price higher, doesn't make him wrong.
Lol, ok boomer
Apart from the fact I'm a Millenial, that's just a dumb reply.
It's not my fault if you don't understand the technology and choose to make deliberately provocative nonsense posts like "it would still be expensive at $1"
Contrast that with RCS1000s fairly measured take where he worked out a value of (I think it was around) $1500 based on transaction volume and throughput.
You're just hysterical and seem to have an irrational hatred for bitcoin that I find amusing, to say the least. It's not going to $1. Maybe it's going to $1500. Maybe not.
But either way, I'm not inclined to listen to Peter Schiff's bad takes, when he's been proven hilariously wrong so many times, as the 2018 tweet I shared with you demonstrates.
He's not been proved wrong. Just because idiots drive the price of something above what its worth, does not make it magically worth more than its really worth, and the price will inevitably come back down. Gamestop surged to over $350 at one stage, before coming back down to earth.
I understand the technology, but the technology can exist without Bitcoin. How much are shares in MySpace worth today? The Bitcoin technology will exist long after Bitcoin ceases to.
As Bitcoin requires 0.5% of worldwide energy use to mine it, I can see a situation where Bitcoin is indeed banned by international convention.
And hence I can foresee a Bitcoin value of zero.
I believe the death of Bitcoin would be the equivalent of 20% of all flights being removed from the air.
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
What part of that aren't you understanding? He's entirely right, the fact some fools are pushing the price higher, doesn't make him wrong.
Lol, ok boomer
Apart from the fact I'm a Millenial, that's just a dumb reply.
It's not my fault if you don't understand the technology and choose to make deliberately provocative nonsense posts like "it would still be expensive at $1"
Contrast that with RCS1000s fairly measured take where he worked out a value of (I think it was around) $1500 based on transaction volume and throughput.
You're just hysterical and seem to have an irrational hatred for bitcoin that I find amusing, to say the least. It's not going to $1. Maybe it's going to $1500. Maybe not.
But either way, I'm not inclined to listen to Peter Schiff's bad takes, when he's been proven hilariously wrong so many times, as the 2018 tweet I shared with you demonstrates.
He's not been proved wrong. Just because idiots drive the price of something above what its worth, does not make it magically worth more than its really worth, and the price will inevitably come back down. Gamestop surged to over $350 at one stage, before coming back down to earth.
I understand the technology, but the technology can exist without Bitcoin. How much are shares in MySpace worth today? The Bitcoin technology will exist long after Bitcoin ceases to.
As Bitcoin requires 0.5% of worldwide energy use to mine it, I can see a situation where Bitcoin is indeed banned by international convention.
And hence I can foresee a Bitcoin value of zero.
I believe the death of Bitcoin would be the equivalent of 20% of all flights being removed from the air.
Hope they ban private jets first.
As a libertarian, I'd far rather see Bitcoin die a deserved death of its own accord, due to its own inherent failures, than see the state pick it as a loser.
My church is changing the centuries old term for the role of "overseer" as not in keeping with the times because of its slavery connotations.
Thinking about it, we realised it wasn't a great term, just time-honoured.
That's interesting. What have you replaced it with, and will you repeat the operation with other titles that are similarly perceived by some as pejorative in other contexts, such as "Elder"?
ISTM that one challenge is that you can end up with a term that is perceived as inoffensive as no one outside understands it, such as "Deacon".
That's interesting, I agree. Overseer and elder are, at least, gender-neutral.
Diakonos is servant. The overseer word being rejected is presumably episkopos, bishop, but why you can't say bishop I have no idea. It seems it's etymologically the same thing but who knew?
Christianity is a slavery friendly religion anyway, the implication of a that go the extra mile stuff is slaves should beaver away for their owners and collect a reward in the kingdom of heaven
St Paul: I Corinthians 7. 21: "Slaves, if you can gain your freedom, do so."
Selective quotation. In full
Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
And he means buy yourself out at the going rate not cast off the unjust oppression
My church is changing the centuries old term for the role of "overseer" as not in keeping with the times because of its slavery connotations.
Thinking about it, we realised it wasn't a great term, just time-honoured.
That's interesting. What have you replaced it with, and will you repeat the operation with other titles that are similarly perceived by some as pejorative in other contexts, such as "Elder"?
ISTM that one challenge is that you can end up with a term that is perceived as inoffensive as no one outside understands it, such as "Deacon".
That's interesting, I agree. Overseer and elder are, at least, gender-neutral.
Diakonos is servant. The overseer word being rejected is presumably episkopos, bishop, but why you can't say bishop I have no idea. It seems it's etymologically the same thing but who knew?
Christianity is a slavery friendly religion anyway, the implication of a that go the extra mile stuff is slaves should beaver away for their owners and collect a reward in the kingdom of heaven
Speaking of the church, I’m having a long cold beer next to a cathedral which is SO old it was RESTORED in the 5th century AD
It is by some measures the oldest Christian Cathedral in the world. Also I have a terrible view of Ararat, the “stolen mountain”, just across the Turkish border
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
What part of that aren't you understanding? He's entirely right, the fact some fools are pushing the price higher, doesn't make him wrong.
Lol, ok boomer
Apart from the fact I'm a Millenial, that's just a dumb reply.
It's not my fault if you don't understand the technology and choose to make deliberately provocative nonsense posts like "it would still be expensive at $1"
Contrast that with RCS1000s fairly measured take where he worked out a value of (I think it was around) $1500 based on transaction volume and throughput.
You're just hysterical and seem to have an irrational hatred for bitcoin that I find amusing, to say the least. It's not going to $1. Maybe it's going to $1500. Maybe not.
But either way, I'm not inclined to listen to Peter Schiff's bad takes, when he's been proven hilariously wrong so many times, as the 2018 tweet I shared with you demonstrates.
He's not been proved wrong. Just because idiots drive the price of something above what its worth, does not make it magically worth more than its really worth, and the price will inevitably come back down. Gamestop surged to over $350 at one stage, before coming back down to earth.
I understand the technology, but the technology can exist without Bitcoin. How much are shares in MySpace worth today? The Bitcoin technology will exist long after Bitcoin ceases to.
As Bitcoin requires 0.5% of worldwide energy use to mine it, I can see a situation where Bitcoin is indeed banned by international convention.
And hence I can foresee a Bitcoin value of zero.
I believe the death of Bitcoin would be the equivalent of 20% of all flights being removed from the air.
Hope they ban private jets first.
Yes. Absolutely. There is a huge amount of fat to trim from the top before we normies need to eat ze bugs. Rich and privileged pricks needs to have their extravagent lifestyles made unbearable before i give up a single sausage.
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
What part of that aren't you understanding? He's entirely right, the fact some fools are pushing the price higher, doesn't make him wrong.
Lol, ok boomer
Apart from the fact I'm a Millenial, that's just a dumb reply.
It's not my fault if you don't understand the technology and choose to make deliberately provocative nonsense posts like "it would still be expensive at $1"
Contrast that with RCS1000s fairly measured take where he worked out a value of (I think it was around) $1500 based on transaction volume and throughput.
You're just hysterical and seem to have an irrational hatred for bitcoin that I find amusing, to say the least. It's not going to $1. Maybe it's going to $1500. Maybe not.
But either way, I'm not inclined to listen to Peter Schiff's bad takes, when he's been proven hilariously wrong so many times, as the 2018 tweet I shared with you demonstrates.
He's not been proved wrong. Just because idiots drive the price of something above what its worth, does not make it magically worth more than its really worth, and the price will inevitably come back down. Gamestop surged to over $350 at one stage, before coming back down to earth.
I understand the technology, but the technology can exist without Bitcoin. How much are shares in MySpace worth today? The Bitcoin technology will exist long after Bitcoin ceases to.
As Bitcoin requires 0.5% of worldwide energy use to mine it, I can see a situation where Bitcoin is indeed banned by international convention.
And hence I can foresee a Bitcoin value of zero.
I believe the death of Bitcoin would be the equivalent of 20% of all flights being removed from the air.
Hope they ban private jets first.
Yes. Absolutely. There is a huge amount of fat to trim from the top before we normies need to eat ze bugs. Rich and privileged pricks needs to have their extravagent lifestyles made unbearable before i give up a single sausage.
My church is changing the centuries old term for the role of "overseer" as not in keeping with the times because of its slavery connotations.
Thinking about it, we realised it wasn't a great term, just time-honoured.
That's interesting. What have you replaced it with, and will you repeat the operation with other titles that are similarly perceived by some as pejorative in other contexts, such as "Elder"?
ISTM that one challenge is that you can end up with a term that is perceived as inoffensive as no one outside understands it, such as "Deacon".
That's interesting, I agree. Overseer and elder are, at least, gender-neutral.
Diakonos is servant. The overseer word being rejected is presumably episkopos, bishop, but why you can't say bishop I have no idea. It seems it's etymologically the same thing but who knew?
Christianity is a slavery friendly religion anyway, the implication of a that go the extra mile stuff is slaves should beaver away for their owners and collect a reward in the kingdom of heaven
Speaking of the church, I’m having a long cold beer next to a cathedral which is SO old it was RESTORED in the 5th century AD
It is by some measures the oldest Christian Cathedral in the world. Also I have a terrible view of Ararat, the “stolen mountain”, just across the Turkish border
The beer is nice.
ուրախություն
Beginning to worry we have a me/ mini me symbiosis going on. My beer with cathedral in the background
Valid question being asked. Why is it that Tories who laud Churchill now attack the European Convention on Human Rights which was one of his finest post-war achievements?
I doubt Churchill would have supported illegal immigration.
Churchill was a huge fan of illegal immigration, he was a fan of the British Empire which was illegal immigration on an industrial scale.
Not to mention invading the Mahdi state, Orange Free State, Transvaal, Natal, Iceland ...
Iran too with the vile Stalin and for oil as well.
So Churchill also supported economic based illegal immigration.
Valid question being asked. Why is it that Tories who laud Churchill now attack the European Convention on Human Rights which was one of his finest post-war achievements?
I doubt Churchill would have supported illegal immigration.
Churchill was a huge fan of illegal immigration, he was a fan of the British Empire which was illegal immigration on an industrial scale.
Not to mention invading the Mahdi state, Orange Free State, Transvaal, Natal, Iceland ...
Iran too with the vile Stalin and for oil as well.
So Churchill also supported economic based illegal immigration.
Valid question being asked. Why is it that Tories who laud Churchill now attack the European Convention on Human Rights which was one of his finest post-war achievements?
I doubt Churchill would have supported illegal immigration.
Churchill was a huge fan of illegal immigration, he was a fan of the British Empire which was illegal immigration on an industrial scale.
Not to mention invading the Mahdi state, Orange Free State, Transvaal, Natal, Iceland ...
Iran too with the vile Stalin and for oil as well.
So Churchill also supported economic based illegal immigration.
Egypt is a bit complicated though ... I get a bit lost in the ins and outs.
Peter Schiff @PeterSchiff · 5h How can anyone long #Bitcoin look at this chart and not sell? Even if you think Bitcoin will ultimately trade higher, it's hard to image that it doesn't test long-term support at the lower line first. I think it will fail that test. Regardless, better to sell now and rebuy lower.
Lol at Peter Schiff. Even a broken clock is right twice a day... and he's been tweeting the same tweet for the last 10 years.
You seem to be amused by the idea that some people have failed to see that Bitcoin is a fraudulent scam, seeming to think that means the people who recognise that it is are wrong.
Even if Bitcoin were to somehow recover from this and surge to new 'heights', it would still be a manipulated fraudulent scam led by fraudsters and "number goes up" idiots.
Investing in Ponzi schemes tends to not be good for your financial health, even if some people can and do make a profit from them.
Peter Schiff is simply an automated chatbot that prints "[Whatever the current price of bitcoin is], it could always go lower!"
Here he is in 2018, urging people to sell at 3k because it would "still be expensive at $750..."
What part of that aren't you understanding? He's entirely right, the fact some fools are pushing the price higher, doesn't make him wrong.
Lol, ok boomer
Apart from the fact I'm a Millenial, that's just a dumb reply.
It's not my fault if you don't understand the technology and choose to make deliberately provocative nonsense posts like "it would still be expensive at $1"
Contrast that with RCS1000s fairly measured take where he worked out a value of (I think it was around) $1500 based on transaction volume and throughput.
You're just hysterical and seem to have an irrational hatred for bitcoin that I find amusing, to say the least. It's not going to $1. Maybe it's going to $1500. Maybe not.
But either way, I'm not inclined to listen to Peter Schiff's bad takes, when he's been proven hilariously wrong so many times, as the 2018 tweet I shared with you demonstrates.
He's not been proved wrong. Just because idiots drive the price of something above what its worth, does not make it magically worth more than its really worth, and the price will inevitably come back down. Gamestop surged to over $350 at one stage, before coming back down to earth.
I understand the technology, but the technology can exist without Bitcoin. How much are shares in MySpace worth today? The Bitcoin technology will exist long after Bitcoin ceases to.
As Bitcoin requires 0.5% of worldwide energy use to mine it, I can see a situation where Bitcoin is indeed banned by international convention.
And hence I can foresee a Bitcoin value of zero.
I believe the death of Bitcoin would be the equivalent of 20% of all flights being removed from the air.
Hope they ban private jets first.
Yes. Absolutely. There is a huge amount of fat to trim from the top before we normies need to eat ze bugs. Rich and privileged pricks needs to have their extravagent lifestyles made unbearable before i give up a single sausage.
My church is changing the centuries old term for the role of "overseer" as not in keeping with the times because of its slavery connotations.
Thinking about it, we realised it wasn't a great term, just time-honoured.
That's interesting. What have you replaced it with, and will you repeat the operation with other titles that are similarly perceived by some as pejorative in other contexts, such as "Elder"?
ISTM that one challenge is that you can end up with a term that is perceived as inoffensive as no one outside understands it, such as "Deacon".
That's interesting, I agree. Overseer and elder are, at least, gender-neutral.
Diakonos is servant. The overseer word being rejected is presumably episkopos, bishop, but why you can't say bishop I have no idea. It seems it's etymologically the same thing but who knew?
Christianity is a slavery friendly religion anyway, the implication of a that go the extra mile stuff is slaves should beaver away for their owners and collect a reward in the kingdom of heaven
Speaking of the church, I’m having a long cold beer next to a cathedral which is SO old it was RESTORED in the 5th century AD
It is by some measures the oldest Christian Cathedral in the world. Also I have a terrible view of Ararat, the “stolen mountain”, just across the Turkish border
The beer is nice.
ուրախություն
Beginning to worry we have a me/ mini me symbiosis going on. My beer with cathedral in the background
There’s nothing nicer than a cold beer next to an ancient cathedral in the warm summer sun
Valid question being asked. Why is it that Tories who laud Churchill now attack the European Convention on Human Rights which was one of his finest post-war achievements?
I doubt Churchill would have supported illegal immigration.
Churchill was a huge fan of illegal immigration, he was a fan of the British Empire which was illegal immigration on an industrial scale.
Not to mention invading the Mahdi state, Orange Free State, Transvaal, Natal, Iceland ...
Iran too with the vile Stalin and for oil as well.
So Churchill also supported economic based illegal immigration.
Right
So for whom were you rooting in that war?
The Allies.
I was just rebutting the nonsense of AndyJS and others about Churchill, illegal immigration, and economic migrants.
Sometimes illegal immigration is the only right option for people.
Valid question being asked. Why is it that Tories who laud Churchill now attack the European Convention on Human Rights which was one of his finest post-war achievements?
I doubt Churchill would have supported illegal immigration.
Churchill was a huge fan of illegal immigration, he was a fan of the British Empire which was illegal immigration on an industrial scale.
Not to mention invading the Mahdi state, Orange Free State, Transvaal, Natal, Iceland ...
Iran too with the vile Stalin and for oil as well.
So Churchill also supported economic based illegal immigration.
Right
So for whom were you rooting in that war?
The Allies.
I was just rebutting the nonsense of AndyJS and others about Churchill, illegal immigration, and economic migrants.
Sometimes illegal immigration is the only right option for people.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
So few people go to church these days that I doubt they're electorally significant in many constituencies.
Those that do are well to the right of the clergy.
Valid question being asked. Why is it that Tories who laud Churchill now attack the European Convention on Human Rights which was one of his finest post-war achievements?
I doubt Churchill would have supported illegal immigration.
Churchill was a huge fan of illegal immigration, he was a fan of the British Empire which was illegal immigration on an industrial scale.
Not to mention invading the Mahdi state, Orange Free State, Transvaal, Natal, Iceland ...
Iran too with the vile Stalin and for oil as well.
So Churchill also supported economic based illegal immigration.
Right
So for whom were you rooting in that war?
The Allies.
I was just rebutting the nonsense of AndyJS and others about Churchill, illegal immigration, and economic migrants.
Sometimes illegal immigration is the only right option for people.
To be fair, given your views on our neighbours across the channel, I can understand that you would support people trying to escape.
How annoying is this? I want to visit the temple of Diana. They won't let me in to the park in flip flops. My boots are in my car which is a miles walk away. I have crossed deserts and climbed mountains in flip flops. But naah divieto innit?
Valid question being asked. Why is it that Tories who laud Churchill now attack the European Convention on Human Rights which was one of his finest post-war achievements?
I doubt Churchill would have supported illegal immigration.
Churchill was a huge fan of illegal immigration, he was a fan of the British Empire which was illegal immigration on an industrial scale.
He was also opposed to people taking back control from their unelected rulers.
See his opposition to Indian independence.
The British Empire wasn't illegal at the time, and I doubt he wanted Britain to be subject to foreign, unelected rulers (and no the monarchy doesn't count).
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
My church is changing the centuries old term for the role of "overseer" as not in keeping with the times because of its slavery connotations.
Thinking about it, we realised it wasn't a great term, just time-honoured.
That's interesting. What have you replaced it with, and will you repeat the operation with other titles that are similarly perceived by some as pejorative in other contexts, such as "Elder"?
ISTM that one challenge is that you can end up with a term that is perceived as inoffensive as no one outside understands it, such as "Deacon".
That's interesting, I agree. Overseer and elder are, at least, gender-neutral.
Diakonos is servant. The overseer word being rejected is presumably episkopos, bishop, but why you can't say bishop I have no idea. It seems it's etymologically the same thing but who knew?
Christianity is a slavery friendly religion anyway, the implication of a that go the extra mile stuff is slaves should beaver away for their owners and collect a reward in the kingdom of heaven
St Paul: I Corinthians 7. 21: "Slaves, if you can gain your freedom, do so."
Selective quotation. In full
Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
And he means buy yourself out at the going rate not cast off the unjust oppression
The context is one where Paul is advocating staying where you currently are, for rather obscure reasons, but in the case of slavery makes an interesting exception.
Not all freedom from slavery was bought. Some came free.
No, Paul was not a simple revolutionary. Just a complicated one and one of the all time great levellers about the human status.
Valid question being asked. Why is it that Tories who laud Churchill now attack the European Convention on Human Rights which was one of his finest post-war achievements?
I doubt Churchill would have supported illegal immigration.
Churchill was a huge fan of illegal immigration, he was a fan of the British Empire which was illegal immigration on an industrial scale.
Not to mention invading the Mahdi state, Orange Free State, Transvaal, Natal, Iceland ...
Iran too with the vile Stalin and for oil as well.
So Churchill also supported economic based illegal immigration.
Right
So for whom were you rooting in that war?
The Allies.
I was just rebutting the nonsense of AndyJS and others about Churchill, illegal immigration, and economic migrants.
Sometimes illegal immigration is the only right option for people.
But not in 2022 from France, surely.
I love the argument that some people make that we should accept everyone who wants to flee France, because the French are treating them badly, and that's why we should stay in the ECHR.
Errr, if the French are treating them so badly, why isn't the ECHR stopping them from doing that?
Valid question being asked. Why is it that Tories who laud Churchill now attack the European Convention on Human Rights which was one of his finest post-war achievements?
I doubt Churchill would have supported illegal immigration.
Churchill was a huge fan of illegal immigration, he was a fan of the British Empire which was illegal immigration on an industrial scale.
He was also opposed to people taking back control from their unelected rulers.
See his opposition to Indian independence.
Although he'd come round to India having dominion status by WWII and recognised independence had to be on the table longer-term with the failed Cripps mission in 1942.
The story of India is giving them what we gave Australia/NZ about 20-30 years late, which unsurprisingly didn't go down too well.
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
My church is changing the centuries old term for the role of "overseer" as not in keeping with the times because of its slavery connotations.
Thinking about it, we realised it wasn't a great term, just time-honoured.
That's interesting. What have you replaced it with, and will you repeat the operation with other titles that are similarly perceived by some as pejorative in other contexts, such as "Elder"?
ISTM that one challenge is that you can end up with a term that is perceived as inoffensive as no one outside understands it, such as "Deacon".
That's interesting, I agree. Overseer and elder are, at least, gender-neutral.
Diakonos is servant. The overseer word being rejected is presumably episkopos, bishop, but why you can't say bishop I have no idea. It seems it's etymologically the same thing but who knew?
Christianity is a slavery friendly religion anyway, the implication of a that go the extra mile stuff is slaves should beaver away for their owners and collect a reward in the kingdom of heaven
Speaking of the church, I’m having a long cold beer next to a cathedral which is SO old it was RESTORED in the 5th century AD
It is by some measures the oldest Christian Cathedral in the world. Also I have a terrible view of Ararat, the “stolen mountain”, just across the Turkish border
The beer is nice.
ուրախություն
Beginning to worry we have a me/ mini me symbiosis going on. My beer with cathedral in the background
There’s nothing nicer than a cold beer next to an ancient cathedral in the warm summer sun
Correct
I do like Sicily. Rather a sister op to us, having been invaded by Normans in the late 11th C
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
So few people go to church these days that I doubt they're electorally significant in many constituencies.
Depending on how you count, a bit more than a million practicing Anglicans, similar number of Catholics, similar number of "others". Let's say three million practicing Christians in total.
Not enough to swing an election- but consider who they are. Predominantly older, generally quite civic-minded, relatively traditional morals. The kind of people who really ought to be voting Conservative. Heck, the roughly equivalent political tradition in many European countries is called Christian Democracy.
They (we) find it hard to vote for Johnson, what with all the lying, bullying and whatnot. But the Rwanda plan is the latest cat poo on top of the trifle. Not just because of the random ineffectual cruelty (though that's relevant, of course that's relevant). But also because Christian ethics have always been very clear- it's not OK to do a bad thing for a good result. The ends can never justify the means. That might be a foolish thing to believe, but that's how it is.
Still, I'm sure that the Conservative Party and their new electorate will be very happy together. But the circumstances that led to the triumph of 2019 (gaining new voters while retaining old ones, having your cake and eating it so to speak) don't look like repeating.
If we listened to the Bishops we'd be putting up anyone 'in need' around the world in our homes with no limit.
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
No its not, the "not my President" idea has always existed, or as the Simpsons put it "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" (1996, 20 years before 2016 election).
That's very different to using violence and abuse of authority to try to overturn election results.
Valid question being asked. Why is it that Tories who laud Churchill now attack the European Convention on Human Rights which was one of his finest post-war achievements?
I doubt Churchill would have supported illegal immigration.
Churchill was a huge fan of illegal immigration, he was a fan of the British Empire which was illegal immigration on an industrial scale.
Not to mention invading the Mahdi state, Orange Free State, Transvaal, Natal, Iceland ...
Iran too with the vile Stalin and for oil as well.
So Churchill also supported economic based illegal immigration.
Right
So for whom were you rooting in that war?
The Allies.
I was just rebutting the nonsense of AndyJS and others about Churchill, illegal immigration, and economic migrants.
Sometimes illegal immigration is the only right option for people.
To be fair, given your views on our neighbours across the channel, I can understand that you would support people trying to escape.
Absolutely but being entirely serious I view immigration and asylum policies through the prism of the 1930s and 1940s.
How would this policy treated Jews fleeing Europe then?
Sending them to Rwanda is wrong on so many levels.
I’m aware that policy would have been popular in the 30s/40s but morally it is as bankrupt now as it was then.
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
It has totally infected GOP now and they are placing people who do not believe in democracy into key elections for posts where the winner will oversee the POTUS election count in 2024.
My church is changing the centuries old term for the role of "overseer" as not in keeping with the times because of its slavery connotations.
Thinking about it, we realised it wasn't a great term, just time-honoured.
That's interesting. What have you replaced it with, and will you repeat the operation with other titles that are similarly perceived by some as pejorative in other contexts, such as "Elder"?
ISTM that one challenge is that you can end up with a term that is perceived as inoffensive as no one outside understands it, such as "Deacon".
That's interesting, I agree. Overseer and elder are, at least, gender-neutral.
Diakonos is servant. The overseer word being rejected is presumably episkopos, bishop, but why you can't say bishop I have no idea. It seems it's etymologically the same thing but who knew?
Christianity is a slavery friendly religion anyway, the implication of a that go the extra mile stuff is slaves should beaver away for their owners and collect a reward in the kingdom of heaven
St Paul: I Corinthians 7. 21: "Slaves, if you can gain your freedom, do so."
Selective quotation. In full
Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
And he means buy yourself out at the going rate not cast off the unjust oppression
The context is one where Paul is advocating staying where you currently are, for rather obscure reasons, but in the case of slavery makes an interesting exception.
Not all freedom from slavery was bought. Some came free.
No, Paul was not a simple revolutionary. Just a complicated one and one of the all time great levellers about the human status.
I thought the main routes were buying freedom or getting it under your owners will.
And no mention of the protocol and falling pound due to concerns about a trade war with Europe? The view from the continent appears to be that the UK's proposed changes to the protocol are maximalist and there is no point negotiating with Johnson who is a busted flush anyway. Given pressure from industry, the US and our own parliament there's scepticism this will actually be made law anyway. Which does beg the question of why he is doing it. Power sharing in Northern Ireland? I'm all for that but perhaps we will come to a point when power will have to be shared between those who actually want to sit in the Assembly. Given the lies Johnson told to the unionists over his oven ready deal I wonder if he has the credibility to spell that out?
On another matter here's an interesting piece suggesting we shouldn't fall for Putin's bluster and his military is about to hit a brick wall. Certainly a well reasoned argument.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
So few people go to church these days that I doubt they're electorally significant in many constituencies.
Depending on how you count, a bit more than a million practicing Anglicans, similar number of Catholics, similar number of "others". Let's say three million practicing Christians in total.
Not enough to swing an election- but consider who they are. Predominantly older, generally quite civic-minded, relatively traditional morals. The kind of people who really ought to be voting Conservative. Heck, the roughly equivalent political tradition in many European countries is called Christian Democracy.
They (we) find it hard to vote for Johnson, what with all the lying, bullying and whatnot. But the Rwanda plan is the latest cat poo on top of the trifle. Not just because of the random ineffectual cruelty (though that's relevant, of course that's relevant). But also because Christian ethics have always been very clear- it's not OK to do a bad thing for a good result. The ends can never justify the means. That might be a foolish thing to believe, but that's how it is.
Still, I'm sure that the Conservative Party and their new electorate will be very happy together. But the circumstances that led to the triumph of 2019 (gaining new voters while retaining old ones, having your cake and eating it so to speak) don't look like repeating.
If we listened to the Bishops we'd be putting up anyone 'in need' around the world in our homes with no limit.
I imagine you can’t move for Ukrainian refugees in Lambeth Palace.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
So few people go to church these days that I doubt they're electorally significant in many constituencies.
Those that do are well to the right of the clergy.
True, though not that surprising. After all, stipendary clergy are of working age and very many of churchgoers aren't. Clergy are also pretty much all graduates in one way or another. We know that age and level of education have a massive effect on voting affiliation, especially when the dividing line is about social issues not economics.
But @AugustusCarp2 could well be right. Even if churchgoers aren't raving lefties, there's a line that many of them won't want to cross that HMG seems determined to.
The greatest Briton that ever lived must be spinning in his grave after part of his legacy, the ECHR, is being so enthusiastically shat upon by nominal Conservatives.
BoZo expelled Churchill's grandson. He has no qualms about trashing his legacy.
I caught up with Nicholas a few weeks ago. He is back in the party and very happy to be so.
My church is changing the centuries old term for the role of "overseer" as not in keeping with the times because of its slavery connotations.
Thinking about it, we realised it wasn't a great term, just time-honoured.
That's interesting. What have you replaced it with, and will you repeat the operation with other titles that are similarly perceived by some as pejorative in other contexts, such as "Elder"?
ISTM that one challenge is that you can end up with a term that is perceived as inoffensive as no one outside understands it, such as "Deacon".
That's interesting, I agree. Overseer and elder are, at least, gender-neutral.
Diakonos is servant. The overseer word being rejected is presumably episkopos, bishop, but why you can't say bishop I have no idea. It seems it's etymologically the same thing but who knew?
Christianity is a slavery friendly religion anyway, the implication of a that go the extra mile stuff is slaves should beaver away for their owners and collect a reward in the kingdom of heaven
Speaking of the church, I’m having a long cold beer next to a cathedral which is SO old it was RESTORED in the 5th century AD
It is by some measures the oldest Christian Cathedral in the world. Also I have a terrible view of Ararat, the “stolen mountain”, just across the Turkish border
The beer is nice.
ուրախություն
Beginning to worry we have a me/ mini me symbiosis going on. My beer with cathedral in the background
There’s nothing nicer than a cold beer next to an ancient cathedral in the warm summer sun
Correct
I do like Sicily. Rather a sister op to us, having been invaded by Normans in the late 11th C
Sicily is much nicer than Armenia. Trust me
So far Armenia outside the capital is a big bleak Soviet toilet, constructed (vaguely) on the saddest bit of the Caucasus - the bits no one else could be bothered to pacify, and which the Armenians fled to after the genocide
It’s pretty hideous
You have to be REALLY into history and archaeology and remote- places-with-no-tourists to enjoy it. Happily I love all these
And Ararat is such an awesome spectacle, looming over the barrenlands
Complimentary when you fly first class on Emirates though.
What don't you pay extra for on Ryanair?
Flying is now sufficiently unpleasant that I actively look to avoid it.
I'd take the train to France/Benelux/North Germany now.
Mrs C and I have two places that we would like to go to outside UK. One is in the Canary Islands and the other is Thailand, where we have family. Sadly both mean flights!
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
No its not, the "not my President" idea has always existed, or as the Simpsons put it "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" (1996, 20 years before 2016 election).
That's very different to using violence and abuse of authority to try to overturn election results.
Abuse of authority, yes, but it failed. And there really wasn't any violence aimed at overturning election results.
And if Trump runs again in 2024 and wins, do you think the American left is going to accept it quietly? Or will there be more "mostly peaceful" protests?
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
It has totally infected GOP now and they are placing people who do not believe in democracy into key elections for posts where the winner will oversee the POTUS election count in 2024.
The nightmare is coming for america.
The main problem is that the American Left is equally crazed
The madness on either side would fizzle out if it was unopposed and unprovoked. But both sides keep stoking the other, they see no point or purpose in compromise, and they violently detest each other
Incredibly, I can see America tumbling into civil war, or at least major civil strife. All those guns
As I reported on here from my source, Keir has come out AGAINST the strikes
Yuck. They have every right to strike if they act within the law. If Labour won’t defend them, who will? My basic view of railway unions is “I wish mine was as effective”.
It is of course east to split the difference. “They should get round the table and resolve it”. “Failure of Schapps to show leadership”. “We support higher wages and with our economic policies they’ll be a doddle to afford”.
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
'The GFA was based on the idea that change in the status of NI required the consent of the people there. It does not require cross community agreement - separate majorities of unionists and of nationalists - but a simple majority of the entire population in a referendum. Consent does not apply to all issues. If it did then Brexit wouldn’t have happened in NI - over 60% voted against. It is bizarre to suggest consent applies to one part of Brexit – the Protocol – but not the rest. Especially when a majority in NI are content with the Protocol.'
'The tragedy is there is an obvious solution.The EU is offering the equivalent of a green lane for goods destined for NI.That is what the DUP say they want – the Sainsbury’s test. All the ideological demands, ECJ jurisdiction, are for Johnson and the ERG not for anyone in NI.'
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
No its not, the "not my President" idea has always existed, or as the Simpsons put it "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" (1996, 20 years before 2016 election).
That's very different to using violence and abuse of authority to try to overturn election results.
Abuse of authority, yes, but it failed. And there really wasn't any violence aimed at overturning election results.
And if Trump runs again in 2024 and wins, do you think the American left is going to accept it quietly? Or will there be more "mostly peaceful" protests?
It failed this time, but the fact that they even tried is deeply concerning.
What's even more concerning is efforts to oust people who certify the election results based on who voted and replace them with partisans who are willing to refuse to certify the election results and want to overturn them.
In this country returning officers are trusted to certify the results properly. In America authorities have always been willing to certify the results properly too, but if that ends because partisans are put into authority then that's a completely different matter.
It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted
By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
If its so illegal then why is it already done by other nations? .
My church is changing the centuries old term for the role of "overseer" as not in keeping with the times because of its slavery connotations.
Thinking about it, we realised it wasn't a great term, just time-honoured.
That's interesting. What have you replaced it with, and will you repeat the operation with other titles that are similarly perceived by some as pejorative in other contexts, such as "Elder"?
ISTM that one challenge is that you can end up with a term that is perceived as inoffensive as no one outside understands it, such as "Deacon".
That's interesting, I agree. Overseer and elder are, at least, gender-neutral.
Isn’t Ruth Davidson an Elder of the Kirk? One of my aunties is.
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
So few people go to church these days that I doubt they're electorally significant in many constituencies.
Depending on how you count, a bit more than a million practicing Anglicans, similar number of Catholics, similar number of "others". Let's say three million practicing Christians in total.
Not enough to swing an election- but consider who they are. Predominantly older, generally quite civic-minded, relatively traditional morals. The kind of people who really ought to be voting Conservative. Heck, the roughly equivalent political tradition in many European countries is called Christian Democracy.
Fair point on "Christian Democracy" - the UK has never developed a similar monolithic tradition, due to pre-existing party relationships eg nonconformist involvement in the early Tarde Union movement / rural Anglicans-Tories etc.
I think you perhaps underplay the impact of "community" eg Roman Catholic Community, where the numbers are more significant, and differences in distribution.
AIUI the Tories get a modest plurality amongst self-identified Anglicans, and Labour a more marginal one amongst Roman Catholics. I don't know about hoe "others" may vote, beyond a note that socially conservative churches, including what used to be called black-led churches and 'new churches' may be quite significant in London and locally in other places. I can well imagine 'new churches' leaning Tory on 'moral' questions, but would not try and estimate how social conservatism plays out wrt ethnicity in the 'black led' case.
Incidentally - slogans and mottoes are fun for the misjudged imagery. From a church in Nottingham's facebook page this AM: "Our vision is to see the church on fire" You sure, vicar?
One of the questions is whether this is a real policy (just implemented by clowns) or a bizarre postmodern game. And I don't know the answer to that.
This seems pretty petulant though;
Retribution, it appears, is coming for the 26 bishops who said the Rwanda policy “shames Britain”. Cabinet ministers openly talking about expelling them from the Lords now. “Only Iran also has clerics that sit in their legislature”, one tells me. “They’ll go”.
Appalling. I can support and tolerate most things this government is doing but disestablishment of the Church of England is too far.
You cannot be a Tory and not support the Church of England as the established church and this idiot of a Cabinet Minister should know that. If this government even tried such a thing I as a Tory branch chairman would back an open revolt.
I may not agree with everything the Bishops say and wish they would talk about reducing the number of abortions more too but they are entitled to their views and make up less than 10% of the Lords anyway
If @HYUFD is struggling to tolerate this government what does it say for their electoral prospects?
Well, he certainly can´t count. There are 26 Bishops in the House of Lords, and a total membership of 768. so 3%, not 10%. The Lords is the second largest Parliamentary Chamber in the World, after the Chinese National Peoples Congress. It still has 92 hereditaries for goodness sake... Major League reform cannot be put off forever.
The whole purpose of the 92 hereditaries remaining was that their position is indefensible. They are the stone in the shoe that prompts us to reform the House of Lords.
If Blair had got rid of them all we would have a fully appointed house - profoundly undemocratic - with no impetus for change
From my observations there’s one group where Rwanda is definitely cutting through, and not in a good way for the Tories. Those people are the small-c social and economic conservatives who constitute the bulk of most church congregations these days. This group is not, of course, held in high esteem by politicians or bien-pensant journalists; they are not particularly demonstrative, and their political activism is usually limited to signing a petition or two, so they are easy to ignore. However, there’s still quite a lot of them, and they always vote. And Rwanda is completely unacceptable to them. They know refugees/immigration/boat people etc is a Problem, and they don’t know how to cure it, but they know in their very being that putting people on planes to Africa in this way is Wrong. They see it as cruel. When you add in the head-banging hostility to foreign aid from some Tory backbenchers, they see it striking at all the odd little schemes that small churches have to help the poor abroad – toilet twinning, coffee mornings for orphanages, sponsoring schoolchildren etc etc etc. This Government is now being seen to be acting in ways that are hostile to the way most churchgoers want to try to live. I am not talking about the Bench of Bishops here, or the other big Church leaders – I am talking about the a-political bums in pews, who are going to turn on this government with a righteous vengeance at the next general election.
So few people go to church these days that I doubt they're electorally significant in many constituencies.
Depending on how you count, a bit more than a million practicing Anglicans, similar number of Catholics, similar number of "others". Let's say three million practicing Christians in total.
Not enough to swing an election- but consider who they are. Predominantly older, generally quite civic-minded, relatively traditional morals. The kind of people who really ought to be voting Conservative. Heck, the roughly equivalent political tradition in many European countries is called Christian Democracy.
Fair point on "Christian Democracy" - the UK has never developed a similar monolithic tradition, due to pre-existing party relationships eg nonconformist involvement in the early Tarde Union movement / rural Anglicans-Tories etc.
I think you perhaps underplay the impact of "community" eg Roman Catholic Community, where the numbers are more significant, and differences in distribution.
AIUI the Tories get a modest plurality amongst self-identified Anglicans, and Labour a more marginal one amongst Roman Catholics. I don't know about hoe "others" may vote, beyond a note that socially conservative churches, including what used to be called black-led churches and 'new churches' may be quite significant in London and locally in other places.
Incidentally - slogans and mottoes are fun. From a church in Nottingham's facebook page: "Our vision is to see the church on fire" You sure, vicar?
As long as the insurance is in place...
(Seriously. There are quite a lot of church buildings that are absolute millstones for their congregations. Far too big to maintain or heat, impossible to adapt. At least some church fires are a blessing from the almighty.)
If Australia can successfully stop illegal immigration, then so can the UK. And whichever party most effectively tries to do so will win 90% of elections in the future.
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
No its not, the "not my President" idea has always existed, or as the Simpsons put it "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" (1996, 20 years before 2016 election).
That's very different to using violence and abuse of authority to try to overturn election results.
Abuse of authority, yes, but it failed. And there really wasn't any violence aimed at overturning election results.
And if Trump runs again in 2024 and wins, do you think the American left is going to accept it quietly? Or will there be more "mostly peaceful" protests?
It failed this time, but the fact that they even tried is deeply concerning.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told POLITICO on Monday that Trump is a “potentially dangerous president.”
“It became clear to me last night that this man is not only unqualified to be president, he’s a danger to the republic,” Himes said. “I do think the Electoral College should choose someone other than Donald Trump to be president. That will lead to a fascinating legal issue ... but I would rather have a legal problem — a constitutional legal problem -- then to find out the White House was now the Kremlin’s chief ally.”
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
No its not, the "not my President" idea has always existed, or as the Simpsons put it "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" (1996, 20 years before 2016 election).
That's very different to using violence and abuse of authority to try to overturn election results.
Abuse of authority, yes, but it failed. And there really wasn't any violence aimed at overturning election results.
And if Trump runs again in 2024 and wins, do you think the American left is going to accept it quietly? Or will there be more "mostly peaceful" protests?
It failed this time, but the fact that they even tried is deeply concerning.
What's even more concerning is efforts to oust people who certify the election results based on who voted and replace them with partisans who are willing to refuse to certify the election results and want to overturn them.
In this country returning officers are trusted to certify the results properly. In America authorities have always been willing to certify the results properly too, but if that ends because partisans are put into authority then that's a completely different matter.
The entire American electoral system seems pretty much designed to invite challenges - one thing that we definitely get right is that we get the result on the night or, very latest, the following afternoon. They're still counting for weeks after the election. And once the genie is out of the bottle (as it has been since at least 2000) each side is going to do whatever they can to sway the election their way because they know the other is also doing it. In a proper electoral environment, Zuckerberg wouldn't be able to pour in millions to buy turnout in Dem-friendly areas.
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
It has totally infected GOP now and they are placing people who do not believe in democracy into key elections for posts where the winner will oversee the POTUS election count in 2024.
The nightmare is coming for america.
The main problem is that the American Left is equally crazed
The madness on either side would fizzle out if it was unopposed and unprovoked. But both sides keep stoking the other, they see no point or purpose in compromise, and they violently detest each other
Incredibly, I can see America tumbling into civil war, or at least major civil strife. All those guns
The US Democrats are about as left wing as our Toty Party, although you will no doubt be able to find individuals who are a bit mad. Both Tory and Labour politicians have helped the Democrats in elections. There is no comparison with today's GOP who plan to win by making it harder for people to vote and refusing to believe they have lost (Just find me 11.000 votes). GW Bush and Liz Cheney are no left wingers but at least they believe in democracy.
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
No its not, the "not my President" idea has always existed, or as the Simpsons put it "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" (1996, 20 years before 2016 election).
That's very different to using violence and abuse of authority to try to overturn election results.
Abuse of authority, yes, but it failed. And there really wasn't any violence aimed at overturning election results.
And if Trump runs again in 2024 and wins, do you think the American left is going to accept it quietly? Or will there be more "mostly peaceful" protests?
It failed this time, but the fact that they even tried is deeply concerning.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told POLITICO on Monday that Trump is a “potentially dangerous president.”
“It became clear to me last night that this man is not only unqualified to be president, he’s a danger to the republic,” Himes said. “I do think the Electoral College should choose someone other than Donald Trump to be president. That will lead to a fascinating legal issue ... but I would rather have a legal problem — a constitutional legal problem -- then to find out the White House was now the Kremlin’s chief ally.”
Himes was utterly right that Trump was a dangerous President and a danger to the republic, but the Electoral College result wasn't overturned and there was no effort to refuse to certify the results, as there was 2020 - and no effort to replace electoral officers with people who were pledging not to certify the results either.
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
No its not, the "not my President" idea has always existed, or as the Simpsons put it "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" (1996, 20 years before 2016 election).
That's very different to using violence and abuse of authority to try to overturn election results.
Abuse of authority, yes, but it failed. And there really wasn't any violence aimed at overturning election results.
And if Trump runs again in 2024 and wins, do you think the American left is going to accept it quietly? Or will there be more "mostly peaceful" protests?
It failed this time, but the fact that they even tried is deeply concerning.
What's even more concerning is efforts to oust people who certify the election results based on who voted and replace them with partisans who are willing to refuse to certify the election results and want to overturn them.
In this country returning officers are trusted to certify the results properly. In America authorities have always been willing to certify the results properly too, but if that ends because partisans are put into authority then that's a completely different matter.
The micromanagement, by politicians, of the election process itself, is seriously disturbing in the US.
When we see elected mayors and governors deciding on the placement and opening hours of polling stations, the design of ballot papers, on the individuals responsible for overseeing the counting, declaring and certifying the result, there are reasons to be very suspicious indeed. That’s before we get on to the boundaries, where the word “Gerrymandering” was coined.
In the UK, we take for granted that the electoral commission, the boundaries commission, the council officials and count staff, the returning officers and police are all impartial. That simply isn’t the case in the States.
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
It has totally infected GOP now and they are placing people who do not believe in democracy into key elections for posts where the winner will oversee the POTUS election count in 2024.
The nightmare is coming for america.
The main problem is that the American Left is equally crazed
The madness on either side would fizzle out if it was unopposed and unprovoked. But both sides keep stoking the other, they see no point or purpose in compromise, and they violently detest each other
Incredibly, I can see America tumbling into civil war, or at least major civil strife. All those guns
The US Democrats are about as left wing as our Toty Party, although you will no doubt be able to find individuals who are a bit mad. Both Tory and Labour politicians have helped the Democrats in elections. There is no comparison with today's GOP who plan to win by making it harder for people to vote and refusing to believe they have lost (Just find me 11.000 votes). GW Bush and Liz Cheney are no left wingers but at least they believe in democracy.
I think @leon is right though, we will see political violence during next POTUS count process and aftermath. I can't see it escalating to civil war, but jeez who knows. It's all a powder keg that's for sure with guns everywhere and militia and so on.
On another matter here's an interesting piece suggesting we shouldn't fall for Putin's bluster and his military is about to hit a brick wall. Certainly a well reasoned argument.
That’s a good piece, well written and close to what we have seen of Western intelligence reports and Ukranian sources.
There’s always the fog of war through, and we can never really be sure of what’s happening on the ground. We in the West need to keep Ukraine in the headlines, and keep up the flow of arms and training.
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
It has totally infected GOP now and they are placing people who do not believe in democracy into key elections for posts where the winner will oversee the POTUS election count in 2024.
The nightmare is coming for america.
The main problem is that the American Left is equally crazed
The madness on either side would fizzle out if it was unopposed and unprovoked. But both sides keep stoking the other, they see no point or purpose in compromise, and they violently detest each other
Incredibly, I can see America tumbling into civil war, or at least major civil strife. All those guns
The US Democrats are about as left wing as our Toty Party, although you will no doubt be able to find individuals who are a bit mad. Both Tory and Labour politicians have helped the Democrats in elections. There is no comparison with today's GOP who plan to win by making it harder for people to vote and refusing to believe they have lost (Just find me 11.000 votes). GW Bush and Liz Cheney are no left wingers but at least they believe in democracy.
Delusional. Hardcore American Wokeness - increasingly taken up by the left of the Dems - makes our own bien pensantery look tepid
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
Indeed. That's been the case since at least 2016 - the "Not My President" faction.
No its not, the "not my President" idea has always existed, or as the Simpsons put it "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" (1996, 20 years before 2016 election).
That's very different to using violence and abuse of authority to try to overturn election results.
Abuse of authority, yes, but it failed. And there really wasn't any violence aimed at overturning election results.
And if Trump runs again in 2024 and wins, do you think the American left is going to accept it quietly? Or will there be more "mostly peaceful" protests?
It failed this time, but the fact that they even tried is deeply concerning.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told POLITICO on Monday that Trump is a “potentially dangerous president.”
“It became clear to me last night that this man is not only unqualified to be president, he’s a danger to the republic,” Himes said. “I do think the Electoral College should choose someone other than Donald Trump to be president. That will lead to a fascinating legal issue ... but I would rather have a legal problem — a constitutional legal problem -- then to find out the White House was now the Kremlin’s chief ally.”
Himes was utterly right that Trump was a dangerous President and a danger to the republic, but the Electoral College result wasn't overturned and there was no effort to refuse to certify the results, as there was 2020 - and no effort to replace electoral officers with people who were pledging not to certify the results either.
Republican electors have been inundated with e-mails, letters, phone calls, and even death threats urging them not to vote for President-elect Donald Trump... A petition urging electoral college members to make Hillary Clinton president has almost 5 million signatures... Elector Ash Kare reports receiving 3,000 to 5,000 requests and demands per day that he become a "faithless elector" and has been assigned a plainsclothes police officer for protection... Michael Banerian, 22, of Michigan has received death threats. The Detroit News verified a message where the sender promised to "put a bullet" in the young man's mouth... As Banerian walked to a demonstration on the Oakland University campus with a group of fellow Trump supporters, he told the reporter that he was not afraid of the death threats. At that moment, an anti-Trump protester attacked the group.
Comments
I understand the technology, but the technology can exist without Bitcoin. How much are shares in MySpace worth today? The Bitcoin technology will exist long after Bitcoin ceases to.
ISTM that one challenge is that you can end up with a term that is perceived as inoffensive as no one outside understands it, such as "Deacon".
When the market values them at $1 I'll happily buy them and sell them to you at $2 at that stage though.
The US economy is totally screwed, which those in power are denying because of the elections in November. They are trying to keep the economy pumped up on financial drugs for five months more.
(1) The place has a population of 200. Not all voters but then not all the demonstrators are. That's 4.5% of the population right there (counting the photographer).
(2) It is in a Tory constituency (Mr Jack; Dumfries and Galloway).
He was also opposed to people taking back control from their unelected rulers.
See his opposition to Indian independence.
Complimentary when you fly first class on Emirates though.
And hence I can foresee a Bitcoin value of zero.
In terms of groups churchgoers are massive. The NHS employs 1.4 million. I suggest that we regard that as a big group for voting purposes (or at least I bet Labour does).
Not enough to swing an election- but consider who they are. Predominantly older, generally quite civic-minded, relatively traditional morals. The kind of people who really ought to be voting Conservative. Heck, the roughly equivalent political tradition in many European countries is called Christian Democracy.
They (we) find it hard to vote for Johnson, what with all the lying, bullying and whatnot. But the Rwanda plan is the latest cat poo on top of the trifle. Not just because of the random ineffectual cruelty (though that's relevant, of course that's relevant). But also because Christian ethics have always been very clear- it's not OK to do a bad thing for a good result. The ends can never justify the means. That might be a foolish thing to believe, but that's how it is.
Still, I'm sure that the Conservative Party and their new electorate will be very happy together. But the circumstances that led to the triumph of 2019 (gaining new voters while retaining old ones, having your cake and eating it so to speak) don't look like repeating.
Christianity is a slavery friendly religion anyway, the implication of a that go the extra mile stuff is slaves should beaver away for their owners and collect a reward in the kingdom of heaven
For example, “at least we are doing something - now what would you do?” is no defence of a policy, it comes across as admittance you don’t really believe in it yourself! How long can that be kept up before it crashes and burns?
There’s two huge dangers to the the government here, firstly, with their attempt at stopping the gush of asylum seekers, if it gets to having to fly them all back from Rwanda as Pritti Patel has now promised the UK courts, that will be quite a hit for them to take in the credibility stakes and opinion polls - it’s got to stick now, it’s got to work, it’s got to be watertight legal, and this feeds into my second point, all these roads the government are taking this summer, Rwanda Plan, Help on cost of living crisis, increase in interest rates and suppressing pay rises, beating the EU and changing the NIP has to work for them, or else this growing farce and chaos will force their own party to remove this government and try another approach, to save as many MPs as possible. They have taken these roads now, and it’s got to work.
“In the event of a loss of cabin pressure, oxygen masks will be available to rent for only £25. Insert your credit card into the slot in the ceiling and the mask will be deployed. Pull the mask towards you and put over your nose and mouth, then breathe normally. Please rent your own mask before renting masks for others”
Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
And he means buy yourself out at the going rate not cast off the unjust oppression
It is by some measures the oldest Christian Cathedral in the world. Also I have a terrible view of Ararat, the “stolen mountain”, just across the Turkish border
The beer is nice.
ուրախություն
Rich and privileged pricks needs to have their extravagent lifestyles made unbearable before i give up a single sausage.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sun-men/8982700/maggots-locusts-sausage-taste/
Beginning to worry we have a me/ mini me symbiosis going on. My beer with cathedral in the background
So Churchill also supported economic based illegal immigration.
So for whom were you rooting in that war?
I was just rebutting the nonsense of AndyJS and others about Churchill, illegal immigration, and economic migrants.
Sometimes illegal immigration is the only right option for people.
So, beer.
" “We are in a dangerous place at the moment,” said Ben Berwick, the counsel for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group dedicated to resisting authoritarianism. “There is a substantial faction in this country that has come to the point where they have rejected the premise that when we have elections, the losers of the elections acknowledge the right of the winner to govern.” "
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/us/politics/election-deniers-midterms.html
Not all freedom from slavery was bought. Some came free.
No, Paul was not a simple revolutionary. Just a complicated one and one of the all time great levellers about the human status.
Errr, if the French are treating them so badly, why isn't the ECHR stopping them from doing that?
The story of India is giving them what we gave Australia/NZ about 20-30 years late, which unsurprisingly didn't go down too well.
I do like Sicily. Rather a sister op to us, having been invaded by Normans in the late 11th C
That's very different to using violence and abuse of authority to try to overturn election results.
How would this policy treated Jews fleeing Europe then?
Sending them to Rwanda is wrong on so many levels.
I’m aware that policy would have been popular in the 30s/40s but morally it is as bankrupt now as it was then.
The nightmare is coming for america.
I'd take the train to France/Benelux/North Germany now.
On another matter here's an interesting piece suggesting we shouldn't fall for Putin's bluster and his military is about to hit a brick wall. Certainly a well reasoned argument.
https://time.com/6184437/ukraine-russian-offensive/
But @AugustusCarp2 could well be right. Even if churchgoers aren't raving lefties, there's a line that many of them won't want to cross that HMG seems determined to.
So far Armenia outside the capital is a big bleak Soviet toilet, constructed (vaguely) on the saddest bit of the Caucasus - the bits no one else could be bothered to pacify, and which the Armenians fled to after the genocide
It’s pretty hideous
You have to be REALLY into history and archaeology and remote- places-with-no-tourists to enjoy it. Happily I love all these
And Ararat is such an awesome spectacle, looming over the barrenlands
7/10, not bad.
And if Trump runs again in 2024 and wins, do you think the American left is going to accept it quietly? Or will there be more "mostly peaceful" protests?
I mean, that is kind of their job description . . .
The madness on either side would fizzle out if it was unopposed and unprovoked. But both sides keep stoking the other, they see no point or purpose in compromise, and they violently detest each other
Incredibly, I can see America tumbling into civil war, or at least major civil strife. All those guns
It is of course east to split the difference. “They should get round the table and resolve it”. “Failure of Schapps to show leadership”. “We support higher wages and with our economic policies they’ll be a doddle to afford”.
https://twitter.com/jnpowell1/status/1536632601938694149
'The GFA was based on the idea that change in the status of NI required the consent of the people there. It does not require cross community agreement - separate majorities of unionists and of nationalists - but a simple majority of the entire population in a referendum. Consent does not apply to all issues. If it did then Brexit wouldn’t have happened in NI - over 60% voted against. It is bizarre to suggest consent applies to one part of Brexit – the Protocol – but not the rest. Especially when a majority in NI are content with the Protocol.'
'The tragedy is there is an obvious solution.The EU is offering the equivalent of a green lane for goods destined for NI.That is what the DUP say they want – the Sainsbury’s test. All the ideological demands, ECJ jurisdiction, are for Johnson and the ERG not for anyone in NI.'
What's even more concerning is efforts to oust people who certify the election results based on who voted and replace them with partisans who are willing to refuse to certify the election results and want to overturn them.
In this country returning officers are trusted to certify the results properly. In America authorities have always been willing to certify the results properly too, but if that ends because partisans are put into authority then that's a completely different matter.
Rayner?
Rwanda?
Railways?
Restaurant (Indian, but doing deliveries)?
I'm detecting a pattern. Still, could be worse. Roy Jenkins could still be an active politician.
I think you perhaps underplay the impact of "community" eg Roman Catholic Community, where the numbers are more significant, and differences in distribution.
AIUI the Tories get a modest plurality amongst self-identified Anglicans, and Labour a more marginal one amongst Roman Catholics. I don't know about hoe "others" may vote, beyond a note that socially conservative churches, including what used to be called black-led churches and 'new churches' may be quite significant in London and locally in other places. I can well imagine 'new churches' leaning Tory on 'moral' questions, but would not try and estimate how social conservatism plays out wrt ethnicity in the 'black led' case.
Incidentally - slogans and mottoes are fun for the misjudged imagery. From a church in Nottingham's facebook page this AM: "Our vision is to see the church on fire" You sure, vicar?
If Blair had got rid of them all we would have a fully appointed house - profoundly undemocratic - with no impetus for change
(Seriously. There are quite a lot of church buildings that are absolute millstones for their congregations. Far too big to maintain or heat, impossible to adapt. At least some church fires are a blessing from the almighty.)
https://twitter.com/hepcatsector/status/1537023810419179520/photo/1
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told POLITICO on Monday that Trump is a “potentially dangerous president.”
“It became clear to me last night that this man is not only unqualified to be president, he’s a danger to the republic,” Himes said. “I do think the Electoral College should choose someone other than Donald Trump to be president. That will lead to a fascinating legal issue ... but I would rather have a legal problem — a constitutional legal problem -- then to find out the White House was now the Kremlin’s chief ally.”
There is no comparison with today's GOP who plan to win by making it harder for people to vote and refusing to believe they have lost (Just find me 11.000 votes). GW Bush and Liz Cheney are no left wingers but at least they believe in democracy.
One of their advantages is that they have the time, autonomy, skills, and facilities which are needed to start significant new movements.
Or might it be that both relate to the primary vector?
When we see elected mayors and governors deciding on the placement and opening hours of polling stations, the design of ballot papers, on the individuals responsible for overseeing the counting, declaring and certifying the result, there are reasons to be very suspicious indeed. That’s before we get on to the boundaries, where the word “Gerrymandering” was coined.
In the UK, we take for granted that the electoral commission, the boundaries commission, the council officials and count staff, the returning officers and police are all impartial. That simply isn’t the case in the States.
There’s always the fog of war through, and we can never really be sure of what’s happening on the ground. We in the West need to keep Ukraine in the headlines, and keep up the flow of arms and training.
Not able to answer what he is in favour of or against
SKSWNBPM
Check the Twitter account @libsoftiktok
Many PB-ers seem wilfully unaware of what is happening in America. It is not just the twats of the GOP, they have a mirror image
https://ciechanow.ski/mechanical-watch/
I am not into watch porn at all (I don't even own one), but still found it fascinating.
Republican electors have been inundated with e-mails, letters, phone calls, and even death threats urging them not to vote for President-elect Donald Trump... A petition urging electoral college members to make Hillary Clinton president has almost 5 million signatures... Elector Ash Kare reports receiving 3,000 to 5,000 requests and demands per day that he become a "faithless elector" and has been assigned a plainsclothes police officer for protection... Michael Banerian, 22, of Michigan has received death threats. The Detroit News verified a message where the sender promised to "put a bullet" in the young man's mouth... As Banerian walked to a demonstration on the Oakland University campus with a group of fellow Trump supporters, he told the reporter that he was not afraid of the death threats. At that moment, an anti-Trump protester attacked the group.