After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
Indian TV and film routinely depicts the English the way Anglophone media depicts WW2 Germans. Either bungling or irredeemably evil.
This has noticeably intensified with rise of Modi/BJP.
Modern, or for that period? Because for the colonial period, the British occupation of the Indian sub continent is definitely comparable to the horrors of Nazi rule- in body count, political oppression, economic destruction etc. The UK only ignore it because we view ourselves as the good guys in WW2 and we killed people at a slower pace compared to the death camps. Inglorious Empire is a highly enlightening read to understand what the Empire did to the continent.
Not that Modi has any moral high ground.
What a load of rubbish. British rule in India was not perfect but in no way whatsoever was it comparable to the Nazis and Holocaust.
There was no mass genocide of Indians, no extermination camps for Hindus
There were no specific death camps, but there were continued administrative decision to allow millions of Indians to die of starvation rather than feed them with food grown in their own country, something that was a repetition from the Great Hunger of Ireland. The Bengal Famine under Churchill alone led to 3 million dead, and there was available food for Indians grown on Indian soil, it was just held in reserve for soldiers.
The 'Bengal Famine' was in the middle of WW2 when British forces were themselves running out of food, the alternative was Japan and the Nazis won WW2
The Bengal famine was a real thing and doesn't need to be placed within inverted commas.
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
Indian TV and film routinely depicts the English the way Anglophone media depicts WW2 Germans. Either bungling or irredeemably evil.
This has noticeably intensified with rise of Modi/BJP.
Modern, or for that period? Because for the colonial period, the British occupation of the Indian sub continent is definitely comparable to the horrors of Nazi rule- in body count, political oppression, economic destruction etc. The UK only ignore it because we view ourselves as the good guys in WW2 and we killed people at a slower pace compared to the death camps. Inglorious Empire is a highly enlightening read to understand what the Empire did to the continent.
Not that Modi has any moral high ground.
What a load of rubbish. British rule in India was not perfect but in no way whatsoever was it comparable to the Nazis and Holocaust.
There was no mass genocide of Indians, no extermination camps for Hindus
Quite
The slur on Our Empire suggesting that it treated Indians as if they were a lot of Africans is intolerable
HYUFD is quite right on one detail, the extermination camps were for Christians. But in Africa (Southern). ,Vide the "concentration camp" (c) British Empire, 2nd Boer War. [Edit] We'd call it an internment camp today. Shocking, and if not intentional then hardly unsurprising, mortality throigh overcrowding, disease and bad food.
There were no extermination camps in South Africa and of course the Boers themselves introduced Apartheid
They were de facto extermination campus in many cases.
It's a bit rich after shipping 3m black people across the Atlantic and working them to death, to point the finger at people who made them travel in separate buses.
Odd how there seems to be a strong correlation between those who think England is disliked in other countries and having a particular opinion on Brexit.
I think people are amenable to you wherever you go.
I've just got back from Bulgaria and my wife's father is now very Eurosceptic (he says he's jealous of us) and both her aunt and her brother said they'd have voted Leave had they been British too. Only her brother's wife expressed reservations about Brexit. But I didn't invite any of it.
Also, her parents next door neighbours came out with their children to play with my daughter because they heard "an English girl was in the village" and were excited to meet her.
You realise how ridiculous it is when you flip it around
Historically, Britain/England has good reason to resent the Germans, North Africans (white slavery), Japan (POWs), perhaps the French, maybe even the Spanish (armada) and Irish (terror)
The idea I would personally be rude to a German, a Libyan, a Japanese person, etc etc, if and when they visited the UK,m because of this history, is insane. Would not enter my head, nor would it enter the mind of literally anyone I know. I like to be friendly, it’s nice, I like to talk to foreigners, it’s interesting, I want people to go away with a good impression of my country
This surely applies to 99% of humanity 99% of the time
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
I agree we are never going back, but the EU would be insane if they didn't welcome us back into a friction free trading area that includes FOM. When the alternative is Johnsonian chaos, breaching international treaties and subduing our own and EU reciprocal trade I believe they would bite our hand off.
If this capitulation to RedWall morons is the best Labour can do we might as well continue voting Johnson just for the giggles.
Why? Why would they want us in the SM? There’s no benefit in having England in it. Better to get the Scots in and the Welsh and choke England economically and strategically until it’s an unviable entity. No more England, no more English = no more Johnson’s. Everyone’s happy.
Do you genuinely think that the European Union wouldn't jump at the chance of having the world's fifth largest economy (and if the UK split, England would still be top 10 on its own) moving back into its orbit purely out of spite? You've parroted this line out all day but bureaucracy doesn't see emotion. Any member state that opposed for political point scoring would be bullied into line as well.
As it happens, I don't agree with us rejoining the SM or the CU. I think it would cement long term decline as we'd be signing up to follow rules we didn't have any real say in making, although I'd be open to concessions including FOM if it made things easier outside the SM or CU as I was never against things like FOM. The best deal we could have had with the EU was the one we had, but that ship has long sailed and if we can't have a say in the decisions that are made, we should keep the EU at arms length.
Yes. I do. They’ve keep out Turkey for less justified reasons.
Ummm: one of the reasons being that Turkey has never been particularly serious about satisfying the Aquis.
Another is that people in the EU don’t want them in. Like England,
It's a mutually convenient fiction. But it is a mistake to think that this is solely a case of the Europeans stringing the Turks on. EU entry is not particularly popular in Turkey; Erdogan has absolutely no desire to be constrained; the country has being going backwards on the accession criteria; and the Cypriots and the Greeks would almost certainly veto them at the last, even if every other European country was in favour.
The Cypriots and Greeks are to Turkey what the Irish, French, and likely the Scots, are to England. They would veto - as would many others
If we - for a moment - pretend that the Turks were serious about becoming EU members (which they're not), and met the accession criteria (which they do not), and that Erdogan was prepared to make appropriate democratic and rule of law reforms (which he won't), then I suspect that the rest of the EU would allow Cyprus to veto the Turks while shrugging their shoulders and adopting a "well, watcha know" stance.
Similarly if by some miracle England or the U.K. became serious about rejoining then France, Ireland or any number of other countries would veto us.
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
Indian TV and film routinely depicts the English the way Anglophone media depicts WW2 Germans. Either bungling or irredeemably evil.
This has noticeably intensified with rise of Modi/BJP.
Modern, or for that period? Because for the colonial period, the British occupation of the Indian sub continent is definitely comparable to the horrors of Nazi rule- in body count, political oppression, economic destruction etc. The UK only ignore it because we view ourselves as the good guys in WW2 and we killed people at a slower pace compared to the death camps. Inglorious Empire is a highly enlightening read to understand what the Empire did to the continent.
Not that Modi has any moral high ground.
What a load of rubbish. British rule in India was not perfect but in no way whatsoever was it comparable to the Nazis and Holocaust.
There was no mass genocide of Indians, no extermination camps for Hindus
Quite
The slur on Our Empire suggesting that it treated Indians as if they were a lot of Africans is intolerable
HYUFD is quite right on one detail, the extermination camps were for Christians. But in Africa (Southern). ,Vide the "concentration camp" (c) British Empire, 2nd Boer War. Shocking, and if not intentional then hardly unsurprising, mortality throigh overcrowding, disease and bad food.
I also recommend this podcast discussing the Great Hunger in Ireland and how the British Government engineered it:
The famine is the main reason English visitors are so unwelcome in Ireland - quite rightly. It’s not right English people should go there,
Are you trolling us, or serious?
You seem to think that everyone hates us, and that's not true. The French would likely veto English/UK accession, as they did once before, but that's because their vision and our vision of Europe are very, very different and they'd like to get their own way. Not because of hatred.
No reason English people shouldn't go to Ireland and many do go on holiday there every single year. Irish firms spend a lot of money advertising in England every year, "Irish Ferries" are always advertising on the radio it seems.
I see those ads. They should read “Visit Ireland and be met by barely concealed hostility, you murdering bastards”.
This is genuine and frankly worrying paranoia.
Have you seen the Danish Tourism advertisments directed by Lars von Trier?
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
If you read Fintan O'Toole, it comes across not so much as hatred but as a knowing sense of superiority and condescension towards a more primitive society.
I can't wait until I hear a blackmailer use that defence: No, your honour, I was not extorting him. I was acting in a pastoral role.
The whips don't want you to stop having embarrassing secrets. They want to use your embarrassing secrets to ensure loyalty.
Jamie Wallis MP on 30 March:
I’ve had a lot of support from the Whips since I was elected. Not for the reasons you might think, but there’s a lot that goes on in MPs lives and the Whips play an important wellbeing role – as far as I’ve seen they try their best to support and help MPs who are having a tough time. Well they’ve certainly earned their keep with me.
"Having a tough time? Gambling debts piling up? Is your secretary pregnant with your child? Did you steal from your local Conservative Association? We're here for a sympathetic ear, a comforting word, and the absolute certainty that any past indiscretions will be used to ensure your future loyalty."
Very droll. But. Are you seriously suggesting that the Whips' (Whip's?) office doesn't also deal with newish MPs who are, for example, struggling with balancing their time in Westmister with managing their personal lives and constituency office at the other end of the country? Or just outright struggling with the fairly substantial change in working practices wrought by their election to Parliament?
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
Al Murray does a podcast series on WWII (“we have ways…”), but be prepared for him and his fellow presenter’s staggering level of WWII nerdery as to the minutiae of the various guns, trucks and tanks involved in each respective conflict…
His co-presenter, James Holland, is the Tea break guest on TMS.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
If you read Fintan O'Toole, it comes across not so much as hatred but as a knowing sense of superiority and condescension towards a more primitive society.
But born, ultimately, of a deeply rooted inferiority complex, which particularly afflicts Irish intellectuals. It irks them that they speak English, the language of the conquerors, for a start (as Joyce admitted, tho he was more Anglophile than phobe)
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
I do think this is part of the English psyche - that accepting empire was bad for the countries invaded by the UK means that they must hate us. I don't think any of these places hate us, they just know the history of imperialism. The UK is has such a fantabulous and childish view of it's own role in world history that any level of acceptance of how bad the empire was by other countries is, in turn, internalised by us as hatred of us now. Similar to how many right wing Americans can't accept criticism of the US of the past without it hurting their feelings about the US of the present or their own individual identity.
Brit fragility.
Quite. It goes hand in hand with the Churchill hero worship and such. Like, say what you want about Germany (for example), but they have made it a core part of their education to learn about the atrocities committed in their name and have instilled a desire not to repeat that. Whereas the UK education system is specifically and politically designed to prevent that, and so you have MPs saying we should threaten Ireland with famine over Brexit with 0 understanding how absolutely outrageous that is just in context of our history.
I’m in the odd position, perhaps, of being a liberal who thinks that Churchill was great, the Empire an often glorious enterprise, and I much happier that the British helped create the modern age than competing traditions.
But there is still, to me, a pompous little England-ism that seems to think the UK is uniquely virtuous, that there’s nothing to learn from foreigners, and that they can’t be trusted besides. You see it on here most days, expressed as bizarre, ignorant, and often paranoiac tripe about the EU, Germany, France, the US, etc, etc.
I’d say the cure is travel, but actually the British are pretty well-travelled. Perhaps compulsory learning of a foreign language from infancy is required.
I think you're correct that the British Empire helped create the modern age, but that's no good thing in my mind. The asset stripping of other countries, the playing locals against each others and engineering of internal conflict, the mass death and destruction of communities and environments left in the wake. Would any other great powers' Empire have been better; of course not - the French Empire have their crimes, Belgium and the Congo, Japanese imperialism etc. But we have a responsibility to understand and come to terms with our history, not others; that's their responsibility.
Ok, but this always seems to come with the implication that the British were uniquely bad, or white people uniquely rapacious, and that I am to feel some sense of shame thereby.
I personally don’t buy into any of that.
It was much easier in Christian times, perhaps, when we understood that sin is an inescapable part of the human condition, but that so are kindness, charity, courage and glory.
For one thing, if the British had been like the Nazis in India they'd have executed Gandhi and all of Congress. Nor would we have passed the Government of India Act 1919 or Government of India Act 1935 that gave Indians progressively more self-governance.
Gandhi worked because he shamed us into giving independence using our own values, which he was educated in - in England.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road.
That's OK. On the basis of the ConHome survey, he doesn't have a hope in hell of getting the gig anyway. Presumably because that would require the party to admit that they ballsed up enormously in 2019.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
Indian TV and film routinely depicts the English the way Anglophone media depicts WW2 Germans. Either bungling or irredeemably evil.
This has noticeably intensified with rise of Modi/BJP.
Modern, or for that period? Because for the colonial period, the British occupation of the Indian sub continent is definitely comparable to the horrors of Nazi rule- in body count, political oppression, economic destruction etc. The UK only ignore it because we view ourselves as the good guys in WW2 and we killed people at a slower pace compared to the death camps. Inglorious Empire is a highly enlightening read to understand what the Empire did to the continent.
Not that Modi has any moral high ground.
What a load of rubbish. British rule in India was not perfect but in no way whatsoever was it comparable to the Nazis and Holocaust.
There was no mass genocide of Indians, no extermination camps for Hindus
Quite
The slur on Our Empire suggesting that it treated Indians as if they were a lot of Africans is intolerable
HYUFD is quite right on one detail, the extermination camps were for Christians. But in Africa (Southern). ,Vide the "concentration camp" (c) British Empire, 2nd Boer War. Shocking, and if not intentional then hardly unsurprising, mortality throigh overcrowding, disease and bad food.
I also recommend this podcast discussing the Great Hunger in Ireland and how the British Government engineered it:
The famine is the main reason English visitors are so unwelcome in Ireland - quite rightly. It’s not right English people should go there,
Are you trolling us, or serious?
You seem to think that everyone hates us, and that's not true. The French would likely veto English/UK accession, as they did once before, but that's because their vision and our vision of Europe are very, very different and they'd like to get their own way. Not because of hatred.
No reason English people shouldn't go to Ireland and many do go on holiday there every single year. Irish firms spend a lot of money advertising in England every year, "Irish Ferries" are always advertising on the radio it seems.
I see those ads. They should read “Visit Ireland and be met by barely concealed hostility, you murdering bastards”.
This is genuine and frankly worrying paranoia.
It’s not paranoia if they’re really out to get you.
Well I must be hugely insensitive cos I go to Ireland all the time and I never noticed anyone being out to get me.
I once met an Irish guy in Clifton Connemara who showed me the “famine fields” - bare fields with oddly ribbed pasture which shows up in a slanted evening light. They are the marginal fields furrowed by people before the Famine, and never tilled since
Very moving. He showed me these with historical passion, and because he thought I might be interested (I was) and then we had a few drinks together. Revealed not an iota of animosity, not even when we were both drunk. Cracking bloke
If he could do all that without showing any animosity to the Englishman then I dunno where others are finding the hate
He was very rude about Catholic priests, tho
The Irish Times says there is a “hate the English” attitude in Ireland. I’m not making this up -
I used to travel to Ireland a lot some years ago and despite being half Irish (maternal) I would have seemed to them as English and never encountered any prejudice, only warmth. On the other hand I used to go to Glasgow a great deal at one stage and that was a very different experience. On more than one occasion I had a taxi driver start his boring rant with sentence along the lines of "I don't hate the English but...". Equally I also spent some time in rural areas of Scotland including Highlands and Flow Country and again, like Ireland, only encountered warmth. People are people, I guess. Extreme SNPers are very like extreme Brexiters. They just want to hate. They need therapy.
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
Indian TV and film routinely depicts the English the way Anglophone media depicts WW2 Germans. Either bungling or irredeemably evil.
This has noticeably intensified with rise of Modi/BJP.
Modern, or for that period? Because for the colonial period, the British occupation of the Indian sub continent is definitely comparable to the horrors of Nazi rule- in body count, political oppression, economic destruction etc. The UK only ignore it because we view ourselves as the good guys in WW2 and we killed people at a slower pace compared to the death camps. Inglorious Empire is a highly enlightening read to understand what the Empire did to the continent.
Not that Modi has any moral high ground.
What a load of rubbish. British rule in India was not perfect but in no way whatsoever was it comparable to the Nazis and Holocaust.
There was no mass genocide of Indians, no extermination camps for Hindus
Quite
The slur on Our Empire suggesting that it treated Indians as if they were a lot of Africans is intolerable
HYUFD is quite right on one detail, the extermination camps were for Christians. But in Africa (Southern). ,Vide the "concentration camp" (c) British Empire, 2nd Boer War. Shocking, and if not intentional then hardly unsurprising, mortality throigh overcrowding, disease and bad food.
I also recommend this podcast discussing the Great Hunger in Ireland and how the British Government engineered it:
The famine is the main reason English visitors are so unwelcome in Ireland - quite rightly. It’s not right English people should go there,
I've been over in Ireland for a family wedding. About a week before the wedding there was a funeral for an old lady in the village. She knew my in-laws, they would come over for a drink during Christmastide, bought us a lovely set of mugs when we were engaged, my brother-in-law repainted their house about a decade ago.
Quite a large turnout as is normal for rural Ireland. Large crowd walking behind the hearse from the church to the burial ground. People joke about blow-ins, but they were a proper part of the community. And both her and her husband, who died the year before, from England.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
If you read Fintan O'Toole, it comes across not so much as hatred but as a knowing sense of superiority and condescension towards a more primitive society.
But born, ultimately, of a deeply rooted inferiority complex, which particularly afflicts Irish intellectuals. It irks them that they speak English, the language of the conquerors, for a start (as Joyce admitted, tho he was more Anglophile than phobe)
O'Toole is one of the most astute commentators on Brexit out there. By which of course I mean that I agree with him. If the Irish resent speaking English they seem to demonstrate this chiefly by speaking and writing it better than the English do.
What is the point of the soft signal rule? If the umpire is going to the TV replay anyway, why should he have to give any signal whatsoever before reviewing the tape?
Makes for farcical scenes like the two grassed catches (neither of which were out) but only one of which was given because the 'soft signal' was out.
Nevertheless, justice done with Crawley's non-wicket just then.
The point is that a decision has to be made whether the video replay is conclusive or not and so you go with the on-field umpires best judgement if there isn't string evidence to go against it.
YES I UNDERSTAND THIS POINT FFS.
Still no answer to my question:
Why?
Why does the umpire HAVE TO give a soft signal BEFORE seeing the tape. Why can't he just see the tape, THEN give a signal?
There is no logic to it.
It is rather like being a security guard in a supermarket, suspecting someone might have possibly stolen something, but not being sure and being told: "Do you want to report him to the police?" "Er, can I see the tape from CCTV and then decide whether to report him to the police?"
"No, you have to say before I show you the tape whether you think he should be reported. Only then can I show you the tape!"
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
I agree we are never going back, but the EU would be insane if they didn't welcome us back into a friction free trading area that includes FOM. When the alternative is Johnsonian chaos, breaching international treaties and subduing our own and EU reciprocal trade I believe they would bite our hand off.
If this capitulation to RedWall morons is the best Labour can do we might as well continue voting Johnson just for the giggles.
Why? Why would they want us in the SM? There’s no benefit in having England in it. Better to get the Scots in and the Welsh and choke England economically and strategically until it’s an unviable entity. No more England, no more English = no more Johnson’s. Everyone’s happy.
Do you genuinely think that the European Union wouldn't jump at the chance of having the world's fifth largest economy (and if the UK split, England would still be top 10 on its own) moving back into its orbit purely out of spite? You've parroted this line out all day but bureaucracy doesn't see emotion. Any member state that opposed for political point scoring would be bullied into line as well.
As it happens, I don't agree with us rejoining the SM or the CU. I think it would cement long term decline as we'd be signing up to follow rules we didn't have any real say in making, although I'd be open to concessions including FOM if it made things easier outside the SM or CU as I was never against things like FOM. The best deal we could have had with the EU was the one we had, but that ship has long sailed and if we can't have a say in the decisions that are made, we should keep the EU at arms length.
Yes. I do. They’ve keep out Turkey for less justified reasons.
Ummm: one of the reasons being that Turkey has never been particularly serious about satisfying the Aquis.
Another is that people in the EU don’t want them in. Like England,
It's a mutually convenient fiction. But it is a mistake to think that this is solely a case of the Europeans stringing the Turks on. EU entry is not particularly popular in Turkey; Erdogan has absolutely no desire to be constrained; the country has being going backwards on the accession criteria; and the Cypriots and the Greeks would almost certainly veto them at the last, even if every other European country was in favour.
The Cypriots and Greeks are to Turkey what the Irish, French, and likely the Scots, are to England. They would veto - as would many others
If we - for a moment - pretend that the Turks were serious about becoming EU members (which they're not), and met the accession criteria (which they do not), and that Erdogan was prepared to make appropriate democratic and rule of law reforms (which he won't), then I suspect that the rest of the EU would allow Cyprus to veto the Turks while shrugging their shoulders and adopting a "well, watcha know" stance.
Similarly if by some miracle England or the U.K. became serious about rejoining then France, Ireland or any number of other countries would veto us.
There is no particular reason to suppose that this would be the case - provided that they were convinced that a large, committed, stable majority existed amongst the electorate in favour of the project.
Of course, given that this is not the case and is unlikely to be so for a very long time, any serious discussion of rejoining is pointless.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
If you read Fintan O'Toole, it comes across not so much as hatred but as a knowing sense of superiority and condescension towards a more primitive society.
But born, ultimately, of a deeply rooted inferiority complex, which particularly afflicts Irish intellectuals. It irks them that they speak English, the language of the conquerors, for a start (as Joyce admitted, tho he was more Anglophile than phobe)
O'Toole is one of the most astute commentators on Brexit out there. By which of course I mean that I agree with him. If the Irish resent speaking English they seem to demonstrate this chiefly by speaking and writing it better than the English do.
O’Toole wrote an entire book accusing the English of being psychosexual deviants obsessed with Fifty Shades of Gray and having no culture of their own. He’s passionate in his hatred of the English. Passionate. Loathes us,
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
If you read Fintan O'Toole, it comes across not so much as hatred but as a knowing sense of superiority and condescension towards a more primitive society.
But born, ultimately, of a deeply rooted inferiority complex, which particularly afflicts Irish intellectuals. It irks them that they speak English, the language of the conquerors, for a start (as Joyce admitted, tho he was more Anglophile than phobe)
I am half Irish, and I can assure you, I don't feel even half inferior to you. Quite the contrary. I mean, you still believe in Brexit lol!!! Are you still trying to convince yourself? By the way, there is no such thing as Father Christmas or the "little people" either! Even if there were, they wouldn't be able to grant your wish that Brexit could be better than a crock of old shite!
What is the point of the soft signal rule? If the umpire is going to the TV replay anyway, why should he have to give any signal whatsoever before reviewing the tape?
Makes for farcical scenes like the two grassed catches (neither of which were out) but only one of which was given because the 'soft signal' was out.
Nevertheless, justice done with Crawley's non-wicket just then.
The point is that a decision has to be made whether the video replay is conclusive or not and so you go with the on-field umpires best judgement if there isn't string evidence to go against it.
YES I UNDERSTAND THIS POINT FFS.
Still no answer to my question:
Why?
Why does the umpire HAVE TO give a soft signal BEFORE seeing the tape. Why can't he just see the tape, THEN give a signal?
There is no logic to it.
It is rather like being a security guard in a supermarket, suspecting someone might have possibly stolen something, but not being sure and being told: "Do you want to report him to the police?" "Er, can I see the tape from CCTV and then decide whether to report him to the police?"
"No, you have to say before I show you the tape whether you think he should be reported. Only then can I show you the tape!"
Because there is a recognition of a margin of error with the technology.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
What is the point of the soft signal rule? If the umpire is going to the TV replay anyway, why should he have to give any signal whatsoever before reviewing the tape?
Makes for farcical scenes like the two grassed catches (neither of which were out) but only one of which was given because the 'soft signal' was out.
Nevertheless, justice done with Crawley's non-wicket just then.
The point is that a decision has to be made whether the video replay is conclusive or not and so you go with the on-field umpires best judgement if there isn't string evidence to go against it.
YES I UNDERSTAND THIS POINT FFS.
Still no answer to my question:
Why?
Why does the umpire HAVE TO give a soft signal BEFORE seeing the tape. Why can't he just see the tape, THEN give a signal?
There is no logic to it.
It is rather like being a security guard in a supermarket, suspecting someone might have possibly stolen something, but not being sure and being told: "Do you want to report him to the police?" "Er, can I see the tape from CCTV and then decide whether to report him to the police?"
"No, you have to say before I show you the tape whether you think he should be reported. Only then can I show you the tape!"
The umpire doesn't see the tape, the third umpire sees the tape. Why are you confusing them?
The reason the umpire has to give a soft signal is that is his job. The third umpire then determines whether there is any reason to say the umpire was wrong, with margin of error sticking with the on field umpire's original signal. There is logic to it, the tape is somebody else's responsibility, not the umpire's responsibility.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
If you read Fintan O'Toole, it comes across not so much as hatred but as a knowing sense of superiority and condescension towards a more primitive society.
But born, ultimately, of a deeply rooted inferiority complex, which particularly afflicts Irish intellectuals. It irks them that they speak English, the language of the conquerors, for a start (as Joyce admitted, tho he was more Anglophile than phobe)
O'Toole is one of the most astute commentators on Brexit out there. By which of course I mean that I agree with him. If the Irish resent speaking English they seem to demonstrate this chiefly by speaking and writing it better than the English do.
O’Toole wrote an entire book accusing the English of being psychosexual deviants obsessed with Fifty Shades of Gray and having no culture of their own. He’s passionate in his hatred of the English. Passionate. Loathes us,
Having rewritten his standard anti-Brexit column several times I think he struggled to extend it to book length. The idea that Vivienne Westwood bondage suits were a harbinger of "the deep neurosis of Brexit" is stretching it.
All nations have their xenophobic bores. In many countries there is a default place or people for those xenophobic bores to hate on. In England they tend to bang on about Brussels or occasionally the French/Germans. In some other countries England is the convenient target. But most people in most countries are not xenophobic bores.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
I'm Irish and there at least four or five on here that I despise and wish nothing but ill fortune upon.
My admiration for the Irish has only increased since the Shinners whipped the defeat of the nonsensical anti hunting bill in NI last year. Foine little country to be sure.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
If you read Fintan O'Toole, it comes across not so much as hatred but as a knowing sense of superiority and condescension towards a more primitive society.
But born, ultimately, of a deeply rooted inferiority complex, which particularly afflicts Irish intellectuals. It irks them that they speak English, the language of the conquerors, for a start (as Joyce admitted, tho he was more Anglophile than phobe)
O'Toole is one of the most astute commentators on Brexit out there. By which of course I mean that I agree with him. If the Irish resent speaking English they seem to demonstrate this chiefly by speaking and writing it better than the English do.
O’Toole wrote an entire book accusing the English of being psychosexual deviants obsessed with Fifty Shades of Gray and having no culture of their own. He’s passionate in his hatred of the English. Passionate. Loathes us,
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
If you read Fintan O'Toole, it comes across not so much as hatred but as a knowing sense of superiority and condescension towards a more primitive society.
But born, ultimately, of a deeply rooted inferiority complex, which particularly afflicts Irish intellectuals. It irks them that they speak English, the language of the conquerors, for a start (as Joyce admitted, tho he was more Anglophile than phobe)
O'Toole is one of the most astute commentators on Brexit out there. By which of course I mean that I agree with him. If the Irish resent speaking English they seem to demonstrate this chiefly by speaking and writing it better than the English do.
O’Toole wrote an entire book accusing the English of being psychosexual deviants obsessed with Fifty Shades of Gray and having no culture of their own. He’s passionate in his hatred of the English. Passionate. Loathes us,
Let me let you into a secret. There are twats in all countries. We have quite a few in England.
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
Al Murray does a podcast series on WWII (“we have ways…”), but be prepared for him and his fellow presenter’s staggering level of WWII nerdery as to the minutiae of the various guns, trucks and tanks involved in each respective conflict…
His co-presenter, James Holland, is the Tea break guest on TMS.
I wouldn’t say Holland is the most insightful or sophisticated tv historian, but in any case due to an uncanny resemblance to a once popular entertainer I can’t see him without hearing ’Awight?’ or thinking of serious anal injuries.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
If you read Fintan O'Toole, it comes across not so much as hatred but as a knowing sense of superiority and condescension towards a more primitive society.
But born, ultimately, of a deeply rooted inferiority complex, which particularly afflicts Irish intellectuals. It irks them that they speak English, the language of the conquerors, for a start (as Joyce admitted, tho he was more Anglophile than phobe)
O'Toole is one of the most astute commentators on Brexit out there. By which of course I mean that I agree with him. If the Irish resent speaking English they seem to demonstrate this chiefly by speaking and writing it better than the English do.
O’Toole wrote an entire book accusing the English of being psychosexual deviants obsessed with Fifty Shades of Gray and having no culture of their own. He’s passionate in his hatred of the English. Passionate. Loathes us,
Let me let you into a secret. There are twats in all countries. We have quite a few in England.
The Irish, and the rest of the world, think we’re a nation of them.
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
I do think this is part of the English psyche - that accepting empire was bad for the countries invaded by the UK means that they must hate us. I don't think any of these places hate us, they just know the history of imperialism. The UK is has such a fantabulous and childish view of it's own role in world history that any level of acceptance of how bad the empire was by other countries is, in turn, internalised by us as hatred of us now. Similar to how many right wing Americans can't accept criticism of the US of the past without it hurting their feelings about the US of the present or their own individual identity.
Brit fragility.
Quite. It goes hand in hand with the Churchill hero worship and such. Like, say what you want about Germany (for example), but they have made it a core part of their education to learn about the atrocities committed in their name and have instilled a desire not to repeat that. Whereas the UK education system is specifically and politically designed to prevent that, and so you have MPs saying we should threaten Ireland with famine over Brexit with 0 understanding how absolutely outrageous that is just in context of our history.
I’m in the odd position, perhaps, of being a liberal who thinks that Churchill was great, the Empire an often glorious enterprise, and I much happier that the British helped create the modern age than competing traditions.
But there is still, to me, a pompous little England-ism that seems to think the UK is uniquely virtuous, that there’s nothing to learn from foreigners, and that they can’t be trusted besides. You see it on here most days, expressed as bizarre, ignorant, and often paranoiac tripe about the EU, Germany, France, the US, etc, etc.
I’d say the cure is travel, but actually the British are pretty well-travelled. Perhaps compulsory learning of a foreign language from infancy is required.
I think you're correct that the British Empire helped create the modern age, but that's no good thing in my mind. The asset stripping of other countries, the playing locals against each others and engineering of internal conflict, the mass death and destruction of communities and environments left in the wake.
The other question is whether our former colonies have governed themselves any better or more humanely overall since independence? African dictators have given the idea of asset stripping whole new meanings, love playing tribes off against each other, and even committing mass killings or genocide. And after the Chinese government's recent treatment of Hong Kong, who can seriously say that that territory is better off now than under our absent-minded, benevolent post-war rule?
Some countries have done better since independence, some have not, which is why you see occasional politicians or opinion polls wishing that they were still part of our empire.
You do, it's legacy is complex and mixed.
We've gone from saying it was entirely wonderful up to the 1960s to not really talking about it much in the 80s and 90s to now talking about how evil it all was.
Eventually, we'll move to measured balance where it can be soberly reviewed in the round.
Lots of imperial people's really wanted self-government under the British Crown, and that includes Gandhi (originally) and Hong Kongers, just as we gave to the "white" dominions at the turn of the century.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
No, they are Americans irrespective of how they put it. Your examples are crap: odium between in laws and at weddings are too full of confounding factors to prove anything about anything
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
If you read Fintan O'Toole, it comes across not so much as hatred but as a knowing sense of superiority and condescension towards a more primitive society.
But born, ultimately, of a deeply rooted inferiority complex, which particularly afflicts Irish intellectuals. It irks them that they speak English, the language of the conquerors, for a start (as Joyce admitted, tho he was more Anglophile than phobe)
O'Toole is one of the most astute commentators on Brexit out there. By which of course I mean that I agree with him. If the Irish resent speaking English they seem to demonstrate this chiefly by speaking and writing it better than the English do.
O’Toole wrote an entire book accusing the English of being psychosexual deviants obsessed with Fifty Shades of Gray and having no culture of their own. He’s passionate in his hatred of the English. Passionate. Loathes us,
Let me let you into a secret. There are twats in all countries. We have quite a few in England.
The Irish, and the rest of the world, think we’re a nation of them.
No, they don't.
You're the one being prejudiced now. You are racistly insinuating negative attitudes on an entire nation, because of some bad experiences with some people.
That's racism pure and simple. Almost everyone has told you that this isn't their experience or attitude, and you're still boring on that all Irish people are the same. That's nothing other than unmitigated racism and you should go for a cold shower, have a cold non alcoholic drink and step away from the keyboard for a while.
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
Indian TV and film routinely depicts the English the way Anglophone media depicts WW2 Germans. Either bungling or irredeemably evil.
This has noticeably intensified with rise of Modi/BJP.
Modern, or for that period? Because for the colonial period, the British occupation of the Indian sub continent is definitely comparable to the horrors of Nazi rule- in body count, political oppression, economic destruction etc. The UK only ignore it because we view ourselves as the good guys in WW2 and we killed people at a slower pace compared to the death camps. Inglorious Empire is a highly enlightening read to understand what the Empire did to the continent.
Not that Modi has any moral high ground.
What a load of rubbish. British rule in India was not perfect but in no way whatsoever was it comparable to the Nazis and Holocaust.
There was no mass genocide of Indians, no extermination camps for Hindus
Quite
The slur on Our Empire suggesting that it treated Indians as if they were a lot of Africans is intolerable
HYUFD is quite right on one detail, the extermination camps were for Christians. But in Africa (Southern). ,Vide the "concentration camp" (c) British Empire, 2nd Boer War. [Edit] We'd call it an internment camp today. Shocking, and if not intentional then hardly unsurprising, mortality throigh overcrowding, disease and bad food.
There were no extermination camps in South Africa and of course the Boers themselves introduced Apartheid
They were de facto extermination campus in many cases.
It's a bit rich after shipping 3m black people across the Atlantic and working them to death, to point the finger at people who made them travel in separate buses.
No they weren't, where were the gas chambers in South Africa?
The US, Spain, France, the Arabs etc all continued slavery long after the UK and British Empire
What is the point of the soft signal rule? If the umpire is going to the TV replay anyway, why should he have to give any signal whatsoever before reviewing the tape?
Makes for farcical scenes like the two grassed catches (neither of which were out) but only one of which was given because the 'soft signal' was out.
Nevertheless, justice done with Crawley's non-wicket just then.
The point is that a decision has to be made whether the video replay is conclusive or not and so you go with the on-field umpires best judgement if there isn't string evidence to go against it.
YES I UNDERSTAND THIS POINT FFS.
Still no answer to my question:
Why?
Why does the umpire HAVE TO give a soft signal BEFORE seeing the tape. Why can't he just see the tape, THEN give a signal?
There is no logic to it.
It is rather like being a security guard in a supermarket, suspecting someone might have possibly stolen something, but not being sure and being told: "Do you want to report him to the police?" "Er, can I see the tape from CCTV and then decide whether to report him to the police?"
"No, you have to say before I show you the tape whether you think he should be reported. Only then can I show you the tape!"
Because there is a recognition of a margin of error with the technology.
Yes, I get this.
Hence why the umpire still has to make the final decision.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Lots of imperial people's really wanted self-government under the British Crown, and that includes Gandhi (originally) and Hong Kongers, just as we gave to the "white" dominions at the turn of the century.
That's where the opportunity was lost.
Yes but the white dominions are still now independent too
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
If you read Fintan O'Toole, it comes across not so much as hatred but as a knowing sense of superiority and condescension towards a more primitive society.
But born, ultimately, of a deeply rooted inferiority complex, which particularly afflicts Irish intellectuals. It irks them that they speak English, the language of the conquerors, for a start (as Joyce admitted, tho he was more Anglophile than phobe)
O'Toole is one of the most astute commentators on Brexit out there. By which of course I mean that I agree with him. If the Irish resent speaking English they seem to demonstrate this chiefly by speaking and writing it better than the English do.
O’Toole wrote an entire book accusing the English of being psychosexual deviants obsessed with Fifty Shades of Gray and having no culture of their own. He’s passionate in his hatred of the English. Passionate. Loathes us,
Let me let you into a secret. There are twats in all countries. We have quite a few in England.
The Irish, and the rest of the world, think we’re a nation of them.
No, they don't.
You're the one being prejudiced now. You are racistly insinuating negative attitudes on an entire nation, because of some bad experiences with some people.
That's racism pure and simple. Almost everyone has told you that this isn't their experience or attitude, and you're still boring on that all Irish people are the same. That's nothing other than unmitigated racism and you should go for a cold shower, have a cold non alcoholic drink and step away from the keyboard for a while.
No. I’m boring on that the rest of the WORLD thinks we are arseholes. I don’t say it’s just the Irish but the discussion moved in that direction. I’m an equal opps bigot I guess.
What is the point of the soft signal rule? If the umpire is going to the TV replay anyway, why should he have to give any signal whatsoever before reviewing the tape?
Makes for farcical scenes like the two grassed catches (neither of which were out) but only one of which was given because the 'soft signal' was out.
Nevertheless, justice done with Crawley's non-wicket just then.
The point is that a decision has to be made whether the video replay is conclusive or not and so you go with the on-field umpires best judgement if there isn't string evidence to go against it.
YES I UNDERSTAND THIS POINT FFS.
Still no answer to my question:
Why?
Why does the umpire HAVE TO give a soft signal BEFORE seeing the tape. Why can't he just see the tape, THEN give a signal?
There is no logic to it.
It is rather like being a security guard in a supermarket, suspecting someone might have possibly stolen something, but not being sure and being told: "Do you want to report him to the police?" "Er, can I see the tape from CCTV and then decide whether to report him to the police?"
"No, you have to say before I show you the tape whether you think he should be reported. Only then can I show you the tape!"
Because there is a recognition of a margin of error with the technology.
Yes, I get this.
Hence why the umpire still has to make the final decision.
But the soft signal first rule is illogical.
No it isn't. Its entirely logical. If there's to be a soft signal it has to come first.
A signal given after seeing the tape is a hard signal, not a soft one. The soft one is indicative by the umpire who has just freshly witnessed the event and is doing their job - and won't get a chance of seeing the tape.
Unlikely football, cricket has very wisely recognised that technology has a margin of error, and gives that margin to the on-field umpires.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
If you read Fintan O'Toole, it comes across not so much as hatred but as a knowing sense of superiority and condescension towards a more primitive society.
But born, ultimately, of a deeply rooted inferiority complex, which particularly afflicts Irish intellectuals. It irks them that they speak English, the language of the conquerors, for a start (as Joyce admitted, tho he was more Anglophile than phobe)
O'Toole is one of the most astute commentators on Brexit out there. By which of course I mean that I agree with him. If the Irish resent speaking English they seem to demonstrate this chiefly by speaking and writing it better than the English do.
O’Toole wrote an entire book accusing the English of being psychosexual deviants obsessed with Fifty Shades of Gray and having no culture of their own. He’s passionate in his hatred of the English. Passionate. Loathes us,
Let me let you into a secret. There are twats in all countries. We have quite a few in England.
The Irish, and the rest of the world, think we’re a nation of them.
No, they don't.
You're the one being prejudiced now. You are racistly insinuating negative attitudes on an entire nation, because of some bad experiences with some people.
That's racism pure and simple. Almost everyone has told you that this isn't their experience or attitude, and you're still boring on that all Irish people are the same. That's nothing other than unmitigated racism and you should go for a cold shower, have a cold non alcoholic drink and step away from the keyboard for a while.
No. I’m boring on that the rest of the WORLD thinks we are arseholes. I don’t say it’s just the Irish but the discussion moved in that direction. I’m an equal opps bigot I guess.
If the whole world thinks you're an arsehole, then maybe you're just an arsehole. Maybe it isn't about the English.
I've been to many countries and always felt welcomed. Your vision of the world doesn't match my own.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
If you read Fintan O'Toole, it comes across not so much as hatred but as a knowing sense of superiority and condescension towards a more primitive society.
But born, ultimately, of a deeply rooted inferiority complex, which particularly afflicts Irish intellectuals. It irks them that they speak English, the language of the conquerors, for a start (as Joyce admitted, tho he was more Anglophile than phobe)
O'Toole is one of the most astute commentators on Brexit out there. By which of course I mean that I agree with him. If the Irish resent speaking English they seem to demonstrate this chiefly by speaking and writing it better than the English do.
O’Toole wrote an entire book accusing the English of being psychosexual deviants obsessed with Fifty Shades of Gray and having no culture of their own. He’s passionate in his hatred of the English. Passionate. Loathes us,
Let me let you into a secret. There are twats in all countries. We have quite a few in England.
The Irish, and the rest of the world, think we’re a nation of them.
It is not my experience. Obviously for those that want to believe this they will. That said, we don't help ourselves; those that decided Boris Johnson was a suitable person to lead the Conservative Party (and those in Labour that enabled him by voting for Corbyn) have not helped dispel that belief among the minority that hold it. We also have to recall, that while we have Boris Johnson, Scotland has Alex Salmond, America has Trump, France has Macron and Le Pen, Italy Berlusconi etc. Countries in glass houses and all that
What is the point of the soft signal rule? If the umpire is going to the TV replay anyway, why should he have to give any signal whatsoever before reviewing the tape?
Makes for farcical scenes like the two grassed catches (neither of which were out) but only one of which was given because the 'soft signal' was out.
Nevertheless, justice done with Crawley's non-wicket just then.
The point is that a decision has to be made whether the video replay is conclusive or not and so you go with the on-field umpires best judgement if there isn't string evidence to go against it.
YES I UNDERSTAND THIS POINT FFS.
Still no answer to my question:
Why?
Why does the umpire HAVE TO give a soft signal BEFORE seeing the tape. Why can't he just see the tape, THEN give a signal?
There is no logic to it.
It is rather like being a security guard in a supermarket, suspecting someone might have possibly stolen something, but not being sure and being told: "Do you want to report him to the police?" "Er, can I see the tape from CCTV and then decide whether to report him to the police?"
"No, you have to say before I show you the tape whether you think he should be reported. Only then can I show you the tape!"
Because there is a recognition of a margin of error with the technology.
Yes, I get this.
Hence why the umpire still has to make the final decision.
But the soft signal first rule is illogical.
No it isn't. Its entirely logical. If there's to be a soft signal it has to come first.
A signal given after seeing the tape is a hard signal, not a soft one. The soft one is indicative by the umpire who has just freshly witnessed the event and is doing their job - and won't get a chance of seeing the tape.
Unlikely football, cricket has very wisely recognised that technology has a margin of error, and gives that margin to the on-field umpires.
" If there's to be a soft signal it has to come first."
You are finally grasping my point!
Why does there have to be ANY so-called 'soft signal'?
It is senseless in the scenario where the umpire has HIMSELF has called for the tape.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
If you read Fintan O'Toole, it comes across not so much as hatred but as a knowing sense of superiority and condescension towards a more primitive society.
But born, ultimately, of a deeply rooted inferiority complex, which particularly afflicts Irish intellectuals. It irks them that they speak English, the language of the conquerors, for a start (as Joyce admitted, tho he was more Anglophile than phobe)
O'Toole is one of the most astute commentators on Brexit out there. By which of course I mean that I agree with him. If the Irish resent speaking English they seem to demonstrate this chiefly by speaking and writing it better than the English do.
O’Toole wrote an entire book accusing the English of being psychosexual deviants obsessed with Fifty Shades of Gray and having no culture of their own. He’s passionate in his hatred of the English. Passionate. Loathes us,
Let me let you into a secret. There are twats in all countries. We have quite a few in England.
The Irish, and the rest of the world, think we’re a nation of them.
No, they don't.
You're the one being prejudiced now. You are racistly insinuating negative attitudes on an entire nation, because of some bad experiences with some people.
That's racism pure and simple. Almost everyone has told you that this isn't their experience or attitude, and you're still boring on that all Irish people are the same. That's nothing other than unmitigated racism and you should go for a cold shower, have a cold non alcoholic drink and step away from the keyboard for a while.
No. I’m boring on that the rest of the WORLD thinks we are arseholes. I don’t say it’s just the Irish but the discussion moved in that direction. I’m an equal opps bigot I guess.
If the whole world thinks you're an arsehole, then maybe you're just an arsehole. Maybe it isn't about the English.
I've been to many countries and always felt welcomed. Your vision of the world doesn't match my own.
I don’t travel much anymore. I used to go visit my wife’s family in the states a lot then Covid and the hostility outlined above got in the way, So now she goes solo on our travel budget and we holiday in England, sometimes Wales.
My wife's from County Cork and we've been visiting Ireland at least annually for weddings, funerals etc all over Ireland for the last 40-something years. Never felt uneasy about anything. We did have some discrimination only at the wedding of a nephew to a Church of Ireland girl from around Carlingford. They bussed us in from the South, but went out the way to make us welcome, even opening the bar up especially early as we Catholics like a drink, don't we?
The early 80s during the Bobby Sands affair could have been difficult, but it didn't affect our visit to Gorey (Wexford). A friend of the family was playing the accordion in the local pub and after quite a few rebel songs, I asked if he had any for the Black and Tans. He smiled but said he'd better not, as "some of the gentlemen were in tonight."
They make everyone welcome, even putting up with Americans who claim they're one-sixteenth Irish. My son has an Irish passport but lives in Copenhagen and he claims it's for convenience. I'm English because I was born here, but have a few Irish antecedents as do many English people. I take my Irish brother-in-law to Twickenham regularly, but I can't say I enjoyed the last International.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
What is the point of the soft signal rule? If the umpire is going to the TV replay anyway, why should he have to give any signal whatsoever before reviewing the tape?
Makes for farcical scenes like the two grassed catches (neither of which were out) but only one of which was given because the 'soft signal' was out.
Nevertheless, justice done with Crawley's non-wicket just then.
The point is that a decision has to be made whether the video replay is conclusive or not and so you go with the on-field umpires best judgement if there isn't string evidence to go against it.
YES I UNDERSTAND THIS POINT FFS.
Still no answer to my question:
Why?
Why does the umpire HAVE TO give a soft signal BEFORE seeing the tape. Why can't he just see the tape, THEN give a signal?
There is no logic to it.
It is rather like being a security guard in a supermarket, suspecting someone might have possibly stolen something, but not being sure and being told: "Do you want to report him to the police?" "Er, can I see the tape from CCTV and then decide whether to report him to the police?"
"No, you have to say before I show you the tape whether you think he should be reported. Only then can I show you the tape!"
Because there is a recognition of a margin of error with the technology.
Yes, I get this.
Hence why the umpire still has to make the final decision.
But the soft signal first rule is illogical.
No it isn't. Its entirely logical. If there's to be a soft signal it has to come first.
A signal given after seeing the tape is a hard signal, not a soft one. The soft one is indicative by the umpire who has just freshly witnessed the event and is doing their job - and won't get a chance of seeing the tape.
Unlikely football, cricket has very wisely recognised that technology has a margin of error, and gives that margin to the on-field umpires.
" If there's to be a soft signal it has to come first."
You are finally grasping my point!
Why does there have to be ANY so-called 'soft signal'?
It is senseless in the scenario where the umpire has HIMSELF has called for the tape.
Let the umpires review the tapes then decide.
Umpires, plural, don't review the tape. Only the third umpire reviews the tape.
There has to be a soft signal because there is a well-known flaw in the technology that lens foreshortening creates doubt in edge cases. So the soft signal handles the margin of error, standing by the original soft signal.
It is a smart way to respect and recognise the margin of error. You're acting as if "the tape" is infallible or better than the on-field call, it isn't, that's why the soft signal exists. The tape merely confirms the on-field umpire's original call, or reverses it if there's proof they're wrong.
The final decision is after reviewing the tapes. The soft signal only matters for if the tapes can't be used to decide.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
Very many Irish-Americans are actually descended from Scots-Irish. Protestants. The people that repressed the Catholics
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
That was part of the problem. My wife’s aunt had found out that, somewhat unexpectedly, one of those 23 and Me DNA tests had said my Mum, who’s pretty stereotypically English, was 85% Irish or something. I don’t hold with the accuracy of these things but my in laws took it strangely badly. If Irish people get upset by something so trivial as a postal DNA test then is there hope? I gave up after that,
Thanks for that. The little 'un was fascinated with the Eiffel Tower a few years back, so I bought him a book containing piccies of it being built, along with structural diagrams. (*) Much of the text is in French, but it is a truly beautiful book.
Lots of imperial people's really wanted self-government under the British Crown, and that includes Gandhi (originally) and Hong Kongers, just as we gave to the "white" dominions at the turn of the century.
That's where the opportunity was lost.
Yes but the white dominions are still now independent too
But, with less hangups and a better and more constructive relationship with the UK.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
That was part of the problem. My wife’s aunt had found out that, somewhat unexpectedly, one of those 23 and Me DNA tests had said my Mum, who’s pretty stereotypically English, was 85% Irish or something. I don’t hold with the accuracy of these things but my in laws took it strangely badly. If Irish people get upset by something so trivial as a postal DNA test then is there hope? I gave up after that,
So one person had an attitude over one thing, and therefore all Irish people are the same based upon that experience?
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
Indian TV and film routinely depicts the English the way Anglophone media depicts WW2 Germans. Either bungling or irredeemably evil.
This has noticeably intensified with rise of Modi/BJP.
Modern, or for that period? Because for the colonial period, the British occupation of the Indian sub continent is definitely comparable to the horrors of Nazi rule- in body count, political oppression, economic destruction etc. The UK only ignore it because we view ourselves as the good guys in WW2 and we killed people at a slower pace compared to the death camps. Inglorious Empire is a highly enlightening read to understand what the Empire did to the continent.
Not that Modi has any moral high ground.
What a load of rubbish. British rule in India was not perfect but in no way whatsoever was it comparable to the Nazis and Holocaust.
There was no mass genocide of Indians, no extermination camps for Hindus
There were no specific death camps, but there were continued administrative decision to allow millions of Indians to die of starvation rather than feed them with food grown in their own country, something that was a repetition from the Great Hunger of Ireland. The Bengal Famine under Churchill alone led to 3 million dead, and there was available food for Indians grown on Indian soil, it was just held in reserve for soldiers.
The 'Bengal Famine' was in the middle of WW2 when British forces were themselves running out of food, the alternative was Japan and the Nazis won WW2
From my understanding of the history, the rations that were taken from India that contributed to the Bengal Famine were never given to soldiers on the front and were instead kept as reserves in fear of a blockade that didn't happen.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
That was part of the problem. My wife’s aunt had found out that, somewhat unexpectedly, one of those 23 and Me DNA tests had said my Mum, who’s pretty stereotypically English, was 85% Irish or something. I don’t hold with the accuracy of these things but my in laws took it strangely badly. If Irish people get upset by something so trivial as a postal DNA test then is there hope? I gave up after that,
So one person had an attitude over one thing, and therefore all Irish people are the same based upon that experience?
I think there's a word for that.
As I said, it was indicative of a global attitude, the person in question identifying with countries on two continents
On Anglo Irish relations, i worked in Dublin for about a year shortly before the economic crash. The only anti englishness i experienced was one old dear who demanded to know why an Englishman was answering the phone at an Irish firm. None from work colleagues, or people generally. Similarly in my dozens of trips to Scotland ive never experienced anti english sentiment. Granted i havent morris danced into any Glasgow pubs with jellied eel earrings on but both places to me have alwsys been friendly, welcoming and fun.
Lots of imperial people's really wanted self-government under the British Crown, and that includes Gandhi (originally) and Hong Kongers, just as we gave to the "white" dominions at the turn of the century.
That's where the opportunity was lost.
Yes but the white dominions are still now independent too
But, with less hangups and a better and more constructive relationship with the UK.
And some still have the Queen too, of course.
They only still have the Queen because she is white like most of them are and of British ancestral origin
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
Very many Irish-Americans are actually descended from Scots-Irish. Protestants. The people that repressed the Catholics
They tend to overlook that
Well indeed. There is a certain poster on here who seems somewhat lacking in education (normally I would be sympathetic except that he is a complete twat) and he refers to Scotland being a colony when the historic reality is that Scotland was one of the most enthusiastic parts of the UK when it came to providing colonialists to repress not just the Irish but many other folk around the world. ( I now await the torrent of abuse from the inarticulate little a-hole)
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
Indian TV and film routinely depicts the English the way Anglophone media depicts WW2 Germans. Either bungling or irredeemably evil.
This has noticeably intensified with rise of Modi/BJP.
Modern, or for that period? Because for the colonial period, the British occupation of the Indian sub continent is definitely comparable to the horrors of Nazi rule- in body count, political oppression, economic destruction etc. The UK only ignore it because we view ourselves as the good guys in WW2 and we killed people at a slower pace compared to the death camps. Inglorious Empire is a highly enlightening read to understand what the Empire did to the continent.
Not that Modi has any moral high ground.
What a load of rubbish. British rule in India was not perfect but in no way whatsoever was it comparable to the Nazis and Holocaust.
There was no mass genocide of Indians, no extermination camps for Hindus
Quite
The slur on Our Empire suggesting that it treated Indians as if they were a lot of Africans is intolerable
HYUFD is quite right on one detail, the extermination camps were for Christians. But in Africa (Southern). ,Vide the "concentration camp" (c) British Empire, 2nd Boer War. [Edit] We'd call it an internment camp today. Shocking, and if not intentional then hardly unsurprising, mortality throigh overcrowding, disease and bad food.
There were no extermination camps in South Africa and of course the Boers themselves introduced Apartheid
They were de facto extermination campus in many cases.
It's a bit rich after shipping 3m black people across the Atlantic and working them to death, to point the finger at people who made them travel in separate buses.
No they weren't, where were the gas chambers in South Africa?
The US, Spain, France, the Arabs etc all continued slavery long after the UK and British Empire
If you cause someone to die you are exterminating them. Why the requirement for gas chambers
US slavery was a UK legacy. For the others so what? When did "other people do it" ever justify anything?
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
That was part of the problem. My wife’s aunt had found out that, somewhat unexpectedly, one of those 23 and Me DNA tests had said my Mum, who’s pretty stereotypically English, was 85% Irish or something. I don’t hold with the accuracy of these things but my in laws took it strangely badly. If Irish people get upset by something so trivial as a postal DNA test then is there hope? I gave up after that,
So one person had an attitude over one thing, and therefore all Irish people are the same based upon that experience?
I think there's a word for that.
As I said, it was indicative of a global attitude, the person in question identifying with countries on two continents
So you're judging the globe, based upon one person?
So basically, if you're being racist here today, then everyone on the planet is racist, because you are?
People are individuals, not their compatriots. If one person is a dick, then they're a dick, not their compatriots. If everyone thinks you're a dick, try not being such a dick.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
That was part of the problem. My wife’s aunt had found out that, somewhat unexpectedly, one of those 23 and Me DNA tests had said my Mum, who’s pretty stereotypically English, was 85% Irish or something. I don’t hold with the accuracy of these things but my in laws took it strangely badly. If Irish people get upset by something so trivial as a postal DNA test then is there hope? I gave up after that,
So one person had an attitude over one thing, and therefore all Irish people are the same based upon that experience?
I think there's a word for that.
As I said, it was indicative of a global attitude, the person in question identifying with countries on two continents
So you're judging the globe, based upon one person?
So basically, if you're being racist here today, then everyone on the planet is racist, because you are?
People are individuals, not their compatriots. If one person is a dick, then they're a dick, not their compatriots. If everyone thinks you're a dick, try not being such a dick.
Clearly, in the anecdote I outline above, it was not me but my mother who was the problem, and she was 3500 miles away at the time. The only reason for it was that she was English.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
Very many Irish-Americans are actually descended from Scots-Irish. Protestants. The people that repressed the Catholics
They tend to overlook that
Well indeed. There is a certain poster on here who seems somewhat lacking in education (normally I would be sympathetic except that he is a complete twat) and he refers to Scotland being a colony when the historic reality is that Scotland was one of the most enthusiastic parts of the UK when it came to providing colonialists to repress not just the Irish but many other folk around the world. ( I now await the torrent of abuse from the inarticulate little a-hole)
Haha, I can't wait to see the incoming abuse on this one....
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
Al Murray does a podcast series on WWII (“we have ways…”), but be prepared for him and his fellow presenter’s staggering level of WWII nerdery as to the minutiae of the various guns, trucks and tanks involved in each respective conflict…
His co-presenter, James Holland, is the Tea break guest on TMS.
I wouldn’t say Holland is the most insightful or sophisticated tv historian, but in any case due to an uncanny resemblance to a once popular entertainer I can’t see him without hearing ’Awight?’ or thinking of serious anal injuries.
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
Indian TV and film routinely depicts the English the way Anglophone media depicts WW2 Germans. Either bungling or irredeemably evil.
This has noticeably intensified with rise of Modi/BJP.
Modern, or for that period? Because for the colonial period, the British occupation of the Indian sub continent is definitely comparable to the horrors of Nazi rule- in body count, political oppression, economic destruction etc. The UK only ignore it because we view ourselves as the good guys in WW2 and we killed people at a slower pace compared to the death camps. Inglorious Empire is a highly enlightening read to understand what the Empire did to the continent.
Not that Modi has any moral high ground.
What a load of rubbish. British rule in India was not perfect but in no way whatsoever was it comparable to the Nazis and Holocaust.
There was no mass genocide of Indians, no extermination camps for Hindus
There were no specific death camps, but there were continued administrative decision to allow millions of Indians to die of starvation rather than feed them with food grown in their own country, something that was a repetition from the Great Hunger of Ireland. The Bengal Famine under Churchill alone led to 3 million dead, and there was available food for Indians grown on Indian soil, it was just held in reserve for soldiers.
The 'Bengal Famine' was in the middle of WW2 when British forces were themselves running out of food, the alternative was Japan and the Nazis won WW2
From my understanding of the history, the rations that were taken from India that contributed to the Bengal Famine were never given to soldiers on the front and were instead kept as reserves in fear of a blockade that didn't happen.
May well have happened given the Japanese had already invaded Burma by that stage. Plus tidal waves, cyclones, rice crop famines etc also played a part
Odd how there seems to be a strong correlation between those who think England is disliked in other countries and having a particular opinion on Brexit.
I think people are amenable to you wherever you go.
I've just got back from Bulgaria and my wife's father is now very Eurosceptic (he says he's jealous of us) and both her aunt and her brother said they'd have voted Leave had they been British too. Only her brother's wife expressed reservations about Brexit. But I didn't invite any of it.
Also, her parents next door neighbours came out with their children to play with my daughter because they heard "an English girl was in the village" and were excited to meet her.
Bulgarians are 77% in favour of the EU 20% against. One of the most supportive of all the EU countries. Perhaps your in laws are just being polite?
Thanks for that. The little 'un was fascinated with the Eiffel Tower a few years back, so I bought him a book containing piccies of it being built, along with structural diagrams. (*) Much of the text is in French, but it is a truly beautiful book.
(*) I say it was for him, I may have spent a long while looking at it.
I visited the St Anne Mission church in the middle of nowhere in Gabon that was designed by Eiffel and delivered flat-pack to be assembled. Sadly in a fairly poor state of repair now:
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
That was part of the problem. My wife’s aunt had found out that, somewhat unexpectedly, one of those 23 and Me DNA tests had said my Mum, who’s pretty stereotypically English, was 85% Irish or something. I don’t hold with the accuracy of these things but my in laws took it strangely badly. If Irish people get upset by something so trivial as a postal DNA test then is there hope? I gave up after that,
So one person had an attitude over one thing, and therefore all Irish people are the same based upon that experience?
I think there's a word for that.
As I said, it was indicative of a global attitude, the person in question identifying with countries on two continents
So you're judging the globe, based upon one person?
So basically, if you're being racist here today, then everyone on the planet is racist, because you are?
People are individuals, not their compatriots. If one person is a dick, then they're a dick, not their compatriots. If everyone thinks you're a dick, try not being such a dick.
Clearly, in the anecdote I outline above, it was not me but my mother who was the problem, and she was 3500 miles away at the time. The only reason for it was that she was English.
Or the reason for it is because they don't like your mother for a personal reason? Or because the other person involved is a dick and it has nothing to do with the Irish, or the English?
One anecdote does not equal a nation. Why are you being so unabashedly racist as to say "they're all the same"?
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
That was part of the problem. My wife’s aunt had found out that, somewhat unexpectedly, one of those 23 and Me DNA tests had said my Mum, who’s pretty stereotypically English, was 85% Irish or something. I don’t hold with the accuracy of these things but my in laws took it strangely badly. If Irish people get upset by something so trivial as a postal DNA test then is there hope? I gave up after that,
So one person had an attitude over one thing, and therefore all Irish people are the same based upon that experience?
I think there's a word for that.
As I said, it was indicative of a global attitude, the person in question identifying with countries on two continents
So you're judging the globe, based upon one person?
So basically, if you're being racist here today, then everyone on the planet is racist, because you are?
People are individuals, not their compatriots. If one person is a dick, then they're a dick, not their compatriots. If everyone thinks you're a dick, try not being such a dick.
Clearly, in the anecdote I outline above, it was not me but my mother who was the problem, and she was 3500 miles away at the time. The only reason for it was that she was English.
Or the reason for it is because they don't like your mother for a personal reason? Or because the other person involved is a dick and it has nothing to do with the Irish, or the English?
One anecdote does not equal a nation. Why are you being so unabashedly racist as to say "they're all the same"?
One travels, gets a view of places, comes home. We deserve to be hated but hated we are. Not just in Ireland.
Lots of imperial people's really wanted self-government under the British Crown, and that includes Gandhi (originally) and Hong Kongers, just as we gave to the "white" dominions at the turn of the century.
That's where the opportunity was lost.
Yes but the white dominions are still now independent too
But, with less hangups and a better and more constructive relationship with the UK.
And some still have the Queen too, of course.
They only still have the Queen because she is white like most of them are and of British ancestral origin
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
Very many Irish-Americans are actually descended from Scots-Irish. Protestants. The people that repressed the Catholics
They tend to overlook that
Well indeed. There is a certain poster on here who seems somewhat lacking in education (normally I would be sympathetic except that he is a complete twat) and he refers to Scotland being a colony when the historic reality is that Scotland was one of the most enthusiastic parts of the UK when it came to providing colonialists to repress not just the Irish but many other folk around the world. ( I now await the torrent of abuse from the inarticulate little a-hole)
I have heard some historians claim it was the Scots, and to a lesser degree the Irish, that built the Empire and the English aristocracy that ran it into the ground (having the right ancestors became more important than having ability).
Lots of imperial people's really wanted self-government under the British Crown, and that includes Gandhi (originally) and Hong Kongers, just as we gave to the "white" dominions at the turn of the century.
That's where the opportunity was lost.
Yes but the white dominions are still now independent too
But, with less hangups and a better and more constructive relationship with the UK.
And some still have the Queen too, of course.
They only still have the Queen because she is white like most of them are and of British ancestral origin
Because of what I said in my original post. It's not post ergo propter hoc.
What is the point of the soft signal rule? If the umpire is going to the TV replay anyway, why should he have to give any signal whatsoever before reviewing the tape?
Makes for farcical scenes like the two grassed catches (neither of which were out) but only one of which was given because the 'soft signal' was out.
Nevertheless, justice done with Crawley's non-wicket just then.
The point is that a decision has to be made whether the video replay is conclusive or not and so you go with the on-field umpires best judgement if there isn't string evidence to go against it.
YES I UNDERSTAND THIS POINT FFS.
Still no answer to my question:
Why?
Why does the umpire HAVE TO give a soft signal BEFORE seeing the tape. Why can't he just see the tape, THEN give a signal?
There is no logic to it.
It is rather like being a security guard in a supermarket, suspecting someone might have possibly stolen something, but not being sure and being told: "Do you want to report him to the police?" "Er, can I see the tape from CCTV and then decide whether to report him to the police?"
"No, you have to say before I show you the tape whether you think he should be reported. Only then can I show you the tape!"
You have a touching faith in the infallibility of video evidence. But it is fallible, and so it is worthwhile making a call, and giving a police statement, before one's recollection is swayed by possible misleading video evidence. As Barty said, there's a known issue with the foreshortening effect.
In cricket you additionally do not want to undermine the authority of the on-field umpire, so you give it primacy.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
That was part of the problem. My wife’s aunt had found out that, somewhat unexpectedly, one of those 23 and Me DNA tests had said my Mum, who’s pretty stereotypically English, was 85% Irish or something. I don’t hold with the accuracy of these things but my in laws took it strangely badly. If Irish people get upset by something so trivial as a postal DNA test then is there hope? I gave up after that,
So one person had an attitude over one thing, and therefore all Irish people are the same based upon that experience?
I think there's a word for that.
As I said, it was indicative of a global attitude, the person in question identifying with countries on two continents
So you're judging the globe, based upon one person?
So basically, if you're being racist here today, then everyone on the planet is racist, because you are?
People are individuals, not their compatriots. If one person is a dick, then they're a dick, not their compatriots. If everyone thinks you're a dick, try not being such a dick.
Clearly, in the anecdote I outline above, it was not me but my mother who was the problem, and she was 3500 miles away at the time. The only reason for it was that she was English.
Or the reason for it is because they don't like your mother for a personal reason? Or because the other person involved is a dick and it has nothing to do with the Irish, or the English?
One anecdote does not equal a nation. Why are you being so unabashedly racist as to say "they're all the same"?
One travels, gets a view of places, comes home. We deserve to be hated but hated we are. Not just in Ireland.
Or you are.
Maybe you're just a dick? If you speak about foreigners like you're doing here today, no wonder you might get a cold reception.
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
Indian TV and film routinely depicts the English the way Anglophone media depicts WW2 Germans. Either bungling or irredeemably evil.
This has noticeably intensified with rise of Modi/BJP.
Modern, or for that period? Because for the colonial period, the British occupation of the Indian sub continent is definitely comparable to the horrors of Nazi rule- in body count, political oppression, economic destruction etc. The UK only ignore it because we view ourselves as the good guys in WW2 and we killed people at a slower pace compared to the death camps. Inglorious Empire is a highly enlightening read to understand what the Empire did to the continent.
Not that Modi has any moral high ground.
What a load of rubbish. British rule in India was not perfect but in no way whatsoever was it comparable to the Nazis and Holocaust.
There was no mass genocide of Indians, no extermination camps for Hindus
Quite
The slur on Our Empire suggesting that it treated Indians as if they were a lot of Africans is intolerable
HYUFD is quite right on one detail, the extermination camps were for Christians. But in Africa (Southern). ,Vide the "concentration camp" (c) British Empire, 2nd Boer War. Shocking, and if not intentional then hardly unsurprising, mortality throigh overcrowding, disease and bad food.
I also recommend this podcast discussing the Great Hunger in Ireland and how the British Government engineered it:
The famine is the main reason English visitors are so unwelcome in Ireland - quite rightly. It’s not right English people should go there,
Again, as someone with Irish and English family, this is an extremely weird take. Ireland relies heavily on British tourists. I don't think the Irish don't welcome the English - whereas if you're being a lad painting a Union Jack on your face / wearing a flag shirt it may be noticed and commented on.
Nonsense. I went to my brother’s wedding to an Irish lady in a place called Bunratty on the West Coast. The hostility to our side of the family was palpable. Most visitors from England are those with family there already rated than tourists. Quite rightly given the history.
That's just you. You've started to notice it now, and it will find you, and you will find it. A person without your notions would walk into the same room and have a totally different experience.
I’m pretty sure it would be impossible to put a positive spin on some of the things that were said.
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
Indian TV and film routinely depicts the English the way Anglophone media depicts WW2 Germans. Either bungling or irredeemably evil.
This has noticeably intensified with rise of Modi/BJP.
Modern, or for that period? Because for the colonial period, the British occupation of the Indian sub continent is definitely comparable to the horrors of Nazi rule- in body count, political oppression, economic destruction etc. The UK only ignore it because we view ourselves as the good guys in WW2 and we killed people at a slower pace compared to the death camps. Inglorious Empire is a highly enlightening read to understand what the Empire did to the continent.
Not that Modi has any moral high ground.
What a load of rubbish. British rule in India was not perfect but in no way whatsoever was it comparable to the Nazis and Holocaust.
There was no mass genocide of Indians, no extermination camps for Hindus
Quite
The slur on Our Empire suggesting that it treated Indians as if they were a lot of Africans is intolerable
HYUFD is quite right on one detail, the extermination camps were for Christians. But in Africa (Southern). ,Vide the "concentration camp" (c) British Empire, 2nd Boer War. Shocking, and if not intentional then hardly unsurprising, mortality throigh overcrowding, disease and bad food.
I also recommend this podcast discussing the Great Hunger in Ireland and how the British Government engineered it:
The famine is the main reason English visitors are so unwelcome in Ireland - quite rightly. It’s not right English people should go there,
Again, as someone with Irish and English family, this is an extremely weird take. Ireland relies heavily on British tourists. I don't think the Irish don't welcome the English - whereas if you're being a lad painting a Union Jack on your face / wearing a flag shirt it may be noticed and commented on.
Nonsense. I went to my brother’s wedding to an Irish lady in a place called Bunratty on the West Coast. The hostility to our side of the family was palpable. Most visitors from England are those with family there already rated than tourists. Quite rightly given the history.
That's just you. You've started to notice it now, and it will find you, and you will find it. A person without your notions would walk into the same room and have a totally different experience.
I’m pretty sure it would be impossible to put a positive spin on some of the things that were said.
No, I'm not suggesting that they would put a positive spin on them (though that's possible too), I am suggesting that they simply wouldn't encounter the same situations in the first place.
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
Indian TV and film routinely depicts the English the way Anglophone media depicts WW2 Germans. Either bungling or irredeemably evil.
This has noticeably intensified with rise of Modi/BJP.
Modern, or for that period? Because for the colonial period, the British occupation of the Indian sub continent is definitely comparable to the horrors of Nazi rule- in body count, political oppression, economic destruction etc. The UK only ignore it because we view ourselves as the good guys in WW2 and we killed people at a slower pace compared to the death camps. Inglorious Empire is a highly enlightening read to understand what the Empire did to the continent.
Not that Modi has any moral high ground.
What a load of rubbish. British rule in India was not perfect but in no way whatsoever was it comparable to the Nazis and Holocaust.
There was no mass genocide of Indians, no extermination camps for Hindus
Quite
The slur on Our Empire suggesting that it treated Indians as if they were a lot of Africans is intolerable
HYUFD is quite right on one detail, the extermination camps were for Christians. But in Africa (Southern). ,Vide the "concentration camp" (c) British Empire, 2nd Boer War. [Edit] We'd call it an internment camp today. Shocking, and if not intentional then hardly unsurprising, mortality throigh overcrowding, disease and bad food.
There were no extermination camps in South Africa and of course the Boers themselves introduced Apartheid
They were de facto extermination campus in many cases.
It's a bit rich after shipping 3m black people across the Atlantic and working them to death, to point the finger at people who made them travel in separate buses.
No they weren't, where were the gas chambers in South Africa?
The US, Spain, France, the Arabs etc all continued slavery long after the UK and British Empire
If you cause someone to die you are exterminating them. Why the requirement for gas chambers
US slavery was a UK legacy. For the others so what? When did "other people do it" ever justify anything?
Extermination is a conscious act of murder and requires mass executions.
We were dealing with the usual far left rant that the British Empire was equivalent to the Nazis. Which was patently untrue.
As for slavery it is certainly true Britain abolished slavery well before most Empires
Lots of imperial people's really wanted self-government under the British Crown, and that includes Gandhi (originally) and Hong Kongers, just as we gave to the "white" dominions at the turn of the century.
That's where the opportunity was lost.
Yes but the white dominions are still now independent too
But, with less hangups and a better and more constructive relationship with the UK.
And some still have the Queen too, of course.
They only still have the Queen because she is white like most of them are and of British ancestral origin
Because of what I said in my original post. It's not post ergo propter hoc.
No because of ethnicity and ethnic affiliation, why on earth would African nations or India or the Caribbean have a white British head of state longer term?
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
Indian TV and film routinely depicts the English the way Anglophone media depicts WW2 Germans. Either bungling or irredeemably evil.
This has noticeably intensified with rise of Modi/BJP.
Modern, or for that period? Because for the colonial period, the British occupation of the Indian sub continent is definitely comparable to the horrors of Nazi rule- in body count, political oppression, economic destruction etc. The UK only ignore it because we view ourselves as the good guys in WW2 and we killed people at a slower pace compared to the death camps. Inglorious Empire is a highly enlightening read to understand what the Empire did to the continent.
Not that Modi has any moral high ground.
What a load of rubbish. British rule in India was not perfect but in no way whatsoever was it comparable to the Nazis and Holocaust.
There was no mass genocide of Indians, no extermination camps for Hindus
Quite
The slur on Our Empire suggesting that it treated Indians as if they were a lot of Africans is intolerable
HYUFD is quite right on one detail, the extermination camps were for Christians. But in Africa (Southern). ,Vide the "concentration camp" (c) British Empire, 2nd Boer War. [Edit] We'd call it an internment camp today. Shocking, and if not intentional then hardly unsurprising, mortality throigh overcrowding, disease and bad food.
There were no extermination camps in South Africa and of course the Boers themselves introduced Apartheid
They were de facto extermination campus in many cases.
It's a bit rich after shipping 3m black people across the Atlantic and working them to death, to point the finger at people who made them travel in separate buses.
No they weren't, where were the gas chambers in South Africa?
The US, Spain, France, the Arabs etc all continued slavery long after the UK and British Empire
If you cause someone to die you are exterminating them. Why the requirement for gas chambers
US slavery was a UK legacy. For the others so what? When did "other people do it" ever justify anything?
Extermination is a conscious act of murder and requires mass executions.
We were dealing with the usual far left rant that the British Empire was equivalent to the Nazis. Which was patently untrue.
As for slavery it is certainly true Britain abolished slavery well before most Empires
You're very ignorant in your history.
You might want to look into what happened to the Tasmanian aboriginals. They were exterminated.
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
Indian TV and film routinely depicts the English the way Anglophone media depicts WW2 Germans. Either bungling or irredeemably evil.
This has noticeably intensified with rise of Modi/BJP.
Modern, or for that period? Because for the colonial period, the British occupation of the Indian sub continent is definitely comparable to the horrors of Nazi rule- in body count, political oppression, economic destruction etc. The UK only ignore it because we view ourselves as the good guys in WW2 and we killed people at a slower pace compared to the death camps. Inglorious Empire is a highly enlightening read to understand what the Empire did to the continent.
Not that Modi has any moral high ground.
What a load of rubbish. British rule in India was not perfect but in no way whatsoever was it comparable to the Nazis and Holocaust.
There was no mass genocide of Indians, no extermination camps for Hindus
Quite
The slur on Our Empire suggesting that it treated Indians as if they were a lot of Africans is intolerable
HYUFD is quite right on one detail, the extermination camps were for Christians. But in Africa (Southern). ,Vide the "concentration camp" (c) British Empire, 2nd Boer War. [Edit] We'd call it an internment camp today. Shocking, and if not intentional then hardly unsurprising, mortality throigh overcrowding, disease and bad food.
There were no extermination camps in South Africa and of course the Boers themselves introduced Apartheid
They were de facto extermination campus in many cases.
It's a bit rich after shipping 3m black people across the Atlantic and working them to death, to point the finger at people who made them travel in separate buses.
No they weren't, where were the gas chambers in South Africa?
The US, Spain, France, the Arabs etc all continued slavery long after the UK and British Empire
If you cause someone to die you are exterminating them. Why the requirement for gas chambers
US slavery was a UK legacy. For the others so what? When did "other people do it" ever justify anything?
Extermination is a conscious act of murder and requires mass executions.
We were dealing with the usual far left rant that the British Empire was equivalent to the Nazis. Which was patently untrue.
As for slavery it is certainly true Britain abolished slavery well before most Empires
You're very ignorant in your history.
You might want to look into what happened to the Tasmanian aboriginals. They were exterminated.
Most of them were killed by disease, again they were not executed in mass genocide and Nazi style extermination camps
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
That was part of the problem. My wife’s aunt had found out that, somewhat unexpectedly, one of those 23 and Me DNA tests had said my Mum, who’s pretty stereotypically English, was 85% Irish or something. I don’t hold with the accuracy of these things but my in laws took it strangely badly. If Irish people get upset by something so trivial as a postal DNA test then is there hope? I gave up after that,
As I think has already pointed out you are referring to so-called "Irish-Americans". You might also refer to them as Irish-Wannabes. Obviously saying you are Irish (even if it is 1/16th )sounds a little more interesting than admitting your most recent lineage is from mainly from Bessemer Alabama
No plans for the Conservative Party to suspend Chris Pincher's party membership while investigations are ongoing, I understand. He has lost the party whip but is still a Tory member, as CCHQ haven't received any formal complaints about him. https://twitter.com/ionewells/status/1543983616639778817
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
That was part of the problem. My wife’s aunt had found out that, somewhat unexpectedly, one of those 23 and Me DNA tests had said my Mum, who’s pretty stereotypically English, was 85% Irish or something. I don’t hold with the accuracy of these things but my in laws took it strangely badly. If Irish people get upset by something so trivial as a postal DNA test then is there hope? I gave up after that,
As I think has already pointed out you are referring to so-called "Irish-Americans". You might also refer to them as Irish-Wannabes. Obviously saying you are Irish (even if it is 1/16th )sounds a little more interesting than admitting your most recent lineage is from mainly from Bessemer Alabama
They are clearly closely related given the number of Irish people who moved there.
Been following me the Irish question with interest. At the time of the Mountbatten murder I was ago to attend an Irish professional conference; nothing special just as a delegate.
Shortly after the murder I was run up by the General Secretary of the Irish professional association; was I still coming to the conference? Yes of course! Thank God for that, you'll be very welcome! And I was! And so was Mrs C! And so far is the DNA can be believed neither of us have any Irish ancestry and neither of us sounds other than educated English.
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
Indian TV and film routinely depicts the English the way Anglophone media depicts WW2 Germans. Either bungling or irredeemably evil.
This has noticeably intensified with rise of Modi/BJP.
Modern, or for that period? Because for the colonial period, the British occupation of the Indian sub continent is definitely comparable to the horrors of Nazi rule- in body count, political oppression, economic destruction etc. The UK only ignore it because we view ourselves as the good guys in WW2 and we killed people at a slower pace compared to the death camps. Inglorious Empire is a highly enlightening read to understand what the Empire did to the continent.
Not that Modi has any moral high ground.
What a load of rubbish. British rule in India was not perfect but in no way whatsoever was it comparable to the Nazis and Holocaust.
There was no mass genocide of Indians, no extermination camps for Hindus
Quite
The slur on Our Empire suggesting that it treated Indians as if they were a lot of Africans is intolerable
HYUFD is quite right on one detail, the extermination camps were for Christians. But in Africa (Southern). ,Vide the "concentration camp" (c) British Empire, 2nd Boer War. [Edit] We'd call it an internment camp today. Shocking, and if not intentional then hardly unsurprising, mortality throigh overcrowding, disease and bad food.
There were no extermination camps in South Africa and of course the Boers themselves introduced Apartheid
They were de facto extermination campus in many cases.
It's a bit rich after shipping 3m black people across the Atlantic and working them to death, to point the finger at people who made them travel in separate buses.
No they weren't, where were the gas chambers in South Africa?
The US, Spain, France, the Arabs etc all continued slavery long after the UK and British Empire
If you cause someone to die you are exterminating them. Why the requirement for gas chambers
US slavery was a UK legacy. For the others so what? When did "other people do it" ever justify anything?
Extermination is a conscious act of murder and requires mass executions.
We were dealing with the usual far left rant that the British Empire was equivalent to the Nazis. Which was patently untrue.
As for slavery it is certainly true Britain abolished slavery well before most Empires
You're very ignorant in your history.
You might want to look into what happened to the Tasmanian aboriginals. They were exterminated.
Most of them were killed by disease, again they were not executed in mass genocide and Nazi style extermination camps
"Most of them were killed by disease" what kind of excuse is that?
Some people died from disease. Those that didn't were systematically killed or rounded up and deported from the land.
That is as clear cut a case of genocide as it gets. The fact some died from disease doesn't explain, validate or justify what happened to the others.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
Very many Irish-Americans are actually descended from Scots-Irish. Protestants. The people that repressed the Catholics
They tend to overlook that
Well indeed. There is a certain poster on here who seems somewhat lacking in education (normally I would be sympathetic except that he is a complete twat) and he refers to Scotland being a colony when the historic reality is that Scotland was one of the most enthusiastic parts of the UK when it came to providing colonialists to repress not just the Irish but many other folk around the world. ( I now await the torrent of abuse from the inarticulate little a-hole)
Indeed colonialism is rather complex. My Scottish ancestors were cleared off their ancestral lands in the clearances, then went out in coffin ships to Australia to settle on lands cleared of aborigines. Victims or perpetrators of colonialism? The honest answer is both.
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
That was part of the problem. My wife’s aunt had found out that, somewhat unexpectedly, one of those 23 and Me DNA tests had said my Mum, who’s pretty stereotypically English, was 85% Irish or something. I don’t hold with the accuracy of these things but my in laws took it strangely badly. If Irish people get upset by something so trivial as a postal DNA test then is there hope? I gave up after that,
So one person had an attitude over one thing, and therefore all Irish people are the same based upon that experience?
I think there's a word for that.
As I said, it was indicative of a global attitude, the person in question identifying with countries on two continents
So you're judging the globe, based upon one person?
So basically, if you're being racist here today, then everyone on the planet is racist, because you are?
People are individuals, not their compatriots. If one person is a dick, then they're a dick, not their compatriots. If everyone thinks you're a dick, try not being such a dick.
Clearly, in the anecdote I outline above, it was not me but my mother who was the problem, and she was 3500 miles away at the time. The only reason for it was that she was English.
Or the reason for it is because they don't like your mother for a personal reason? Or because the other person involved is a dick and it has nothing to do with the Irish, or the English?
One anecdote does not equal a nation. Why are you being so unabashedly racist as to say "they're all the same"?
One travels, gets a view of places, comes home. We deserve to be hated but hated we are. Not just in Ireland.
If we are generalising from one to many, are they all like you in Kent?
I'm Irish and I do not hate you. There are lots of English people on here and I do not hate any of them.
The Irish Times appears to think you might be an exception.
That is an opinion piece mainly about sport, not a peer-reviewed piece of social research. If you base your worries on "facts" like that it is no wonder that you think we are out to get you.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road
My mother is a loving grandmother to two Irish grandkids. Looks after them one days a week. Yet my Irish-American aunt in law accused her of being anti-Irish. That’s the sort of fact I rely upon, an instinctive, reflexive Anglophobia despite evidence to the contrary,.
But she is American. Many "Irish Americans" do not even know where Ireland is. Clinton claimed to be "Irish American" and he was the first in 7 generations to revisit The Oul Sod and set foot on it. I would say her attitudes are what she thinks are Irish but if she turned up anywhere in Ireland and started passing that attitude out, I do not think she would get very far...
She’s been there a number of times and consumes the Irish American press. Irish Americans are just “Irish”: as they put it themselves. She’s opened my eyes about relations between these islands.
There is nothing "Irish" about Irish-Americanism, it is just a wanna-be attitude and much of it is wrong.
Many "Irish-Americans" probably have less Irish blood than many English people
That was part of the problem. My wife’s aunt had found out that, somewhat unexpectedly, one of those 23 and Me DNA tests had said my Mum, who’s pretty stereotypically English, was 85% Irish or something. I don’t hold with the accuracy of these things but my in laws took it strangely badly. If Irish people get upset by something so trivial as a postal DNA test then is there hope? I gave up after that,
So one person had an attitude over one thing, and therefore all Irish people are the same based upon that experience?
I think there's a word for that.
As I said, it was indicative of a global attitude, the person in question identifying with countries on two continents
So you're judging the globe, based upon one person?
So basically, if you're being racist here today, then everyone on the planet is racist, because you are?
People are individuals, not their compatriots. If one person is a dick, then they're a dick, not their compatriots. If everyone thinks you're a dick, try not being such a dick.
Clearly, in the anecdote I outline above, it was not me but my mother who was the problem, and she was 3500 miles away at the time. The only reason for it was that she was English.
Or the reason for it is because they don't like your mother for a personal reason? Or because the other person involved is a dick and it has nothing to do with the Irish, or the English?
One anecdote does not equal a nation. Why are you being so unabashedly racist as to say "they're all the same"?
One travels, gets a view of places, comes home. We deserve to be hated but hated we are. Not just in Ireland.
If we are generalising from one to many, are they all like you in Kent?
After Labour's capitulation on Brexit NOT having Boris Johnson is Labour's only remaining USP.
It’s not a capitulation, Roger, it’s reality. The EU are not letting us back. Labour can only repair relations. Johnson reinforced the pre-existing Anglophobia in the EU and turned it into a loathing that can never heal. It’s over. We can’t go back after pissing on the doormat on the way out. It’s sad but it’s the reality.
FOM and a single market on the other should be an imperative.
Labour are all over the place. Useless!
FOM would be a hostage to fortune - the squeeze on low end employee availability will eventually ease, as business adapt. If that coincides with an FOM deal, then the two will be linked inextricably.
The removal of FOM is why we have no HGV drivers, not enough educated blue collar workers, and shortages in care and health services, let alone the fact that we can't up-sticks and live unfettered in Spain or the South of France like we could before we lost that right.
I am not demanding re-join, but this policy is absurd. It is pandering to the terminally stupid.
It takes two to tango. Why do you think an SM option is open to us? We are not rejoining the SM - we can’t. We are too hated, too despised elsewhere in Europe. We are not trusted is an understatement. It’s over. I’m sad about it but we’re not going to be allowed back.
The EU don't trust Johnson, with good reason, but I think would be much more open to negotiating a closer relationship with a different PM who approached the negotiations in a cooperative and honest spirit. I think they would be overjoyed if we rejoined , what better way to demonstrate the attractiveness of EU membership than to welcome us back into the fold, but they would want to see a stable pro-EU majority in place first as there is no appetite to go through this time-wasting shitshow again.
He’s made it worse deeper than Johnson. It’s a dislike and distrust of the English nation. They hate us with a passion. That’s why they’re so keen on getting the Scots in. Always have to an extent but Johnson’s given them the opportunity to express it openly.
What is your evidence for this assertion? I interact fairly regularly with current and former EU officials and most are Anglophiles, whose overwhelming emotional response to Brexit has been sadness, coupled with irritation that the UK government is trying to renegotiate its own deal and is once again using up bandwidth when there are more serious things to focus on. They do have a genuine loathing for Johnson for being so dishonest, but then that has also become the settled view on this side of the channel too.
Interaction with current and former EU officials, current politicians and EU citizens. There is a visceral shiver when an English person enters the room. Largely due to Johnson bringing it to the fore
Is there anyone in your view who doesn't harbour a visceral hatred of the English? Or have you become the Millwall of Europe?
Most countries hate us. Al Murray did a series on it.
In my experience most countries hate the English a lot less than you might think they would have reason to. I would put Ireland, India and the countries of the Anglophone Caribbean at the top of this list of cutting the English a lot more slack than they probably deserve.
Indian TV and film routinely depicts the English the way Anglophone media depicts WW2 Germans. Either bungling or irredeemably evil.
This has noticeably intensified with rise of Modi/BJP.
Modern, or for that period? Because for the colonial period, the British occupation of the Indian sub continent is definitely comparable to the horrors of Nazi rule- in body count, political oppression, economic destruction etc. The UK only ignore it because we view ourselves as the good guys in WW2 and we killed people at a slower pace compared to the death camps. Inglorious Empire is a highly enlightening read to understand what the Empire did to the continent.
Not that Modi has any moral high ground.
What a load of rubbish. British rule in India was not perfect but in no way whatsoever was it comparable to the Nazis and Holocaust.
There was no mass genocide of Indians, no extermination camps for Hindus
Quite
The slur on Our Empire suggesting that it treated Indians as if they were a lot of Africans is intolerable
HYUFD is quite right on one detail, the extermination camps were for Christians. But in Africa (Southern). ,Vide the "concentration camp" (c) British Empire, 2nd Boer War. [Edit] We'd call it an internment camp today. Shocking, and if not intentional then hardly unsurprising, mortality throigh overcrowding, disease and bad food.
There were no extermination camps in South Africa and of course the Boers themselves introduced Apartheid
They were de facto extermination campus in many cases.
It's a bit rich after shipping 3m black people across the Atlantic and working them to death, to point the finger at people who made them travel in separate buses.
No they weren't, where were the gas chambers in South Africa?
The US, Spain, France, the Arabs etc all continued slavery long after the UK and British Empire
If you cause someone to die you are exterminating them. Why the requirement for gas chambers
US slavery was a UK legacy. For the others so what? When did "other people do it" ever justify anything?
Extermination is a conscious act of murder and requires mass executions.
We were dealing with the usual far left rant that the British Empire was equivalent to the Nazis. Which was patently untrue.
As for slavery it is certainly true Britain abolished slavery well before most Empires
The slave trade produced hugely more misery for more people for a longer period than the holocaust. As far as motive is concerned is there a lot to choose between anti semitism and material greed? Why the attempt to frame this as a far left issue?
Comments
It's a bit rich after shipping 3m black people across the Atlantic and working them to death, to point the finger at people who made them travel in separate buses.
Historically, Britain/England has good reason to resent the Germans, North Africans (white slavery), Japan (POWs), perhaps the French, maybe even the Spanish (armada) and Irish (terror)
The idea I would personally be rude to a German, a Libyan, a Japanese person, etc etc, if and when they visited the UK,m because of this history, is insane. Would not enter my head, nor would it enter the mind of literally anyone I know. I like to be friendly, it’s nice, I like to talk to foreigners, it’s interesting, I want people to go away with a good impression of my country
This surely applies to 99% of humanity 99% of the time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZfM1lkLuMI
Gandhi worked because he shamed us into giving independence using our own values, which he was educated in - in England.
You are more likely to get anti-English sentiment in Belfast (part of the UK for now) in areas like Turf Lodge or the Falls Road.
Quite a large turnout as is normal for rural Ireland. Large crowd walking behind the hearse from the church to the burial ground. People joke about blow-ins, but they were a proper part of the community. And both her and her husband, who died the year before, from England.
You are talking a lot of rubbish about this.
If the Irish resent speaking English they seem to demonstrate this chiefly by speaking and writing it better than the English do.
Still no answer to my question:
Why?
Why does the umpire HAVE TO give a soft signal BEFORE seeing the tape. Why can't he just see the tape, THEN give a signal?
There is no logic to it.
It is rather like being a security guard in a supermarket, suspecting someone might have possibly stolen something, but not being sure and being told: "Do you want to report him to the police?" "Er, can I see the tape from CCTV and then decide whether to report him to the police?"
"No, you have to say before I show you the tape whether you think he should be reported. Only then can I show you the tape!"
Of course, given that this is not the case and is unlikely to be so for a very long time, any serious discussion of rejoining is pointless.
The reason the umpire has to give a soft signal is that is his job. The third umpire then determines whether there is any reason to say the umpire was wrong, with margin of error sticking with the on field umpire's original signal. There is logic to it, the tape is somebody else's responsibility, not the umpire's responsibility.
Ridiculous. Awful run out that.
We've gone from saying it was entirely wonderful up to the 1960s to not really talking about it much in the 80s and 90s to now talking about how evil it all was.
Eventually, we'll move to measured balance where it can be soberly reviewed in the round.
That's where the opportunity was lost.
You're the one being prejudiced now. You are racistly insinuating negative attitudes on an entire nation, because of some bad experiences with some people.
That's racism pure and simple. Almost everyone has told you that this isn't their experience or attitude, and you're still boring on that all Irish people are the same. That's nothing other than unmitigated racism and you should go for a cold shower, have a cold non alcoholic drink and step away from the keyboard for a while.
The US, Spain, France, the Arabs etc all continued slavery long after the UK and British Empire
Interesting to see it's iron, had not realised that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/04/eiffel-tower-riddled-with-rust-and-in-need-of-repair-leaked-reports-say
Hence why the umpire still has to make the final decision.
But the soft signal first rule is illogical.
Absolutely farcical scenes. Suicidal running from us.
A signal given after seeing the tape is a hard signal, not a soft one. The soft one is indicative by the umpire who has just freshly witnessed the event and is doing their job - and won't get a chance of seeing the tape.
Unlikely football, cricket has very wisely recognised that technology has a margin of error, and gives that margin to the on-field umpires.
I've been to many countries and always felt welcomed. Your vision of the world doesn't match my own.
You are finally grasping my point!
Why does there have to be ANY so-called 'soft signal'?
It is senseless in the scenario where the umpire has HIMSELF has called for the tape.
Let the umpires review the tapes then decide.
My wife's from County Cork and we've been visiting Ireland at least annually for weddings, funerals etc all over Ireland for the last 40-something years. Never felt uneasy about anything. We did have some discrimination only at the wedding of a nephew to a Church of Ireland girl from around Carlingford. They bussed us in from the South, but went out the way to make us welcome, even opening the bar up especially early as we Catholics like a drink, don't we?
The early 80s during the Bobby Sands affair could have been difficult, but it didn't affect our visit to Gorey (Wexford). A friend of the family was playing the accordion in the local pub and after quite a few rebel songs, I asked if he had any for the Black and Tans. He smiled but said he'd better not, as "some of the gentlemen were in tonight."
They make everyone welcome, even putting up with Americans who claim they're one-sixteenth Irish. My son has an Irish passport but lives in Copenhagen and he claims it's for convenience. I'm English because I was born here, but have a few Irish antecedents as do many English people. I take my Irish brother-in-law to Twickenham regularly, but I can't say I enjoyed the last International.
But what do you expect with French referees?
There has to be a soft signal because there is a well-known flaw in the technology that lens foreshortening creates doubt in edge cases. So the soft signal handles the margin of error, standing by the original soft signal.
It is a smart way to respect and recognise the margin of error. You're acting as if "the tape" is infallible or better than the on-field call, it isn't, that's why the soft signal exists. The tape merely confirms the on-field umpire's original call, or reverses it if there's proof they're wrong.
The final decision is after reviewing the tapes. The soft signal only matters for if the tapes can't be used to decide.
Very many Irish-Americans are actually descended from Scots-Irish. Protestants. The people that repressed the Catholics
They tend to overlook that
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eiffel-Tower-Bertrand-Lemoine/dp/B0082RKTJU
This makes me laugh: a conman sod the Eiffel Tower for scrap. Twice.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/man-who-sold-eiffel-tower-twice-180958370/
(*) I say it was for him, I may have spent a long while looking at it.
And some still have the Queen too, of course.
I think there's a word for that.
them are and of British ancestral origin
US slavery was a UK legacy. For the others so what? When did "other people do it" ever justify anything?
So basically, if you're being racist here today, then everyone on the planet is racist, because you are?
People are individuals, not their compatriots. If one person is a dick, then they're a dick, not their compatriots. If everyone thinks you're a dick, try not being such a dick.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/the-european-union/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGmC7zquI0g
One anecdote does not equal a nation. Why are you being so unabashedly racist as to say "they're all the same"?
In cricket you additionally do not want to undermine the authority of the on-field umpire, so you give it primacy.
Maybe you're just a dick? If you speak about foreigners like you're doing here today, no wonder you might get a cold reception.
We were dealing with the usual far left rant that the British Empire was equivalent to the Nazis. Which was patently untrue.
As for slavery it is certainly true Britain abolished slavery well before most Empires
You might want to look into what happened to the Tasmanian aboriginals. They were exterminated.
https://twitter.com/ionewells/status/1543983616639778817
Shortly after the murder I was run up by the General Secretary of the Irish professional association; was I still coming to the conference? Yes of course! Thank God for that, you'll be very welcome!
And I was! And so was Mrs C!
And so far is the DNA can be believed neither of us have any Irish ancestry and neither of us sounds other than educated English.
Some people died from disease. Those that didn't were systematically killed or rounded up and deported from the land.
That is as clear cut a case of genocide as it gets. The fact some died from disease doesn't explain, validate or justify what happened to the others.