I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
As long as he could slot it in with his Pointless gig, he would not be a bad call at all.
Clive Myrie has been terrific on Mastermind too. He would be good.
George Alagiah, another newsreader, would do a good job.
The BBC may want to give it to someone to get down wid da yoof, so maybe someone like Paddy McGuinness or Lee Mack
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
It's actually really worrying, as it shows that the Russian trolls are preparing to deal with radioactive fallout by knocking back as much vodka and red wine as possible.
Dynamo isn't Russian.
How do you know, Dura? I hear you ask.
I lived in Russia for 9 years teaching English (and French) to Russians and I fucking know a Russian writing in English when I see one.
The pile on just because a newcomer will not cleave to the pb.com consensus on the SMO is shitty.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
I love the reference to random travel animals. But I really want to know about the personal reasons forcing one to spend 3 months in the sun.
Interesting point about traveling alone. The logic provided seems obvious, but my experience of traveling with someone is that they enrich the experience by noticing things that I miss. Perhaps I am simply particularly unobservant. Also, as social beings, we want to share our experiences with another at the time, though I suppose social media can substitute to a limited extent for that.
Both are equally enjoyable. Travelling with friends/lovers/family AND travelling alone
The point is that: if you want truly memorable experiences of a country then solo travel is probably the ideal. It’s tough and isolating at times but you are forced to interact with the new world around you. Also makes you more resourceful. You’ve got to work it all out for yourself
You’re right that social media makes it easier
On the other hand most people have limited chances to travel so they just want a good time on their annual holibobs, not peak lifetime experiences. So for them travel with others makes more sense
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
But we don't need oil anymore. We can't burn it for power, and in 10 years time we won't need it for cars.
Can we not or is it just deemed unacceptable by the current carbon orthodoxy ?
It is expensive compared to many other methods of generation.
If we don't have the capability there's no point sinking capex into something that'll be obselete by the time we get any marginal benefit anyway. Just wondered if there were any old plants we could dust off for the current crisis. Seems not..
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
For a really left field choice, they might ask William Hague. But I suspect they couldn't afford him.
As for Alexander Johnson...
I've just noticed these are all men. What odds the BBC will look for a woman? In which case Sophie Raworth would surely be front runner.
Too white and middle class.
Munchetty is a good call. It would be merit based too. No one could claim tokenism.
Is this as bad as it looks? Any PB energy experts?
This time last year, German year-ahead power was about €85 per MWh.
Yikes.
If energy prices quintuple - or worse - I don’t see how we avoid economic depression. Or am I missing something?
China is currently slowing, mainly thanks to their zero covid approach, and that is taking the heat off oil, which is falling. I suspect if the world goes into recession/depression, prices will drop too.
Not great, and it shows the issues with being part of a global world market for everything, with no back up plan.
I notice the UK abolished tariffs on an array of products from developing countries today, surely a good thing and not possible inside the EU...?
Nothing to see here said the BBC, but I reckon it will surely make a difference over time.
From the BBC article: “ The Developing Countries Trading Scheme comes into force in January and builds on a scheme the UK was first part of while a member of the European Union.”
Still no real rain here ffs... a couple of drops for about 2 mins doesn't count.
Here it's been raining most of the morning - and the island was the first to get the hosepipe ban!
In gods own glorious south Durham we have had light rain since about 8.30. Just what the Dr ordered.
After the hyperventilating about the wrong kind of rain, we are now experiencing steady, not too heavy, rain, after last nights 30 minute downpour.
Weather doing what weather does. Drought will always end in the UK as we are an island with a mostly atlantic driven weather pattern. Whether we can fully recharge the water stocks over the winter is the bigger question. Need to avoid a blocked winter (which is a shame, as I like cold weather, but this winter in particular would be better for all if its warmer and wetter than average).
The warmest winter in the Central England Temperature record was 2013-14, which was also very wet.
Worth noting that the coldest day of the winter was in November, on the 23rd, when the daily mean temperature was just 2.5C, and November 2013 was 0.3C below the 1961-90 average. Some may have panicked at the time that this was a harbinger of a bitterly cold winter, but December was 1.7C above average, January +1.9C, February +2.5C and March +2.0C
There were consequently some issues with flooding, but I think we'd take something quite similar this winter.
Still no real rain here ffs... a couple of drops for about 2 mins doesn't count.
Here it's been raining most of the morning - and the island was the first to get the hosepipe ban!
In gods own glorious south Durham we have had light rain since about 8.30. Just what the Dr ordered.
After the hyperventilating about the wrong kind of rain, we are now experiencing steady, not too heavy, rain, after last nights 30 minute downpour.
Weather doing what weather does. Drought will always end in the UK as we are an island with a mostly atlantic driven weather pattern. Whether we can fully recharge the water stocks over the winter is the bigger question. Need to avoid a blocked winter (which is a shame, as I like cold weather, but this winter in particular would be better for all if its warmer and wetter than average).
The warmest winter in the Central England Temperature record was 2013-14, which was also very wet.
Worth noting that the coldest day of the winter was in November, on the 23rd, when the daily mean temperature was just 2.5C, and November 2013 was 0.3C below the 1961-90 average. Some may have panicked at the time that this was a harbinger of a bitterly cold winter, but December was 1.7C above average, January +1.9C, February +2.5C and March +2.0C
There were consequently some issues with flooding, but I think we'd take something quite similar this winter.
November the 23rd 2013 being notable for being the 50th anniversary of the first broadcast of TV's favourite TimeLord. Dr Who
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
It's actually really worrying, as it shows that the Russian trolls are preparing to deal with radioactive fallout by knocking back as much vodka and red wine as possible.
Dynamo isn't Russian.
How do you know, Dura? I hear you ask.
I lived in Russia for 9 years teaching English (and French) to Russians and I fucking know a Russian writing in English when I see one.
The pile on just because a newcomer will not cleave to the pb.com consensus on the SMO is shitty.
What about because they behave like drunken lunatics? Is it OK to pile on them for that?
We do it to the likes of Byronic, Eadric, LadyG, MysticRose, Leon...
Edit - besides, you don't have to be Russian to be a Russian troll. Orban and Salmond are not Russian.
Still no real rain here ffs... a couple of drops for about 2 mins doesn't count.
Here it's been raining most of the morning - and the island was the first to get the hosepipe ban!
In gods own glorious south Durham we have had light rain since about 8.30. Just what the Dr ordered.
After the hyperventilating about the wrong kind of rain, we are now experiencing steady, not too heavy, rain, after last nights 30 minute downpour.
Weather doing what weather does. Drought will always end in the UK as we are an island with a mostly atlantic driven weather pattern. Whether we can fully recharge the water stocks over the winter is the bigger question. Need to avoid a blocked winter (which is a shame, as I like cold weather, but this winter in particular would be better for all if its warmer and wetter than average).
The warmest winter in the Central England Temperature record was 2013-14, which was also very wet.
Worth noting that the coldest day of the winter was in November, on the 23rd, when the daily mean temperature was just 2.5C, and November 2013 was 0.3C below the 1961-90 average. Some may have panicked at the time that this was a harbinger of a bitterly cold winter, but December was 1.7C above average, January +1.9C, February +2.5C and March +2.0C
There were consequently some issues with flooding, but I think we'd take something quite similar this winter.
November the 23rd 2013 being notable for being the 50th anniversary of the first broadcast of TV's favourite TimeLord. Dr Who
Surely the favourite time lord is the Rani? (Too niche?)
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
It's actually really worrying, as it shows that the Russian trolls are preparing to deal with radioactive fallout by knocking back as much vodka and red wine as possible.
Dynamo isn't Russian.
How do you know, Dura? I hear you ask.
I lived in Russia for 9 years teaching English (and French) to Russians and I fucking know a Russian writing in English when I see one.
The pile on just because a newcomer will not cleave to the pb.com consensus on the SMO is shitty.
Assuming we accept your omnipotence with respect to identifying people's origins from their PB posting style, how about if he were Russian, but educated thoroughly in UK, perhaps from an early age?
By the way, I am sure GCHQ have a job for you should you wish to apply.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
It's actually really worrying, as it shows that the Russian trolls are preparing to deal with radioactive fallout by knocking back as much vodka and red wine as possible.
Dynamo isn't Russian.
How do you know, Dura? I hear you ask.
I lived in Russia for 9 years teaching English (and French) to Russians and I fucking know a Russian writing in English when I see one.
The pile on just because a newcomer will not cleave to the pb.com consensus on the SMO is shitty.
Your use of the acronym SMO makes your entire comment hard to take seriously.
You're a pro-Russian troll but you're not Russian, so its quite possible Dynamo is just like you. But either way he's either trolling, a useful idiot or just plain an idiot.
It’s definitely not a religion, remember. It’s just that no other Western country understands the benefits of having the State employ the doctors and nurses.
The armed forces were just behind the NHS in the results. Would you ridicule pride in the armed forces in the same way?
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
For a really left field choice, they might ask William Hague. But I suspect they couldn't afford him.
As for Alexander Johnson...
I've just noticed these are all men. What odds the BBC will look for a woman? In which case Sophie Raworth would surely be front runner.
Too white and middle class.
Munchetty is a good call. It would be merit based too. No one could claim tokenism.
Boris. I'm not even kidding - that would be great television.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
As long as he could slot it in with his Pointless gig, he would not be a bad call at all.
Clive Myrie has been terrific on Mastermind too. He would be good.
George Alagiah, another newsreader, would do a good job.
The BBC may want to give it to someone to get down wid da yoof, so maybe someone like Paddy McGuinness or Lee Mack
It’s definitely not a religion, remember. It’s just that no other Western country understands the benefits of having the State employ the doctors and nurses.
The armed forces were just behind the NHS in the results. Would you ridicule pride in the armed forces in the same way?
No, because the UK armed forces genuinely are some of the best in the world.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
As long as he could slot it in with his Pointless gig, he would not be a bad call at all.
Clive Myrie has been terrific on Mastermind too. He would be good.
George Alagiah, another newsreader, would do a good job.
The BBC may want to give it to someone to get down wid da yoof, so maybe someone like Paddy McGuinness or Lee Mack
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
It's actually really worrying, as it shows that the Russian trolls are preparing to deal with radioactive fallout by knocking back as much vodka and red wine as possible.
Dynamo isn't Russian.
How do you know, Dura? I hear you ask.
I lived in Russia for 9 years teaching English (and French) to Russians and I fucking know a Russian writing in English when I see one.
The pile on just because a newcomer will not cleave to the pb.com consensus on the SMO is shitty.
I don’t see much of a “pile on”. I see polite skepticism of @Dynamo’s latest commentary which is, to be honest, quite incoherent
Whereas yesterday I thanked @Dynamo for some seriously interesting opinions on the UFO thing
If @Dynamo is a bot he/she is an intriguing bot and is entirely welcome. Hopefully, today’s odd comments are an aberration
Interesting. Doesn’t this largely show that people have most trust in the people who have already been doing the job? Once Truss or Sunak are PM, their figures will shift.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
For a really left field choice, they might ask William Hague. But I suspect they couldn't afford him.
As for Alexander Johnson...
That's put me right off my lunch.
Question is- will Bozza go for the Celebrity Redemption Arc, or will we be saved by the fact that he doesn't think he needs redemption?
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
As long as he could slot it in with his Pointless gig, he would not be a bad call at all.
Clive Myrie has been terrific on Mastermind too. He would be good.
George Alagiah, another newsreader, would do a good job.
The BBC may want to give it to someone to get down wid da yoof, so maybe someone like Paddy McGuinness or Lee Mack
Not sure Alagiah would do it. He's been very ill of late.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
For a really left field choice, they might ask William Hague. But I suspect they couldn't afford him.
As for Alexander Johnson...
I've just noticed these are all men. What odds the BBC will look for a woman? In which case Sophie Raworth would surely be front runner.
It will more likely be Naga Munchety - ticks all boxes, Beeb like to use people they have on their books for things they aren’t qualified for (in a bbc office somewhere “we are doing a doc on The Italian renaissance, who shall we use, which expert? Andrew Marr. Great, next, we are doing a doc on the history of the British Navy - Andrew Marr? Of course etc etc)
She is also well practiced at sneering at people far more intelligent than she is.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
There are zero dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. Printing cartoons kills not a single person.
Your "she's wearing a short skirt so she deserves to be raped" should be treated with the same ridicule as Charlie Hebdo etc are right to exercise.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
As long as he could slot it in with his Pointless gig, he would not be a bad call at all.
Clive Myrie has been terrific on Mastermind too. He would be good.
George Alagiah, another newsreader, would do a good job.
The BBC may want to give it to someone to get down wid da yoof, so maybe someone like Paddy McGuinness or Lee Mack
Not sure Alagiah would do it. He's been very ill of late.
I’m sorry to hear that, hopefully he will get better soon.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
For a really left field choice, they might ask William Hague. But I suspect they couldn't afford him.
As for Alexander Johnson...
I've just noticed these are all men. What odds the BBC will look for a woman? In which case Sophie Raworth would surely be front runner.
Too white and middle class.
Munchetty is a good call. It would be merit based too. No one could claim tokenism.
Boris. I'm not even kidding - that would be great television.
Isn't the idea that the quizmaster of UC has an appearance of intelligence and gravitas? Johnson would fail on both accounts, and no doubt numerous others. I suppose the chaos of him fumbling his cards and saying "forgive me forgive me" and asking questions on Peppa Pig could be amusing though.
Still no real rain here ffs... a couple of drops for about 2 mins doesn't count.
Here it's been raining most of the morning - and the island was the first to get the hosepipe ban!
In gods own glorious south Durham we have had light rain since about 8.30. Just what the Dr ordered.
After the hyperventilating about the wrong kind of rain, we are now experiencing steady, not too heavy, rain, after last nights 30 minute downpour.
Weather doing what weather does. Drought will always end in the UK as we are an island with a mostly atlantic driven weather pattern. Whether we can fully recharge the water stocks over the winter is the bigger question. Need to avoid a blocked winter (which is a shame, as I like cold weather, but this winter in particular would be better for all if its warmer and wetter than average).
The warmest winter in the Central England Temperature record was 2013-14, which was also very wet.
Worth noting that the coldest day of the winter was in November, on the 23rd, when the daily mean temperature was just 2.5C, and November 2013 was 0.3C below the 1961-90 average. Some may have panicked at the time that this was a harbinger of a bitterly cold winter, but December was 1.7C above average, January +1.9C, February +2.5C and March +2.0C
There were consequently some issues with flooding, but I think we'd take something quite similar this winter.
November the 23rd 2013 being notable for being the 50th anniversary of the first broadcast of TV's favourite TimeLord. Dr Who
Surely the favourite time lord is the Rani? (Too niche?)
I love the reference to random travel animals. But I really want to know about the personal reasons forcing one to spend 3 months in the sun.
Interesting point about traveling alone. The logic provided seems obvious, but my experience of traveling with someone is that they enrich the experience by noticing things that I miss. Perhaps I am simply particularly unobservant. Also, as social beings, we want to share our experiences with another at the time, though I suppose social media can substitute to a limited extent for that.
Both are equally enjoyable. Travelling with friends/lovers/family AND travelling alone
The point is that: if you want truly memorable experiences of a country then solo travel is probably the ideal. It’s tough and isolating at times but you are forced to interact with the new world around you. Also makes you more resourceful. You’ve got to work it all out for yourself
You’re right that social media makes it easier
On the other hand most people have limited chances to travel so they just want a good time on their annual holibobs, not peak lifetime experiences. So for them travel with others makes more sense
I agree with Leon on this one. Travelling as a couple is great if you get on and have negotiated a good basis for the give-and-take needed to survive a long trip with just one other person, but how you’re spending the time remains a negotiation nevertheless, and a couple projects an invisible barrier than can deter interactions with others.
There is a remarkable freedom that comes from travelling alone - you can follow your interests or instincts or just random whim or impulse, make long detours just to see something or be somewhere that you would never ‘sell’ to a travel partner, do as much or as little or nothing at all each day as you wish. And, as Leon says, you do have more interactions; female solo travellers need a strategy for repelling unwanted interactions; males to avoid seeming too threatening or self-reliant. IMHO travelling with an animal is optimal.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
As long as he could slot it in with his Pointless gig, he would not be a bad call at all.
Clive Myrie has been terrific on Mastermind too. He would be good.
George Alagiah, another newsreader, would do a good job.
The BBC may want to give it to someone to get down wid da yoof, so maybe someone like Paddy McGuinness or Lee Mack
Not sure Alagiah would do it. He's been very ill of late.
I’m sorry to hear that, hopefully he will get better soon.
He's got terminal cancer. It just hasn't quite killed him yet.
Still no real rain here ffs... a couple of drops for about 2 mins doesn't count.
Here it's been raining most of the morning - and the island was the first to get the hosepipe ban!
In gods own glorious south Durham we have had light rain since about 8.30. Just what the Dr ordered.
After the hyperventilating about the wrong kind of rain, we are now experiencing steady, not too heavy, rain, after last nights 30 minute downpour.
Weather doing what weather does. Drought will always end in the UK as we are an island with a mostly atlantic driven weather pattern. Whether we can fully recharge the water stocks over the winter is the bigger question. Need to avoid a blocked winter (which is a shame, as I like cold weather, but this winter in particular would be better for all if its warmer and wetter than average).
The warmest winter in the Central England Temperature record was 2013-14, which was also very wet.
Worth noting that the coldest day of the winter was in November, on the 23rd, when the daily mean temperature was just 2.5C, and November 2013 was 0.3C below the 1961-90 average. Some may have panicked at the time that this was a harbinger of a bitterly cold winter, but December was 1.7C above average, January +1.9C, February +2.5C and March +2.0C
There were consequently some issues with flooding, but I think we'd take something quite similar this winter.
November the 23rd 2013 being notable for being the 50th anniversary of the first broadcast of TV's favourite TimeLord. Dr Who
Surely the favourite time lord is the Rani? (Too niche?)
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
As long as he could slot it in with his Pointless gig, he would not be a bad call at all.
Clive Myrie has been terrific on Mastermind too. He would be good.
George Alagiah, another newsreader, would do a good job.
The BBC may want to give it to someone to get down wid da yoof, so maybe someone like Paddy McGuinness or Lee Mack
Not sure Alagiah would do it. He's been very ill of late.
I’m sorry to hear that, hopefully he will get better soon.
He's got terminal cancer. It just hasn't quite killed him yet.
Poor guy. He is younger than me too. That's very sad.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
For a really left field choice, they might ask William Hague. But I suspect they couldn't afford him.
As for Alexander Johnson...
I've just noticed these are all men. What odds the BBC will look for a woman? In which case Sophie Raworth would surely be front runner.
I was just thinking about potential women presenters. Trouble is (showing my age) the ones that first sprang to mind are al from 30 or 40 years ago and hopefully enjoying a long and peaceful retirement.
Someone mentioned Clive Myrie. He would be brilliant. He has really reignited my enjoyment of Mastermind after the John Humphrys' era which I didn't like at all.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
This has driven you mad, has it not?
Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
For a really left field choice, they might ask William Hague. But I suspect they couldn't afford him.
As for Alexander Johnson...
I've just noticed these are all men. What odds the BBC will look for a woman? In which case Sophie Raworth would surely be front runner.
I was just thinking about potential women presenters. Trouble is (showing my age) the ones that first sprang to mind are al from 30 or 40 years ago and hopefully enjoying a long and peaceful retirement.
Someone mentioned Clive Myrie. He would be brilliant. He has really reignited my enjoyment of Mastermind after the John Humphrys' era which I didn't like at all.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
It's actually really worrying, as it shows that the Russian trolls are preparing to deal with radioactive fallout by knocking back as much vodka and red wine as possible.
Dynamo isn't Russian.
How do you know, Dura? I hear you ask.
I lived in Russia for 9 years teaching English (and French) to Russians and I fucking know a Russian writing in English when I see one.
The pile on just because a newcomer will not cleave to the pb.com consensus on the SMO is shitty.
What about because they behave like drunken lunatics? Is it OK to pile on them for that?
We do it to the likes of Byronic, Eadric, LadyG, MysticRose, Leon...
Edit - besides, you don't have to be Russian to be a Russian troll. Orban and Salmond are not Russian.
If a hypothetical Russian had mastered written English to C1/C2 level it would be highly unlikely that they are going to shitpost for the consumption of wankers on the arse end of the Internet for $15/day.
I normally greatly enjoy bullying, vilification and all forms of exclusionary behaviour but this branding of any opinion contrary to the consensus on Ukraine/Russia as a "troll" is just weak.
I see Paxman is stepping down from University Challenge at the end of the next series. I must admit I thought he looked tired and perhaps unwell during the last series.
Any thoughts on who should replace him?
My left field choice would be Dara Ó Briain
Martin Clunes would be a more left field choice, but would still be quite good.
I agree on Dara Ó Briain though, he would be great.
Alexander Armstrong and Andrew Marr might be worth a bet.
Oo I forgot Alexander Armstrong. He would be good.
As long as he could slot it in with his Pointless gig, he would not be a bad call at all.
Clive Myrie has been terrific on Mastermind too. He would be good.
George Alagiah, another newsreader, would do a good job.
The BBC may want to give it to someone to get down wid da yoof, so maybe someone like Paddy McGuinness or Lee Mack
Not sure Alagiah would do it. He's been very ill of late.
I’m sorry to hear that, hopefully he will get better soon.
He's got terminal cancer. It just hasn't quite killed him yet.
Poor guy. He is younger than me too. That's very sad.
He's been fighting stage 4 bowel cancer for eight years and is still going. That must be near a record. But it isn't going to go away and he's having to restrict himself in what he can do.
In the normal course of events, for sure, but we have not seen what the govt plans to do yet. The rise in the last week or so has been pretty relentless.
I track commodity movements daily as part of my job. Other commodities have been easing but gas just remorselessly moves up and up.
We are going to be screwed this winter so is the whole of Europe. This will only keep increasing for the time being until there is either more supply, which is unlikely or less demand which will take time.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
This has driven you mad, has it not?
Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*
*To other people.
You're the deranged one, thankfully everyone else is calling you out for it. There's nothing wrong with being a contrarian sometimes, but this is an odd hill to fight on.
Hebdo aren't responsible for even a single death. Rushie isn't either. The killers and those who aided and abetted them are.
Still no real rain here ffs... a couple of drops for about 2 mins doesn't count.
Here it's been raining most of the morning - and the island was the first to get the hosepipe ban!
In gods own glorious south Durham we have had light rain since about 8.30. Just what the Dr ordered.
After the hyperventilating about the wrong kind of rain, we are now experiencing steady, not too heavy, rain, after last nights 30 minute downpour.
Weather doing what weather does. Drought will always end in the UK as we are an island with a mostly atlantic driven weather pattern. Whether we can fully recharge the water stocks over the winter is the bigger question. Need to avoid a blocked winter (which is a shame, as I like cold weather, but this winter in particular would be better for all if its warmer and wetter than average).
The warmest winter in the Central England Temperature record was 2013-14, which was also very wet.
Worth noting that the coldest day of the winter was in November, on the 23rd, when the daily mean temperature was just 2.5C, and November 2013 was 0.3C below the 1961-90 average. Some may have panicked at the time that this was a harbinger of a bitterly cold winter, but December was 1.7C above average, January +1.9C, February +2.5C and March +2.0C
There were consequently some issues with flooding, but I think we'd take something quite similar this winter.
November the 23rd 2013 being notable for being the 50th anniversary of the first broadcast of TV's favourite TimeLord. Dr Who
Surely the favourite time lord is the Rani? (Too niche?)
Only an occasional appearance, Butterworthy opponent.
Yes and a perennial 'bet they are playing the Monk!' Just like females re the Rani when guest stars are announced. We wont count Rufus Hounds Big Finish Monk
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
I take it to read that this is the quality of people Putin has surrounded himself with as advisors and fluffers.
And why on any objective measure, we should point and laugh at Russia. As it demilitarises itself against Ukraine.
Ukraine.
They are dumb enough to engineer their false flag destruction of a giant nuclear facility on a day of a strong south-westerly. And have Moscow join Chernobyl as the wold's largest rewilding nature reserve.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
It's actually really worrying, as it shows that the Russian trolls are preparing to deal with radioactive fallout by knocking back as much vodka and red wine as possible.
Dynamo isn't Russian.
How do you know, Dura? I hear you ask.
I lived in Russia for 9 years teaching English (and French) to Russians and I fucking know a Russian writing in English when I see one.
The pile on just because a newcomer will not cleave to the pb.com consensus on the SMO is shitty.
What about because they behave like drunken lunatics? Is it OK to pile on them for that?
We do it to the likes of Byronic, Eadric, LadyG, MysticRose, Leon...
Edit - besides, you don't have to be Russian to be a Russian troll. Orban and Salmond are not Russian.
If a hypothetical Russian had mastered written English to C1/C2 level it would be highly unlikely that they are going to shitpost for the consumption of wankers on the arse end of the Internet for $15/day.
I normally greatly enjoy bullying, vilification and all forms of exclusionary behaviour but this branding of any opinion contrary to the consensus on Ukraine/Russia as a "troll" is just weak.
Those 'opinions' include thinking Zelensky is a Nazi and the Donbas is rightfully part of Russia. Plus that Putin is a democrat.
I'm not sure we can call those 'opinions.' More like 'nonsense.'
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
Yes.
Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
It’s definitely not a religion, remember. It’s just that no other Western country understands the benefits of having the State employ the doctors and nurses.
The rest of the world must think us very peculiar - most countries would no more idolise their health service than they would their schools or police force.
There was an amusing Moral Maze episode on this very topic (it's still on IPlayer; look for 'The NHS at 70', I assume for licence reasons I can't link directly to it). Half the panel couldn't get past the sacred status of the health service and so almost seemed unable to understand the arguments of the other side.
“The question asked Americans whether eight aspects of U.S. government and society make them proud. Strong majorities express pride in six of the eight -- American scientific achievements (91%), the U.S. military (89%), American culture and arts (85%), economic (75%) and sporting (73%) achievements, and diversity in race, ethnic background, and religion (72%).
“Conversely, the American political system (32%) and health and welfare system (37%) are not sources of pride to most Americans.”
“Focus group participants in the U.S. and UK were prompted to name things that made them proud and ashamed to be American or British. Shared points of pride between participants in both countries included history, education, diversity and sports. U.S. discussions, for their part, focused more on freedom, the right to vote and being known as a land of opportunity. In Britain, the emphasis was on the National Health Service, the royal family and the widespread usage of the English language.
“Participants in both countries cited being ashamed about racism and political correctness. Those on the left in both the U.S. and UK tended to cite racism as a source of shame, while those on the right mentioned “PC culture.” Both Americans and Britons also named their respective head of state as a source of embarrassment (focus groups were conducted in 2019, when Donald Trump was president). And while U.S. participants also named the opioid epidemic as a source of shame, UK groups brought up Brexit and the behavior of British people abroad.”
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
It's actually really worrying, as it shows that the Russian trolls are preparing to deal with radioactive fallout by knocking back as much vodka and red wine as possible.
Dynamo isn't Russian.
How do you know, Dura? I hear you ask.
I lived in Russia for 9 years teaching English (and French) to Russians and I fucking know a Russian writing in English when I see one.
The pile on just because a newcomer will not cleave to the pb.com consensus on the SMO is shitty.
Your use of the acronym SMO makes your entire comment hard to take seriously.
You're a pro-Russian troll but you're not Russian, so its quite possible Dynamo is just like you. But either way he's either trolling, a useful idiot or just plain an idiot.
@Dura_Ace isn't a troll. Provocateur and swear blogger, yes.
Using "SMO" sounds more like taking the piss out of Putin, than anything else.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
This has driven you mad, has it not?
Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*
*To other people.
I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not
I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
I take it to read that this is the quality of people Putin has surrounded himself with as advisors and fluffers.
And why on any objective measure, we should point and laugh at Russia. As it demilitarises itself against Ukraine.
Ukraine.
They are dumb enough to engineer their false flag destruction of a giant nuclear facility on a day of a strong south-westerly. And have Moscow join Chernobyl as the wold's largest rewilding nature reserve.
It's over 1000km from Zaporizhzhia to Moscow. That would be one hell of a bang and I'm not sure any of us would be laughing then.
In the normal course of events, for sure, but we have not seen what the govt plans to do yet. The rise in the last week or so has been pretty relentless.
I track commodity movements daily as part of my job. Other commodities have been easing but gas just remorselessly moves up and up.
We are going to be screwed this winter so is the whole of Europe. This will only keep increasing for the time being until there is either more supply, which is unlikely or less demand which will take time.
That means a severe contraction in economic activity worldwide, no?
It’s definitely not a religion, remember. It’s just that no other Western country understands the benefits of having the State employ the doctors and nurses.
The envy of the world we are told The world being so envious no other developed nation has such a system.
Of course its not a religion as we clapped on our doorsteps every Thursday
If The World knew that people in the UK thought that it (The World) envied the NHS, The World would no doubt laugh it's collective tits off.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
I take it to read that this is the quality of people Putin has surrounded himself with as advisors and fluffers.
And why on any objective measure, we should point and laugh at Russia. As it demilitarises itself against Ukraine.
Ukraine.
They are dumb enough to engineer their false flag destruction of a giant nuclear facility on a day of a strong south-westerly. And have Moscow join Chernobyl as the wold's largest rewilding nature reserve.
It's over 1000km from Zaporizhzhia to Moscow. That would be one hell of a bang and I'm not sure any of us would be laughing then.
The fallout plumes from a really destroyed reactor can be hideous.
A really vile thing would be to use a nuclear weapon on a nuclear reactor. I recall seeing fallout maps for that where the plume reached across the entire US, with plenty to spare.
It’s definitely not a religion, remember. It’s just that no other Western country understands the benefits of having the State employ the doctors and nurses.
The envy of the world we are told The world being so envious no other developed nation has such a system.
Of course its not a religion as we clapped on our doorsteps every Thursday
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
This has driven you mad, has it not?
Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*
*To other people.
That you cannot see that by making excuses for them you are defending their actions shows just how much your moral compass is skewed.
No one is to blame for the Rushdie, Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan or Manchester attacks other than the attackers themselves.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
I take it to read that this is the quality of people Putin has surrounded himself with as advisors and fluffers.
And why on any objective measure, we should point and laugh at Russia. As it demilitarises itself against Ukraine.
Ukraine.
They are dumb enough to engineer their false flag destruction of a giant nuclear facility on a day of a strong south-westerly. And have Moscow join Chernobyl as the wold's largest rewilding nature reserve.
This is the greatest act of national self-suicide as a power in modern times playing out as speed, even more mishandled than bombing Pearl Harbour.
The 1980s saw the USSR/Russia relegated from superpower to power status, like the UK, France etc but this was is rapidly seeing Russia slip even from that realm.
Some people for some reason have long seemed to believe that Russia is a major power, better than the UK, when it was quite clearly not. For decades they've been a corrupt hydrocarbon state with a poor economy and nothing significant to contribute to the world. They've been trading on their name and legacy weaponry.
This war is pulling back the curtain and showing there's no wizard there. They're going to come out of this war defeated, demilitarised, with a trashed economy and no weaponry. They're utterly and royally f***ed and will likely end this as a hydrocarbon vassal state of China like much of Africa.
How can they come back from this? China and NATO have far too much firepower for them to cope with and their economy is too buggered to be able to rebuild.
Putin has killed the idea of Russia as a major power. RIP, no flowers.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
This has driven you mad, has it not?
Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*
*To other people.
I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not
I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid
1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.
2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.
3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
Yes.
Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
No.
You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
It’s definitely not a religion, remember. It’s just that no other Western country understands the benefits of having the State employ the doctors and nurses.
The envy of the world we are told The world being so envious no other developed nation has such a system.
Of course its not a religion as we clapped on our doorsteps every Thursday
So they are the same except for all the ways in which they are different.
One of the main ways in which they are different of course is that they are so much better than our system at the basic things like keeping people alive and making them better. Something the NHS seems to be particularly poor at compared with its peers.
It’s definitely not a religion, remember. It’s just that no other Western country understands the benefits of having the State employ the doctors and nurses.
The envy of the world we are told The world being so envious no other developed nation has such a system.
Of course its not a religion as we clapped on our doorsteps every Thursday
If The World knew that people in the UK thought that it (The World) envied the NHS, The World would no doubt laugh it's collective tits off.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
Yes.
Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
No.
You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
OK
I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
This has driven you mad, has it not?
Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*
*To other people.
I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not
I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid
1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.
2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.
3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
That’s somewhat clearer, thanks
I’ve yet to decide whether I agree with you. My instinct is to disagree but it deserves thought
In the normal course of events, for sure, but we have not seen what the govt plans to do yet. The rise in the last week or so has been pretty relentless.
I track commodity movements daily as part of my job. Other commodities have been easing but gas just remorselessly moves up and up.
We are going to be screwed this winter so is the whole of Europe. This will only keep increasing for the time being until there is either more supply, which is unlikely or less demand which will take time.
That means a severe contraction in economic activity worldwide, no?
Not nice
It does, and it won’t be.
It will also put a great deal of pressure on politicians to take a more conciliatory approach to the Russians too. Something we need to resist.
However we are paying the price for the wests over reliance on Russian energy along with other failings that Brought it about. We will get through it but the short term pain will be awful.
Install a basement under your house. The design are out there - suggest the ones with layers of sand and suspended floors are a bit OTT. Definitely an air filter system, power storage, and septic tank system. Have a big stock of dried/canned food, and use it as a larder for the fresher stuff.
6 weeks after the attack, you emerge. Unless you are practically in the crater, you will find that your surrounding may well be surprisingly intact. Just that (for a full attack) about 80%+ of people are dead. Radiation. After 6 weeks, the worst of the smell will probably be going away.
Nowadays we live in a much saner era in which official advice is much more sensible, down to earth, and respectful of the population. Mostly this is because most members of the population are much better informed (just look at the proportion who are graduates), and keener on holding their leaders to account. Anyone today who laughs at or who is dismissive of the advice in that video would be just as amused or dismissive if they heard today's authorities say anything f***ing stupid. They have much better bullsh*t detectors than their parents had. Similarly, had THEY been around in the 1970s, they'd never have worn flares.
As for the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea too - fake news! The Crimea will always be Ukrainian!
Who needs a septic tank? Just sh** in paper bags and leave them up against a wall inside the shelter. They'll soon dry up. Crap while singing "God Save the Queen", just as Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested when washing hands.
Sacrificing Birmingham for Nizhny Novgorod is what I call equitable. You gotta stand up for your principles. That's what the British empire was all about. That's the British brand. And there was an overwhelming majority for "YES" in the referendum on whether or not Britain should join NATO.
But let's be clear. Sacrificing Birmingham to win justice for the oppressed Crimeans is only acceptable provided Crimea is fully reconquered, just as Tory Boy Khrushchev would have wanted. Then it must be demilitarised, except for Sevastopol, which needs to be "internationalised", with friendly access allowed to all friendly navies, and no questions asked about what weapons they're carrying.
Sanity worked in 1914. It will work in 2022 too. And it's morally right!
Does anyone know what this gibberish is supposed to mean?
I take it to read that this is the quality of people Putin has surrounded himself with as advisors and fluffers.
And why on any objective measure, we should point and laugh at Russia. As it demilitarises itself against Ukraine.
Ukraine.
They are dumb enough to engineer their false flag destruction of a giant nuclear facility on a day of a strong south-westerly. And have Moscow join Chernobyl as the wold's largest rewilding nature reserve.
Come to think of it - the main point is losing against Ukraine.
That is, a medium sized, poor, Eastern European state with a massive corruption problems, political instability and led by a professional comedian, is making MachoMan Putin look like an incompetent weakling. With tiny, tiny..... weapons
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
This has driven you mad, has it not?
Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*
*To other people.
That you cannot see that by making excuses for them you are defending their actions shows just how much your moral compass is skewed.
No one is to blame for the Rushdie, Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan or Manchester attacks other than the attackers themselves.
Get back in your cesspit.
You do not understand the meaning of the word "excuse." Or rather i am sure you do usually, but as I say you have been driven mad by all this.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
Yes.
Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
No.
You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
OK
I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.
OK
I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.
However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
In the normal course of events, for sure, but we have not seen what the govt plans to do yet. The rise in the last week or so has been pretty relentless.
I track commodity movements daily as part of my job. Other commodities have been easing but gas just remorselessly moves up and up.
We are going to be screwed this winter so is the whole of Europe. This will only keep increasing for the time being until there is either more supply, which is unlikely or less demand which will take time.
That means a severe contraction in economic activity worldwide, no?
Not nice
It does, and it won’t be.
It will also put a great deal of pressure on politicians to take a more conciliatory approach to the Russians too. Something we need to resist.
However we are paying the price for the wests over reliance on Russian energy along with other failings that Brought it about. We will get through it but the short term pain will be awful.
I’ve been predicting on here for a while that Europe will crumble and quasi-surrender to Putin over the winter. It’s not what I want to happen but it is what I expect. Huge economic pain will override geopolitical unity
Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?
Scott Morrison continues his sterling effort to usurp John Kerr's place as the most unpopular Australian politician of all time.
Rubbish, he won the 2019 Australian election and his coalition still came top on first preferences even in the last election, only losing on 2PP.
His 'crime' is supposedly to have taken over part of the role of some other Cabinet posts during the Covid pandemic, overwork if anything. Which was not only legal but also a total non story as far as I am concerned
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
This has driven you mad, has it not?
Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*
*To other people.
I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not
I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid
1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.
2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.
3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
The tricky bit in your argument is (2). Specifically in identifying who is provoking “merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity”. I don’t believe that applies to Rushdie or Charlie Hebdo, so who are you railing against?
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
Yes.
Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
No.
You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
OK
I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.
OK
I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.
However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
OK
if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?
Scott Morrison continues his sterling effort to usurp John Kerr's place as the most unpopular Australian politician of all time.
Rubbish, he won the 2019 Australian election and his coalition still came top on first preferences even in the last election, only losing on 2PP.
His 'crime' is supposedly to have taken over part of the role of some other Cabinet posts during the Covid pandemic, overwork if anything. Which was not only legal but also a total non story as far as I am concerned
HYUFD - I'm in Australia and believe me this IS a big story.
His former Home Affairs minister who was always a loyalist has said he should resign from the parliament.
It’s definitely not a religion, remember. It’s just that no other Western country understands the benefits of having the State employ the doctors and nurses.
The envy of the world we are told The world being so envious no other developed nation has such a system.
Of course its not a religion as we clapped on our doorsteps every Thursday
So they are the same except for all the ways in which they are different.
One of the main ways in which they are different of course is that they are so much better than our system at the basic things like keeping people alive and making them better. Something the NHS seems to be particularly poor at compared with its peers.
They are not absolutely identical, but they are very similar.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
This has driven you mad, has it not?
Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*
*To other people.
I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not
I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid
1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.
2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.
3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
The tricky bit in your argument is (2). Specifically in identifying who is provoking “merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity”. I don’t believe that applies to Rushdie or Charlie Hebdo, so who are you railing against?
I am not "railing" against anyone. But both were primarily intending to provoke a reaction from a specific group of people, not to start a debate.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Agreed. She doesn't really draw any great distinction between the serious undesirability of laws limiting speech, and the rather more welcome virtues of politeness.
Because it is not the job of the State to enforce 'politeness' on people nor to pick and chose which particular sets of irrational (or rational) views should be protected from ridicule. And yet that is exactly what is happening. And in doing so they set the tone that allows people to take offence and justify more extreme reactions in defence of their beliefs.
Well, yes and no. It is the job of the State to clear up the mess after Manchester and Bataclan, though, and to pay for royal family level personal protection to protect Rushdie from the consequences of his little trolling exercise, so it might find preventative interventions worthwhile. It's all very well to get all pompous and Valiant For Truth in PB headers about "meekly accepting" this, but the victims of the next Bataclan also have rights.
Good bit of victim blaming there. Given that Manchester and Bataclan had fuck all to do with 'taking offence' and everything to do with fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies and want to kill Westerners because we don't share their beliefs.
Pandering to such insane mindsets by refusing to point how how stupid they are for fear of causing offence doesn't seem to have worked very well lately does it?
The same goes for the fuckwits of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think pandering to their insane beliefs will make any difference?
God, you are lovely when you are angry, and so very brave about standing up for What Is Right when the adverse consequences for you personally, are indistinguishable from zero.
On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 a.m. CET local time, two French Muslim terrorists and brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others. The gunmen identified themselves as belonging to the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which took responsibility for the attack. Several related attacks followed in the Île-de-France region on 7–9 January 2015, including the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege, where a terrorist killed four Jewish people.
I expect those 4 dead jews felt great about being collateral damage.
And look what you are doing: "fuckwits who believe in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies" isn't intended as an attack by ridicule on the belief, it isn't intended alter anyone's belief, it is purely intended as a taunt to produce a reaction of anger. It's like standing outside the Celtic ground with a placard saying The pope is a wanker.
If he is celibate as I understand he is supposed to be, is that not quite likely?
Are you tossing that one out there for us to ponder?
Whether he castigates the Cardinal on occasion is not really our business.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
This has driven you mad, has it not?
Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*
*To other people.
I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not
I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid
1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.
2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.
3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
2 is totally wrong.
There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.
Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
In the normal course of events, for sure, but we have not seen what the govt plans to do yet. The rise in the last week or so has been pretty relentless.
I track commodity movements daily as part of my job. Other commodities have been easing but gas just remorselessly moves up and up.
We are going to be screwed this winter so is the whole of Europe. This will only keep increasing for the time being until there is either more supply, which is unlikely or less demand which will take time.
That means a severe contraction in economic activity worldwide, no?
Not nice
It does, and it won’t be.
It will also put a great deal of pressure on politicians to take a more conciliatory approach to the Russians too. Something we need to resist.
However we are paying the price for the wests over reliance on Russian energy along with other failings that Brought it about. We will get through it but the short term pain will be awful.
I’ve been predicting on here for a while that Europe will crumble and quasi-surrender to Putin over the winter. It’s not what I want to happen but it is what I expect. Huge economic pain will override geopolitical unity
Even if they surrender to Putin, does anyone think he’d follow through on his empty promises to turn the gas taps on?
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
This has driven you mad, has it not?
Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*
*To other people.
I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not
I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid
1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.
2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.
3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
2 is totally wrong.
There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.
Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
And tortured-to-death Jews in an obscure french supermarket are, to you, an acceptable price to pay.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
Yes.
Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
No.
You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
OK
I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.
OK
I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.
However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
OK
if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?
Scott Morrison continues his sterling effort to usurp John Kerr's place as the most unpopular Australian politician of all time.
Rubbish, he won the 2019 Australian election and his coalition still came top on first preferences even in the last election, only losing on 2PP.
His 'crime' is supposedly to have taken over part of the role of some other Cabinet posts during the Covid pandemic, overwork if anything. Which was not only legal but also a total non story as far as I am concerned
HYUFD - I'm in Australia and believe me this IS a big story.
His former Home Affairs minister who was always a loyalist has said he should resign from the parliament.
It is a big story because Albanese is making it so, as Opposition leader Peter Dutton correctly states Albanese should be focused on "bigger issues Australian families are dealing with". Pathetic from the Labor government.
His Home Affairs Minister obviously wasn't doing her job properly enough hence Morrison had to intervene but there was nothing illegal in what he did during the Covid crisis
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
This has driven you mad, has it not?
Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*
*To other people.
I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not
I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid
1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.
2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.
3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
2 is totally wrong.
There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.
Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
And tortured-to-death Jews in an obscure french supermarket are, to you, an acceptable price to pay.
I don't agree.
Tortured to death Jews are not a 'price' of freedom, they're the sole responsibility of those engaging in torture and those who aid and abet them, your broken moral compass notwithstanding.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
This has driven you mad, has it not?
Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*
*To other people.
That you cannot see that by making excuses for them you are defending their actions shows just how much your moral compass is skewed.
No one is to blame for the Rushdie, Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan or Manchester attacks other than the attackers themselves.
Get back in your cesspit.
You do not understand the meaning of the word "excuse." Or rather i am sure you do usually, but as I say you have been driven mad by all this.
I am not mad at all. I have a set of principles that I stick to.
You clearly have your own principles which include apologising for and excusing murder. I suppose under your criteria I should accept your views in case you decided to kill someone just to prove a point (which is what you are defending).
I choose not to and call you out for them. It is called freedom of speech and I am grateful that both of us are able to do so. That would not be the case if you had your way.
In the normal course of events, for sure, but we have not seen what the govt plans to do yet. The rise in the last week or so has been pretty relentless.
I track commodity movements daily as part of my job. Other commodities have been easing but gas just remorselessly moves up and up.
We are going to be screwed this winter so is the whole of Europe. This will only keep increasing for the time being until there is either more supply, which is unlikely or less demand which will take time.
That means a severe contraction in economic activity worldwide, no?
Not nice
It does, and it won’t be.
It will also put a great deal of pressure on politicians to take a more conciliatory approach to the Russians too. Something we need to resist.
However we are paying the price for the wests over reliance on Russian energy along with other failings that Brought it about. We will get through it but the short term pain will be awful.
I’ve been predicting on here for a while that Europe will crumble and quasi-surrender to Putin over the winter. It’s not what I want to happen but it is what I expect. Huge economic pain will override geopolitical unity
I have no doubt at all you are right.
I expect it will be dressed up in such a way to make it appear they are not caving in for public consumption/face saving but political reality will win the day.
Our politicians should have done more to prepare for this. They were working on this invasion and reacting to it well before it happened.
Where it leaves Ukraine, or how it leaves Ukraine, remains to be seen but the Russians have played a long game here. The west has just bumbled along.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
This has driven you mad, has it not?
Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*
*To other people.
I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not
I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid
1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.
2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.
3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
The tricky bit in your argument is (2). Specifically in identifying who is provoking “merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity”. I don’t believe that applies to Rushdie or Charlie Hebdo, so who are you railing against?
I am not "railing" against anyone. But both were primarily intending to provoke a reaction from a specific group of people, not to start a debate.
Can I pin you down? Are you saying that starting a debate is the only alternative to trolling/publicity-seeking? Surely there’s a huge range of other things that aren’t trolling/publicity-seeking?
Similarly, “provoke a reaction” contains a lot of grey area. I seek to provoke a reaction when I lecture: a reaction of inspiration and of joy in knowledge… or maybe more often just a reaction of fear at the approaching assignment. Surely not all provocations are bad.
I don’t believe Rushdie intended to provoke the reaction he got. Does that absolve him from the guilt you wish to apply?
In the normal course of events, for sure, but we have not seen what the govt plans to do yet. The rise in the last week or so has been pretty relentless.
I track commodity movements daily as part of my job. Other commodities have been easing but gas just remorselessly moves up and up.
We are going to be screwed this winter so is the whole of Europe. This will only keep increasing for the time being until there is either more supply, which is unlikely or less demand which will take time.
That means a severe contraction in economic activity worldwide, no?
Not nice
It does, and it won’t be.
It will also put a great deal of pressure on politicians to take a more conciliatory approach to the Russians too. Something we need to resist.
However we are paying the price for the wests over reliance on Russian energy along with other failings that Brought it about. We will get through it but the short term pain will be awful.
I’ve been predicting on here for a while that Europe will crumble and quasi-surrender to Putin over the winter. It’s not what I want to happen but it is what I expect. Huge economic pain will override geopolitical unity
Even if they surrender to Putin, does anyone think he’d follow through on his empty promises to turn the gas taps on?
Yes, because Putin will want to reward countries that submit, pour encourager Les Autres
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
This has driven you mad, has it not?
Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*
*To other people.
I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not
I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid
1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.
2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.
3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
2 is totally wrong.
There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.
Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
And tortured-to-death Jews in an obscure french supermarket are, to you, an acceptable price to pay.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Your approach has some curious implications. If, let's say, a cult of fanatics made it clear that they would attack any women they saw walking around who had hair, you'd be morally obliged to shave your wife and daughters' heads before they went out.
Yes.
Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
No.
You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
OK
I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.
OK
I would not "send my womenfolk out" anywhere, since "womenfolk" are not my chattel to send or otherwise.
However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
OK
if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
If a random Jew is tortured to death that is a consequence of any torturers, it is not a consequence of 'provocation'. That is where you're wrong, you're trying to excuse the actions of scum by blaming 'provocation' as being responsible for it being done.
You seem to have discarded the whole concept of causation. The deaths would not have occurred but for the cartoons. Sure, the mindset of the torturers is part of the equation, but you can't shoot someone dead and then explain how the death was caused by the explosion of cordite in a confined space with a projectile in front of it, nothing to do with you guv.
And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
In the normal course of events, for sure, but we have not seen what the govt plans to do yet. The rise in the last week or so has been pretty relentless.
I track commodity movements daily as part of my job. Other commodities have been easing but gas just remorselessly moves up and up.
We are going to be screwed this winter so is the whole of Europe. This will only keep increasing for the time being until there is either more supply, which is unlikely or less demand which will take time.
That means a severe contraction in economic activity worldwide, no?
Not nice
It does, and it won’t be.
It will also put a great deal of pressure on politicians to take a more conciliatory approach to the Russians too. Something we need to resist.
However we are paying the price for the wests over reliance on Russian energy along with other failings that Brought it about. We will get through it but the short term pain will be awful.
I’ve been predicting on here for a while that Europe will crumble and quasi-surrender to Putin over the winter. It’s not what I want to happen but it is what I expect. Huge economic pain will override geopolitical unity
Even if they surrender to Putin, does anyone think he’d follow through on his empty promises to turn the gas taps on?
Yes. He'd be stupid not to. You encourage the behaviour you want. If he didn't do it, it would strengthen the resolve of those countries.
In a way, it is to be hoped for. It is impossible politically for the UK to ease up on sanctions but it may be to our benefit if the EU caves. I think some sanctions are working (the technology ones) and it could be that the war will turn in Ukraine's favour. But the ones that have not worked are the ones that try and stop Russia making money from gas. All they do is shut Europe off from it. Putin is making a tonne of money from gas still.
I agree with Cyclefree's view of most of the examples of the header, but I disagree with the underlying premise that it's a problem that people are too fearful of expressing their thoughts frankly and afraid of giving offence. We see examples here every day of people expressing a defensible view in a needlessly aggressive way, and IMO that's a common problem in Britain, much more common than people being afraid to express their views at all. Moreover, it's seen as pathetic, wimpish and even anti-democratic for anyone to take offence at anything.
To take an older religious example than the Satanic Verses: I remember an art exhibition displaying a crucifix in a glass or urine, called IIRC something like PissChrist. I've never been a Christian. Nor would I want to make it illegal to do that, let alone attack the artist.
But it was a pointless provocation to something that many people value, and as such self-indulgent and unpleasant. By all means disagree with Christianity, or Islam, or socialism, or Brexit. But if you don't do it in a reasonably polite and respectful way, you're just gratifying your own sense of importance at the expense of other people. Should be it be illegal? No. But not everything that's legal is desirable, and even-tempered, civilised, friendly debate is really important in itself, and usually the only way to persuade others to change their minds.
Of course there's a place for derision and contempt. But I think we as a society use them too much, rather than too little, and highlighting the extreme examples of suppression as the header does should not mean that we're fine with routine aggression towards each other.
Completely disagreed with your notion of "pointless provocation".
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
A lot of collateral dead people as a result of the Charlie Hebdo thing. One hopes they saw the funny side.
Still apologising for murder. You really are a cesspit.
This has driven you mad, has it not?
Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*
*To other people.
I’m often sympathetic to your perspective, and you are refreshingly open minded on many things - but you have become quite eccentric of late. And also unusually opaque. By that I mean: you used to be pithy and lucid, but recently you’ve resorted to peculiar mumbling. eg I’m still not exactly sure what your position is on Islamist violence, let alone whether I agree with it or not
I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
It is really straightforward and I think I am being fairly lucid
1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.
2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.
3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
2 is totally wrong.
There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.
Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
And tortured-to-death Jews in an obscure french supermarket are, to you, an acceptable price to pay.
Comments
Clive Myrie has been terrific on Mastermind too. He would be good.
George Alagiah, another newsreader, would do a good job.
The BBC may want to give it to someone to get down wid da yoof, so maybe someone like Paddy McGuinness or Lee Mack
How do you know, Dura? I hear you ask.
I lived in Russia for 9 years teaching English (and French) to Russians and I fucking know a Russian writing in English when I see one.
The pile on just because a newcomer will not cleave to the pb.com consensus on the SMO is shitty.
Leon has already said what the point of that art piece was, so it by definition wasn't pointless, but even without that then provocation for provocation's sake can in the right circumstances be a good thing.
It is good for society sometimes to make fun of that which "many people value" because otherwise you end up with protected and untouchable shibboleths which isn't a good thing.
The role of the 'fool' or 'jester' mocking those which can not normally be mocked is something that societies have had, not just in Medieval times but Roman, Chinese, Aztec etc too.
Artists can play the same role today, whether it be in things like PissChrist, or Charlie Hebdo, or South Park or anything else. Absolutely nothing should be beyond mockery or entertainment. If you're putting what you value as sacred and beyond the realms of "pointless provocation" then you've already gone too far.
The point is that: if you want truly memorable experiences of a country then solo travel is probably the ideal. It’s tough and isolating at times but you are forced to interact with the new world around you. Also makes you more resourceful. You’ve got to work it all out for yourself
You’re right that social media makes it easier
On the other hand most people have limited chances to travel so they just want a good time on their annual holibobs, not peak lifetime experiences. So for them travel with others makes more sense
Munchetty is a good call. It would be merit based too. No one could claim tokenism.
Worth noting that the coldest day of the winter was in November, on the 23rd, when the daily mean temperature was just 2.5C, and November 2013 was 0.3C below the 1961-90 average. Some may have panicked at the time that this was a harbinger of a bitterly cold winter, but December was 1.7C above average, January +1.9C, February +2.5C and March +2.0C
There were consequently some issues with flooding, but I think we'd take something quite similar this winter.
We do it to the likes of Byronic, Eadric, LadyG, MysticRose, Leon...
Edit - besides, you don't have to be Russian to be a Russian troll. Orban and Salmond are not Russian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rani_(Doctor_Who)
By the way, I am sure GCHQ have a job for you should you wish to apply.
You're a pro-Russian troll but you're not Russian, so its quite possible Dynamo is just like you. But either way he's either trolling, a useful idiot or just plain an idiot.
Sept delivery 477p/therm (16.3p/kWh)
Dec delivery 613p/therm (20.9p/kWh)
Surely we’re at a price level that guarantees some level of demand destruction?
https://www.theice.com/products/910/UK-Natural-Gas-Futures/data?marketId=5253323
Whereas yesterday I thanked @Dynamo for some seriously interesting opinions on the UFO thing
If @Dynamo is a bot he/she is an intriguing bot and is entirely welcome. Hopefully, today’s odd comments are an aberration
Question is- will Bozza go for the Celebrity Redemption Arc, or will we be saved by the fact that he doesn't think he needs redemption?
She is also well practiced at sneering at people far more intelligent than she is.
Your "she's wearing a short skirt so she deserves to be raped" should be treated with the same ridicule as Charlie Hebdo etc are right to exercise.
There is a remarkable freedom that comes from travelling alone - you can follow your interests or instincts or just random whim or impulse, make long detours just to see something or be somewhere that you would never ‘sell’ to a travel partner, do as much or as little or nothing at all each day as you wish. And, as Leon says, you do have more interactions; female solo travellers need a strategy for repelling unwanted interactions; males to avoid seeming too threatening or self-reliant. IMHO travelling with an animal is optimal.
Stephen Fry springs to mind as the obvious choice. Vicky Cohen a possibility.
Someone mentioned Clive Myrie. He would be brilliant. He has really reignited my enjoyment of Mastermind after the John Humphrys' era which I didn't like at all.
Which set of murders do you derangedly think I am apologising for, the Hebdo lot or the bystanding policemen/Jews? The reality is that I am saying I rather wish they had not happened, but you are coming pretty close to celebrating them because in your head you are a pot valiant Champion Of Free Speech, John Hampden crossed with Voltaire hero, never mind the consequences.*
*To other people.
I normally greatly enjoy bullying, vilification and all forms of exclusionary behaviour but this branding of any opinion contrary to the consensus on Ukraine/Russia as a "troll" is just weak.
I track commodity movements daily as part of my job. Other commodities have been easing but gas just remorselessly moves up and up.
We are going to be screwed this winter so is the whole of Europe. This will only keep increasing for the time being until there is either more supply, which is unlikely or less demand which will take time.
Hebdo aren't responsible for even a single death. Rushie isn't either. The killers and those who aided and abetted them are.
We wont count Rufus Hounds Big Finish Monk
And why on any objective measure, we should point and laugh at Russia. As it demilitarises itself against Ukraine.
Ukraine.
They are dumb enough to engineer their false flag destruction of a giant nuclear facility on a day of a strong south-westerly. And have Moscow join Chernobyl as the wold's largest rewilding nature reserve.
I'm not sure we can call those 'opinions.' More like 'nonsense.'
Lots of attempts here to produce paradoxes which turn out to be nothing of the kind. That is pretty much the situation in Taliban controlled countries with trivial differences, and that's what you do unless you want them stoned to death. No paradox. Obviously over here you'd just advise them to stay at home for a bit while the police sorted it.
No need to reply.
“The question asked Americans whether eight aspects of U.S. government and society make them proud. Strong majorities express pride in six of the eight -- American scientific achievements (91%), the U.S. military (89%), American culture and arts (85%), economic (75%) and sporting (73%) achievements, and diversity in race, ethnic background, and religion (72%).
“Conversely, the American political system (32%) and health and welfare system (37%) are not sources of pride to most Americans.”
While this has some international comparisons: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/05/05/5-national-pride-and-shame/
“Focus group participants in the U.S. and UK were prompted to name things that made them proud and ashamed to be American or British. Shared points of pride between participants in both countries included history, education, diversity and sports. U.S. discussions, for their part, focused more on freedom, the right to vote and being known as a land of opportunity. In Britain, the emphasis was on the National Health Service, the royal family and the widespread usage of the English language.
“Participants in both countries cited being ashamed about racism and political correctness. Those on the left in both the U.S. and UK tended to cite racism as a source of shame, while those on the right mentioned “PC culture.” Both Americans and Britons also named their respective head of state as a source of embarrassment (focus groups were conducted in 2019, when Donald Trump was president). And while U.S. participants also named the opioid epidemic as a source of shame, UK groups brought up Brexit and the behavior of British people abroad.”
YouGov had some great international comparisons on pride in empire: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2020/03/11/how-unique-are-british-attitudes-empire We came second, with the Dutch well out in front. France was just behind us.
Using "SMO" sounds more like taking the piss out of Putin, than anything else.
I’m ascribing this to the hot weather, or a season of breakfast beer sessions, and I hope you will return to normal soon
Not nice
Outrage as Australians discover former prime minister secretly gave himself five additional ministries
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/former-australian-prime-minister-scott-morrison-pm-secretly-gave-himself-five-ministerial-roles
Granted we don't have the same system, but multiple redundancy payments might be possible ?
A really vile thing would be to use a nuclear weapon on a nuclear reactor. I recall seeing fallout maps for that where the plume reached across the entire US, with plenty to spare.
No one is to blame for the Rushdie, Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan or Manchester attacks other than the attackers themselves.
Get back in your cesspit.
The 1980s saw the USSR/Russia relegated from superpower to power status, like the UK, France etc but this was is rapidly seeing Russia slip even from that realm.
Some people for some reason have long seemed to believe that Russia is a major power, better than the UK, when it was quite clearly not. For decades they've been a corrupt hydrocarbon state with a poor economy and nothing significant to contribute to the world. They've been trading on their name and legacy weaponry.
This war is pulling back the curtain and showing there's no wizard there. They're going to come out of this war defeated, demilitarised, with a trashed economy and no weaponry. They're utterly and royally f***ed and will likely end this as a hydrocarbon vassal state of China like much of Africa.
How can they come back from this? China and NATO have far too much firepower for them to cope with and their economy is too buggered to be able to rebuild.
Putin has killed the idea of Russia as a major power. RIP, no flowers.
1. Islamist violence is the pits. As bad as Nazism. Violent islamists are the mad axemen in the metaphor.
2. BUT there are constraints on provoking it, and there is no moral free pass for people who provoke it merely to troll, or gain fame or publicity. People get tortured to death as the direct and foreseeable result of these activities, and I would prefer that not to happen. Especially when the torture victims are not identical with the trolls.
3. it is fustian nonsense to proclaim oneself a Champion Of Free Speech Above All Else as if the deaths of people in 2. above did not matter.
You'd live your lives while the cult of fanatics are criminals to be dealt with. Any actions taken are responsibility of the fanatics, not the fact that someone's daughters went to a concert with their hair showing.
NRSC cancels over $10 million in ad buys as candidates struggle with fundraising.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/15/gop-slashes-ads-in-key-senate-battlegrounds-00051969
One of the main ways in which they are different of course is that they are so much better than our system at the basic things like keeping people alive and making them better. Something the NHS seems to be particularly poor at compared with its peers.
I am not happy with the lack of agency allowed to women in this example, but anyway: you are saying unambiguously that you would send your womenfolk out to work in makeup and western dress in present day Kabul, because anything else would be Giving In. Because any resulting stoning no matter how foreseeable, would be 100% Not Your Fault.
OK
Construction started / Gwe
1950s : 2.122 GWe (All retired)
1960s: 6.642 GWe (1.19 GWe running) (5.452 GWe retired)
1970s: 1.160 GWe (Hartlepool)
1980s: 3.640 GWe
1990s : 0
2000s : 0
2010s : 3.2 GWe
What on earth happened between 1988 and 2018 ?! (Not Chernobyl because otherwise ground wouldn't have been broken on Sizewell
I’ve yet to decide whether I agree with you. My instinct is to disagree but it deserves thought
It will also put a great deal of pressure on politicians to take a more conciliatory approach to the Russians too. Something we need to resist.
However we are paying the price for the wests over reliance on Russian energy along with other failings that Brought it about. We will get through it but the short term pain will be awful.
That is, a medium sized, poor, Eastern European state with a massive corruption problems, political instability and led by a professional comedian, is making MachoMan Putin look like an incompetent weakling. With tiny, tiny..... weapons
However the UK is not Kabul. The UK is subject to UK laws, not Taliban ones. When in Rome you may have to follow Roman laws, but I wouldn't go to Kabul because of that, but we're in the UK and UK laws apply. In Paris it is French laws, not Sharia laws that applies.
His 'crime' is supposedly to have taken over part of the role of some other Cabinet posts during the Covid pandemic, overwork if anything. Which was not only legal but also a total non story as far as I am concerned
if there is a lawful action you can do or not do, in France, where the reasonably foreseeable consequence of that action is that some random Jews will be tortured to death, should that affect your decision about the action?
His former Home Affairs minister who was always a loyalist has said he should resign from the parliament.
The idea that the NHS is “particularly poor” is dubious. Even the IFS thinks the NHS is average: https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/HEAJ6319-How-good-is-the-NHS-180625-WEB.pdf This US think tank (don’t be confused by the name) thinks the NHS is among the best among its peers: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/documents/___media_files_publications_fund_report_2017_jul_pdf_schneider_mirror_mirror_exhibits.pdf
There are no constraints on "provoking" it and there absolutely is a complete moral free pass for people who provoke it. Indeed we don't provoke it remotely enough, the right response to the Hebdo attacks shouldn't have been for people to say "Je Suis Charlie" it should have been for every newspaper around the world that believes in a free press to reprint the Hebdo cartoons on their front pages the next day.
Any sheltered dickheads that think their views either are or should be above provocation needs to be denuded of that idea.
I don't agree.
Check out this report from 1992 when Heseltine shut the pits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPx4uAcMJ6E
His Home Affairs Minister obviously wasn't doing her job properly enough hence Morrison had to intervene but there was nothing illegal in what he did during the Covid crisis
You clearly have your own principles which include apologising for and excusing murder. I suppose under your criteria I should accept your views in case you decided to kill someone just to prove a point (which is what you are defending).
I choose not to and call you out for them. It is called freedom of speech and I am grateful that both of us are able to do so. That would not be the case if you had your way.
I expect it will be dressed up in such a way to make it appear they are not caving in for public consumption/face saving but political reality will win the day.
Our politicians should have done more to prepare for this. They were working on this invasion and reacting to it well before it happened.
Where it leaves Ukraine, or how it leaves Ukraine, remains to be seen but the Russians have played a long game here. The west has just bumbled along.
Similarly, “provoke a reaction” contains a lot of grey area. I seek to provoke a reaction when I lecture: a reaction of inspiration and of joy in knowledge… or maybe more often just a reaction of fear at the approaching assignment. Surely not all provocations are bad.
I don’t believe Rushdie intended to provoke the reaction he got. Does that absolve him from the guilt you wish to apply?
And what is this "excuse" shit? Is explaining the origins of the holocaust the same as excusing it?
In a way, it is to be hoped for. It is impossible politically for the UK to ease up on sanctions but it may be to our benefit if the EU caves. I think some sanctions are working (the technology ones) and it could be that the war will turn in Ukraine's favour. But the ones that have not worked are the ones that try and stop Russia making money from gas. All they do is shut Europe off from it. Putin is making a tonne of money from gas still.