Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
if you are a liberal the reverse is also true: Those who believe homosexuality is right have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against those who believe it is wrong has no place in a liberal society.
Liberalism is very hard work.
And that is exactly where a number of people part company with liberalism.
They see that as dodging the issue, protecting the bad etc.
They want the short, straight road to the Final Society. Burn the bad people.
This discussion is making me feel a bit of an oddball in that I have virtually no recall of these old classic children's books, Blyton, Dahl, Just William etc. Either I didn't read them or (perhaps more likely) I did and they left little impression.
What books (if any) do you remember?
I really liked Robert Westall as a bairn; he seems to have fallen out of favour now. The Hobbit was my favourite book (and is still up there tbh; he good genuinely spin a good, crisp and non-noodly yarn when he turned his mind to it, that Tolkien fella).
Good question. Lots but no children's books. I can't have just started reading as a teenager but it's as if I did. The Bonds, Catcher/Rye, the Claudius books by Robert Graves, Catch 22, I remember devouring all these. But nothing that you'd call for kids. Must be a memory fail, I guess.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
Ms Forbes, a member of the Free Church of Scotland, was asked whether a man should be able to marry another man.
She says: "Equal marriage is a legal right and therefore I would defend that legal commitment.
"Incidentally though I would hope that others can defend the rights of other minorities, including religious minorities that might take a different view."
She said there was a distinction to be made between personal morality and practice - and a person's political responsibilities as a lawmaker.
Some conflation in Ms Forbes' answer I think. No-one is challenging the legal right of those that think gay marriage to be immoral to think that (How could you police this?) The first right is absolute, as she correctly states. This has nothing to do with people's private behaviour and beliefs.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Since when have Islam and Judaism limited marriage to one man and one woman? Islam allows four wives. Jewish Kings like Solomon had hundreds.
Why would anyone want more than one wife? And even that, I'm thinking, may have been too many.
One to do the cooking; one to do the gardening; one to do the housework; and a fourth to do the shopping.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭
Starmer is a lucky general.
Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.
The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Since when have Islam and Judaism limited marriage to one man and one woman? Islam allows four wives. Jewish Kings like Solomon had hundreds.
Why would anyone want more than one wife? And even that, I'm thinking, may have been too many.
I believe the thinking is that they will complain to each other and spare you the ear ache.
Now, I'm no expert on this, but isn't it more likely they'll all complain to you about each other?
That sounds - candidly - like a complete nightmare.
Whenever I hear about bigamists who kept two families in two different towns, I think, WTF? Why? You've got half your time on your own, you lucky bastard. Why would you add a second family???
I can’t see the attraction of being part of a polycule. It’s way too much card work.
On topic, she has a lovely lilt and she's quite telegenic. So both ticks in this age where sound and sight seem to be so important.
And well done to her team for finding such rare blue sky footage over the Cuillins.
All-in-all a very slick video launch.
Lilt’s been rebranded so it’s “…she has a lovely Fanta Pineapple and Grapefruit…” if you’re being pedantic
Political Correctness gone mad: "Correcting" Roald Dahl classics to impose 2023 morals on books written generations earlier. Political Correctness not gone mad: ditching the "yeah mon" faux Caribbean branding because sales have died and it needs a relaunch that won't piss off the target audience.
What about Enid Blyton and Noddy?
Golly!
My mum gave me a golly when I was small, bought it in antique shop I think. It had yellow hair. I remember being very very small and staring at it and not liking it.
I still got all those old things in a container in the old pig house roof. When i’m next up there I’ll photograph it so you can see how scary it is.
I had a golly bank, you put the penny in one hand pulled the other arm and arm came up and penny went into its mouth, no idea what happened to it but doubt it would be pc today.
I had one as well. You sometimes used to see them on shop counters as a way of giving to charity.
Me too. They were common, as was the Robertson's Marmalade gollywog. Nobody thought anything of it, probably because nothing malicious was intended.
The intent isn't always the point though. My great grandma had a cat whose name was an extremely offensive racist term (think Dambusters). There was no malice intended there either, and it doesn't make her a bad person, but nor does it make it right. Times move on, and for the better.
Incidentally, my mum had one of those cast iron penny banks where the woman ate the penny - she was called DINAH (printed on the back). I wonder how popular they were? I've not seen one since then.
No, I take your point, G. People should take care, and avoid causing offence where possible.
I know the Dambusters case. It's interesting. It's plainly not racist. The dog is black, ffs. It should be left in, if only to indicate to later generations how the name could be used innocently at that time.
You wouldn't do it now though, and I suspect your great grandma was a little behind the times , but definitely not malicious.
I get the non malicious part but not sure about the plainly not racist. Unconscious racism is often not meant to be malicious but is still racism. In one of the numerous autobiographies of fighter pilots I’ve read, the author (not a famous one) wrote after a particularly gruelling set of ops of ‘being worked like n***ers’, to me not malicious but still racist. It’d be interesting to see in the fairly rare cases of aircrews of different races serving together what language was considered acceptable.
My gran used the phrase ‘n***er brown’ frequently, and wonderful woman that she was, she was a teeny bit racist. She was born in 1901 so hardly unusual I guess.
That's interesting, Div, but less difficult or complicated than is widely thought.
The phrase 'working like a nigger' was commonplace in my youth but then we barely ever saw a real black person so it was literally just a figure of speech, loosely derived I suspect from accounts of plantation workers. It wasn't intentionally racist but as it became increasingly evident that it could be inadvertantly so, it became less common and was supplanted by the less offensive alternatives.
No dog has yet been heard to complain that I occasionally work like one.
Seeing that word, even in print, is very upsetting...
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
It seems like a dumb thing to do but is presumably driven by commercial motivations - ie wanting to keep selling the books to as wide a range of people as possible. Way back in the 1980s when my mum was doing teacher training she remembers they noted some difficult aspects to the books, eg how do you read the books to a class of children with overweight kids in the class when they equate being overweight to being greedy, lacking in self control etc and could make it more likely the kid gets bullied? My own feeling with Dahl's books is they are very well written and really appeal to children but certainly have some problematic features. We have them at home and certainly didn't ban them but would talk about some of the aspects of the books that didn't sit right with us with the kids. They are intelligent enough to make up their own mind. I think it's weird that Sunak is getting involved. I'm sure he has better things to be getting on with.
Frankly, I've never liked Roald Dahl's books. I think they're both unpleasant and somewhat disturbing. That's the plotlines, not the characters so much. About the only one I really enjoyed was Matilda, and even that has its moments.
But there's 'not liking something' and 'bowdlerising.' Should we ban the The Wife of Bath's Prologue as well because it shows marital violence and sexual exploitation? Or Titus Andronicus because it promotes cannibalism?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
The Twits was one of my favourites as a kid - but it's obviously an unreal grotesque, and as a kid you understand that as intuitively as you understand that DTCOTW or Boy is not.
His theme around fat=bad is a bit of an odd one (and again, even as a kid having read a few of his books you notice it) but he's hardly alone in that. And simply changing the words can't really take away the fundamental issue that he often equates a person's personality with their appearance (the bald witches are another). TBH, like most people I think changing the words here is a bit PC-gone-mad and is a gift to the Proper Bin Men crew.
The one I never really got on with was the BFG. Can't think why in retrospect; maybe his propensity for silly made-up words just went to far in that one.
I guess when RD was writing (over 60 years ago, remember) being fat was very unusual and probably a sign of something bad. Not like now.
Meanwhile, the Labour poll lead is plumping up- Starmer had better hope it doesn't end like Augustus Gloop;
Labour leads by 27%, the largest lead for Labour since Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (18 February):
Labour 51% (+3) Conservative 24% (-3) Liberal Democrat 10% (+1) Reform UK 6% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
That's huge, and from a pollster that hasn't always been particularly favorable to Labour.
The May elections are going to be a bloodbath.
Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections when this May's seats were last up even that poll has only a 4% decline for the Tories. The LDs meanwhile got 19% so there is actually a 2.5% swing from LD to Tory since the last locals.
However admittedly as Labour also got just 28% back then a 14% swing from Tory to Labour.
So the Tories might even pick up a few seats from the LDs in the South, even if they likely lose seats to Labour in the North, the Midlands and Kent and Essex
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
if you are a liberal the reverse is also true: Those who believe homosexuality is right have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against those who believe it is wrong has no place in a liberal society.
Liberalism is very hard work.
I think you say the opposite of what kinabalu said.
In a Liberal society people who think homosexuality wrong are fine as long as they don't force their moral code on others.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭
Starmer is a lucky general.
Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.
The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism
What are your grounds for thinking this?
Thinking what??
You said:
"Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"
Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
Ms Forbes, a member of the Free Church of Scotland, was asked whether a man should be able to marry another man.
She says: "Equal marriage is a legal right and therefore I would defend that legal commitment.
"Incidentally though I would hope that others can defend the rights of other minorities, including religious minorities that might take a different view."
She said there was a distinction to be made between personal morality and practice - and a person's political responsibilities as a lawmaker.
Some conflation in Ms Forbes' answer I think. No-one is challenging the legal right of those that think gay marriage to be immoral to think that (How could you police this?) The first right is absolute, as she correctly states. This has nothing to do with people's private behaviour and beliefs.
Plenty of people want to be witch finders and make windows into peoples souls.
There have been already attempts at laws/police actions in various democracies which get close to regulating people's private beliefs.
Absolutely damming statement from the family naming Sky and ITV plus others of irresponsible journalism and contacting them when expressly told not to
It is time the media were held to account over their irresponsible journalism
I've long been a member of the How Do You Feel club.
That's is, if ever involved in some major incident, they stick a microphone under your nose and ask that stupid, stupid question... You take time to consider. Than a punch to their nose. Then say "Like that, mostly".
They also do it to jockeys who have just won a big race. 'Fantastic, you f*ckwit' is the only appropriate reply.
BMA junior doctors vote 98% to strike on 78% turnout, HCSA 97% on 72% turnout.
While demanding a 26% payrise despite current starting wages of £40k per year taking account extra pay for unsociable hours and £53k average post training
Absolutely damming statement from the family naming Sky and ITV plus others of irresponsible journalism and contacting them when expressly told not to
It is time the media were held to account over their irresponsible journalism
Also the police who released personal information about Nicola Bulley that was unnecessary to the investigation, about someone who at the time was not certainly known to be dead, and which should be classified highly confidential.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
Why is homosexuality ever wrong? What is wrong with two people who love each other?
Where do you draw the line, are people allowed to say that Jewish people are inferior to others? What about black people?
You are allowed to think what you want and have your own opinion , however you are not allowed to abuse people directly. You cannot force everybody to like what you like, just get on with your own life and leave others to have theirs.
Absolutely damming statement from the family naming Sky and ITV plus others of irresponsible journalism and contacting them when expressly told not to
It is time the media were held to account over their irresponsible journalism
This whole episode has been appalling. From the social media attention seekers thinking they are in their own episode of Midsomer Murders to the ghoulish media coverage and speculation to the police handling on the investigation...
To say the country hasn't covered itself in glory recently is an understatement...
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭
Starmer is a lucky general.
Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.
The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism
What are your grounds for thinking this?
Thinking what??
You said:
"Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"
Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
I am raging bigot - marriage is strictly between 2+ humans. No animals, vegetables or minerals. Or TransWokeAlienIlIegalImmigrantAIs
I do not know much about this requirement but does it affect postal votes as my wife and I have had postal votes for years ?
No it doesn't. Bizarrely there are no id checks for a postal vote. Even worse, anyone could request a postal vote on your behalf* and they can even request it is sent to a different address to yours.
(*TBF, I am not sure if that is true if you already have a postal vote - there may be additional checks in that case.)
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
Who has said they disapprove of a group, usual hysterical swivel eyed crap on here. Sh edoes not have to like everybody or like what they do but has made perfectly clear that they can do what they want within the law.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
I think that effectively saying that same-sex marriage is immoral IS an attack on people because of their sexual orientation. It's really not that complicated in my opinion.
Ms Forbes, a member of the Free Church of Scotland, was asked whether a man should be able to marry another man.
She says: "Equal marriage is a legal right and therefore I would defend that legal commitment.
"Incidentally though I would hope that others can defend the rights of other minorities, including religious minorities that might take a different view."
She said there was a distinction to be made between personal morality and practice - and a person's political responsibilities as a lawmaker.
Some conflation in Ms Forbes' answer I think. No-one is challenging the legal right of those that think gay marriage to be immoral to think that (How could you police this?) The first right is absolute, as she correctly states. This has nothing to do with people's private behaviour and beliefs.
Plenty of people want to be witch finders and make windows into peoples souls.
There have been already attempts at laws/police actions in various democracies which get close to regulating people's private beliefs.
My point, not well expressed, was that rights are separate from behaviours and beliefs. Ms Forbes conflates the two in her response.
On topic: Would Humza Yousaf have better chances had he changed his name to something more Scottish?
(That has happened, from time to time in American politics. Former New York City mayor Bill de Blasio changed his name, legally, twice. And, as you probably know, Nikki Haley has changed both her name, and her religion.)
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
I’m not for a minute tarring Forbes with this brush, but nowadays people who are comfortable with persecuting X tend to be quite careful about stating it out loud.
BMA junior doctors vote 98% to strike on 78% turnout, HCSA 97% on 72% turnout.
While demanding a 26% payrise despite current starting wages of £40k per year taking account extra pay for unsociable hours and £53k average post training
I do not know much about this requirement but does it affect postal votes as my wife and I have had postal votes for years ?
No it doesn't. Bizarrely there are no id checks for a postal vote. Even worse, anyone could request a postal vote on your behalf* and they can even request it is sent to a different address to yours.
(*TBF, I am not sure if that is true if you already have a postal vote - there may be additional checks in that case.)
I think the media need holding accountable. Some of the journalism - particularly from Sky- has been distasteful and woeful
I hope that diver who was over the airwaves saying he didn’t think she was in the river and in effect feeding the conspiracies gets pulled up too.
The story isn’t over yet. Did she fall in accidentally or choose to enter the water? Why didn’t anyone find the body? Extensive searches failed. I know the river is tidal, and thus the position the body was found may not be the same place it’s been, but still. It’s good to see the media being upbraided a bit. I tried to point out before the hypocrisy of the main media complaining about people flocking to the area to do social media and other forms of dissemination, all the while the main media had done exactly the same thing, as always.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
It seems like a dumb thing to do but is presumably driven by commercial motivations - ie wanting to keep selling the books to as wide a range of people as possible. Way back in the 1980s when my mum was doing teacher training she remembers they noted some difficult aspects to the books, eg how do you read the books to a class of children with overweight kids in the class when they equate being overweight to being greedy, lacking in self control etc and could make it more likely the kid gets bullied? My own feeling with Dahl's books is they are very well written and really appeal to children but certainly have some problematic features. We have them at home and certainly didn't ban them but would talk about some of the aspects of the books that didn't sit right with us with the kids. They are intelligent enough to make up their own mind. I think it's weird that Sunak is getting involved. I'm sure he has better things to be getting on with.
Frankly, I've never liked Roald Dahl's books. I think they're both unpleasant and somewhat disturbing. That's the plotlines, not the characters so much. About the only one I really enjoyed was Matilda, and even that has its moments.
But there's 'not liking something' and 'bowdlerising.' Should we ban the The Wife of Bath's Prologue as well because it shows marital violence and sexual exploitation? Or Titus Andronicus because it promotes cannibalism?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
The Twits was one of my favourites as a kid - but it's obviously an unreal grotesque, and as a kid you understand that as intuitively as you understand that DTCOTW or Boy is not.
His theme around fat=bad is a bit of an odd one (and again, even as a kid having read a few of his books you notice it) but he's hardly alone in that. And simply changing the words can't really take away the fundamental issue that he often equates a person's personality with their appearance (the bald witches are another). TBH, like most people I think changing the words here is a bit PC-gone-mad and is a gift to the Proper Bin Men crew.
The one I never really got on with was the BFG. Can't think why in retrospect; maybe his propensity for silly made-up words just went to far in that one.
I guess when RD was writing (over 60 years ago, remember) being fat was very unusual and probably a sign of something bad. Not like now.
Meanwhile, the Labour poll lead is plumping up- Starmer had better hope it doesn't end like Augustus Gloop;
Labour leads by 27%, the largest lead for Labour since Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (18 February):
Labour 51% (+3) Conservative 24% (-3) Liberal Democrat 10% (+1) Reform UK 6% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
That's huge, and from a pollster that hasn't always been particularly favorable to Labour.
The May elections are going to be a bloodbath.
Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections when this May's seats were last up even that poll has only a 4% decline for the Tories. The LDs meanwhile got 19% so there is actually a 2.5% swing from LD to Tory since the last locals.
However admittedly as Labour also got just 28% back then a 14% swing from Tory to Labour.
So the Tories might even pick up a few seats from the LDs in the South, even if they likely lose seats to Labour in the North, the Midlands and Kent and Essex
That sounds characteristically optimistic, Hyufd, but I do hope that those Councils that do a good job regardless of political color do better than most. It's very sad when we lose good local representatives due to failures at Westminster.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
I think that effectively saying that same-sex marriage is immoral IS an attack on people because of their sexual orientation. It's really not that complicated in my opinion.
No it would not be complicated to you. You know that you are righteous.
Most of know however that there are a myriad opinions, on gay marriage, divorce, adultery, abortion, polyamory etc.
Absolutely damming statement from the family naming Sky and ITV plus others of irresponsible journalism and contacting them when expressly told not to
It is time the media were held to account over their irresponsible journalism
Also the police who released personal information about Nicola Bulley that was unnecessary to the investigation, about someone who at the time was not certainly known to be dead, and which should be classified highly confidential.
I don’t think anyone comes out of this particularly well.
I think the police were trying in a clumsy way to justify why they thought she went into the river (I.e using the term “vulnerabilities”) but in effect they just created a bigger rod for their back because that triggered further speculation and they then (I think defensively) released the details of the personal issues as a “clarification”.
And then Suella and Rishi got stuck in too.
It’s been a mess all round. Poor lady and her family, such a devastating outcome and to deal with that circus in the background too. I can’t begin to imagine.
I think the media need holding accountable. Some of the journalism - particularly from Sky- has been distasteful and woeful
I hope that diver who was over the airwaves saying he didn’t think she was in the river and in effect feeding the conspiracies gets pulled up too.
The story isn’t over yet. Did she fall in accidentally or choose to enter the water? Why didn’t anyone find the body? Extensive searches failed. I know the river is tidal, and thus the position the body was found may not be the same place it’s been, but still. It’s good to see the media being upbraided a bit. I tried to point out before the hypocrisy of the main media complaining about people flocking to the area to do social media and other forms of dissemination, all the while the main media had done exactly the same thing, as always.
Meanwhile the Facebook Fantasists who chimed in will no doubt pretend they never said anything.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
The people using Kate Forbes’ religion to attack her know that nobody would dare use Humza Yousaf’s religion to attack him.
Absolutely damming statement from the family naming Sky and ITV plus others of irresponsible journalism and contacting them when expressly told not to
It is time the media were held to account over their irresponsible journalism
Also the police who released personal information about Nicola Bulley that was unnecessary to the investigation, about someone who at the time was not certainly known to be dead, and which should be classified highly confidential.
I don’t think anyone comes out of this particularly well.
I think the police were trying in a clumsy way to justify why they thought she went into the river (I.e using the term “vulnerabilities”) but in effect they just created a bigger rod for their back because that triggered further speculation and they then (I think defensively) released the details of the personal issues as a “clarification”.
And then Suella and Rishi got stuck in too.
It’s been a mess all round. Poor lady and her family, such a devastating outcome and to deal with that circus in the background too. I can’t begin to imagine.
I expect Sky will need to address the direct attack on them by the family and which ironically they keep playing
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
if you are a liberal the reverse is also true: Those who believe homosexuality is right have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against those who believe it is wrong has no place in a liberal society.
Liberalism is very hard work.
I think you say the opposite of what kinabalu said.
In a Liberal society people who think homosexuality wrong are fine as long as they don't force their moral code on others.
That's how liberalism works. It's hard work. It says that no-one can force their moral code on others, and that compelling or forbidding should be limited by the harm to others principle.
Homosexuality is lawful, on good liberal principles. So is adultery, on good liberal principles. Nothing in liberal principle tells you that one, other or both of these are right or wrong.
I am a liberal. I have views about all these things. One is generally fine and the other is generally not. If it were the other way round I would still be a liberal. (Though an adulterous one).
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
It seems like a dumb thing to do but is presumably driven by commercial motivations - ie wanting to keep selling the books to as wide a range of people as possible. Way back in the 1980s when my mum was doing teacher training she remembers they noted some difficult aspects to the books, eg how do you read the books to a class of children with overweight kids in the class when they equate being overweight to being greedy, lacking in self control etc and could make it more likely the kid gets bullied? My own feeling with Dahl's books is they are very well written and really appeal to children but certainly have some problematic features. We have them at home and certainly didn't ban them but would talk about some of the aspects of the books that didn't sit right with us with the kids. They are intelligent enough to make up their own mind. I think it's weird that Sunak is getting involved. I'm sure he has better things to be getting on with.
Frankly, I've never liked Roald Dahl's books. I think they're both unpleasant and somewhat disturbing. That's the plotlines, not the characters so much. About the only one I really enjoyed was Matilda, and even that has its moments.
But there's 'not liking something' and 'bowdlerising.' Should we ban the The Wife of Bath's Prologue as well because it shows marital violence and sexual exploitation? Or Titus Andronicus because it promotes cannibalism?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
The Twits was one of my favourites as a kid - but it's obviously an unreal grotesque, and as a kid you understand that as intuitively as you understand that DTCOTW or Boy is not.
His theme around fat=bad is a bit of an odd one (and again, even as a kid having read a few of his books you notice it) but he's hardly alone in that. And simply changing the words can't really take away the fundamental issue that he often equates a person's personality with their appearance (the bald witches are another). TBH, like most people I think changing the words here is a bit PC-gone-mad and is a gift to the Proper Bin Men crew.
The one I never really got on with was the BFG. Can't think why in retrospect; maybe his propensity for silly made-up words just went to far in that one.
I guess when RD was writing (over 60 years ago, remember) being fat was very unusual and probably a sign of something bad. Not like now.
Meanwhile, the Labour poll lead is plumping up- Starmer had better hope it doesn't end like Augustus Gloop;
Labour leads by 27%, the largest lead for Labour since Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (18 February):
Labour 51% (+3) Conservative 24% (-3) Liberal Democrat 10% (+1) Reform UK 6% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
That's huge, and from a pollster that hasn't always been particularly favorable to Labour.
The May elections are going to be a bloodbath.
Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections when this May's seats were last up even that poll has only a 4% decline for the Tories. The LDs meanwhile got 19% so there is actually a 2.5% swing from LD to Tory since the last locals.
However admittedly as Labour also got just 28% back then a 14% swing from Tory to Labour.
So the Tories might even pick up a few seats from the LDs in the South, even if they likely lose seats to Labour in the North, the Midlands and Kent and Essex
That sounds characteristically optimistic, Hyufd, but I do hope that those Councils that do a good job regardless of political color do better than most. It's very sad when we lose good local representatives due to failures at Westminster.
We have a good Tory local councillor, works hard for her constituents, she is responsive and effective.
I can't and won't vote for her though as I would be endorsing the Conservatives. If she declared herself an Independent I would vote for her.
Off topic: A question for Anabobazina: Last week I saw an Arco service station with two prices for regular gasoline, $3.99 per gallon if you paid cash, and $4.09 per gallon if you paid with a debit or credit card.
Would Anabobazina's principles make them pay the higher price, or would they use cash in buying their gasoline from that station?
(There are similar penalties for using cards for small purchases, in other places in this area. They seem to be fairly common in small fast food places. And then, recently, I saw an up-scale store saying they woudl not accept cash. Some are worried that such policies would be hard on the very poor.)
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
if you are a liberal the reverse is also true: Those who believe homosexuality is right have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against those who believe it is wrong has no place in a liberal society.
Liberalism is very hard work.
You don't discriminate against people who believe homosexuality is wrong, you simply enforce the law that gay people not be discriminated against.
Eg -
The cake case. Gay person wanted a cake with 'Support Gay Rights' on it. Baker refused to make it. Said the message was against their beliefs. Got sued. Baker won. Why? Because they would have refused to bake that cake for anyone. They weren't discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
The Bed/Breakfast case. Gay couple wanted a double room. Owner said no. Said it was against their beliefs. Sued. Owner lost. They lost because they WERE discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
There was much discussion about the above 2 cases but neither were that hard imo.
In fact I find this whole area pretty simple. You can go ahead and pose me a dilemma if you like, see if I can live up to my own hype.
Apologies if this thought has been posted already - I think that Nicola Sturgeon may well be playing a long game and fully intends returning as SNP leader. After all, Alex Salmond had two separate ten year terms as leader, so its been done before.
Therefore, and not just because he shares her "progressive" agenda, she will want Humza to win the leadership.
It is much easier to imagine her succeeding Yousaf in, say,3-5 years time, than the 32-year-old Forbes. Yousaf is older and much less likely to prove electorally successful than Forbes in the sense that while she is a risk he's an almost certain dud. He's universally known as Humza Useless. After a few years the demand will be "bring back Nicola".
Sturgeon could see very well that achieving Indy during her current term was impossible and that her plan for the GE to be treated as a referendum was a big mistake. Therefore better to bail out now before her reputation was trashed - knowing that it would give her the option to return in the future.
A Forbes leadership could well kill off this prospect.
This really could be a high stakes leadership contest.
I think the media need holding accountable. Some of the journalism - particularly from Sky- has been distasteful and woeful
I hope that diver who was over the airwaves saying he didn’t think she was in the river and in effect feeding the conspiracies gets pulled up too.
The story isn’t over yet. Did she fall in accidentally or choose to enter the water? Why didn’t anyone find the body? Extensive searches failed. I know the river is tidal, and thus the position the body was found may not be the same place it’s been, but still. It’s good to see the media being upbraided a bit. I tried to point out before the hypocrisy of the main media complaining about people flocking to the area to do social media and other forms of dissemination, all the while the main media had done exactly the same thing, as always.
As someone who rows on the tidal section of the Thames.
The Thames in London is a wide river, with a fairly simple bottom geometry. Trees and branches are regularly cleared.
Every so often some poor soul drunk falls off a bridge, plus the suicides. They are often found much later.
This is a more twisting, narrower river, with more snags in it. Add water where you can't see your hand in front of your face - the search would have a been a grid search by touch.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
The people using Kate Forbes’ religion to attack her know that nobody would dare use Humza Yousaf’s religion to attack him.
Yousaf has been unequivocally supportive of gay marriage for years so it would be pretty difficult to do so on that particular issue.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
I'd say Forbes' issue is political, rather than theological. Sturgeon has moulded the SNP as a party that by and large makes the case for independence as a more progressive Scotland being tied to an England that's more conservative and either votes Tory or for a Labour Party that has to concern itself with that and cut its cloth accordingly. Generally bunk of course - as both England and Scotland are much more complex and voters are much more fluid in their views. But incredibly useful bunk for the SNP as it broadens support for independence and gives it a purpose beyond nationalism or technocratic arguments. But it's difficult to see how a leader moves away from that without a schism or draining of support - which she'll have to, as while she may not roll back existing legislation, she won't be proposing anything she can't vote for herself and can't really make that pitch as someone who due to her religion has socially conservative views.
Off topic: A question for Anabobazina: Last week I saw an Arco service station with two prices for regular gasoline, $3.99 per gallon if you paid cash, and $4.09 per gallon if you paid with a debit or credit card.
Would Anabobazina's principles make them pay the higher price, or would they use cash in buying their gasoline from that station?
(There are similar penalties for using cards for small purchases, in other places in this area. They seem to be fairly common in small fast food places. And then, recently, I saw an up-scale store saying they woudl not accept cash. Some are worried that such policies would be hard on the very poor.)
Given it's the equivalent of $6.80 per US gallon in the UK, I'd take either.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
It seems like a dumb thing to do but is presumably driven by commercial motivations - ie wanting to keep selling the books to as wide a range of people as possible. Way back in the 1980s when my mum was doing teacher training she remembers they noted some difficult aspects to the books, eg how do you read the books to a class of children with overweight kids in the class when they equate being overweight to being greedy, lacking in self control etc and could make it more likely the kid gets bullied? My own feeling with Dahl's books is they are very well written and really appeal to children but certainly have some problematic features. We have them at home and certainly didn't ban them but would talk about some of the aspects of the books that didn't sit right with us with the kids. They are intelligent enough to make up their own mind. I think it's weird that Sunak is getting involved. I'm sure he has better things to be getting on with.
Frankly, I've never liked Roald Dahl's books. I think they're both unpleasant and somewhat disturbing. That's the plotlines, not the characters so much. About the only one I really enjoyed was Matilda, and even that has its moments.
But there's 'not liking something' and 'bowdlerising.' Should we ban the The Wife of Bath's Prologue as well because it shows marital violence and sexual exploitation? Or Titus Andronicus because it promotes cannibalism?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
The Twits was one of my favourites as a kid - but it's obviously an unreal grotesque, and as a kid you understand that as intuitively as you understand that DTCOTW or Boy is not.
His theme around fat=bad is a bit of an odd one (and again, even as a kid having read a few of his books you notice it) but he's hardly alone in that. And simply changing the words can't really take away the fundamental issue that he often equates a person's personality with their appearance (the bald witches are another). TBH, like most people I think changing the words here is a bit PC-gone-mad and is a gift to the Proper Bin Men crew.
The one I never really got on with was the BFG. Can't think why in retrospect; maybe his propensity for silly made-up words just went to far in that one.
I guess when RD was writing (over 60 years ago, remember) being fat was very unusual and probably a sign of something bad. Not like now.
Meanwhile, the Labour poll lead is plumping up- Starmer had better hope it doesn't end like Augustus Gloop;
Labour leads by 27%, the largest lead for Labour since Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (18 February):
Labour 51% (+3) Conservative 24% (-3) Liberal Democrat 10% (+1) Reform UK 6% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
That's huge, and from a pollster that hasn't always been particularly favorable to Labour.
The May elections are going to be a bloodbath.
Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections when this May's seats were last up even that poll has only a 4% decline for the Tories. The LDs meanwhile got 19% so there is actually a 2.5% swing from LD to Tory since the last locals.
However admittedly as Labour also got just 28% back then a 14% swing from Tory to Labour.
So the Tories might even pick up a few seats from the LDs in the South, even if they likely lose seats to Labour in the North, the Midlands and Kent and Essex
That sounds characteristically optimistic, Hyufd, but I do hope that those Councils that do a good job regardless of political color do better than most. It's very sad when we lose good local representatives due to failures at Westminster.
The Lib Dems will outperform national polling in the locals. They always do.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
Why is homosexuality ever wrong? What is wrong with two people who love each other?
Where do you draw the line, are people allowed to say that Jewish people are inferior to others? What about black people?
It isn't wrong. Where to draw the line? As now. Our laws on discrimination and hate speech are about right imo. I might add misogyny.
BMA junior doctors vote 98% to strike on 78% turnout, HCSA 97% on 72% turnout.
While demanding a 26% payrise despite current starting wages of £40k per year taking account extra pay for unsociable hours and £53k average post training
Pretty conclusive result in the ballot. Results that would make Kim Il Sung blush.
If the government refuses to negotiate, then strikes are the only way to get them to the table.
Consultants balloting shortly.
Junior doctors might have a case but certainly less than nurses. Consultants on a starting salary of £88,364 and £119,133 after 8 years certainly don't.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
if you are a liberal the reverse is also true: Those who believe homosexuality is right have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against those who believe it is wrong has no place in a liberal society.
Liberalism is very hard work.
You don't discriminate against people who believe homosexuality is wrong, you simply enforce the law that gay people not be discriminated against.
Eg -
The cake case. Gay person wanted a cake with 'Support Gay Rights' on it. Baker refused to make it. Said the message was against their beliefs. Got sued. Baker won. Why? Because they would have refused to bake that cake for anyone. They weren't discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
The Bed/Breakfast case. Gay couple wanted a double room. Owner said no. Said it was against their beliefs. Sued. Owner lost. They lost because they WERE discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
There was much discussion about the above 2 cases but neither were that hard imo.
In fact I find this whole area pretty simple. You can go ahead and pose me a dilemma if you like, see if I can live up to my own hype.
This led to a number of things.
- A bizarre US court ruling that cake decorating isn't art. Sugar Arts and all that. - People who bake cakes now refuse to put any words on them, quite often. - There was a comic case, in the US, where a lesbian couple booked a cake with a baker who said fine, took the deposit. They then tried to back out - claiming that since he was a bigot..... Despite the terms being non-refundable deposits.
Absolutely damming statement from the family naming Sky and ITV plus others of irresponsible journalism and contacting them when expressly told not to
It is time the media were held to account over their irresponsible journalism
I've long been a member of the How Do You Feel club.
That's is, if ever involved in some major incident, they stick a microphone under your nose and ask that stupid, stupid question... You take time to consider. Than a punch to their nose. Then say "Like that, mostly".
They also do it to jockeys who have just won a big race. 'Fantastic, you f*ckwit' is the only appropriate reply.
"How does it feel" is exceeded for its fuckwittery only by "How good does it feel?" [I'm looking at you, Sonia McLoughlin]. Even if you take the question at face value, the only real answer is "very" or "quite" or possibly "9/10".
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭
Starmer is a lucky general.
Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.
The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism
What are your grounds for thinking this?
Thinking what??
You said:
"Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"
Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
Thanks for the clarification.
Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:
History, Culture, Religious practice, Natural law, The meaning of words, The distinctiveness of institutions, The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.
Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
if you are a liberal the reverse is also true: Those who believe homosexuality is right have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against those who believe it is wrong has no place in a liberal society.
Liberalism is very hard work.
You don't discriminate against people who believe homosexuality is wrong, you simply enforce the law that gay people not be discriminated against.
Eg -
The cake case. Gay person wanted a cake with 'Support Gay Rights' on it. Baker refused to make it. Said the message was against their beliefs. Got sued. Baker won. Why? Because they would have refused to bake that cake for anyone. They weren't discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
The Bed/Breakfast case. Gay couple wanted a double room. Owner said no. Said it was against their beliefs. Sued. Owner lost. They lost because they WERE discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
There was much discussion about the above 2 cases but neither were that hard imo.
In fact I find this whole area pretty simple. You can go ahead and pose me a dilemma if you like, see if I can live up to my own hype.
On that basis a B&B owner could refuse to allow a wheelchair into a room ('wheels might damage the carpet'); since he or she would refuse that to everyone (not just wheelchair users) they'd would get away with it.
I think the media need holding accountable. Some of the journalism - particularly from Sky- has been distasteful and woeful
I hope that diver who was over the airwaves saying he didn’t think she was in the river and in effect feeding the conspiracies gets pulled up too.
The story isn’t over yet. Did she fall in accidentally or choose to enter the water? Why didn’t anyone find the body? Extensive searches failed. I know the river is tidal, and thus the position the body was found may not be the same place it’s been, but still. It’s good to see the media being upbraided a bit. I tried to point out before the hypocrisy of the main media complaining about people flocking to the area to do social media and other forms of dissemination, all the while the main media had done exactly the same thing, as always.
As someone who rows on the tidal section of the Thames.
The Thames in London is a wide river, with a fairly simple bottom geometry. Trees and branches are regularly cleared.
Every so often some poor soul drunk falls off a bridge, plus the suicides. They are often found much later.
This is a more twisting, narrower river, with more snags in it. Add water where you can't see your hand in front of your face - the search would have a been a grid search by touch.
Totally accept that, but that river is not that big, barely 10 m across.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
Why is homosexuality ever wrong? What is wrong with two people who love each other?
Where do you draw the line, are people allowed to say that Jewish people are inferior to others? What about black people?
It isn't wrong. Where to draw the line? As now. Our laws on discrimination and hate speech are about right imo. I might add misogyny.
Previous generations thought it was. But go back longer and other civilisations had no qualms. People should be free to love each other as they please.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭
Starmer is a lucky general.
Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.
The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism
What are your grounds for thinking this?
Thinking what??
You said:
"Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"
Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
Wasn't that literally the definition of marriage pretty much since marriage was invented as an institution? You can argue that for the first x-thoudand years marriage existed it was wrong and for tge last ten years or so it has been correct, but it's not really surprising not everyone has changed so suddenly. People are still using imperial measurements. It takesa long, long time for people to change the way they use words and at least a large part of it is organic.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
It seems like a dumb thing to do but is presumably driven by commercial motivations - ie wanting to keep selling the books to as wide a range of people as possible. Way back in the 1980s when my mum was doing teacher training she remembers they noted some difficult aspects to the books, eg how do you read the books to a class of children with overweight kids in the class when they equate being overweight to being greedy, lacking in self control etc and could make it more likely the kid gets bullied? My own feeling with Dahl's books is they are very well written and really appeal to children but certainly have some problematic features. We have them at home and certainly didn't ban them but would talk about some of the aspects of the books that didn't sit right with us with the kids. They are intelligent enough to make up their own mind. I think it's weird that Sunak is getting involved. I'm sure he has better things to be getting on with.
Frankly, I've never liked Roald Dahl's books. I think they're both unpleasant and somewhat disturbing. That's the plotlines, not the characters so much. About the only one I really enjoyed was Matilda, and even that has its moments.
But there's 'not liking something' and 'bowdlerising.' Should we ban the The Wife of Bath's Prologue as well because it shows marital violence and sexual exploitation? Or Titus Andronicus because it promotes cannibalism?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
The Twits was one of my favourites as a kid - but it's obviously an unreal grotesque, and as a kid you understand that as intuitively as you understand that DTCOTW or Boy is not.
His theme around fat=bad is a bit of an odd one (and again, even as a kid having read a few of his books you notice it) but he's hardly alone in that. And simply changing the words can't really take away the fundamental issue that he often equates a person's personality with their appearance (the bald witches are another). TBH, like most people I think changing the words here is a bit PC-gone-mad and is a gift to the Proper Bin Men crew.
The one I never really got on with was the BFG. Can't think why in retrospect; maybe his propensity for silly made-up words just went to far in that one.
I guess when RD was writing (over 60 years ago, remember) being fat was very unusual and probably a sign of something bad. Not like now.
Meanwhile, the Labour poll lead is plumping up- Starmer had better hope it doesn't end like Augustus Gloop;
Labour leads by 27%, the largest lead for Labour since Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (18 February):
Labour 51% (+3) Conservative 24% (-3) Liberal Democrat 10% (+1) Reform UK 6% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
That's huge, and from a pollster that hasn't always been particularly favorable to Labour.
The May elections are going to be a bloodbath.
Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections when this May's seats were last up even that poll has only a 4% decline for the Tories. The LDs meanwhile got 19% so there is actually a 2.5% swing from LD to Tory since the last locals.
However admittedly as Labour also got just 28% back then a 14% swing from Tory to Labour.
So the Tories might even pick up a few seats from the LDs in the South, even if they likely lose seats to Labour in the North, the Midlands and Kent and Essex
That sounds characteristically optimistic, Hyufd, but I do hope that those Councils that do a good job regardless of political color do better than most. It's very sad when we lose good local representatives due to failures at Westminster.
We have a good Tory local councillor, works hard for her constituents, she is responsive and effective.
I can't and won't vote for her though as I would be endorsing the Conservatives. If she declared herself an Independent I would vote for her.
Interesting, Ben, and certainly a reasonable view.
I have to confess that in similar circumstances I have in the past voted Conservative.
Absolutely damming statement from the family naming Sky and ITV plus others of irresponsible journalism and contacting them when expressly told not to
It is time the media were held to account over their irresponsible journalism
I've long been a member of the How Do You Feel club.
That's is, if ever involved in some major incident, they stick a microphone under your nose and ask that stupid, stupid question... You take time to consider. Than a punch to their nose. Then say "Like that, mostly".
They also do it to jockeys who have just won a big race. 'Fantastic, you f*ckwit' is the only appropriate reply.
"How does it feel" is exceeded for its fuckwittery only by "How good does it feel?" [I'm looking at you, Sonia McLoughlin]. Even if you take the question at face value, the only real answer is "very" or "quite" or possibly "9/10".
"How does it feel" is actually quite a good open question; "how good does it feel" is rather closed.
Why is the Government getting involved in how private organisations conduct their affairs?
I don't think Rishi is that much of a market fundamentalist. And anyway I don't think he's getting involved, merely offering an opinion. A subtle difference which seems to be lost nowadays.
Why does he have an opinion? He should stay out of how private companies choose to operate. If they want to be "woke" then that's up to them.
People don’t forfeit the right to express opinions, upon entering politics.
Having the right to do something is not the same as it being sensible to exercise that right, or not to expect criticism for doing so.
A PM getting involved in how books are written feels quite off to me, like something one would expect in a very religious or authoritarian state.
Has he not got enough on his plate on more important things anyway?
The Woke Wars are the most important things for Tories. Just think about the dog in the Dambusters.
This really isn’t much about woke, though. And the attempts to say it’s good for the Tories / bad for Starmer are just risible.
The real politician censors tend to be on the political extremes - see much of the current GOP, as an example.
Eh? Isn't it? It's certainly being regarded as more wokery in PB.
Not really. There are plenty of liberals around who think Dahl was kind of a bigoted dick (rightly or wrongly), but regard messing with authors’ work in this way as an outrage.
Who are the public figures defending the Bowdlerisers ?
It seems like a dumb thing to do but is presumably driven by commercial motivations - ie wanting to keep selling the books to as wide a range of people as possible. Way back in the 1980s when my mum was doing teacher training she remembers they noted some difficult aspects to the books, eg how do you read the books to a class of children with overweight kids in the class when they equate being overweight to being greedy, lacking in self control etc and could make it more likely the kid gets bullied? My own feeling with Dahl's books is they are very well written and really appeal to children but certainly have some problematic features. We have them at home and certainly didn't ban them but would talk about some of the aspects of the books that didn't sit right with us with the kids. They are intelligent enough to make up their own mind. I think it's weird that Sunak is getting involved. I'm sure he has better things to be getting on with.
Frankly, I've never liked Roald Dahl's books. I think they're both unpleasant and somewhat disturbing. That's the plotlines, not the characters so much. About the only one I really enjoyed was Matilda, and even that has its moments.
But there's 'not liking something' and 'bowdlerising.' Should we ban the The Wife of Bath's Prologue as well because it shows marital violence and sexual exploitation? Or Titus Andronicus because it promotes cannibalism?
Well that, I'm afraid, is just sick.
Danny the Champion of the World is an outstanding work.
As is Fantastic Mr Fox, Boy, and Going Solo. There's very little wrong with James and the Giant Peach either. Indeed, fuck it, his whole body of work is pretty bloody outstanding.
His work varies tremendously. DTCOTW and JATGP are both wonderful, happy and uplifting. Whereas the Twits, for example, is disturbing and unpleasant.
It tends to depend on how quickly the cartoonishly unpleasant characters (such as Aunts Spiker and Sponge) can be got out of the way.
Roald Dahl, though, is one of the few writers who can both plot well and write well. His language is a joy. I don't mind the replacement of an odd word whose once-benign meaning has become anachronistic, if it can be done without changing the meter, but I'd lament a rewrite to fit in with modern sensitivities. (I recently read DTCOTW to my daughter, and was struck by how it wouldn't be written now. Not any of the major modern transgressions, but: - poaching presented as a good thing, at least in that the poacher gets to eat tasty meat - a small boy driving a car presented as somewhat heroic - stoicism presented as a virtue)
The Twits was one of my favourites as a kid - but it's obviously an unreal grotesque, and as a kid you understand that as intuitively as you understand that DTCOTW or Boy is not.
His theme around fat=bad is a bit of an odd one (and again, even as a kid having read a few of his books you notice it) but he's hardly alone in that. And simply changing the words can't really take away the fundamental issue that he often equates a person's personality with their appearance (the bald witches are another). TBH, like most people I think changing the words here is a bit PC-gone-mad and is a gift to the Proper Bin Men crew.
The one I never really got on with was the BFG. Can't think why in retrospect; maybe his propensity for silly made-up words just went to far in that one.
I guess when RD was writing (over 60 years ago, remember) being fat was very unusual and probably a sign of something bad. Not like now.
Meanwhile, the Labour poll lead is plumping up- Starmer had better hope it doesn't end like Augustus Gloop;
Labour leads by 27%, the largest lead for Labour since Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (18 February):
Labour 51% (+3) Conservative 24% (-3) Liberal Democrat 10% (+1) Reform UK 6% (–) Green 5% (–) SNP 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
That's huge, and from a pollster that hasn't always been particularly favorable to Labour.
The May elections are going to be a bloodbath.
Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections when this May's seats were last up even that poll has only a 4% decline for the Tories. The LDs meanwhile got 19% so there is actually a 2.5% swing from LD to Tory since the last locals.
However admittedly as Labour also got just 28% back then a 14% swing from Tory to Labour.
So the Tories might even pick up a few seats from the LDs in the South, even if they likely lose seats to Labour in the North, the Midlands and Kent and Essex
That sounds characteristically optimistic, Hyufd, but I do hope that those Councils that do a good job regardless of political color do better than most. It's very sad when we lose good local representatives due to failures at Westminster.
We have a good Tory local councillor, works hard for her constituents, she is responsive and effective.
I can't and won't vote for her though as I would be endorsing the Conservatives. If she declared herself an Independent I would vote for her.
Interesting, Ben, and certainly a reasonable view.
I have to confess that in similar circumstances I have in the past voted Conservative.
Am I a sinner?
We are all sinners ;-) but I wouldn't for one moment criticise your decision to vote for a good councillor whose party you don't support. I just find I cannot do so at the moment.
I think the media need holding accountable. Some of the journalism - particularly from Sky- has been distasteful and woeful
I hope that diver who was over the airwaves saying he didn’t think she was in the river and in effect feeding the conspiracies gets pulled up too.
The story isn’t over yet. Did she fall in accidentally or choose to enter the water? Why didn’t anyone find the body? Extensive searches failed. I know the river is tidal, and thus the position the body was found may not be the same place it’s been, but still. It’s good to see the media being upbraided a bit. I tried to point out before the hypocrisy of the main media complaining about people flocking to the area to do social media and other forms of dissemination, all the while the main media had done exactly the same thing, as always.
As someone who rows on the tidal section of the Thames.
The Thames in London is a wide river, with a fairly simple bottom geometry. Trees and branches are regularly cleared.
Every so often some poor soul drunk falls off a bridge, plus the suicides. They are often found much later.
This is a more twisting, narrower river, with more snags in it. Add water where you can't see your hand in front of your face - the search would have a been a grid search by touch.
Totally accept that, but that river is not that big, barely 10 m across.
Look up the history of people going missing in small bits of water. Hell, the River Cherwell in Oxford has swallowed people for a while. A green pond that barely flows....
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
Why is homosexuality ever wrong? What is wrong with two people who love each other?
Where do you draw the line, are people allowed to say that Jewish people are inferior to others? What about black people?
It isn't wrong. Where to draw the line? As now. Our laws on discrimination and hate speech are about right imo. I might add misogyny.
Previous generations thought it was. But go back longer and other civilisations had no qualms. People should be free to love each other as they please.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
if you are a liberal the reverse is also true: Those who believe homosexuality is right have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against those who believe it is wrong has no place in a liberal society.
Liberalism is very hard work.
You don't discriminate against people who believe homosexuality is wrong, you simply enforce the law that gay people not be discriminated against.
Eg -
The cake case. Gay person wanted a cake with 'Support Gay Rights' on it. Baker refused to make it. Said the message was against their beliefs. Got sued. Baker won. Why? Because they would have refused to bake that cake for anyone. They weren't discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
The Bed/Breakfast case. Gay couple wanted a double room. Owner said no. Said it was against their beliefs. Sued. Owner lost. They lost because they WERE discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
There was much discussion about the above 2 cases but neither were that hard imo.
In fact I find this whole area pretty simple. You can go ahead and pose me a dilemma if you like, see if I can live up to my own hype.
On that basis a B&B owner could refuse to allow a wheelchair into a room ('wheels might damage the carpet'); since he or she would refuse that to everyone (not just wheelchair users) they'd would get away with it.
Yes, I would have thought it up to the owner of a business who they sell their goods and services to. I'm sure there must be other examples of B&B owners turning down custom without having to explain why. (Large groups of young men, typically.)
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
if you are a liberal the reverse is also true: Those who believe homosexuality is right have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against those who believe it is wrong has no place in a liberal society.
Liberalism is very hard work.
You don't discriminate against people who believe homosexuality is wrong, you simply enforce the law that gay people not be discriminated against.
Eg -
The cake case. Gay person wanted a cake with 'Support Gay Rights' on it. Baker refused to make it. Said the message was against their beliefs. Got sued. Baker won. Why? Because they would have refused to bake that cake for anyone. They weren't discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
The Bed/Breakfast case. Gay couple wanted a double room. Owner said no. Said it was against their beliefs. Sued. Owner lost. They lost because they WERE discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
There was much discussion about the above 2 cases but neither were that hard imo.
In fact I find this whole area pretty simple. You can go ahead and pose me a dilemma if you like, see if I can live up to my own hype.
On that basis a B&B owner could refuse to allow a wheelchair into a room ('wheels might damage the carpet'); since he or she would refuse that to everyone (not just wheelchair users) they'd would get away with it.
Not sure about that, but I'd definitely like to sue the bookmakers who won't let me bet on the grounds that I might win. That's definitely discriminatory!
Absolutely damming statement from the family naming Sky and ITV plus others of irresponsible journalism and contacting them when expressly told not to
It is time the media were held to account over their irresponsible journalism
I've long been a member of the How Do You Feel club.
That's is, if ever involved in some major incident, they stick a microphone under your nose and ask that stupid, stupid question... You take time to consider. Than a punch to their nose. Then say "Like that, mostly".
They also do it to jockeys who have just won a big race. 'Fantastic, you f*ckwit' is the only appropriate reply.
"How does it feel" is exceeded for its fuckwittery only by "How good does it feel?" [I'm looking at you, Sonia McLoughlin]. Even if you take the question at face value, the only real answer is "very" or "quite" or possibly "9/10".
"How does it feel" is actually quite a good open question; "how good does it feel" is rather closed.
Exactly Ben. You put it far better than I was even attempting to.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
if you are a liberal the reverse is also true: Those who believe homosexuality is right have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against those who believe it is wrong has no place in a liberal society.
Liberalism is very hard work.
You don't discriminate against people who believe homosexuality is wrong, you simply enforce the law that gay people not be discriminated against.
Eg -
The cake case. Gay person wanted a cake with 'Support Gay Rights' on it. Baker refused to make it. Said the message was against their beliefs. Got sued. Baker won. Why? Because they would have refused to bake that cake for anyone. They weren't discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
The Bed/Breakfast case. Gay couple wanted a double room. Owner said no. Said it was against their beliefs. Sued. Owner lost. They lost because they WERE discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
There was much discussion about the above 2 cases but neither were that hard imo.
In fact I find this whole area pretty simple. You can go ahead and pose me a dilemma if you like, see if I can live up to my own hype.
On that basis a B&B owner could refuse to allow a wheelchair into a room ('wheels might damage the carpet'); since he or she would refuse that to everyone (not just wheelchair users) they'd would get away with it.
Not sure about that, but I'd definitely like to sue the bookmakers who won't let me bet on the grounds that I might win. That's definitely discriminatory!
Ahah - you need the Equality Act changed then; 'betting acumen' is not currently a protected characteristic.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
The people using Kate Forbes’ religion to attack her know that nobody would dare use Humza Yousaf’s religion to attack him.
If Humza Yousaf says that same sex marriage is immoral, that would also be bigotry.
People's religious beliefs are just a matter of private conscience, and aren't really relevant. It's also obvious that a hell of a lot of people who belong to different religions don't get their morality by adopting wholesale the moral code of the religion.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
if you are a liberal the reverse is also true: Those who believe homosexuality is right have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against those who believe it is wrong has no place in a liberal society.
Liberalism is very hard work.
You don't discriminate against people who believe homosexuality is wrong, you simply enforce the law that gay people not be discriminated against.
Eg -
The cake case. Gay person wanted a cake with 'Support Gay Rights' on it. Baker refused to make it. Said the message was against their beliefs. Got sued. Baker won. Why? Because they would have refused to bake that cake for anyone. They weren't discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
The Bed/Breakfast case. Gay couple wanted a double room. Owner said no. Said it was against their beliefs. Sued. Owner lost. They lost because they WERE discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
There was much discussion about the above 2 cases but neither were that hard imo.
In fact I find this whole area pretty simple. You can go ahead and pose me a dilemma if you like, see if I can live up to my own hype.
On that basis a B&B owner could refuse to allow a wheelchair into a room ('wheels might damage the carpet'); since he or she would refuse that to everyone (not just wheelchair users) they'd would get away with it.
It doesn't quite follow imo. They are there enforcing a Rule that in practice discriminates against disabled customers. If they were sued for that I'd find against them. The 'gay cake' case wouldn't work as precedent for the defence.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
if you are a liberal the reverse is also true: Those who believe homosexuality is right have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against those who believe it is wrong has no place in a liberal society.
Liberalism is very hard work.
You don't discriminate against people who believe homosexuality is wrong, you simply enforce the law that gay people not be discriminated against.
Eg -
The cake case. Gay person wanted a cake with 'Support Gay Rights' on it. Baker refused to make it. Said the message was against their beliefs. Got sued. Baker won. Why? Because they would have refused to bake that cake for anyone. They weren't discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
The Bed/Breakfast case. Gay couple wanted a double room. Owner said no. Said it was against their beliefs. Sued. Owner lost. They lost because they WERE discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
There was much discussion about the above 2 cases but neither were that hard imo.
In fact I find this whole area pretty simple. You can go ahead and pose me a dilemma if you like, see if I can live up to my own hype.
On that basis a B&B owner could refuse to allow a wheelchair into a room ('wheels might damage the carpet'); since he or she would refuse that to everyone (not just wheelchair users) they'd would get away with it.
Yes, I would have thought it up to the owner of a business who they sell their goods and services to. I'm sure there must be other examples of B&B owners turning down custom without having to explain why. (Large groups of young men, typically.)
In the first instance I would agree, but then if B&Bs and Hotels require to be licensed by the local authority then it is a different matter.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭
Starmer is a lucky general.
Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.
The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism
What are your grounds for thinking this?
Thinking what??
You said:
"Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"
Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
Wasn't that literally the definition of marriage pretty much since marriage was invented as an institution? You can argue that for the first x-thoudand years marriage existed it was wrong and for tge last ten years or so it has been correct, but it's not really surprising not everyone has changed so suddenly. People are still using imperial measurements. It takesa long, long time for people to change the way they use words and at least a large part of it is organic.
Yes.
There is another issue too. Most people in most places at most times believe that intimate moral and values issues are not things we just make up. They are things we receive, both in the Burkean sense of organic development, and in the religious or Kantian sense that they have objective and not just subjective value. We should not (though we do) just make it up as we go along.
The nature of marriage as it has been received in our culture is just such an issue.
IMHO we have shifted from a society cautious about changing what we have inherited to be slightly too cavalier about it.
The quality of argument in introducing same sex marriage was not overwhelmingly great. And it has failed to take vast amounts of religious opinion along with it.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
if you are a liberal the reverse is also true: Those who believe homosexuality is right have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against those who believe it is wrong has no place in a liberal society.
Liberalism is very hard work.
You don't discriminate against people who believe homosexuality is wrong, you simply enforce the law that gay people not be discriminated against.
Eg -
The cake case. Gay person wanted a cake with 'Support Gay Rights' on it. Baker refused to make it. Said the message was against their beliefs. Got sued. Baker won. Why? Because they would have refused to bake that cake for anyone. They weren't discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
The Bed/Breakfast case. Gay couple wanted a double room. Owner said no. Said it was against their beliefs. Sued. Owner lost. They lost because they WERE discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
There was much discussion about the above 2 cases but neither were that hard imo.
In fact I find this whole area pretty simple. You can go ahead and pose me a dilemma if you like, see if I can live up to my own hype.
On that basis a B&B owner could refuse to allow a wheelchair into a room ('wheels might damage the carpet'); since he or she would refuse that to everyone (not just wheelchair users) they'd would get away with it.
Yes, I would have thought it up to the owner of a business who they sell their goods and services to. I'm sure there must be other examples of B&B owners turning down custom without having to explain why. (Large groups of young men, typically.)
Then you'd be wrong. There are nine 'protected characteristics' that you are not allowed to discriminate on.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
I'd say Forbes' issue is political, rather than theological. Sturgeon has moulded the SNP as a party that by and large makes the case for independence as a more progressive Scotland being tied to an England that's more conservative and either votes Tory or for a Labour Party that has to concern itself with that and cut its cloth accordingly. Generally bunk of course - as both England and Scotland are much more complex and voters are much more fluid in their views. But incredibly useful bunk for the SNP as it broadens support for independence and gives it a purpose beyond nationalism or technocratic arguments. But it's difficult to see how a leader moves away from that without a schism or draining of support - which she'll have to, as while she may not roll back existing legislation, she won't be proposing anything she can't vote for herself and can't really make that pitch as someone who due to her religion has socially conservative views.
The SNP is an incredibly broad church, reaching from disaster capitalists at one end to to actual Marxists at the other. The one thing they have in common is the belief that Scotland should be an independent country. Nicola Sturgeon settled on a mildly communitarian semi-socialism because that's the Scottish political centre ground previously occupied by Labour.
Incidentally one of Sturgeon's successes is she is Mrs Middle Scotland. If SNP Central Casting had consulted ChatGPT for the ideal leader they would have come up with her. Kate Forbes not so much, but I don't think she will stray that far from the middle point.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
The people using Kate Forbes’ religion to attack her know that nobody would dare use Humza Yousaf’s religion to attack him.
If Humza Yousaf says that same sex marriage is immoral, that would also be bigotry.
People's religious beliefs are just a matter of private conscience, and aren't really relevant. It's also obvious that a hell of a lot of people who belong to different religions don't get their morality by adopting wholesale the moral code of the religion.
It is not remotely bigoted in itself to think that something lawful is or may be immoral. Lots of people think entirely lawful adultery is immoral.
And morality should not be elided with religious belief. All people of all convictions have moral beliefs.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
Why is homosexuality ever wrong? What is wrong with two people who love each other?
Where do you draw the line, are people allowed to say that Jewish people are inferior to others? What about black people?
It isn't wrong. Where to draw the line? As now. Our laws on discrimination and hate speech are about right imo. I might add misogyny.
Previous generations thought it was. But go back longer and other civilisations had no qualms. People should be free to love each other as they please.
Forbes on BBC News - wouldn’t support GRR bill - so that’s just the male candidate supporting it…..
That's going to kick things of with the Greens, surely?
The GRR with the amendments to protect women's refuges, prisons etc on a some sensible basis would have the backing of all major parties and, I think, the public at large?
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
if you are a liberal the reverse is also true: Those who believe homosexuality is right have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against those who believe it is wrong has no place in a liberal society.
Liberalism is very hard work.
You don't discriminate against people who believe homosexuality is wrong, you simply enforce the law that gay people not be discriminated against.
Eg -
The cake case. Gay person wanted a cake with 'Support Gay Rights' on it. Baker refused to make it. Said the message was against their beliefs. Got sued. Baker won. Why? Because they would have refused to bake that cake for anyone. They weren't discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
The Bed/Breakfast case. Gay couple wanted a double room. Owner said no. Said it was against their beliefs. Sued. Owner lost. They lost because they WERE discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
There was much discussion about the above 2 cases but neither were that hard imo.
In fact I find this whole area pretty simple. You can go ahead and pose me a dilemma if you like, see if I can live up to my own hype.
On that basis a B&B owner could refuse to allow a wheelchair into a room ('wheels might damage the carpet'); since he or she would refuse that to everyone (not just wheelchair users) they'd would get away with it.
Yes, I would have thought it up to the owner of a business who they sell their goods and services to. I'm sure there must be other examples of B&B owners turning down custom without having to explain why. (Large groups of young men, typically.)
It isn't purely down to the owner though. They have to comply with the law. Discrimination is sometimes ok and sometimes not. It depends on who and how and why. There has to be evidence, of course, if it goes legal, but this is the case for everything.
Off topic: A question for Anabobazina: Last week I saw an Arco service station with two prices for regular gasoline, $3.99 per gallon if you paid cash, and $4.09 per gallon if you paid with a debit or credit card.
Would Anabobazina's principles make them pay the higher price, or would they use cash in buying their gasoline from that station?
(There are similar penalties for using cards for small purchases, in other places in this area. They seem to be fairly common in small fast food places. And then, recently, I saw an up-scale store saying they woudl not accept cash. Some are worried that such policies would be hard on the very poor.)
Given American Express charges around 3% in credit card processing fees, the extra charge there is more than reasonable.
For a debit card, where it's typically more like 0.5%, the extra seems much less justifiable.
I think the media need holding accountable. Some of the journalism - particularly from Sky- has been distasteful and woeful
I hope that diver who was over the airwaves saying he didn’t think she was in the river and in effect feeding the conspiracies gets pulled up too.
The story isn’t over yet. Did she fall in accidentally or choose to enter the water? Why didn’t anyone find the body? Extensive searches failed. I know the river is tidal, and thus the position the body was found may not be the same place it’s been, but still. It’s good to see the media being upbraided a bit. I tried to point out before the hypocrisy of the main media complaining about people flocking to the area to do social media and other forms of dissemination, all the while the main media had done exactly the same thing, as always.
As someone who rows on the tidal section of the Thames.
The Thames in London is a wide river, with a fairly simple bottom geometry. Trees and branches are regularly cleared.
Every so often some poor soul drunk falls off a bridge, plus the suicides. They are often found much later.
This is a more twisting, narrower river, with more snags in it. Add water where you can't see your hand in front of your face - the search would have a been a grid search by touch.
Totally accept that, but that river is not that big, barely 10 m across.
Look up the history of people going missing in small bits of water. Hell, the River Cherwell in Oxford has swallowed people for a while. A green pond that barely flows....
I’m sure you are right but I think these are the questions that are going to be asked.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Yes, I think this politics and religion saga could run a bit. Plenty of people will have a stake in undermining Kate Forbes if they can.
The peculiar thing is that on this planet most people have personal philosophical or religious positions that don't agree with everything that is allowed. It's just a given of being a proper liberal society which according to liberal procedures limits to a minimum what is compelled or forbidden and therefore allows all manner of things.
But some religious groups, especially evangelicals, seem to get picked on a bit because they, like RCs and members of Islam, they have contrary opinions. RCs and Muslims less so. (I am none of the above).
For me the rule is you can hold illiberal views but not seek to impose them on others. Eg those who believe homosexuality is wrong have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against gay people doesn't.
if you are a liberal the reverse is also true: Those who believe homosexuality is right have a place in a liberal society; discrimination against those who believe it is wrong has no place in a liberal society.
Liberalism is very hard work.
You don't discriminate against people who believe homosexuality is wrong, you simply enforce the law that gay people not be discriminated against.
Eg -
The cake case. Gay person wanted a cake with 'Support Gay Rights' on it. Baker refused to make it. Said the message was against their beliefs. Got sued. Baker won. Why? Because they would have refused to bake that cake for anyone. They weren't discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
The Bed/Breakfast case. Gay couple wanted a double room. Owner said no. Said it was against their beliefs. Sued. Owner lost. They lost because they WERE discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
There was much discussion about the above 2 cases but neither were that hard imo.
In fact I find this whole area pretty simple. You can go ahead and pose me a dilemma if you like, see if I can live up to my own hype.
On that basis a B&B owner could refuse to allow a wheelchair into a room ('wheels might damage the carpet'); since he or she would refuse that to everyone (not just wheelchair users) they'd would get away with it.
Yes, I would have thought it up to the owner of a business who they sell their goods and services to. I'm sure there must be other examples of B&B owners turning down custom without having to explain why. (Large groups of young men, typically.)
Then you'd be wrong. There are nine 'protected characteristics' that you are not allowed to discriminate on.
In my religion, gambling is a sacred thing. Being able to win at betting on the next leader of the tribe has been a sacred testament passed down the the generations*. Does that work?
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭
Starmer is a lucky general.
Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.
The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism
What are your grounds for thinking this?
Thinking what??
You said:
"Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"
Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
Thanks for the clarification.
Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:
History, Culture, Religious practice, Natural law, The meaning of words, The distinctiveness of institutions, The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.
Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
Most of those seem to just boil down to:
Marriage is defined as being between a man and woman because that's how it is traditionally defined.
The exception seems to be "open to the transmission of life" - if that means producing children. But marriage between a man and woman certainly doesn't have to be open to the transmission of life - it very often definitely isn't!
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
I'd say Forbes' issue is political, rather than theological. Sturgeon has moulded the SNP as a party that by and large makes the case for independence as a more progressive Scotland being tied to an England that's more conservative and either votes Tory or for a Labour Party that has to concern itself with that and cut its cloth accordingly. Generally bunk of course - as both England and Scotland are much more complex and voters are much more fluid in their views. But incredibly useful bunk for the SNP as it broadens support for independence and gives it a purpose beyond nationalism or technocratic arguments. But it's difficult to see how a leader moves away from that without a schism or draining of support - which she'll have to, as while she may not roll back existing legislation, she won't be proposing anything she can't vote for herself and can't really make that pitch as someone who due to her religion has socially conservative views.
The SNP is an incredibly broad church, reaching from disaster capitalists at one end to to actual Marxists at the other. The one thing they have in common is the belief that Scotland should be an independent country. Nicola Sturgeon settled on a mildly communitarian semi-socialism because that's the Scottish political centre ground previously occupied by Labour.
Incidentally one of Sturgeon's successes is she is Mrs Middle Scotland. If SNP Central Casting had consulted ChatGPT for the ideal leader they would have come up with her. Kate Forbes not so much, but I don't think she will stray that far from the middle point.
Having said that, she's tying herself in knots on her personal morality. Could be a problem.
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭
Starmer is a lucky general.
Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.
The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism
What are your grounds for thinking this?
Thinking what??
You said:
"Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"
Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
Thanks for the clarification.
Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:
History, Culture, Religious practice, Natural law, The meaning of words, The distinctiveness of institutions, The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.
Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
Most of those seem to just boil down to:
Marriage is defined as being between a man and woman because that's how it is traditionally defined.
The exception seems to be "open to the transmission of life" - if that means producing children. But marriage between a man and woman certainly doesn't have to be open to the transmission of life - it very often definitely isn't!
Perfectly decent points. It would be very odd if the headings of a defence of marriage, as widely accepted now and in the past, did not refer to its history. We don't start with a blank sheet of paper.
BTW the extent to which the Church of England is hated and reviled by all sides and cannot possibly 'win' is nicely seen here. I should think it has got it about right.
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
Oh dear ! Her campaign is already unraveling . Given some of the strongest support for the SNP is younger people her views on certain issues are likely to go down like a bucket of sick !
Off topic: A question for Anabobazina: Last week I saw an Arco service station with two prices for regular gasoline, $3.99 per gallon if you paid cash, and $4.09 per gallon if you paid with a debit or credit card.
Would Anabobazina's principles make them pay the higher price, or would they use cash in buying their gasoline from that station?
(There are similar penalties for using cards for small purchases, in other places in this area. They seem to be fairly common in small fast food places. And then, recently, I saw an up-scale store saying they woudl not accept cash. Some are worried that such policies would be hard on the very poor.)
Given American Express charges around 3% in credit card processing fees, the extra charge there is more than reasonable.
For a debit card, where it's typically more like 0.5%, the extra seems much less justifiable.
are US debit card rates fro merchants 0.5% - feels very low
Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."
She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.
I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people. 'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
I agree.
I understand and respect that angle and her position. But in the modern political age it is going to be a question that interviewers come back to again and again and it will be easy to build a narrative against her from a progressive perspective. “Should my first minister be someone who doesn’t agree with gay marriage?” is going to be a big question asked.
I think her statement is perfectly reasonable.
But, some people take the view that anything other than whole-hearted approval of what they do is an attack upon them.
It’s a childish belief, but widespread.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when gay people were very far from having equal rights. If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
And now they do.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
I'd say Forbes' issue is political, rather than theological. Sturgeon has moulded the SNP as a party that by and large makes the case for independence as a more progressive Scotland being tied to an England that's more conservative and either votes Tory or for a Labour Party that has to concern itself with that and cut its cloth accordingly. Generally bunk of course - as both England and Scotland are much more complex and voters are much more fluid in their views. But incredibly useful bunk for the SNP as it broadens support for independence and gives it a purpose beyond nationalism or technocratic arguments. But it's difficult to see how a leader moves away from that without a schism or draining of support - which she'll have to, as while she may not roll back existing legislation, she won't be proposing anything she can't vote for herself and can't really make that pitch as someone who due to her religion has socially conservative views.
The SNP is an incredibly broad church, reaching from disaster capitalists at one end to to actual Marxists at the other. The one thing they have in common is the belief that Scotland should be an independent country. Nicola Sturgeon settled on a mildly communitarian semi-socialism because that's the Scottish political centre ground previously occupied by Labour.
Incidentally one of Sturgeon's successes is she is Mrs Middle Scotland. If SNP Central Casting had consulted ChatGPT for the ideal leader they would have come up with her. Kate Forbes not so much, but I don't think she will stray that far from the middle point.
Having said that, she's tying herself in knots on her personal morality. Could be a problem.
Yep, her inability to deal with stuff like this is more of a problem than her actual religious views imho.
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
Gosh. Marks for honesty but it's still a bit of a shocker. Equal Marriage is totemic as proof of full acceptance of gay people into society. I must check the odds on Yousaf.
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
Oh she is going to make the SNP as popular as Tim Farron's Lib Dems...
Hasn't been elected yet! Either to the party leadership or to the FM position. Two quite different but two still necessary elections, with completely different electorates. Rememnber, there's always a formal election for FM. No need for the opposition to make a motion.
Comments
They see that as dodging the issue, protecting the bad etc.
They want the short, straight road to the Final Society. Burn the bad people.
If politicians disapprove of a group that has within living memory suffered official discrimination this is obviously a concern. It is not about a childish demand that everyone should wholeheartedly approve of anything someone "does".
However admittedly as Labour also got just 28% back then a 14% swing from Tory to Labour.
So the Tories might even pick up a few seats from the LDs in the South, even if they likely lose seats to Labour in the North, the Midlands and Kent and Essex
In a Liberal society people who think homosexuality wrong are fine as long as they don't force their moral code on others.
"Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"
Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
If Forbes said she wished to persecute gays, or made perjorative comments, that would be a legitimate concern. She has not.
There have been already attempts at laws/police actions in various democracies which get close to regulating people's private beliefs.
and £53k average post training
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64653488
You cannot force everybody to like what you like, just get on with your own life and leave others to have theirs.
To say the country hasn't covered itself in glory recently is an understatement...
(*TBF, I am not sure if that is true if you already have a postal vote - there may be additional checks in that case.)
(That has happened, from time to time in American politics. Former New York City mayor Bill de Blasio changed his name, legally, twice. And, as you probably know, Nikki Haley has changed both her name, and her religion.)
If the government refuses to negotiate, then strikes are the only way to get them to the table.
Consultants balloting shortly.
It’s good to see the media being upbraided a bit. I tried to point out before the hypocrisy of the main media complaining about people flocking to the area to do social media and other forms of dissemination, all the while the main media had done exactly the same thing, as always.
Most of know however that there are a myriad opinions, on gay marriage, divorce, adultery, abortion, polyamory etc.
I think the police were trying in a clumsy way to justify why they thought she went into the river (I.e using the term “vulnerabilities”) but in effect they just created a bigger rod for their back because that triggered further speculation and they then (I think defensively) released the details of the personal issues as a “clarification”.
And then Suella and Rishi got stuck in too.
It’s been a mess all round. Poor lady and her family, such a devastating outcome and to deal with that circus in the background too. I can’t begin to imagine.
Homosexuality is lawful, on good liberal principles. So is adultery, on good liberal principles. Nothing in liberal principle tells you that one, other or both of these are right or wrong.
I am a liberal. I have views about all these things. One is generally fine and the other is generally not. If it were the other way round I would still be a liberal. (Though an adulterous one).
I can't and won't vote for her though as I would be endorsing the Conservatives. If she declared herself an Independent I would vote for her.
Would Anabobazina's principles make them pay the higher price, or would they use cash in buying their gasoline from that station?
(There are similar penalties for using cards for small purchases, in other places in this area. They seem to be fairly common in small fast food places. And then, recently, I saw an up-scale store saying they woudl not accept cash. Some are worried that such policies would be hard on the very poor.)
Eg -
The cake case. Gay person wanted a cake with 'Support Gay Rights' on it. Baker refused to make it. Said the message was against their beliefs. Got sued. Baker won. Why? Because they would have refused to bake that cake for anyone. They weren't discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
The Bed/Breakfast case. Gay couple wanted a double room. Owner said no. Said it was against their beliefs. Sued. Owner lost. They lost because they WERE discriminating against the customer on account of them being gay.
There was much discussion about the above 2 cases but neither were that hard imo.
In fact I find this whole area pretty simple. You can go ahead and pose me a dilemma if you like, see if I can live up to my own hype.
Therefore, and not just because he shares her "progressive" agenda, she will want Humza to win the leadership.
It is much easier to imagine her succeeding Yousaf in, say,3-5 years time, than the 32-year-old Forbes. Yousaf is older and much less likely to prove electorally successful than Forbes in the sense that while she is a risk he's an almost certain dud. He's universally known as Humza Useless. After a few years the demand will be "bring back Nicola".
Sturgeon could see very well that achieving Indy during her current term was impossible and that her plan for the GE to be treated as a referendum was a big mistake. Therefore better to bail out now before her reputation was trashed - knowing that it would give her the option to return in the future.
A Forbes leadership could well kill off this prospect.
This really could be a high stakes leadership contest.
The Thames in London is a wide river, with a fairly simple bottom geometry. Trees and branches are regularly cleared.
Every so often some poor soul drunk falls off a bridge, plus the suicides. They are often found much later.
This is a more twisting, narrower river, with more snags in it. Add water where you can't see your hand in front of your face - the search would have a been a grid search by touch.
https://www.bma.org.uk/pay-and-contracts/pay/consultants-pay-scales/pay-scales-for-consultants-in-england
The average voter, earning a quarter to a third of that or less will consider that just greed
- A bizarre US court ruling that cake decorating isn't art. Sugar Arts and all that.
- People who bake cakes now refuse to put any words on them, quite often.
- There was a comic case, in the US, where a lesbian couple booked a cake with a baker who said fine, took the deposit. They then tried to back out - claiming that since he was a bigot..... Despite the terms being non-refundable deposits.
Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:
History,
Culture,
Religious practice,
Natural law,
The meaning of words,
The distinctiveness of institutions,
The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.
Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
People should be free to love each other as they please.
I have to confess that in similar circumstances I have in the past voted Conservative.
Am I a sinner?
I'm sure there must be other examples of B&B owners turning down custom without having to explain why. (Large groups of young men, typically.)
People's religious beliefs are just a matter of private conscience, and aren't really relevant. It's also obvious that a hell of a lot of people who belong to different religions don't get their morality by adopting wholesale the moral code of the religion.
There is another issue too. Most people in most places at most times believe that intimate moral and values issues are not things we just make up. They are things we receive, both in the Burkean sense of organic development, and in the religious or Kantian sense that they have objective and not just subjective value. We should not (though we do) just make it up as we go along.
The nature of marriage as it has been received in our culture is just such an issue.
IMHO we have shifted from a society cautious about changing what we have inherited to be slightly too cavalier about it.
The quality of argument in introducing same sex marriage was not overwhelmingly great. And it has failed to take vast amounts of religious opinion along with it.
Incidentally one of Sturgeon's successes is she is Mrs Middle Scotland. If SNP Central Casting had consulted ChatGPT for the ideal leader they would have come up with her. Kate Forbes not so much, but I don't think she will stray that far from the middle point.
And morality should not be elided with religious belief. All people of all convictions have moral beliefs.
The GRR with the amendments to protect women's refuges, prisons etc on a some sensible basis would have the backing of all major parties and, I think, the public at large?
For a debit card, where it's typically more like 0.5%, the extra seems much less justifiable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64711228
Mrs J knows people who are currently living in railway carriages. Perhaps the safest place for them to be...
*Scotch generations.
Marriage is defined as being between a man and woman because that's how it is traditionally defined.
The exception seems to be "open to the transmission of life" - if that means producing children. But marriage between a man and woman certainly doesn't have to be open to the transmission of life - it very often definitely isn't!
@electpoliticsuk
BREAKING:
SNP leadership candidate Kate Forbes has said she would have voted against gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”.
SKS takes yet another step towards No10.
BTW the extent to which the Church of England is hated and reviled by all sides and cannot possibly 'win' is nicely seen here. I should think it has got it about right.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/20/anglicans-reject-justin-welby-as-head-of-global-church-amid-anger-at-same-sex-blessings
Not sure having an anti gay , anti abortion bible basher fits in with that .