Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”
Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.
Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago
Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
Or he's a lying so-and-so and holds his former belief but isn't saying so?
Perhaps he is - but then Rishi Sunak was literally fined for lying. Keir Starmer was investigated twice and cleared.
I think Keir is wrong now, odd thing for somebody who is apparently brainwashed by him to say.
Begum should be brought back here, tried and if necessary put in prison for life. She is our problem.
Tried for what exactly? she has broken no laws here we can try her for.
When a uk citizen kills someone in a foreign country we don't bring them back for trial, nor any other crime they did abroad.
I don't think that's entirely true. My understanding is that there are certain crimes that can be tried by UK courts even if they weren't committed on UK soil or even by a UK national. I think there are a number of sexual offences against minors that, if commited by a UK citizen abroad, can be prosecuted in the UK. I believe there are some terrorism offences that fall into the same category. There may also be others, but you'd probably need a PB legal eagle to give more details.
In general though crimes are usually prosecuted in the country they occur, granted there are a few outliers. But it is unclear what we could charge Begum with in the UK.
Certainly not war crimes because only states can goto war, other crimes such as terrorist activity would be hard to prove as all the witnesses are in another country. My suspicion is if allowed back she would be let to go free.
Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”
Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.
Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago
'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.
“The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.
“It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.
“For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'
and
'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.
However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.
Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”
Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.
Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'
Personally I would sup with either of them with a very long spoon.
Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
Maybe you didn't see the news yesterday? MCUK is not so much astroturf as a spot of green paint that is still wet. Seems to have been set up to give spurious go-faster stripes to an attack on Mr Yousaf in re SNP leadership.
Remarkable. Surely all SNP supporters are honourable men and women and would not sink to such tactics.
Er, category error there. The chap who put out the posting seems to be a ScoTory. If a slightly unusual one.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
Surely this depends on whether you (and perhaps the group) see the areas of disagreement as fundamental to the group's identity and principles, or as a secondary area where you might be able to be persuasive precisely because you agree on fundamentals elsewhere? To take a political example, suppose I am a committed environmentalist who believes that nuclear power is a vital component of getting us down to a zero-carbon energy system. I'm likely better off joining the Green Party even though they disagree on nuclear power, because we're in alignment on the overall goal even though we have a disagreement on some of what that goal might or might not require. If enough like-minded other people are also in the Green Party we might even be able to shift the policy in our direction.
Can you pick and choose with religion? Your analogy falls down because the belief system of a religion dictates every aspect of its views. From working on the sabbath to gay marriage to...to... It is one indivisible view informed by, I assume, the divine being.
Of course you can pick and choose. Have you never met a catholic who has sex outside marriage? or a hindu who eats a beefburger, or a muslim who drinks a beer?
you can even find liverpool fans who don't hate man utd, though it's much rarer.
Again wrong. Or at least bizarre. They are doing those things in contravention of the religion they profess to follow. They are sinning, to use the vernacular.
Someone voluntarily sins against the precepts of the religion they say they believe in and follow.
What a head fuck.
Like I say, most of the people I know who belong to religions like catholicism (not a representative sample of course) are very happy to make up their own minds about whether things like same sex marriage are sinful, while still enjoying many of the rituals and feeling part of the local catholic community. Why do you choose to agree with the extreme fundamentalists who want to decide who or who isn't a proper member of any religion?
'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.
“The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.
“It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.
“For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'
and
'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.
However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.
Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”
Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.
Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'
Personally I would sup with either of them with a very long spoon.
Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
Maybe you didn't see the news yesterday? MCUK is not so much astroturf as a spot of green paint that is still wet. Seems to have been set up to give spurious go-faster stripes to an attack on Mr Yousaf in re SNP leadership.
Remarkable. Surely all SNP supporters are honourable men and women and would not sink to such tactics.
In this case it seems to have been ex SNP supporters
That's not very convincing, though, and I'm not an Alba supporter.
Re Wings, half of PB could be accused of the same thing considering how excitedly they posted exactly the same [edit] FB posting from the Council of etc.
And renting from a Tory supporting Unionist landlord? Bit like being surprised that chaps in Glasgow in green and white striped shirts like singing Celtic songs.
In a trial I was involved in many years ago: Prosecutor: “and what were the boys doing?” Witness: “ singing Celtic songs” P: “loudly?” W: “SINGING CELTIC SONGS”
'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.
“The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.
“It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.
“For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'
and
'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.
However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.
Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”
Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.
Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'
Personally I would sup with either of them with a very long spoon.
Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
Maybe you didn't see the news yesterday? MCUK is not so much astroturf as a spot of green paint that is still wet. Seems to have been set up to give spurious go-faster stripes to an attack on Mr Yousaf in re SNP leadership.
Remarkable. Surely all SNP supporters are honourable men and women and would not sink to such tactics.
In this case it seems to have been ex SNP supporters
Oh good, that explains it. Whew.
Don’t phew too soon, as Carnyx points out a Tory as well, though an unusually gormless one even by their standards.
Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”
Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.
Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago
Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
I agree. I would accept that it may be correct that the Home Secretary has the right to remove the citizenship of an individual who is a serious threat to the community in extreme and exceptional circumstances. A 15 year old girl who seems to have been groomed is not such a case.
She was not 15 when she was stripped of citizenship she was 19 and was showing no remorse for anything.
Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”
Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.
Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago
Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
I agree. I would accept that it may be correct that the Home Secretary has the right to remove the citizenship of an individual who is a serious threat to the community in extreme and exceptional circumstances. A 15 year old girl who seems to have been groomed is not such a case.
She was not 15 when she was stripped of citizenship she was 19 and was showing no remorse for anything.
When has she been allowed a fair trial? Or is innocent until proven guilty something we no longer stand by?
NEW: UK attitudes to immigration are now among the most positive internationally.
The first study in our series for @WVS_Survey ranks the country at the top of an international league table as the most accepting of new arrivals 🧵 [1/9]
Of 17 countries, the UK is least likely to say the government should place strict limits on the number of foreigners who can come to the country or prohibit people from coming altogether [2/9]
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I find that a bit bonkers. You are a member of a religion which (if you are gay and that religion is CoE) actively discriminates against you.
And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.
So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
For many people the moral strictures, dogma and theology of a religion are the least important parts. It's very common, and welcome I think, for members of religions to think for themselves to a greater or lesser extent on matters of morality. The important parts of the religion are the practice (as in prayer, meditation, singing, rituals, etc), the community, the religious experience, the acknowledgement of the religious experience and mystery of existence, the sense of joint purpose with others, provision of solace in the face of life's inevitable tragedies and so on.
It's a minority, in my experience who think the dogma and rules about what is sin are important, or even to be taken at all seriously in many cases. Sadly it tends to be that dogmatic minority who often run the organisations.
Super bizarre. Religion is a belief system. It dictates that morality and determines whether something (gay marriage, sex outside wedlock, what have you) is morally and therefore religiously "good" or "bad".
It is surely not something that you can mix and match or amend according to taste. It is the same higher power that said thou shalt not kill as said gay marriage is wrong.
As for your "prayer, meditation, singing, rituals" you get all of that at The Emirates Stadium on a Saturday afternoon.
You say things change. Why do they change? Who says they should. As far as the CoE is concerned, the custodians of the faith eg the ABoC says they most certainly don't and shouldn't change.
Stop trying to be so modern about a ritualist, supernatural, belief system (one of many).
I understand that people who post on pb.com are more likely to care about intellectual belief systems than the actual religious practice as experienced by most people, but religion is very much more than a 'a belief system' which 'dictates morality'. For many members of religions, the belief system and morality dictation are the least important parts, and are not things that they just uncritically accept. You surely must know people like that.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
Surely this depends on whether you (and perhaps the group) see the areas of disagreement as fundamental to the group's identity and principles, or as a secondary area where you might be able to be persuasive precisely because you agree on fundamentals elsewhere? To take a political example, suppose I am a committed environmentalist who believes that nuclear power is a vital component of getting us down to a zero-carbon energy system. I'm likely better off joining the Green Party even though they disagree on nuclear power, because we're in alignment on the overall goal even though we have a disagreement on some of what that goal might or might not require. If enough like-minded other people are also in the Green Party we might even be able to shift the policy in our direction.
Can you pick and choose with religion? …
I thought that was almost the entire point of the CoE, until the evangelicals grew in number ?
'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.
“The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.
“It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.
“For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'
and
'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.
However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.
Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”
Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.
Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'
Personally I would sup with either of them with a very long spoon.
Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
Maybe you didn't see the news yesterday? MCUK is not so much astroturf as a spot of green paint that is still wet. Seems to have been set up to give spurious go-faster stripes to an attack on Mr Yousaf in re SNP leadership.
Remarkable. Surely all SNP supporters are honourable men and women and would not sink to such tactics.
In this case it seems to have been ex SNP supporters
That's not very convincing, though, and I'm not an Alba supporter.
Re Wings, half of PB could be accused of the same thing considering how excitedly they posted exactly the same [edit] FB posting from the Council of etc.
And renting from a Tory supporting Unionist landlord? Bit like being surprised that chaps in Glasgow in green and white striped shirts like singing Celtic songs.
We are in the age of weird non aggression pacts: Wings + Alba + JK Rowling + SCons + PB Yoons + the religious right + Trump + Father Ted man + A Force For Good + The Speccie + Julie Bindel among many others seem to have found a fair bit of common ground. If Putin hadn’t shat the bed no doubt he would still be held up as a protector of Western Christian values and the family.
NEW: UK attitudes to immigration are now among the most positive internationally.
The first study in our series for @WVS_Survey ranks the country at the top of an international league table as the most accepting of new arrivals 🧵 [1/9]
Of 17 countries, the UK is least likely to say the government should place strict limits on the number of foreigners who can come to the country or prohibit people from coming altogether [2/9]
Other I interesting findings on attitudes to immigrants wrt employment, culture and crime - all encouraging.
And yet that is what the Tories/Vote Leave go on about constantly. So you're admitting your side is wrong now?
The Tory position is controlled immigration, which, if you’d read the post would show that the question was “Let people come as long as there are jobs available” (58%) while Free movement “Let anyone come” gets 10%. I think you’ll find Tory policy is aligned with the voter.
We've never not had controlled immigration.
You think “Freedom of movement” was “controlled” ?
How, exactly?
“We have seen a shift that is quite remarkable in the UK,” said Madeleine Sumption, the director of the migration observatory at Oxford University, adding that the findings were in line with decreasing public concern about immigration since the 2016 EU referendum.
“There is speculation it is about the fact that the end of freedom of movement has created a feeling the UK now has more control,” she said.
And that’s the problem the government has with the Channel Crossings - it’s demonstrably not “controlled” even through the numbers in the scheme of things are small.
Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”
Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.
Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago
Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
I agree. I would accept that it may be correct that the Home Secretary has the right to remove the citizenship of an individual who is a serious threat to the community in extreme and exceptional circumstances. A 15 year old girl who seems to have been groomed is not such a case.
She was not 15 when she was stripped of citizenship she was 19 and was showing no remorse for anything.
She was 15 when she went and leaving the country to join a hostile force was, AIUI, the basis of the decision
Nice rustic decorations, wish they’d do that in my local Morrison’s. And the tomatoes too of course.
Start of the week my local Sainsburys' had plenty of tomatoes, peppers and cucumber.
I popped up last night and no cucumber, few peppers and few tomatoes.
One sure way of causing a shortage or making a shortage worse is telling everyone there is a shortage.
Many years ago I had a friend who became a very successful retailer who, when he realised he had mistakenly ordered far too many potatoes, put a notice up in his store saying that due to the impending potato shortage customers were restricted to a maximum of 2 bags
On the subject of cooking Broccoli (something close to my heart as it is the signature vegetable of my area of London), roasted broccoli stalk is a great Sunday treat.
Remove all the extraneous broccoli heads and boil them for the kids. Peel the tough outer layers of the stalk. Par boil, then roast in fat along with the potatoes and parsnips. Delicious.
Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”
Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.
Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago
Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
I agree. I would accept that it may be correct that the Home Secretary has the right to remove the citizenship of an individual who is a serious threat to the community in extreme and exceptional circumstances. A 15 year old girl who seems to have been groomed is not such a case.
She was not 15 when she was stripped of citizenship she was 19 and was showing no remorse for anything.
She was 15 when she went and leaving the country to join a hostile force was, AIUI, the basis of the decision
Isn’t the real problem that they’re worried there’s next to nothing she could be successfully convicted of in a U.K. court?
She comes across as an unpleasant piece of work, but that in itself is not illegal.
Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”
Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.
Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago
Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
I agree. I would accept that it may be correct that the Home Secretary has the right to remove the citizenship of an individual who is a serious threat to the community in extreme and exceptional circumstances. A 15 year old girl who seems to have been groomed is not such a case.
If she's not been groomed then that will all be discovered in court.
I just think it sets such a bad precedent. One day we will remove citizenship from the wrong person and they'll end up being killed.
your hero disagrees with you as it might cost a few votes.
Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”
Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.
Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago
Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
I agree. I would accept that it may be correct that the Home Secretary has the right to remove the citizenship of an individual who is a serious threat to the community in extreme and exceptional circumstances. A 15 year old girl who seems to have been groomed is not such a case.
She was not 15 when she was stripped of citizenship she was 19 and was showing no remorse for anything.
She was 15 when she went and leaving the country to join a hostile force was, AIUI, the basis of the decision
Isn’t the real problem that they’re worried there’s next to nothing she could be successfully convicted of in a U.K. court?
She comes across as an unpleasant piece of work, but that in itself is not illegal.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I find that a bit bonkers. You are a member of a religion which (if you are gay and that religion is CoE) actively discriminates against you.
And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.
So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
For many people the moral strictures, dogma and theology of a religion are the least important parts. It's very common, and welcome I think, for members of religions to think for themselves to a greater or lesser extent on matters of morality. The important parts of the religion are the practice (as in prayer, meditation, singing, rituals, etc), the community, the religious experience, the acknowledgement of the religious experience and mystery of existence, the sense of joint purpose with others, provision of solace in the face of life's inevitable tragedies and so on.
It's a minority, in my experience who think the dogma and rules about what is sin are important, or even to be taken at all seriously in many cases. Sadly it tends to be that dogmatic minority who often run the organisations.
Super bizarre. Religion is a belief system. It dictates that morality and determines whether something (gay marriage, sex outside wedlock, what have you) is morally and therefore religiously "good" or "bad".
It is surely not something that you can mix and match or amend according to taste. It is the same higher power that said thou shalt not kill as said gay marriage is wrong.
As for your "prayer, meditation, singing, rituals" you get all of that at The Emirates Stadium on a Saturday afternoon.
You say things change. Why do they change? Who says they should. As far as the CoE is concerned, the custodians of the faith eg the ABoC says they most certainly don't and shouldn't change.
Stop trying to be so modern about a ritualist, supernatural, belief system (one of many).
I understand that people who post on pb.com are more likely to care about intellectual belief systems than the actual religious practice as experienced by most people, but religion is very much more than a 'a belief system' which 'dictates morality'. For many members of religions, the belief system and morality dictation are the least important parts, and are not things that they just uncritically accept. You surely must know people like that.
Once you have accepted the logical impossibility of answering existential questions like 'where do we come from?' or 'where are we going to?' all that remains is a catalogue of opinions about how we should lead our lives and, by extension, how other people should lead theirs. I recall once having my tender young ears bent by a Mormon missionary about the iniquity of drinking tea or coffee.
'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.
“The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.
“It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.
“For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'
and
'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.
However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.
Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”
Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.
Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'
Personally I would sup with either of them with a very long spoon.
Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
Maybe you didn't see the news yesterday? MCUK is not so much astroturf as a spot of green paint that is still wet. Seems to have been set up to give spurious go-faster stripes to an attack on Mr Yousaf in re SNP leadership.
Remarkable. Surely all SNP supporters are honourable men and women and would not sink to such tactics.
In this case it seems to have been ex SNP supporters
That's not very convincing, though, and I'm not an Alba supporter.
Re Wings, half of PB could be accused of the same thing considering how excitedly they posted exactly the same [edit] FB posting from the Council of etc.
And renting from a Tory supporting Unionist landlord? Bit like being surprised that chaps in Glasgow in green and white striped shirts like singing Celtic songs.
We are in the age of weird non aggression pacts: Wings + Alba + JK Rowling + SCons + PB Yoons + the religious right + Trump + Father Ted man + A Force For Good + The Speccie + Julie Bindel among many others seem to have found a fair bit of common ground. If Putin hadn’t shat the bed no doubt he would still be held up as a protector of Western Christian values and the family.
The Wings post can be dismissed as he'd have done it anyway as routine comment, and as a useful service, vide ScottXP/Carlotta etc.
The landlord link is trickier and there is what you say about NAPs but an active alliance? Without knowing hoe many properties Mr Lal owns, it's impossible to get a handle on it. (And would such an active anti-indy chap want to rent out to Alba?).
One thing one learns is the astounding capacity for coincidence that the world has. I've got two doppelgaengers of almost exactly the same name working in bizarrely close research topics to mine, and I'm not called Jock Macdonald or anything that frequent.
On the subject of cooking Broccoli (something close to my heart as it is the signature vegetable of my area of London), roasted broccoli stalk is a great Sunday treat.
Remove all the extraneous broccoli heads and boil them for the kids. Peel the tough outer layers of the stalk. Par boil, then roast in fat along with the potatoes and parsnips. Delicious.
Hang on. Do all areas of London have a "signature vegetable?" Since when? (Obviously Camberwell has the carrot).
Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”
Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.
Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago
Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
I agree. I would accept that it may be correct that the Home Secretary has the right to remove the citizenship of an individual who is a serious threat to the community in extreme and exceptional circumstances. A 15 year old girl who seems to have been groomed is not such a case.
She was not 15 when she was stripped of citizenship she was 19 and was showing no remorse for anything.
When has she been allowed a fair trial? Or is innocent until proven guilty something we no longer stand by?
She’s paid for her mistake at least four times now. IMHO we’re coming across as cruel and vindictive.
It’s not mentioned too much, but the recent use of ever-changing woke language is to a large extent an English-language phenomenon, as opposed to something seen in other developed cultures.
You’re just posting Tory spam now? We need a new rule on PB against this.
Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good Spam you don't like - we must have a rule
I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
Leave Carlotta alone.
If Scott can spam this site with FBPE tweets, and the Labour herd are permitted to constantly dribble about how the Tories are DOOMED and how they worship the ground Starmer works on, then she is perfectly entitled to post a Conservative viewpoint for counterbalance.
If you feel threatened by that then, quite aside from what that brittleness tells us all, you might feel better going and joining a blog that's nothing more than a partisan echo-chamber.
I don’t think Scott just posts party political posts, does he?
I maintain that it’s an unwelcome innovation.
It’s fine for people to take a partisan approach, but this place would be very dull if you just bunged the latest Tory shitpost in and I responded with the latest Labour (or rather, LD) one.
Personally I find it a lot more interesting to read what contributors to this site think than some “authority” or journalist does. We do get a lot of interesting link’s but party political stuff is rarely in the category ( unless it’s more you will never believe what they are saying now).
Well it was informative as to what’s the latest desperate wheeze to turn the polls around. And I’m happy for Carlotta to let us know when they revive the demon eyes gag.
On the subject of cooking Broccoli (something close to my heart as it is the signature vegetable of my area of London), roasted broccoli stalk is a great Sunday treat.
Remove all the extraneous broccoli heads and boil them for the kids. Peel the tough outer layers of the stalk. Par boil, then roast in fat along with the potatoes and parsnips. Delicious.
Hang on. Do all areas of London have a "signature vegetable?" Since when? (Obviously Camberwell has the carrot).
I think it's the George Bush haters
(PS Now is the season to *think* about growing tomatoes. I still have some from last year in my freezer, and may a food parcel of some to Dublin for their 'Brexit-caused' vegetable shortage.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Evangelicals and Roman Catholics however believe that any church which performs a homosexual marriage is not a genuine Christian church
You're confusing canon with the views of many members. There have been polls of practicing British Catholics, for example, indicating majority support for gay marriage.
I find that a bit bonkers. You are a member of a religion which (if you are gay and that religion is CoE) actively discriminates against you.
And instead of saying go fuck yourself, you try by all means possible, and so far with zero success, to change the religion.
So what have you been a member of and so enthusiastic about hitherto such that you want it to change completely to accommodate your own views. Makes no sense to me.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
For many people the moral strictures, dogma and theology of a religion are the least important parts. It's very common, and welcome I think, for members of religions to think for themselves to a greater or lesser extent on matters of morality. The important parts of the religion are the practice (as in prayer, meditation, singing, rituals, etc), the community, the religious experience, the acknowledgement of the religious experience and mystery of existence, the sense of joint purpose with others, provision of solace in the face of life's inevitable tragedies and so on.
It's a minority, in my experience who think the dogma and rules about what is sin are important, or even to be taken at all seriously in many cases. Sadly it tends to be that dogmatic minority who often run the organisations.
Super bizarre. Religion is a belief system. It dictates that morality and determines whether something (gay marriage, sex outside wedlock, what have you) is morally and therefore religiously "good" or "bad".
It is surely not something that you can mix and match or amend according to taste. It is the same higher power that said thou shalt not kill as said gay marriage is wrong.
As for your "prayer, meditation, singing, rituals" you get all of that at The Emirates Stadium on a Saturday afternoon.
You say things change. Why do they change? Who says they should. As far as the CoE is concerned, the custodians of the faith eg the ABoC says they most certainly don't and shouldn't change.
Stop trying to be so modern about a ritualist, supernatural, belief system (one of many).
I understand that people who post on pb.com are more likely to care about intellectual belief systems than the actual religious practice as experienced by most people, but religion is very much more than a 'a belief system' which 'dictates morality'. For many members of religions, the belief system and morality dictation are the least important parts, and are not things that they just uncritically accept. You surely must know people like that.
Once you have accepted the logical impossibility of answering existential questions like 'where do we come from?' or 'where are we going to?' all that remains is a catalogue of opinions about how we should lead our lives and, by extension, how other people should lead theirs. I recall once having my tender young ears bent by a Mormon missionary about the iniquity of drinking tea or coffee.
You also have rituals, you have religious practices like prayer or meditation, you have a community, you have people working together to help others, you have ways of marking important life events, you have a way of acknowledging something greater than yourself. Just off the top of my head.
'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.
“The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.
“It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.
“For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'
and
'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.
However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.
Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”
Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.
Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'
Personally I would sup with either of them with a very long spoon.
Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
Maybe you didn't see the news yesterday? MCUK is not so much astroturf as a spot of green paint that is still wet. Seems to have been set up to give spurious go-faster stripes to an attack on Mr Yousaf in re SNP leadership.
Remarkable. Surely all SNP supporters are honourable men and women and would not sink to such tactics.
In this case it seems to have been ex SNP supporters
That's not very convincing, though, and I'm not an Alba supporter.
Re Wings, half of PB could be accused of the same thing considering how excitedly they posted exactly the same [edit] FB posting from the Council of etc.
And renting from a Tory supporting Unionist landlord? Bit like being surprised that chaps in Glasgow in green and white striped shirts like singing Celtic songs.
In a trial I was involved in many years ago: Prosecutor: “and what were the boys doing?” Witness: “ singing Celtic songs” P: “loudly?” W: “SINGING CELTIC SONGS”
Prosecutor: "Would you please give me your impression of Mr. Striker?" Witness: "I'm sorry I don't do impressions; I'm a psychiatrist."
Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”
Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.
Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago
Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
Or he's a lying so-and-so and holds his former belief but isn't saying so?
Perhaps he is - but then Rishi Sunak was literally fined for lying. Keir Starmer was investigated twice and cleared.
I think Keir is wrong now, odd thing for somebody who is apparently brainwashed by him to say.
Begum should be brought back here, tried and if necessary put in prison for life. She is our problem.
It is a hard problem, given the massive unpopularity of letting her back in the country. But the court decision, if it stands, sets a pretty awful precedent. As I understand it, the court basically said they had no standing to enquire into the circumstances, and the decision was entirely at the Home Secretary’s decision on grounds of public safety. That is a questionable power to be handing to a politician.
Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”
Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.
Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago
Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
I agree. I would accept that it may be correct that the Home Secretary has the right to remove the citizenship of an individual who is a serious threat to the community in extreme and exceptional circumstances. A 15 year old girl who seems to have been groomed is not such a case.
If she's not been groomed then that will all be discovered in court.
I just think it sets such a bad precedent. One day we will remove citizenship from the wrong person and they'll end up being killed.
your hero disagrees with you as it might cost a few votes.
I think Keir is wrong. Corbyn is wrong about Ukraine.
This is something I struggle with as well. I have a friend who is religious, CofE and an ardent feminist and LGBT supporter and has been working endlessly over the years to get changes. Even with success you know that a significant proportion of those in the same organisation disagree with you. Why would you want to stay. It would be like me joining the Tories or Labour and trying to convert them to the LDs. Why not join or form a group who are like minded.
Surely this depends on whether you (and perhaps the group) see the areas of disagreement as fundamental to the group's identity and principles, or as a secondary area where you might be able to be persuasive precisely because you agree on fundamentals elsewhere? To take a political example, suppose I am a committed environmentalist who believes that nuclear power is a vital component of getting us down to a zero-carbon energy system. I'm likely better off joining the Green Party even though they disagree on nuclear power, because we're in alignment on the overall goal even though we have a disagreement on some of what that goal might or might not require. If enough like-minded other people are also in the Green Party we might even be able to shift the policy in our direction.
Can you pick and choose with religion? Your analogy falls down because the belief system of a religion dictates every aspect of its views. From working on the sabbath to gay marriage to...to... It is one indivisible view informed by, I assume, the divine being.
Of course you can pick and choose. Have you never met a catholic who has sex outside marriage? or a hindu who eats a beefburger, or a muslim who drinks a beer?
you can even find liverpool fans who don't hate man utd, though it's much rarer.
Again wrong. Or at least bizarre. They are doing those things in contravention of the religion they profess to follow. They are sinning, to use the vernacular.
Someone voluntarily sins against the precepts of the religion they say they believe in and follow.
What a head fuck.
Like I say, most of the people I know who belong to religions like catholicism (not a representative sample of course) are very happy to make up their own minds about whether things like same sex marriage are sinful, while still enjoying many of the rituals and feeling part of the local catholic community. Why do you choose to agree with the extreme fundamentalists who want to decide who or who isn't a proper member of any religion?
"extreme fundamentalists" = leaders of that religion (pope, ABoC, Chief Rabbi, etc).
You are taking a gamble that people will choose the "progressive" elements of any religion and discard the plainly (!!) bonkers ones.
But that is wholly arbitrary. Your sensible and of course we should is someone else's mortal sin. That's the problem with religion in politics - it is a lottery as to which edicts from on high are embraced and which rejected.
If reducing crime was as simple as tougher sentences and the cliches demanded by the popular press then the USA would be the safest place on earth. Instead it is one of the most violent.
Does that follow? Maybe if sentences in the States were less tough there would be even more violence.
Ok, it doesn't statistically follow from a single example, but the western democracies with the lowest levels of crime tend to focus on social cohesion, rehabilitiation, at least as much as sentencing. The obvious answer is to give people a stake in society and avoid having a large underclass that do not share in the benefits of society, not to just jail more people for longer.
The countries with the lowest level of crime have - in general, not always - the lowest levels of immigration and the least ethnic diversity
Keir Starmer tells BBC the ruling on Shamima Begum, which kept the decision to strip her of citizenship, is “right… national security has to come first.”
Former DPP says court looked at the evidence.
Tho as CCHQ point out, his emphasis was somewhat different a few years ago
Keir is wrong now and was right before. Is this very complicated?
I agree. I would accept that it may be correct that the Home Secretary has the right to remove the citizenship of an individual who is a serious threat to the community in extreme and exceptional circumstances. A 15 year old girl who seems to have been groomed is not such a case.
She was not 15 when she was stripped of citizenship she was 19 and was showing no remorse for anything.
She was 15 when she went and leaving the country to join a hostile force was, AIUI, the basis of the decision
Isn’t the real problem that they’re worried there’s next to nothing she could be successfully convicted of in a U.K. court?
She comes across as an unpleasant piece of work, but that in itself is not illegal.
She was an enthusiastic participant in slavery and other war crimes.
And, since ISIS were explicit that enslaving Yazidi women was about wiping out the Yazidi people, yes was participating in genocide according to the UN definitions.
It’s not mentioned too much, but the recent use of ever-changing woke language is to a large extent an English-language phenomenon, as opposed to something seen in other developed cultures.
Is that true? German publishers have edited offensive words in Michael Ende, Astrid Lindgren, Otfried Preußler and others in recent years to remove potentially offensive terms.
The equines are closer than some on PB like to think.
But NB voodoo poll. In particular, this is *not* confined to subscribers of the National, so far as I can tell, with all that that implies (but as I am one, I can't be sure - if you aren;t and find you can't enter, please say so).
The equines are closer than some on PB like to think.
But NB voodoo poll. In particular, this is *not* confined to subscribers of the National, so far as I can tell, with all that that implies (but as I am one, I can't be sure - if you aren;t and find you can't enter, please say so).
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
Listen you pathetic attempt of an arsehole, you have been whining for days about how she should be taken out and shot for her beliefs because they happen not to co-incide with your warped view of the world. Don't try and obfiscate and pretend you are on her side with one paragraph. Feck right off and when you get there feck off again.
The 5 missions - Secure the highest sustained growth in G7 - Build an NHS fit for future - Make Britain’s streets safe - Break down barriers to opportunity at every stage - Make Britain a clean energy superpower Detail today will b on econ & clean energy
I look forward to the last because on current plans we are going to get nowhere near net zero by 2050.
Christ alone knows how we'll get the US, China and India - that pump out more than 50% of global emissions- to do the same.
We may well not be able to but the least we can do is try to set an example. “The big boys won’t do it so why should we?” doesn’t cut it as a reason not to.
I didn't argue we should not do so, and I agree we should set an example.
Please read my posts properly for what I actually said rather than what you infer I must have meant.
Not much chance of that happening with the frothers on here, they are blinkered and show their ignorance constantly.
Hello Malky, bit like Largs beach, isn't it? Nice sunny day for a slider from Nardini's on the beach, though.
Hi Carnyx, Yes very pleasant was brisk this morning when I collected the milk delivery, but lovely.
Apologies for earlier misspelling Khan's name, btw ('Kahn'). I must think he's German!
I also realised that I've been referring to 'Regan' as 'Ashten', not because she has the 'Boris' factor, but because I appear to not only be confused over her sex, but also which is her forename and surname.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
Listen you pathetic attempt of an arsehole, you have been whining for days about how she should be taken out and shot for her beliefs because they happen not to co-incide with your warped view of the world. Don't try and obfiscate and pretend you are on her side with one paragraph. Feck right off and when you get there feck off again.
As usual you fail to understand anything because you are the biggest moron around.
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
I’m relaxed. The truth is Kates outdated, stereotype enforcing, prejudice riven views are winding up and upsetting so many Christians throughout the country. Kate does not represent Christian’s when she speaks like this, she is not representative of us Christians.
It's particularly disgusting pointing the finger at Sadiq Khan, who received death threats for voting for same-sex marriage in 2013.
I see the bigots on here continue to twist and exaggerate what she said, saddos.
Learn to read, shit for brains.
'a spokesman for Ms Forbes said: "The prime minister is a Hindu, the mayor of London is a Muslim.
"So many will wonder why the deputy first minister believes a woman holding Christian views should be disqualified from holding high office in Scotland."'
And this is what the Forbes campaign was responding to
'Speaking to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Swinney pointed out that several churches - including the Church of Scotland - conduct gay marriages.
He said: "All of the debate that has been aired about Kate Forbes' position for me has got absolutely nothing to do with Kate's faith.
"I'm a man of deep Christian faith but I do not hold the same views as Kate has set out in the course of the last couple of days.
"Kate is perfectly entitled to express her views, but party members are equally entitled to decide if someone who holds those views would be an appropriate individual to be SNP leader and first minister."'
He’s right - it’s one telling theme coming out of her pronouncements so far, that her views are THE Christian views. She represents the one true faith. Therefore if people dislike those views, it means someone of Christian faith cannot be first minister. It’s all a bit like “anyone not supporting Corbyn is a Tory”. When actually the vast majority of senior politicians in my lifetime have been practising Christians, far more indeed than the public at large.
The no true Christian fallacy.
Not sure. Christian adherents collectively are probably the largest identifiable group on the planet. Everyone knows they come in a number of different flavours. In the UK everyone who is sentient knows the churches are split on the gay issue.
No-one thinks that an group maybe 2 billion strong will think the same about things.
Maybe someone should tell Forbes, and those supporting the completely crackers "christians are being barred from office" line.
Indeed. I had some respect for Forbes in being open and honest about her views, even while they likely sank her chances of winning the leadership.
But, assuming she approved her spokesperson's comments (and there has been no public statement otherwise, as far as I'm aware) then she's either thick (doesn't understand how bonkers that argument is) or a thoroughly nasty piece of work (intentionally playing the Christian victim while stirring up ideas that people of other faiths are treated preferentially).
But they are. We are very comfortable having a go at Christian beliefs where we don’t think that they are sufficiently progressive. We are much, much more cautious about challenging Muslim beliefs or Hindu beliefs because we are scared of being judged racist.
Whether it is helpful to her to point out this hypocrisy is another matter.
Really? You think Sadiq Kahn would have won the Labour nomination for Mayor of London (let alone the election) if he'd said that he would vote against gay marriage and thought having children out of wedlock was wrong? If so, I have Boris's garden bridge to sell you.
I can possibly believe that Sunak could have won a Tory members' election with similar views, but very much doubt he would have got the nomination of MPs.
The kernel of a point that you have is that Sunak, Kahn etc may be less likely to be put on the spot by the media about their religious views. But they're also more forthcoming in volunteering their liberal credentials (see also Yousaf), probably due to fear that they will be stereotyped as socially conservative due to their religion.
ETA: And anyway, it's not about abusing her beliefs (I disagree with her, but respect right to her beliefs). I just wouldn't want her making laws based on those beliefs in a
country that I lived in.
I think we are in agreement. The point is that we are more comfortable challenging the personal views of Christians, as we did with Tim Farron. Those of other religions generally don’t get asked these kind of questions.
As to governance I do not agree with her views either but I am more interested in what her views are on economic policy.
Certainly lots of hot air on here from clowns ( not you David ) who worshipped Bozo, Truss and Sunak et all, you could not make it up. Same brains again and they would almost be dangerous
Her spokesperson's comments are completely dishonest. Nobody is criticising Forbes for being a Christian. They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people. If Khan or Sunak were doing that, they would get attacked the same as she is. In fact, I can guarantee they would get attacked way more than she is. To claim some kind of special victimhood for her as a Christian while spuriously dragging minority religions into the discussion isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous. I hadn't even heard of her a week ago, now I just want her to go away.
Indeed. I had some respect for Forbes in being open and honest about her views, even while they likely sank her chances of winning the leadership.
But, assuming she approved her spokesperson's comments (and there has been no public statement otherwise, as far as I'm aware) then she's either thick (doesn't understand how bonkers that argument is) or a thoroughly nasty piece of work (intentionally playing the Christian victim while stirring up ideas that people of other faiths are treated preferentially).
They are criticising her for saying she would impose her own views on personal and sexual morality on other people.
I've not been following the debates line by line, but I have not seen that type of imposition proposed.
AFAICS her position is more akin to Rees-Mogg's position as an orthodox Roman Catholic - holding personal views reflecting his interpretation of his faith on eg abortion, but following the Govt policy line.
She said she would have voted against equal marriage as her personal religious belief is that only a man and a woman can be married. That is what led to her being heavily criticised.
She never said she would impose her views on other people, just gave her own honest opinion to a hypothetical question.
You’re just posting Tory spam now? We need a new rule on PB against this.
Ah I see spam you agree with like the anti brexit spam of some posters - all good Spam you don't like - we must have a rule
I don’t know, it feels like if you just post some rebuttal shitpost you’re crossing a line. Carlotta didn’t even bother posting something cryptically ironic to excuse it.
Leave Carlotta alone.
If Scott can spam this site with FBPE tweets, and the Labour herd are permitted to constantly dribble about how the Tories are DOOMED and how they worship the ground Starmer works on, then she is perfectly entitled to post a Conservative viewpoint for counterbalance.
If you feel threatened by that then, quite aside from what that brittleness tells us all, you might feel better going and joining a blog that's nothing more than a partisan echo-chamber.
Especially given the verbal diahorrea spouted by gardenwhatever on a regular basis and given the closest the clown will have been to Scotland is at 30, 000 feet. I disagree with Carlotta on many things but she at least has some previous experience of Scotland. No idea about present but she is well more entitled to comment on Scotland than some pompous jerk from the other side of the world.
On the subject of cooking Broccoli (something close to my heart as it is the signature vegetable of my area of London), roasted broccoli stalk is a great Sunday treat.
Remove all the extraneous broccoli heads and boil them for the kids. Peel the tough outer layers of the stalk. Par boil, then roast in fat along with the potatoes and parsnips. Delicious.
We have broccoli every day as one of our 4 vegs with dinner.
'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.
“The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.
“It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.
“For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'
and
'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.
However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.
Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”
Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.
Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'
Personally I would sup with either of them with a very long spoon.
Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
Maybe you didn't see the news yesterday? MCUK is not so much astroturf as a spot of green paint that is still wet. Seems to have been set up to give spurious go-faster stripes to an attack on Mr Yousaf in re SNP leadership.
Remarkable. Surely all SNP supporters are honourable men and women and would not sink to such tactics.
Er, category error there. The chap who put out the posting seems to be a ScoTory. If a slightly unusual one.
'This reads: “The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is a democratic body that represents a wide cross-section of British Muslim communities. The MCB has not issued any comment on any matters pertaining to the SNP leadership race.
“The organisation referring to itself as the ‘Muslim Council of the UK’, and Mr Wasif Ahmad, described as the chairman of this organisation, has no association with the MCB or our network of affiliates across the UK.
“It is of note that the only online trace pertaining to this entity is a Facebook page that seems to have been created yesterday, and the only name reported to be associated with it is that of the aforementioned Mr Wasif Ahmad. We would ask that media outlets examine the credentials of this organisation and on whose behalf it speaks as a matter of priority.
“For reference, the MCB does not endorse political parties, or individual candidates, and aims to work with elected representatives from all parties for the common good.”'
and
'Ahmad also refused to name anyone else on the board of the “Muslim Council of the UK”, or even say how many other people were involved.
However, he insisted that there were other board members and they had been elected at some point.
Asked who had elected them, he replied: “The community.”
Ahmad further said that the reason there was no trace of the Muslim Council of UK online – other than a Facebook page created on February 21 – is because they had deleted their presence due to Islamophobic attacks.
Asked how he had managed to expunge all mention of the council from the internet, Ahmad would not say.'
Personally I would sup with either of them with a very long spoon.
Never heard of MCUK, which sounds a bit astroturfy. MCB themselves have quite a history of politics, despite being 'non-political'.
Maybe you didn't see the news yesterday? MCUK is not so much astroturf as a spot of green paint that is still wet. Seems to have been set up to give spurious go-faster stripes to an attack on Mr Yousaf in re SNP leadership.
Remarkable. Surely all SNP supporters are honourable men and women and would not sink to such tactics.
In this case it seems to have been ex SNP supporters
That's not very convincing, though, and I'm not an Alba supporter.
Re Wings, half of PB could be accused of the same thing considering how excitedly they posted exactly the same [edit] FB posting from the Council of etc.
And renting from a Tory supporting Unionist landlord? Bit like being surprised that chaps in Glasgow in green and white striped shirts like singing Celtic songs.
We are in the age of weird non aggression pacts: Wings + Alba + JK Rowling + SCons + PB Yoons + the religious right + Trump + Father Ted man + A Force For Good + The Speccie + Julie Bindel among many others seem to have found a fair bit of common ground. If Putin hadn’t shat the bed no doubt he would still be held up as a protector of Western Christian values and the family.
Comments
Certainly not war crimes because only states can goto war, other crimes such as terrorist activity would be hard to prove as all the witnesses are in another country. My suspicion is if allowed back she would be let to go free.
Prosecutor: “and what were the boys doing?”
Witness: “ singing Celtic songs”
P: “loudly?”
W: “SINGING CELTIC SONGS”
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19726991.indian-council-scotland-leaders-attacking-humza-yousaf-scottish-tory-allies/
@sharrond62
French and Dutch publishers stand firm on Roald Dahl rewrite row"
https://twitter.com/sharrond62/status/1628435163070726146
U.K. / Germany: Agree
Immigration increases unemployment: 27 / 36
Immigrants fill important jobs: 63 / 50
Immigration increases crime: 22 / 61
How, exactly?
“We have seen a shift that is quite remarkable in the UK,” said Madeleine Sumption, the director of the migration observatory at Oxford University, adding that the findings were in line with decreasing public concern about immigration since the 2016 EU referendum.
“There is speculation it is about the fact that the end of freedom of movement has created a feeling the UK now has more control,” she said.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/23/uk-now-among-most-accepting-countries-for-foreign-workers-survey-finds
And that’s the problem the government has with the Channel Crossings - it’s demonstrably not “controlled” even through the numbers in the scheme of things are small.
Next day he had sold out !!!!!
She comes across as an unpleasant piece of work, but that in itself is not illegal.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/shamima-begum-isis-interview-manchester-bombing-terror-attack-syria-airstrikes-a8784741.html?amp
The landlord link is trickier and there is what you say about NAPs but an active alliance? Without knowing hoe many properties Mr Lal owns, it's impossible to get a handle on it. (And would such an active anti-indy chap want to rent out to Alba?).
One thing one learns is the astounding capacity for coincidence that the world has. I've got two doppelgaengers of almost exactly the same name working in bizarrely close research topics to mine, and I'm not called Jock Macdonald or anything that frequent.
There's the Chingford Chard.
And of course the Parson's Green Parsnip.
VALUE?
And I’m happy for Carlotta to let us know when they revive the demon eyes gag.
(PS Now is the season to *think* about growing tomatoes. I still have some from last year in my freezer, and may a food parcel of some to Dublin for their 'Brexit-caused' vegetable shortage.
https://www.breakingnews.ie/business/fruit-and-vegetable-shortage-due-to-poor-weather-in-spain-irish-retailers-say-1436373.html )
Witness: "I'm sorry I don't do impressions; I'm a psychiatrist."
But the court decision, if it stands, sets a pretty awful precedent. As I understand it, the court basically said they had no standing to enquire into the circumstances, and the decision was entirely at the Home Secretary’s decision on grounds of public safety.
That is a questionable power to be handing to a politician.
You are taking a gamble that people will choose the "progressive" elements of any religion and discard the plainly (!!) bonkers ones.
But that is wholly arbitrary. Your sensible and of course we should is someone else's mortal sin. That's the problem with religion in politics - it is a lottery as to which edicts from on high are embraced and which rejected.
SKS doesnt answer
CHB thinks people want liars as PM
Just because they elected Johnson doesn't mean the fact SKS is now the biggest liar in front line politics is an asset
East Asia has the lowest crime of all
Somehow the Left pretends not to notice this
But hey, she got her 30-second soundbite for the retweets, so all is good in her little world.
She was an enthusiastic participant in slavery and other war crimes.
And, since ISIS were explicit that enslaving Yazidi women was about wiping out the Yazidi people, yes was participating in genocide according to the UN definitions.
I disagree with Carlotta on many things but she at least has some previous experience of Scotland. No idea about present but she is well more entitled to comment on Scotland than some pompous jerk from the other side of the world.
2 with an increase in Lab lead
2 with a narrowing of Lab lead
28 pt lead with YG only 14 with Savanta
Something very strange going on