The point Hitchens never addresses in his version of events is that Putin has always been a Russian imperialist. He's never respected Ukraine as an independent state. He admires Stalin. He has a bust of Peter The Great. He's built an autocratic state. He's always thought Russia was entitled to a sphere of influence. So what do you do when those states don't want to be part of that sphere of influence? Blaming it all on Bush's suggestion of bringing Ukraine into Nato which never went anywhere is just plain silly.
It's one of those classic arguments which devoids the principal actor of any agency or responsibility for their own choices, even if an attempt is made to claim that is not what the argument is doing. It makes everything someone else does the fault of another, even if their response to whatever 'provocation' exists is entirely disproportionate.
His statement that if the Ukrainians stop fighting the war would still continue as the americans would keep it going was just moronic. Who would be fighting it?
When challenged on that he then immediately claimed he didn't say it (even though his words were "But Ukraine could stop fighting tonight and the americans would continue to keep the war going") and that they were strawmanning him - that pushes him into pretty odious territory for me, because it shows him to be utterly dishonest in a very brazen way. Posing it as some intellectual position makes that worse.
The point Kisin makes about Crimea and Donbas, and how rhetoric on regaining it may not match reality is possibly right, since of course even if they might consider that unviable they wouldn't say it now.
My teenage kids do this. It's one of those bewildering trends.
Not the same, but anecdotally it's how I learned written Danish - watching the Forsyte Saga and countless other BBC shows in Denmark with Danish subtitles. You pick up the language without even trying. It was invaluable at uni, and for the last 15 years, I've been earning £10K/year in my spare time translating from Danish, and that's where it started.
Nowadays, of course, I just have subtitles on because I'm a bit deaf.
I watched a lot of Scandi-Noir over lockdown and one night found myself about 30 minutes into an episode of something before I realised I hadn't got the subtitles on but had been following along anyway.
It's 90% nice jumpers, walking around with the lights off and people saying "tak".
Watching The Bridge, while I wouldn't say I'd got to understanding much of the languages, I found I could tell who was speaking Danish and who Swedish quite easily.
This is the kind of thing where I go, get rid of the lot of them, including Lords and Ladies.
FFS, everyone knows Andrew is a deeply dodgy man, a man who if he wasn't in the Royal Family would be in jail. I think he's a nonce and most people agree.
I have a friend who was one of the royal personal protection team and he was responsible for one of the royals (not Andrew). We asked him for the gossip on Andrew. The only thing we found out was that Andrew once saved a cat.
The rumour is the NI deal will be published Monday and voted on same day. Isn't that the worst possible way to pass a deal? No consideration, scrutiny. Most won't have read it even?
Okay, that is not wise.
But didn't Johnson effectively do the same thing?
He did, but we know how well that turned out, and doing the same thing again begins to look careless.
Besides, part of Rishi's shtick is that he's more honourable, a better man, than that cad Johnson.
The signs on Rishi's deal are getting a bit worse. No text, then the rubbish about the King, now 3 line whip on the same day it is revealed?
The last may not be a commentary on the deal itself so much as recognition that no amount of talking will make passing it more likely even if it is good, since its just more time for those against it to mischaracterise it, so best it were done quickly.
'It's a view'
I wasn't discounting the possibility its a bad deal, just that the speed of forcing it through is probably not a sign one way or another.
The thing is that the goodness or badness of a real deal depends on how much you value the things gained and the things conceded, and there will be many different sets of valuations at play.
If (like Boris) you value British freedom to diverge politically and don't really care about non tariff barriers, December 2020 was a brilliant deal. Others would invert that calculation, in which case the deal was terrible.
Same for the May plan. Great at preventing people coming in whilst minimising the friction for goods, but at the cost of not taking back political control.
My teenage kids do this. It's one of those bewildering trends.
Not the same, but anecdotally it's how I learned written Danish - watching the Forsyte Saga and countless other BBC shows in Denmark with Danish subtitles. You pick up the language without even trying. It was invaluable at uni, and for the last 15 years, I've been earning £10K/year in my spare time translating from Danish, and that's where it started.
Nowadays, of course, I just have subtitles on because I'm a bit deaf.
Subtitles are commoner than they used to be, and probably better (they used to be pretty crap at times). Plus a house with teenagers is noisier than a house with OAPs. Conversely, it means you can turn the sound down that bit more if there is someone else doing something that needs peace.
Also, a lot of modern tellies have poor speakers (hence soundbars and even additional external speakers) and modern directors encourage actors to mumble in regional accents over intrusive background music.
Speaking of regional accents (the horror!) I was watching a bit of Our Friends in the North the other day. How did Daniel Craig's career survive his terrible effort at a North East accent in that?
I re-watched all of that recently, thought it was fabulous. I hadn't remembered Daniel Craig playing the dissolute Geordie. A far cry from James Bond - quite an eye-opener.
Great closing scene - him trudging over the bridge to Don't Look Back In Anger. I'd watch it all again if I wasn't already watching too much tv.
Hey no spoilers!
Oh god, yes, soz. Thought everybody'd seen it. No more from me on this topic.
The rumour is the NI deal will be published Monday and voted on same day. Isn't that the worst possible way to pass a deal? No consideration, scrutiny. Most won't have read it even?
Okay, that is not wise.
But didn't Johnson effectively do the same thing?
He did, but we know how well that turned out, and doing the same thing again begins to look careless.
Besides, part of Rishi's shtick is that he's more honourable, a better man, than that cad Johnson.
The signs on Rishi's deal are getting a bit worse. No text, then the rubbish about the King, now 3 line whip on the same day it is revealed?
The one thing that is certain is that Sunak will do the deal if he thinks it is right for the majority and to enable a new improved relationship with the EU for the benefit of everyone, no matter some dissidents in his party or indeed the DUP
Indeed this may well be his legacy as he clears up the mess Johnson left behind
These comments from you feel increasingly agitated. Stop worrying. If Rishi's deal is good, he will be rightly praised by all. If it's a pile of shit, it will hasten the end of his sorry premiership. Everyone's a winner.
I am most definitely not agitated but pleased a deal is in sight and no, it will not end his premiership as you so desire
The point Hitchens never addresses in his version of events is that Putin has always been a Russian imperialist. He's never respected Ukraine as an independent state. He admires Stalin. He has a bust of Peter The Great. He's built an autocratic state. He's always thought Russia was entitled to a sphere of influence. So what do you do when those states don't want to be part of that sphere of influence? Blaming it all on Bush's suggestion of bringing Ukraine into Nato which never went anywhere is just plain silly.
Well you know how Peter arrives at his positions.
What would my brother have said? ... Right. So I'll say the exact opposite.
Both brothers are/were so irritating.
One of them had the odd redeeming feature, though.
The point Hitchens never addresses in his version of events is that Putin has always been a Russian imperialist. He's never respected Ukraine as an independent state. He admires Stalin. He has a bust of Peter The Great. He's built an autocratic state. He's always thought Russia was entitled to a sphere of influence. So what do you do when those states don't want to be part of that sphere of influence? Blaming it all on Bush's suggestion of bringing Ukraine into Nato which never went anywhere is just plain silly.
Well you know how Peter arrives at his positions.
What would my brother have said? ... Right. So I'll say the exact opposite.
Thank you for bringing that insight to me. You've mentioned it before but I'd never considered it myself. All makes sense now!
On Putin, Hitchens appears to be the guy who thinks the biggest whore in town is actually a virgin.
“Good Law Project has seen emails revealing that former No.10 advisor Dominic Cummings referred an offer from two middlemen representing US-based Innova Medical Group within a single hour of being approached.” https://twitter.com/Kit_Yates_Maths/status/1629393006943170562
This may be outrageous. But imagine the outcry from people if we had not got the LFTs.
People forget we were in a crisis. I fear if normal government procurement systems were in place, we might have been waiting a year later...
This contract took place in July 2020. At that time Britain was opened up, indeed our PM was encouraging us to "eat out to help out". It wasn't in the first wave.
Wow. Four months after the start of the crisis. LFTs were still available well over a year later, free of charge and in massive numbers. We needed to procure them. Maybe this deal was corrupt; perhaps it was one of the things necessary to allow us to live our lives months later, in between the lockdowns?
I am not convinced that the LFT programme of testing was an effective means of disease control, and would like this to be an issue looked at in the covid enquiry.
LFTs have low sensitivity to disease, with a high false negative rate even before poor technique in the general public. Hence they are poorly suited to testing asymptomatic people as a form of screening in a general population such as schools or health care staff.
That poor sensitivity is less of an issue as a rapid diagnostic test in symptomatic patients or their immediate contacts.
They seem to correlate very well indeed with infectious disease, though. They're also highly specific.
While they require several orders of magnitude more viral particles to produce a positive result than does PCR, it seems that that's still an order of magnitude below the amount of virus required for someone to be actively infectious (in the case of Covid).
Also, that's the current state of the art. It's a new technology (as a cheap mass produced diagnostic device), and although the principles are quite simple, I'm pretty sure it could be refined to be substantially more sensitive.
(I am a fan of them, as they have so far now twice prevented me from infecting anyone at either home or work.)
I am not saying that they are useless. A positive test has some utility. Indeed when I developed a sore throat and headache and tested positive a year ago it was useful.
What I am questioning is whether a negative test in an asymptomatic population (such as schools, hospital and care home staff) is an effective way of controlling the spread of disease. That was how the bulk of them were used. Testing symptom free population has a low pick up rate, and there would be many false negatives unknowingly spreading disease.
I would like to see a proper analysis of this as part of the covid enquiry.
The point Hitchens never addresses in his version of events is that Putin has always been a Russian imperialist. He's never respected Ukraine as an independent state. He admires Stalin. He has a bust of Peter The Great. He's built an autocratic state. He's always thought Russia was entitled to a sphere of influence. So what do you do when those states don't want to be part of that sphere of influence? Blaming it all on Bush's suggestion of bringing Ukraine into Nato which never went anywhere is just plain silly.
Well you know how Peter arrives at his positions.
What would my brother have said? ... Right. So I'll say the exact opposite.
Both brothers are/were so irritating.
Yes, I prefer Chris (and by quite a margin) but I'm no adorer of him. One of those 'thinkers' who especially later in life seemed more intent on demonstrating he could do it rather than getting to somewhere interesting or useful.
The point Hitchens never addresses in his version of events is that Putin has always been a Russian imperialist. He's never respected Ukraine as an independent state. He admires Stalin. He has a bust of Peter The Great. He's built an autocratic state. He's always thought Russia was entitled to a sphere of influence. So what do you do when those states don't want to be part of that sphere of influence? Blaming it all on Bush's suggestion of bringing Ukraine into Nato which never went anywhere is just plain silly.
Well you know how Peter arrives at his positions.
What would my brother have said? ... Right. So I'll say the exact opposite.
Both brothers are/were so irritating.
One of them had the odd redeeming feature, though.
Christopher Hitchens had a big following in America as an intellectual, before social media gave a voice to any would-be pundit with an internet connection.
The point Hitchens never addresses in his version of events is that Putin has always been a Russian imperialist. He's never respected Ukraine as an independent state. He admires Stalin. He has a bust of Peter The Great. He's built an autocratic state. He's always thought Russia was entitled to a sphere of influence. So what do you do when those states don't want to be part of that sphere of influence? Blaming it all on Bush's suggestion of bringing Ukraine into Nato which never went anywhere is just plain silly.
It's one of those classic arguments which devoids the principal actor of any agency or responsibility for their own choices, even if an attempt is made to claim that is not what the argument is doing. It makes everything someone else does the fault of another, even if their response to whatever 'provocation' exists is entirely disproportionate.
His statement that if the Ukrainians stop fighting the war would still continue as the americans would keep it going was just moronic. Who would be fighting it?
When challenged on that he then immediately claimed he didn't say it (even though his words were "But Ukraine could stop fighting tonight and the americans would continue to keep the war going") and that they were strawmanning him - that pushes him into pretty odious territory for me, because it shows him to be utterly dishonest in a very brazen way. Posing it as some intellectual position makes that worse.
The point Kisin makes about Crimea and Donbas, and how rhetoric on regaining it may not match reality is possibly right, since of course even if they might consider that unviable they wouldn't say it now.
I would like to know what Kisin's preferred solution to the conflict is. I recall at the beginning of the war he wasn't that supportive of it. It sounds here like he thinks the answer is some kind of division of Ukraine with Crimea and Donbass being made independent or aligning with Russia with some kind of meaningful security solution for the remainder of Ukraine to avoid Russia just starting up again a few years down the line. If that can be achieved it should in my view be taken.
What is it with the "Would you prefer not to hear about Mothers Day emails?". Surely if you mind the emails, you also will mind the warning email to opt out of them?
Definitely on the path to becoming grumpy old man here.....
What is it with the "Would you prefer not to hear about Mothers Day emails?". Surely if you mind the emails, you also will mind the warning email to opt out of them?
Definitely on the path to becoming grumpy old man here.....
As someone whose mother passed over 20 years ago, it's not a big deal to me either way, but a chance to opt out is appreciated.
A minor point - I agree, the story is lovely - but the bit about her objecting to Tchaikovsky, isn’t.
She’s wrong. Cancelling Russian culture is morally problematic and strategically counterproductive. It empowers Putin.
It’s perhaps understandable that ordinary Ukrainians might think it a good idea, but we should tell them that they’re wrong and refuse.
Mr Meeks is one of the people I pay most attention to, on the occasions I check my Twitter. He’s generally pretty on the money.
Not this time!
It's a measure of how ridiculous people are getting these days that anyone would think that trying to erase Tchaikovsky would be in any sense an appropriate response to Soviet Putinite aggression in the 21st century.
Almost as stupid as trying to erase Christianity because you disapprove of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians.
A minor point - I agree, the story is lovely - but the bit about her objecting to Tchaikovsky, isn’t.
She’s wrong. Cancelling Russian culture is morally problematic and strategically counterproductive. It empowers Putin.
It’s perhaps understandable that ordinary Ukrainians might think it a good idea, but we should tell them that they’re wrong and refuse.
Mr Meeks is one of the people I pay most attention to, on the occasions I check my Twitter. He’s generally pretty on the money.
Not this time!
It's a measure of how ridiculous people are getting these days that anyone would think that trying to erase Tchaikovsky would be in any sense an appropriate response to Soviet Putinite aggression in the 21st century.
Almost as stupid as trying to erase Christianity because you disapprove of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians.
Anyone who tries to stop me listening to Borodin will die a very painful death.
I haven't worked out the details but it will involve pineapple pizzas, a certain retro English rock band and boiling oil.
“Good Law Project has seen emails revealing that former No.10 advisor Dominic Cummings referred an offer from two middlemen representing US-based Innova Medical Group within a single hour of being approached.” https://twitter.com/Kit_Yates_Maths/status/1629393006943170562
This may be outrageous. But imagine the outcry from people if we had not got the LFTs.
People forget we were in a crisis. I fear if normal government procurement systems were in place, we might have been waiting a year later...
This contract took place in July 2020. At that time Britain was opened up, indeed our PM was encouraging us to "eat out to help out". It wasn't in the first wave.
Wow. Four months after the start of the crisis. LFTs were still available well over a year later, free of charge and in massive numbers. We needed to procure them. Maybe this deal was corrupt; perhaps it was one of the things necessary to allow us to live our lives months later, in between the lockdowns?
I am not convinced that the LFT programme of testing was an effective means of disease control, and would like this to be an issue looked at in the covid enquiry.
LFTs have low sensitivity to disease, with a high false negative rate even before poor technique in the general public. Hence they are poorly suited to testing asymptomatic people as a form of screening in a general population such as schools or health care staff.
That poor sensitivity is less of an issue as a rapid diagnostic test in symptomatic patients or their immediate contacts.
They seem to correlate very well indeed with infectious disease, though. They're also highly specific.
While they require several orders of magnitude more viral particles to produce a positive result than does PCR, it seems that that's still an order of magnitude below the amount of virus required for someone to be actively infectious (in the case of Covid).
Also, that's the current state of the art. It's a new technology (as a cheap mass produced diagnostic device), and although the principles are quite simple, I'm pretty sure it could be refined to be substantially more sensitive.
(I am a fan of them, as they have so far now twice prevented me from infecting anyone at either home or work.)
I am not saying that they are useless. A positive test has some utility. Indeed when I developed a sore throat and headache and tested positive a year ago it was useful.
What I am questioning is whether a negative test in an asymptomatic population (such as schools, hospital and care home staff) is an effective way of controlling the spread of disease. That was how the bulk of them were used. Testing symptom free population has a low pick up rate, and there would be many false negatives unknowingly spreading disease.
I would like to see a proper analysis of this as part of the covid enquiry.
The main point of testing people without symptoms was to pick up positives a couple of days before they came symptomatic, meaning that person would avoid two days worth of spreading the virus.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Not much point the EU shifting its position -the problem is the DUP. They just cant stomach a Sinn Fein First Minister at Stormont.
Forget the DUP. They look like they will shed further votes in all directions - to the Alliance, to the non-mentalist UUP, and to the totally mental TUV. I believe that an election has been put off for a further year of DUP obstructionist non-government. Sunak should call their bluff and have elections in May.
The DUP are in fact, polling pretty strongly, right now.
The latest poll gives SF 32%, DUP 27%, TUV 5% (that 5% would transfer to DUP).
So, between them, the face-eating leopards are on 64%.
Like it or not, the GFA makes it sensible to vote for face-eating leopards. The growth in support for Alliance has come from other centrist parties.
I was so bored this morning I tried to fly IMMEDIATELY to Rangoon
I spent 3 hours getting all the paperwork in order, insurance, mad covid shit, endless red tape, got it all done, was congratulating myself, Evisa sorted, then I got an email telling me my instant e-visa would actually take 3 working days minimum
That’s when I popped a trammy, and drank half a bottle of 19 crimes shiraz, at 10 am
Turns out that’s quite superb for curing monotony. Add a couple of salty margaritas. Some modestly kinky porn. A chapter of Simon Sebag Montefiore’s WORLD HISTORY. An hour in the sun, half an our in the gym. The day passes
The point Hitchens never addresses in his version of events is that Putin has always been a Russian imperialist. He's never respected Ukraine as an independent state. He admires Stalin. He has a bust of Peter The Great. He's built an autocratic state. He's always thought Russia was entitled to a sphere of influence. So what do you do when those states don't want to be part of that sphere of influence? Blaming it all on Bush's suggestion of bringing Ukraine into Nato which never went anywhere is just plain silly.
It's one of those classic arguments which devoids the principal actor of any agency or responsibility for their own choices, even if an attempt is made to claim that is not what the argument is doing. It makes everything someone else does the fault of another, even if their response to whatever 'provocation' exists is entirely disproportionate.
His statement that if the Ukrainians stop fighting the war would still continue as the americans would keep it going was just moronic. Who would be fighting it?
When challenged on that he then immediately claimed he didn't say it (even though his words were "But Ukraine could stop fighting tonight and the americans would continue to keep the war going") and that they were strawmanning him - that pushes him into pretty odious territory for me, because it shows him to be utterly dishonest in a very brazen way. Posing it as some intellectual position makes that worse.
The point Kisin makes about Crimea and Donbas, and how rhetoric on regaining it may not match reality is possibly right, since of course even if they might consider that unviable they wouldn't say it now.
Hitchens is one of those people like Ann Coulter that I have a special dislike for.
They are highly intelligent, but at the same time, actively malevolent.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Everyone making a song and dance about Forbes' version of Christianity. And yet the Catholic Church, to which Bozo has converted, has many similar views, but nobody highlights this as a reason why Bozo, Mogg or any other Papist is unsuitable for high office.
I was so bored this morning I tried to fly IMMEDIATELY to Rangoon
I spent 3 hours getting all the paperwork in order, insurance, mad covid shit, endless red tape, got it all done, was congratulating myself, Evisa sorted, then I got an email telling me my instant e-visa would actually take 3 working days minimum
That’s when I popped a trammy, and drank half a bottle of 19 crimes shiraz, at 10 am
Turns out that’s quite superb for curing monotony. Add a couple of salty margaritas. Some modestly kinky porn. A chapter of Simon Sebag Montefiore’s WORLD HISTORY. An hour in the sun, half an our in the gym. The day passes
How’s the Montefiore? Does the schtick of following one “family” (I hear him talk about it on a podcast) work?
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
I was so bored this morning I tried to fly IMMEDIATELY to Rangoon
I spent 3 hours getting all the paperwork in order, insurance, mad covid shit, endless red tape, got it all done, was congratulating myself, Evisa sorted, then I got an email telling me my instant e-visa would actually take 3 working days minimum
That’s when I popped a trammy, and drank half a bottle of 19 crimes shiraz, at 10 am
Turns out that’s quite superb for curing monotony. Add a couple of salty margaritas. Some modestly kinky porn. A chapter of Simon Sebag Montefiore’s WORLD HISTORY. An hour in the sun, half an our in the gym. The day passes
How’s the Montefiore? Does the schtick of following one “family” (I hear him talk about it on a podcast) work?
It’s really really REALLY weird
But I’m about to pick up my laksa. I’ll reply more cogently anon
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Everyone making a song and dance about Forbes' version of Christianity. And yet the Catholic Church, to which Bozo has converted, has many similar views, but nobody highlights this as a reason why Bozo, Mogg or any other Papist is unsuitable for high office.
They would if Bozo said or wrote the same sorts of things as Forbes has.
If they were to forced to the think about it, the public would probably quite like Boris’s Augustinian philosophy.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Everyone making a song and dance about Forbes' version of Christianity. And yet the Catholic Church, to which Bozo has converted, has many similar views, but nobody highlights this as a reason why Bozo, Mogg or any other Papist is unsuitable for high office.
Because any old fool knows the likes of Bozo and JRM see religion more as guidelines rather than actual rules to live their life by.
When I saw that "major university or serious university in the West", I got stuck. Goodwin seems to be implying that major universities in the West are not serious. Probably he was just being careless in his writing, as almost all of us are from time to time.
But it does raise interesting questions. For example: Are major universities serious about these issues? Should they be?
I was so bored this morning I tried to fly IMMEDIATELY to Rangoon
I spent 3 hours getting all the paperwork in order, insurance, mad covid shit, endless red tape, got it all done, was congratulating myself, Evisa sorted, then I got an email telling me my instant e-visa would actually take 3 working days minimum
That’s when I popped a trammy, and drank half a bottle of 19 crimes shiraz, at 10 am
Turns out that’s quite superb for curing monotony. Add a couple of salty margaritas. Some modestly kinky porn. A chapter of Simon Sebag Montefiore’s WORLD HISTORY. An hour in the sun, half an our in the gym. The day passes
That is a seriously hazardous level of Weltschmerz, you are going to end up doing a Bourdain stranglewank.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Everyone making a song and dance about Forbes' version of Christianity. And yet the Catholic Church, to which Bozo has converted, has many similar views, but nobody highlights this as a reason why Bozo, Mogg or any other Papist is unsuitable for high office.
Everyone knows, however, that Boris believes not a word of it. He is someone who is completely without a sense of right and wrong.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Everyone making a song and dance about Forbes' version of Christianity. And yet the Catholic Church, to which Bozo has converted, has many similar views, but nobody highlights this as a reason why Bozo, Mogg or any other Papist is unsuitable for high office.
Everyone knows, however, that Boris believes not a word of it. He is someone who is completely without a sense of right and wrong.
And JRM got away with it by not getting high enough for it to matter.
But otherwise, the only two answers are a) 'I will vote for freedoms, even if my personal concience won't let me use them" or b) stand in an explicitly theocratic platform.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Everyone making a song and dance about Forbes' version of Christianity. And yet the Catholic Church, to which Bozo has converted, has many similar views, but nobody highlights this as a reason why Bozo, Mogg or any other Papist is unsuitable for high office.
They would if Bozo said or wrote the same sorts of things as Forbes has.
If they were to forced to the think about it, the public would probably quite like Boris’s Augustinian philosophy.
Perhaps "Augustinian philosophy" is a bit highfalutin for a dedication to shagging every woman in sight.
I was so bored this morning I tried to fly IMMEDIATELY to Rangoon
I spent 3 hours getting all the paperwork in order, insurance, mad covid shit, endless red tape, got it all done, was congratulating myself, Evisa sorted, then I got an email telling me my instant e-visa would actually take 3 working days minimum
That’s when I popped a trammy, and drank half a bottle of 19 crimes shiraz, at 10 am
Turns out that’s quite superb for curing monotony. Add a couple of salty margaritas. Some modestly kinky porn. A chapter of Simon Sebag Montefiore’s WORLD HISTORY. An hour in the sun, half an our in the gym. The day passes
That is a seriously hazardous level of Weltschmerz, you are going to end up doing a Bourdain stranglewank.
His suicide at 62 does haunt me. He and I have/had similar life histories (tho he was obviously much more famous)
Heroin and risk taking, then money and success - and still more risk taking
Why did he kill himself? Cuckolded? Bored? A terrible mistake? The pointlessness of old age after such a fun life?
I love his shows, and I’ve heard him use lines that are - word perfect - things I have said myself. Not claiming they are amazing, just uncannily similar in world-outlook
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Everyone making a song and dance about Forbes' version of Christianity. And yet the Catholic Church, to which Bozo has converted, has many similar views, but nobody highlights this as a reason why Bozo, Mogg or any other Papist is unsuitable for high office.
To be fair, even if they do hold those views sincerely, they would come fairly low down on the long list of why those two shouldn't hold high office.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Everyone making a song and dance about Forbes' version of Christianity. And yet the Catholic Church, to which Bozo has converted, has many similar views, but nobody highlights this as a reason why Bozo, Mogg or any other Papist is unsuitable for high office.
Everyone knows, however, that Boris believes not a word of it. He is someone who is completely without a sense of right and wrong.
And JRM got away with it by not getting high enough for it to matter.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Surely the Nits can’t be mad enough to elect the South Uist Salafist?
She will never escape this. It will be hurled at her continuously and do endless damage
It’s even more over for her than it was before.
Not per the betting it isn't. Forbes and Yousaf are either side of evens and close. Regan - who does come over as the most lightweight to me - is the one out with the washing.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Surely the Nits can’t be mad enough to elect the South Uist Salafist?
She will never escape this. It will be hurled at her continuously and do endless damage
It’s even more over for her than it was before.
Not per the betting it isn't. Forbes and Yousaf are either side of evens and close. Regan - who does come over as the most lightweight to me - is the one out with the washing.
I’m with Leon on this. It’s the reason I want her to win.
Kates views on no sex before marriage is laugh out loud funny. But the thought of her being a parent to someone who is gay isn’t funny at all. So I think this makes her my preference for winning this, because her prejudice will be very much in the spotlight throughout her time as leader, this will get people talking and arguing and thinking about prejudice based positions like opposing all sex marriage, and that would be really good, exactly what the world actually needs to focus on outdated outgoing philosophies built on prejudice, and expunge them as soon as possible now. So I can see how a lot of good can come from such a senior UK political leader holding such views as hers, helping to maintain the spotlight on such things.
In terms of the independence politics of it, none of them seem to have come up with very good responses in interviews about how to achieve it from here. I don’t understand why there is so much hostility to using all Westminster elections and Scottish government elections as pleblicites on support for independence - it’s a fantastic idea for maximising SNP vote every time.
The best result for unionists, would be Ash, as her interviews are car crashes, she’s out of her depth. The worst result for Conservatives would be Kate, as she seeks independence but has social and economic values closer to conservatives. Best result for Labour, Kate, for same reasons in reverse to why she is worst for Conservative vote.
Who do I think wins? Kate. Even if Humza has the SNP establishment support, for, as someone wittily put it, applauding everything Sturgeon said and done like a demented seal, I still don’t think that’s enough to stop Kate now.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Everyone making a song and dance about Forbes' version of Christianity. And yet the Catholic Church, to which Bozo has converted, has many similar views, but nobody highlights this as a reason why Bozo, Mogg or any other Papist is unsuitable for high office.
Because any old fool knows the likes of Bozo and JRM see religion more as guidelines rather than actual rules to live their life by.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Everyone making a song and dance about Forbes' version of Christianity. And yet the Catholic Church, to which Bozo has converted, has many similar views, but nobody highlights this as a reason why Bozo, Mogg or any other Papist is unsuitable for high office.
Because any old fool knows the likes of Bozo and JRM see religion more as guidelines rather than actual rules to live their life by.
I think boris is more a Borgia Pope kind of catholic.
The point Hitchens never addresses in his version of events is that Putin has always been a Russian imperialist. He's never respected Ukraine as an independent state. He admires Stalin. He has a bust of Peter The Great. He's built an autocratic state. He's always thought Russia was entitled to a sphere of influence. So what do you do when those states don't want to be part of that sphere of influence? Blaming it all on Bush's suggestion of bringing Ukraine into Nato which never went anywhere is just plain silly.
It's one of those classic arguments which devoids the principal actor of any agency or responsibility for their own choices, even if an attempt is made to claim that is not what the argument is doing. It makes everything someone else does the fault of another, even if their response to whatever 'provocation' exists is entirely disproportionate.
His statement that if the Ukrainians stop fighting the war would still continue as the americans would keep it going was just moronic. Who would be fighting it?
When challenged on that he then immediately claimed he didn't say it (even though his words were "But Ukraine could stop fighting tonight and the americans would continue to keep the war going") and that they were strawmanning him - that pushes him into pretty odious territory for me, because it shows him to be utterly dishonest in a very brazen way. Posing it as some intellectual position makes that worse.
The point Kisin makes about Crimea and Donbas, and how rhetoric on regaining it may not match reality is possibly right, since of course even if they might consider that unviable they wouldn't say it now.
Hitchens is one of those people like Ann Coulter that I have a special dislike for.
They are highly intelligent, but at the same time, actively malevolent.
I think Hitchens genuinely believes what he is saying. I wouldn't accuse him of speaking untruths. He's either blinkered or ignorant. Though as they say, that isn't an excuse.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Everyone making a song and dance about Forbes' version of Christianity. And yet the Catholic Church, to which Bozo has converted, has many similar views, but nobody highlights this as a reason why Bozo, Mogg or any other Papist is unsuitable for high office.
They would if Bozo said or wrote the same sorts of things as Forbes has.
If they were to forced to the think about it, the public would probably quite like Boris’s Augustinian philosophy.
Perhaps "Augustinian philosophy" is a bit highfalutin for a dedication to shagging every woman in sight.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
The simple fact is the Free Church has some very strong views. Kate Forbes is not merely a member of the congregation, she is culturally of that Church. Any doctrine they have, she will believe, I think. Including that other Christians, who do not live the Bible in this way are not true Christians. That will be interesting, if it comes out.
“The 3-day job is now 12,000% behind schedule, easily the same order of magnitude over budget, has an H&S record from their worst nightmares, and as yet hasn't come close to achieving a single one of its stated objectives.
Which U.K. government dept. Should he apply to?”
Fergusson Marine….
Tut tut, bad spelling and you Scottish as well
It’s a good idea - Putin is definitely in the New Upper 10,000. So the reward for failure needs to be a job with more money.
“The 3-day job is now 12,000% behind schedule, easily the same order of magnitude over budget, has an H&S record from their worst nightmares, and as yet hasn't come close to achieving a single one of its stated objectives.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Surely the Nits can’t be mad enough to elect the South Uist Salafist?
She will never escape this. It will be hurled at her continuously and do endless damage
It’s even more over for her than it was before.
Not per the betting it isn't. Forbes and Yousaf are either side of evens and close. Regan - who does come over as the most lightweight to me - is the one out with the washing.
I think it is fair to say that whoever leads the SNP next, will be a big step down from Sturgeon.
So on the betting front Labour at minimum gaining seats is a good bet, outside chance they end up most seats too, depending on how the UK is looking.
I think the attack of Labour being reliant on the SNP will fall on deaf ears this time around, Starmer has not only shut it down, none of the candidates seem like they can outdo him.
Every politician, every person, is entitled to hold views guided by faith, but the people of Scotland must have confidence that the man or woman who leads their country will vehemently defend the battles on human rights that have already been won and passionately fight the battles on human rights that are yet to come. And Kate Forbes, although a confident, able minister, fails that test.
I was so bored this morning I tried to fly IMMEDIATELY to Rangoon
I spent 3 hours getting all the paperwork in order, insurance, mad covid shit, endless red tape, got it all done, was congratulating myself, Evisa sorted, then I got an email telling me my instant e-visa would actually take 3 working days minimum
That’s when I popped a trammy, and drank half a bottle of 19 crimes shiraz, at 10 am
Turns out that’s quite superb for curing monotony. Add a couple of salty margaritas. Some modestly kinky porn. A chapter of Simon Sebag Montefiore’s WORLD HISTORY. An hour in the sun, half an our in the gym. The day passes
How can you live like that FFS? I’ve been working diligently for 22 years as a solicitor and I’ve nearly earned enough to buy a 2014 Nissan Juke. If you’d applied yourself you could have had the same.
I was so bored this morning I tried to fly IMMEDIATELY to Rangoon
I spent 3 hours getting all the paperwork in order, insurance, mad covid shit, endless red tape, got it all done, was congratulating myself, Evisa sorted, then I got an email telling me my instant e-visa would actually take 3 working days minimum
That’s when I popped a trammy, and drank half a bottle of 19 crimes shiraz, at 10 am
Turns out that’s quite superb for curing monotony. Add a couple of salty margaritas. Some modestly kinky porn. A chapter of Simon Sebag Montefiore’s WORLD HISTORY. An hour in the sun, half an our in the gym. The day passes
How can you live like that FFS? I’ve been working diligently for 22 years as a solicitor and I’ve nearly earned enough to buy a 2014 Nissan Juke. If you’d applied yourself you could have had the same.
Do you honestly think any of this is real? It's fiction.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Surely the Nits can’t be mad enough to elect the South Uist Salafist?
She will never escape this. It will be hurled at her continuously and do endless damage
It’s even more over for her than it was before.
Not per the betting it isn't. Forbes and Yousaf are either side of evens and close. Regan - who does come over as the most lightweight to me - is the one out with the washing.
I’m with Leon on this. It’s the reason I want her to win.
Kates views on no sex before marriage is laugh out loud funny. But the thought of her being a parent to someone who is gay isn’t funny at all. So I think this makes her my preference for winning this, because her prejudice will be very much in the spotlight throughout her time as leader, this will get people talking and arguing and thinking about prejudice based positions like opposing all sex marriage, and that would be really good, exactly what the world actually needs to focus on outdated outgoing philosophies built on prejudice, and expunge them as soon as possible now. So I can see how a lot of good can come from such a senior UK political leader holding such views as hers, helping to maintain the spotlight on such things.
In terms of the independence politics of it, none of them seem to have come up with very good responses in interviews about how to achieve it from here. I don’t understand why there is so much hostility to using all Westminster elections and Scottish government elections as pleblicites on support for independence - it’s a fantastic idea for maximising SNP vote every time.
The best result for unionists, would be Ash, as her interviews are car crashes, she’s out of her depth. The worst result for Conservatives would be Kate, as she seeks independence but has social and economic values closer to conservatives. Best result for Labour, Kate, for same reasons in reverse to why she is worst for Conservative vote.
Who do I think wins? Kate. Even if Humza has the SNP establishment support, for, as someone wittily put it, applauding everything Sturgeon said and done like a demented seal, I still don’t think that’s enough to stop Kate now.
Bit all over the place here, confused London by looks of it.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Surely the Nits can’t be mad enough to elect the South Uist Salafist?
She will never escape this. It will be hurled at her continuously and do endless damage
It’s even more over for her than it was before.
Not per the betting it isn't. Forbes and Yousaf are either side of evens and close. Regan - who does come over as the most lightweight to me - is the one out with the washing.
You frothers have to realise it is not southern snowflakes that are voting here, it is real people who care about the real world not imaginary concerns on who is married to who. People do not give a shit who other people are married or not married to , they have more to bother them.
The point Hitchens never addresses in his version of events is that Putin has always been a Russian imperialist. He's never respected Ukraine as an independent state. He admires Stalin. He has a bust of Peter The Great. He's built an autocratic state. He's always thought Russia was entitled to a sphere of influence. So what do you do when those states don't want to be part of that sphere of influence? Blaming it all on Bush's suggestion of bringing Ukraine into Nato which never went anywhere is just plain silly.
It's one of those classic arguments which devoids the principal actor of any agency or responsibility for their own choices, even if an attempt is made to claim that is not what the argument is doing. It makes everything someone else does the fault of another, even if their response to whatever 'provocation' exists is entirely disproportionate.
His statement that if the Ukrainians stop fighting the war would still continue as the americans would keep it going was just moronic. Who would be fighting it?
When challenged on that he then immediately claimed he didn't say it (even though his words were "But Ukraine could stop fighting tonight and the americans would continue to keep the war going") and that they were strawmanning him - that pushes him into pretty odious territory for me, because it shows him to be utterly dishonest in a very brazen way. Posing it as some intellectual position makes that worse.
The point Kisin makes about Crimea and Donbas, and how rhetoric on regaining it may not match reality is possibly right, since of course even if they might consider that unviable they wouldn't say it now.
Hitchens is one of those people like Ann Coulter that I have a special dislike for.
They are highly intelligent, but at the same time, actively malevolent.
He's bonkers, like his brother.
I long ago worked out that there's no event or outcome that would ever please Peter Hitchens.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
The simple fact is the Free Church has some very strong views. Kate Forbes is not merely a member of the congregation, she is culturally of that Church. Any doctrine they have, she will believe, I think. Including that other Christians, who do not live the Bible in this way are not true Christians. That will be interesting, if it comes out.
36% of 2019 Tory voters saying Starmer understands the problems facing the UK and has a problem to address them, is surely a terrible statistic for the Tories.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Surely the Nits can’t be mad enough to elect the South Uist Salafist?
She will never escape this. It will be hurled at her continuously and do endless damage
It’s even more over for her than it was before.
Not per the betting it isn't. Forbes and Yousaf are either side of evens and close. Regan - who does come over as the most lightweight to me - is the one out with the washing.
I’m with Leon on this. It’s the reason I want her to win.
Kates views on no sex before marriage is laugh out loud funny. But the thought of her being a parent to someone who is gay isn’t funny at all. So I think this makes her my preference for winning this, because her prejudice will be very much in the spotlight throughout her time as leader, this will get people talking and arguing and thinking about prejudice based positions like opposing all sex marriage, and that would be really good, exactly what the world actually needs to focus on outdated outgoing philosophies built on prejudice, and expunge them as soon as possible now. So I can see how a lot of good can come from such a senior UK political leader holding such views as hers, helping to maintain the spotlight on such things.
In terms of the independence politics of it, none of them seem to have come up with very good responses in interviews about how to achieve it from here. I don’t understand why there is so much hostility to using all Westminster elections and Scottish government elections as pleblicites on support for independence - it’s a fantastic idea for maximising SNP vote every time.
The best result for unionists, would be Ash, as her interviews are car crashes, she’s out of her depth. The worst result for Conservatives would be Kate, as she seeks independence but has social and economic values closer to conservatives. Best result for Labour, Kate, for same reasons in reverse to why she is worst for Conservative vote.
Who do I think wins? Kate. Even if Humza has the SNP establishment support, for, as someone wittily put it, applauding everything Sturgeon said and done like a demented seal, I still don’t think that’s enough to stop Kate now.
I have a friend like this.
Now and again, you do meet someone your age (or younger) who are very religious and don't believe in sex before marriage.
The point Hitchens never addresses in his version of events is that Putin has always been a Russian imperialist. He's never respected Ukraine as an independent state. He admires Stalin. He has a bust of Peter The Great. He's built an autocratic state. He's always thought Russia was entitled to a sphere of influence. So what do you do when those states don't want to be part of that sphere of influence? Blaming it all on Bush's suggestion of bringing Ukraine into Nato which never went anywhere is just plain silly.
It's one of those classic arguments which devoids the principal actor of any agency or responsibility for their own choices, even if an attempt is made to claim that is not what the argument is doing. It makes everything someone else does the fault of another, even if their response to whatever 'provocation' exists is entirely disproportionate.
His statement that if the Ukrainians stop fighting the war would still continue as the americans would keep it going was just moronic. Who would be fighting it?
When challenged on that he then immediately claimed he didn't say it (even though his words were "But Ukraine could stop fighting tonight and the americans would continue to keep the war going") and that they were strawmanning him - that pushes him into pretty odious territory for me, because it shows him to be utterly dishonest in a very brazen way. Posing it as some intellectual position makes that worse.
The point Kisin makes about Crimea and Donbas, and how rhetoric on regaining it may not match reality is possibly right, since of course even if they might consider that unviable they wouldn't say it now.
I would like to know what Kisin's preferred solution to the conflict is. I recall at the beginning of the war he wasn't that supportive of it. It sounds here like he thinks the answer is some kind of division of Ukraine with Crimea and Donbass being made independent or aligning with Russia with some kind of meaningful security solution for the remainder of Ukraine to avoid Russia just starting up again a few years down the line. If that can be achieved it should in my view be taken.
Yes till next time they want another chunk, Ukranians are better fighting to the bitter end now rather than being gobbled up a bit at a time.
The point Hitchens never addresses in his version of events is that Putin has always been a Russian imperialist. He's never respected Ukraine as an independent state. He admires Stalin. He has a bust of Peter The Great. He's built an autocratic state. He's always thought Russia was entitled to a sphere of influence. So what do you do when those states don't want to be part of that sphere of influence? Blaming it all on Bush's suggestion of bringing Ukraine into Nato which never went anywhere is just plain silly.
It's one of those classic arguments which devoids the principal actor of any agency or responsibility for their own choices, even if an attempt is made to claim that is not what the argument is doing. It makes everything someone else does the fault of another, even if their response to whatever 'provocation' exists is entirely disproportionate.
His statement that if the Ukrainians stop fighting the war would still continue as the americans would keep it going was just moronic. Who would be fighting it?
When challenged on that he then immediately claimed he didn't say it (even though his words were "But Ukraine could stop fighting tonight and the americans would continue to keep the war going") and that they were strawmanning him - that pushes him into pretty odious territory for me, because it shows him to be utterly dishonest in a very brazen way. Posing it as some intellectual position makes that worse.
The point Kisin makes about Crimea and Donbas, and how rhetoric on regaining it may not match reality is possibly right, since of course even if they might consider that unviable they wouldn't say it now.
Hitchens is one of those people like Ann Coulter that I have a special dislike for.
They are highly intelligent, but at the same time, actively malevolent.
He's bonkers, like his brother.
I long ago worked out that there's no event or outcome that would ever please Peter Hitchens.
He's driven by contrarianism and negativity.
Chris Hitchens was not bonkers. He was a brilliant journalist, polemicist, and speaker (when on form)
And I disagreed with him on most things. But I acknowledge the talent, verve and brio
Martin Amis’ book on their friendship - INSIDE STORY (terrible title) - is good on this
Every politician, every person, is entitled to hold views guided by faith, but the people of Scotland must have confidence that the man or woman who leads their country will vehemently defend the battles on human rights that have already been won and passionately fight the battles on human rights that are yet to come. And Kate Forbes, although a confident, able minister, fails that test.
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Surely the Nits can’t be mad enough to elect the South Uist Salafist?
She will never escape this. It will be hurled at her continuously and do endless damage
It’s even more over for her than it was before.
Not per the betting it isn't. Forbes and Yousaf are either side of evens and close. Regan - who does come over as the most lightweight to me - is the one out with the washing.
You frothers have to realise it is not southern snowflakes that are voting here, it is real people who care about the real world not imaginary concerns on who is married to who. People do not give a shit who other people are married or not married to , they have more to bother them.
But this stuff really bothers FORBES (and also lots of Woke or even just progressive SNP MPs and activists)
Forbes as leader means years of bitter infighting. Possibly splits. How can someone like Mhairi Black stay in the party with Forbes as leader, after her Twitter tirade?
I still don’t understand why Angus Robertson didnae stand. He’d be firm favorite now
The point Hitchens never addresses in his version of events is that Putin has always been a Russian imperialist. He's never respected Ukraine as an independent state. He admires Stalin. He has a bust of Peter The Great. He's built an autocratic state. He's always thought Russia was entitled to a sphere of influence. So what do you do when those states don't want to be part of that sphere of influence? Blaming it all on Bush's suggestion of bringing Ukraine into Nato which never went anywhere is just plain silly.
It's one of those classic arguments which devoids the principal actor of any agency or responsibility for their own choices, even if an attempt is made to claim that is not what the argument is doing. It makes everything someone else does the fault of another, even if their response to whatever 'provocation' exists is entirely disproportionate.
His statement that if the Ukrainians stop fighting the war would still continue as the americans would keep it going was just moronic. Who would be fighting it?
When challenged on that he then immediately claimed he didn't say it (even though his words were "But Ukraine could stop fighting tonight and the americans would continue to keep the war going") and that they were strawmanning him - that pushes him into pretty odious territory for me, because it shows him to be utterly dishonest in a very brazen way. Posing it as some intellectual position makes that worse.
The point Kisin makes about Crimea and Donbas, and how rhetoric on regaining it may not match reality is possibly right, since of course even if they might consider that unviable they wouldn't say it now.
Hitchens is one of those people like Ann Coulter that I have a special dislike for.
They are highly intelligent, but at the same time, actively malevolent.
He's bonkers, like his brother.
I long ago worked out that there's no event or outcome that would ever please Peter Hitchens.
He's driven by contrarianism and negativity.
Chris Hitchens was not bonkers. He was a brilliant journalist, polemicist, and speaker (when on form)
And I disagreed with him on most things. But I acknowledge the talent, verve and brio
Martin Amis’ book on their friendship - INSIDE STORY (terrible title) - is good on this
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Surely the Nits can’t be mad enough to elect the South Uist Salafist?
She will never escape this. It will be hurled at her continuously and do endless damage
It’s even more over for her than it was before.
Not per the betting it isn't. Forbes and Yousaf are either side of evens and close. Regan - who does come over as the most lightweight to me - is the one out with the washing.
I’m with Leon on this. It’s the reason I want her to win.
Kates views on no sex before marriage is laugh out loud funny. But the thought of her being a parent to someone who is gay isn’t funny at all. So I think this makes her my preference for winning this, because her prejudice will be very much in the spotlight throughout her time as leader, this will get people talking and arguing and thinking about prejudice based positions like opposing all sex marriage, and that would be really good, exactly what the world actually needs to focus on outdated outgoing philosophies built on prejudice, and expunge them as soon as possible now. So I can see how a lot of good can come from such a senior UK political leader holding such views as hers, helping to maintain the spotlight on such things.
In terms of the independence politics of it, none of them seem to have come up with very good responses in interviews about how to achieve it from here. I don’t understand why there is so much hostility to using all Westminster elections and Scottish government elections as pleblicites on support for independence - it’s a fantastic idea for maximising SNP vote every time.
The best result for unionists, would be Ash, as her interviews are car crashes, she’s out of her depth. The worst result for Conservatives would be Kate, as she seeks independence but has social and economic values closer to conservatives. Best result for Labour, Kate, for same reasons in reverse to why she is worst for Conservative vote.
Who do I think wins? Kate. Even if Humza has the SNP establishment support, for, as someone wittily put it, applauding everything Sturgeon said and done like a demented seal, I still don’t think that’s enough to stop Kate now.
I have a friend like this.
Now and again, you do meet someone your age (or younger) who are very religious and don't believe in sex before marriage.
They still exist.
Its an extreme view, but so is the view that people should just sleep around all the time, which is what a lot of young people feel pressure to do. Neither are conducive to long term human happiness, IMO.
Don't know much about Scottish politics, but the SNP seem to have had the great good fortune to have had two political giants in succession. These three seem to be a downgrade?
The point Hitchens never addresses in his version of events is that Putin has always been a Russian imperialist. He's never respected Ukraine as an independent state. He admires Stalin. He has a bust of Peter The Great. He's built an autocratic state. He's always thought Russia was entitled to a sphere of influence. So what do you do when those states don't want to be part of that sphere of influence? Blaming it all on Bush's suggestion of bringing Ukraine into Nato which never went anywhere is just plain silly.
It's one of those classic arguments which devoids the principal actor of any agency or responsibility for their own choices, even if an attempt is made to claim that is not what the argument is doing. It makes everything someone else does the fault of another, even if their response to whatever 'provocation' exists is entirely disproportionate.
His statement that if the Ukrainians stop fighting the war would still continue as the americans would keep it going was just moronic. Who would be fighting it?
When challenged on that he then immediately claimed he didn't say it (even though his words were "But Ukraine could stop fighting tonight and the americans would continue to keep the war going") and that they were strawmanning him - that pushes him into pretty odious territory for me, because it shows him to be utterly dishonest in a very brazen way. Posing it as some intellectual position makes that worse.
The point Kisin makes about Crimea and Donbas, and how rhetoric on regaining it may not match reality is possibly right, since of course even if they might consider that unviable they wouldn't say it now.
Hitchens is one of those people like Ann Coulter that I have a special dislike for.
They are highly intelligent, but at the same time, actively malevolent.
He's bonkers, like his brother.
I long ago worked out that there's no event or outcome that would ever please Peter Hitchens.
He's driven by contrarianism and negativity.
Chris Hitchens was not bonkers. He was a brilliant journalist, polemicist, and speaker (when on form)
And I disagreed with him on most things. But I acknowledge the talent, verve and brio
Martin Amis’ book on their friendship - INSIDE STORY (terrible title) - is good on this
No question which one was the bright brother.
Certainly the more charismatic. Peter H always feels faintly tragic, to me. He tries to be polemical like his brother but he’s too incoherent and confusing to bring it off
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Surely the Nits can’t be mad enough to elect the South Uist Salafist?
She will never escape this. It will be hurled at her continuously and do endless damage
It’s even more over for her than it was before.
Not per the betting it isn't. Forbes and Yousaf are either side of evens and close. Regan - who does come over as the most lightweight to me - is the one out with the washing.
You frothers have to realise it is not southern snowflakes that are voting here, it is real people who care about the real world not imaginary concerns on who is married to who. People do not give a shit who other people are married or not married to , they have more to bother them.
But this stuff really bothers FORBES (and also lots of Woke or even just progressive SNP MPs and activists)
Forbes as leader means years of bitter infighting. Possibly splits. How can someone like Mhairi Black stay in the party with Forbes as leader, after her Twitter tirade?
I still don’t understand why Angus Robertson didnae stand. He’d be firm favorite now
Black going would be a bonus, but no chance she will leave the gravy train. Robertson was obviously not keen re the skeletons coming out the cupboard, same as Sturgeon, they are all in same stuff.
Don't know much about Scottish politics, but the SNP seem to have had the great good fortune to have had two political giants in succession. These three seem to be a downgrade?
I’ll say it again the best result for the SNP - from this bad position - is Ash Regan winning, and holding the fort, and proving at least reasonably competent. None of the three can lead a charge to Indy, there is no route and they don’t have the authority. Yusaf is a nasty piece of work
Then in 5-10 years an older, wiser Forbes could take over, with her views mellowed, and more essential experience, and she really COULD be a threat to UKG
I was so bored this morning I tried to fly IMMEDIATELY to Rangoon
I spent 3 hours getting all the paperwork in order, insurance, mad covid shit, endless red tape, got it all done, was congratulating myself, Evisa sorted, then I got an email telling me my instant e-visa would actually take 3 working days minimum
That’s when I popped a trammy, and drank half a bottle of 19 crimes shiraz, at 10 am
Turns out that’s quite superb for curing monotony. Add a couple of salty margaritas. Some modestly kinky porn. A chapter of Simon Sebag Montefiore’s WORLD HISTORY. An hour in the sun, half an our in the gym. The day passes
How can you live like that FFS? I’ve been working diligently for 22 years as a solicitor and I’ve nearly earned enough to buy a 2014 Nissan Juke. If you’d applied yourself you could have had the same.
Do you honestly think any of this is real? It's fiction.
I can assure you that my imminent purchase of a 64 Reg Automatic Nissan Juke is very real!
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Surely the Nits can’t be mad enough to elect the South Uist Salafist?
She will never escape this. It will be hurled at her continuously and do endless damage
South Uist?!
Ms Forbes is not from Uibhist a Deas; she represents a chunk of the inner isles and the mainland; and most of all Uibhist a Deas is the last place in the world to be a FCS stronghold.
Hint: there is a whacking great statue on a hill there. Bana Thighearna nan Eilean, aka Our Lady of the Isles.
1. Why on earth do these people think the current Tory party is worth funding? 2. How do they afford such prices without the tax cuts we're told are essential for the economy?
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
Surely the Nits can’t be mad enough to elect the South Uist Salafist?
She will never escape this. It will be hurled at her continuously and do endless damage
It’s even more over for her than it was before.
Not per the betting it isn't. Forbes and Yousaf are either side of evens and close. Regan - who does come over as the most lightweight to me - is the one out with the washing.
The betting is wrong.
It's certainly volatile and interesting. KF has yoyo'd from 2 to 15 and back to 2 again. Regan has been 5 and 25.
Are you discounting that good members poll for Forbes then?
I was so bored this morning I tried to fly IMMEDIATELY to Rangoon
I spent 3 hours getting all the paperwork in order, insurance, mad covid shit, endless red tape, got it all done, was congratulating myself, Evisa sorted, then I got an email telling me my instant e-visa would actually take 3 working days minimum
That’s when I popped a trammy, and drank half a bottle of 19 crimes shiraz, at 10 am
Turns out that’s quite superb for curing monotony. Add a couple of salty margaritas. Some modestly kinky porn. A chapter of Simon Sebag Montefiore’s WORLD HISTORY. An hour in the sun, half an our in the gym. The day passes
How can you live like that FFS? I’ve been working diligently for 22 years as a solicitor and I’ve nearly earned enough to buy a 2014 Nissan Juke. If you’d applied yourself you could have had the same.
Do you honestly think any of this is real? It's fiction.
I can assure you that my imminent purchase of a 64 Reg Automatic Nissan Juke is very real!
The Nissan Juke is surely the ugliest car ever made?
I was so bored this morning I tried to fly IMMEDIATELY to Rangoon
I spent 3 hours getting all the paperwork in order, insurance, mad covid shit, endless red tape, got it all done, was congratulating myself, Evisa sorted, then I got an email telling me my instant e-visa would actually take 3 working days minimum
That’s when I popped a trammy, and drank half a bottle of 19 crimes shiraz, at 10 am
Turns out that’s quite superb for curing monotony. Add a couple of salty margaritas. Some modestly kinky porn. A chapter of Simon Sebag Montefiore’s WORLD HISTORY. An hour in the sun, half an our in the gym. The day passes
How can you live like that FFS? I’ve been working diligently for 22 years as a solicitor and I’ve nearly earned enough to buy a 2014 Nissan Juke. If you’d applied yourself you could have had the same.
Do you honestly think any of this is real? It's fiction.
I can assure you that my imminent purchase of a 64 Reg Automatic Nissan Juke is very real!
Anecdote department - we kicked off the canvass season today, with 56 contacts. Compared with the same people in 2019, there is a substantial swing from Don't Know to Labour, and Tory to Won't Vote. Almost no direct Con-Lab transfers though also almost no Labour defections. Overall very positive, but mostly due to much higher willingness to vote among Labour voters than (former) Con. The LD/Lab/Green division is obscure here as we have one candidate from each party for 3 seats, vs 3 Tories, so generally people who vote for one of us also plan to vote for the others.
1. Why on earth do these people think the current Tory party is worth funding? 2. How do they afford such prices without the tax cuts we're told are essential for the economy?
A further question hit me. This is for the 80:20 campaign. To defend 80 seats and gain a further 20. My question was "What exactly are they on?"
Comments
His statement that if the Ukrainians stop fighting the war would still continue as the americans would keep it going was just moronic. Who would be fighting it?
When challenged on that he then immediately claimed he didn't say it (even though his words were "But Ukraine could stop fighting tonight and the americans would continue to keep the war going") and that they were strawmanning him - that pushes him into pretty odious territory for me, because it shows him to be utterly dishonest in a very brazen way. Posing it as some intellectual position makes that worse.
The point Kisin makes about Crimea and Donbas, and how rhetoric on regaining it may not match reality is possibly right, since of course even if they might consider that unviable they wouldn't say it now.
If (like Boris) you value British freedom to diverge politically and don't really care about non tariff barriers, December 2020 was a brilliant deal. Others would invert that calculation, in which case the deal was terrible.
Same for the May plan. Great at preventing people coming in whilst minimising the friction for goods, but at the cost of not taking back political control.
https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1629430351549329410
A minor point - I agree, the story is lovely - but the bit about her objecting to Tchaikovsky, isn’t.
She’s wrong. Cancelling Russian culture is morally problematic and strategically counterproductive. It empowers Putin.
It’s perhaps understandable that ordinary Ukrainians might think it a good idea, but we should tell them that they’re wrong and refuse.
Mr Meeks is one of the people I pay most attention to, on the occasions I check my Twitter. He’s generally pretty on the money.
Not this time!
On Putin, Hitchens appears to be the guy who thinks the biggest whore in town is actually a virgin.
What I am questioning is whether a negative test in an asymptomatic population (such as schools, hospital and care home staff) is an effective way of controlling the spread of disease. That was how the bulk of them were used. Testing symptom free population has a low pick up rate, and there would be many false negatives unknowingly spreading disease.
I would like to see a proper analysis of this as part of the covid enquiry.
Someone start an argument.
I therefore suggest that we all say Dez-Nez at every opportunity.
Definitely on the path to becoming grumpy old man here.....
Almost as stupid as trying to erase Christianity because you disapprove of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians.
I haven't worked out the details but it will involve pineapple pizzas, a certain retro English rock band and boiling oil.
I’m not headed for the homeless opioid camps of San Francisco quite yet
That said it IS nice. A sovereign remedy for tedium
I read that one politician was caught with the equivalent of several hundred thousand quid and a list of people whose votes he was going to buy.
Anyone risked a bet on the outcome?
'Kate Forbes said in 2014 letter that women should not be church ministers as God does "not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man" within the church.'
https://twitter.com/AndrewJQuinn97/status/1629410909159407616?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1629410909159407616|twgr^5c77e6ccece65863042102206a49598e6566581d|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://www.theforum365.com/index.php?app=coremodule=systemcontroller=embedurl=https://twitter.com/andrewjquinn97/status/1629410909159407616?s=4626t=P2P5tWvvwiy8XL43Nr6SaA
The latest poll gives SF 32%, DUP 27%, TUV 5% (that 5% would transfer to DUP).
So, between them, the face-eating leopards are on 64%.
Like it or not, the GFA makes it sensible to vote for face-eating leopards. The growth in support for Alliance has come from other centrist parties.
I spent 3 hours getting all the paperwork in order, insurance, mad covid shit, endless red tape, got it all done, was congratulating myself, Evisa sorted, then I got an email telling me my instant e-visa would actually take 3 working days minimum
That’s when I popped a trammy, and drank half a bottle of 19 crimes shiraz, at 10 am
Turns out that’s quite superb for curing monotony. Add a couple of salty margaritas. Some modestly kinky porn. A chapter of Simon Sebag Montefiore’s WORLD HISTORY. An hour in the sun, half an our in the gym. The day passes
They are highly intelligent, but at the same time, actively malevolent.
Does the schtick of following one “family” (I hear him talk about it on a podcast) work?
Surely the Nits can’t be mad enough to elect the South Uist Salafist?
She will never escape this. It will be hurled at her continuously and do endless damage
But I’m about to pick up my laksa. I’ll reply more cogently anon
If they were to forced to the think about it, the public would probably quite like Boris’s Augustinian philosophy.
But it does raise interesting questions. For example: Are major universities serious about these issues? Should they be?
But otherwise, the only two answers are a) 'I will vote for freedoms, even if my personal concience won't let me use them" or
b) stand in an explicitly theocratic platform.
Heroin and risk taking, then money and success - and still more risk taking
Why did he kill himself? Cuckolded? Bored? A terrible mistake? The pointlessness of old age after such a fun life?
I love his shows, and I’ve heard him use lines that are - word perfect - things I have said myself. Not claiming they are amazing, just uncannily similar in world-outlook
Kates views on no sex before marriage is laugh out loud funny. But the thought of her being a parent to someone who is gay isn’t funny at all. So I think this makes her my preference for winning this, because her prejudice will be very much in the spotlight throughout her time as leader, this will get people talking and arguing and thinking about prejudice based positions like opposing all sex marriage, and that would be really good, exactly what the world actually needs to focus on outdated outgoing philosophies built on prejudice, and expunge them as soon as possible now. So I can see how a lot of good can come from such a senior UK political leader holding such views as hers, helping to maintain the spotlight on such things.
In terms of the independence politics of it, none of them seem to have come up with very good responses in interviews about how to achieve it from here. I don’t understand why there is so much hostility to using all Westminster elections and Scottish government elections as pleblicites on support for independence - it’s a fantastic idea for maximising SNP vote every time.
The best result for unionists, would be Ash, as her interviews are car crashes, she’s out of her depth. The worst result for Conservatives would be Kate, as she seeks independence but has social and economic values closer to conservatives. Best result for Labour, Kate, for same reasons in reverse to why she is worst for Conservative vote.
Who do I think wins? Kate. Even if Humza has the SNP establishment support, for, as someone wittily put it, applauding everything Sturgeon said and done like a demented seal, I still don’t think that’s enough to stop Kate now.
£10m a year to build Scotch ferries?
So on the betting front Labour at minimum gaining seats is a good bet, outside chance they end up most seats too, depending on how the UK is looking.
I think the attack of Labour being reliant on the SNP will fall on deaf ears this time around, Starmer has not only shut it down, none of the candidates seem like they can outdo him.
I was speaking at the Wokeism conference this morning.
Every politician, every person, is entitled to hold views guided by faith, but the people of Scotland must have confidence that the man or woman who leads their country will vehemently defend the battles on human rights that have already been won and passionately fight the battles on human rights that are yet to come. And Kate Forbes, although a confident, able minister, fails that test.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendumnews/23346296.herald-view-able-confident-kate-forbes-fails-equality-test/
I long ago worked out that there's no event or outcome that would ever please Peter Hitchens.
He's driven by contrarianism and negativity.
All Respondents
Yes 43%
No 39%
2019 Conservative Voters
Yes 36%
No 52%
2019 Labour Voters
Yes 60%
No 29%
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1629481352654475264
36% of 2019 Tory voters saying Starmer understands the problems facing the UK and has a problem to address them, is surely a terrible statistic for the Tories.
Now and again, you do meet someone your age (or younger) who are very religious and don't believe in sex before marriage.
They still exist.
Bit of a screw up, isn't it?
And I disagreed with him on most things. But I acknowledge the talent, verve and brio
Martin Amis’ book on their friendship - INSIDE STORY (terrible title) - is good on this
Forbes as leader means years of bitter infighting. Possibly splits. How can someone like Mhairi Black stay in the party with Forbes as leader, after her Twitter tirade?
I still don’t understand why Angus Robertson didnae stand. He’d be firm favorite now
It’s a conspiracy of WokeTransIllegalImmigrantAlienAIs
Peter obviously has some batshit views, but he argues them honestly, so far as I can tell.
These three seem to be a downgrade?
Then in 5-10 years an older, wiser Forbes could take over, with her views mellowed, and more essential experience, and she really COULD be a threat to UKG
Ms Forbes is not from Uibhist a Deas; she represents a chunk of the inner isles and the mainland; and most of all Uibhist a Deas is the last place in the world to be a FCS stronghold.
Hint: there is a whacking great statue on a hill there. Bana Thighearna nan Eilean, aka Our Lady of the Isles.
Two questions occur:
1. Why on earth do these people think the current Tory party is worth funding?
2. How do they afford such prices without the tax cuts we're told are essential for the economy?
Are you discounting that good members poll for Forbes then?
This is for the 80:20 campaign. To defend 80 seats and gain a further 20.
My question was
"What exactly are they on?"