Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
The term “antisemitism” was invented there, as self description by people who hated Jews.
Interestingly, Nietzsche was aggressively opposed to the antisemites. Not because he was a fan of Jews, but because he regarded them (the antisemities) as stupid scum.
If I was of a suspicious mind, I'd look for Alistair Campbell pulling the strings in the background.
The BBC hierarchy didn't need to fall in to the obvious trap, though. They could have just pensioned him off at the end of the season if they really wanted rid.
There’s no conspiracy here, no Campbell in the background pulling the strings, it’s was a cock up, a simple cock up, caused by the idiots the Tory authoritarians have parachuted into the BBC to make it a government mouthpiece. It’s that simple.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
That's quite a complicated one, I think. There was a very distinctive strain of German antisemitism developing from about Wagner and Nietzsche onwards, but on the other hand Germany was one of the first places to emancipate the Jews, and also many of the European Jews who made the greatest contributions were German, or Austrian - Einstein, Freud, Mahler, Marx, Wittgenstein etc.
You see the existence of brilliant German-speaking Jews as evidence against the existence of antisemitism in Germany?
Something wrong with your logic, to put it mildly.
Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.
And a hit to government aspirations for us to be a ‘tech superpower’. It would poison investment in the U.K. significantly.
I understand Lineker is 63 so he is in the autumn of his career and I expect he will develop a political career going forward
Funny. I didn't think he was that old. He's older than Lynam was when he left the BBC.
Lineker could retire today and be set for the rest of his life.
I can't see a political career beckoning however. Which party would he join I wonder?
There's certainly a bit of space for a low tax, socially liberal and pro-immigration movement.
A party which would attract the votes of rich metropolitans and posho university towns but few others.
Its effectively what the LibDems have become.
I don't know about that. They feel fairly beige. I haven't followed them/Davey too closely of late but they seem to more middle ground rather than radical.
The beigeness being part of the problem - apart from a general metropolitan ambience what do the LibDems stand for ? Higher house prices and the EU.
They've become the party for people who are anti-government but who are too posh to vote Labour.
Scotland being somewhat different and where SLD have become the anti-SNP party in a few areas where they are historically strong and are either posh or in the Highlands and Islands.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
The term “antisemitism” was invented there, as self description by people who hated Jews.
Interestingly, Nietzsche was aggressively opposed to the antisemites. Not because he was a fan of Jews, but because he regarded them (the antisemities) as stupid scum.
Hmm.
On the other hand he was philosophically antisemitic - see "the Genealogy of Morality". He did also have a bit of a habit of regarding nearly everyone except himself as stupid.
Just as a final point on placemen, it is possible to be a placeman and still produce good results, because in the late '80s and early 1990s the BBC produced some of its best ever material, and Checkland was in charge ; it's just less likely.
Dyke was a sort of placeman who didn't damage the BBC that much, and I don't think Davie has been creatively disastrous ; but he just looks to have clear connections on the more political side to the Tory government, like Sharp, and which are seemingly reflected in what he's doing, and quite possibly in the corporation's news output. As mentioned yesterday, the level of right-leaning administrative dominance in the BBC was becoming much the same in the mid-late 1990's. Just take all this all this out of the hands of politicians.
Trouble is a decline in the neutrality of the placemen. Charles Hill was a Conservative MP, appointed by Macmillan to chair the ITA then by Wilson to chair the BBC.
It might be that's easier to do in times when Butskellism or Balmeronism is the order of the day, with a fair number of politicians who wouldn't look that out of place working with the other lot.
Speaking of people going off piste Andrew Bridgen now blaming the us department of defence for the virus and vaccines.
can confirm that during my visit to Washington DC last Christmas/ New Year I was informed that the US DoD were responsible for both the virus and the vaccines. Fort Detrick was named. Also a facility in Canada. (1/2)
Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.
And a hit to government aspirations for us to be a ‘tech superpower’. It would poison investment in the U.K. significantly.
Happily it looks as though this has dawned on the treasury, tech companies with SVB UK accounts look like they will have access to bridging finance with a charge taken on their SVB UK deposits. It's a fair compromise and will cost the government precisely zero.
What's interesting is that this may actually show the upside of the current UK regulatory framework for banking, a foreign owned lender has gone bust, the UK branch is fully ring fenced and is basically ok with the clients facing much less uncertainty and losses than clients of the parent.
Garygate has brought us back in time to the golden years of the PB Tories and Toryherd. The rallying around the flag, the illogical and inconsistent arguments, the endless whataboutery.
In the last few days, we’ve witnessed classics of all the genres.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
The term “antisemitism” was invented there, as self description by people who hated Jews.
Interestingly, Nietzsche was aggressively opposed to the antisemites. Not because he was a fan of Jews, but because he regarded them (the antisemities) as stupid scum.
Hmm..
If you don't know about 19th-century German antisemitism, just Google it.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
The term “antisemitism” was invented there, as self description by people who hated Jews.
Interestingly, Nietzsche was aggressively opposed to the antisemites. Not because he was a fan of Jews, but because he regarded them (the antisemities) as stupid scum.
Hmm.
On the other hand he was philosophically antisemitic - see "the Genealogy of Morality". He did also have a bit of a habit of regarding nearly everyone except himself as stupid.
Yup - he oscillated around a bit, though.
At one point writing - “The Jews, however, are beyond any doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race now living in Europe; they know how to prevail even under the worst conditions (even better than under favourable conditions), by means of virtues that today one would like to mark as vices – thanks above all to a resolute faith that need not be ashamed before “modern ideas”
Which is a bit weird sounding in the other direction….
By the end of the month I expect to see the start of criminal proceedings against the many politicians and officials who are responsible around the world. (2/2)
Isn’t the market wonderful until it crashes, then socialism is required for the losses.
The risk is that one crash rapidly mushrooms into a lot of crashes. The US Fed not intervening with Lehman Brothers created the chain of events which crippled us with austerity.
Whether you agree with the ethics or not this is a lose lose situation. Personally I'd rather them stop any mushrooming early as it's the lowest cost and least risk.
Yes, the same people who scream for deregulation and free enterprise change their tune very rapidly, and push for government funds shamelessly.
Not all of us. I’ve already said Trump’s deregulation of banks capitalised under $250bn ought to be reversed.
Stress tests might have prevented SVB’s huge gamble on low yielding bonds at the top of the market. A more modest gamble would have trashed their profits, but they’d likely have survived.
Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.
How many pounds for how much time, roughly?
It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
In the end it will net out to nothing or a tiny profit on the nominal interest. Once SVB UK has been bought the loans will be paid back from cash overnight. It's a no brainer and for the government it could be them making a point to markets to show that our regulations work, ring fencing and moderate capital requirements has meant no real business interruption and no loss to to the taxpayer.
The question that needs answering first is - was it just maturity risk on T-bills that did for them?
If so, the money is 100% there - just locked up in T-bills until maturity/price rising to par.
Not T-Bills (which are short dated) but Treasuries
The issue is that it would be fine if they could be held to maturity (assuming the US government doesn’t default). However the depositors are demanding their money now. So they have to sell at a loss to fund the deposit outflow.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
The term “antisemitism” was invented there, as self description by people who hated Jews.
Interestingly, Nietzsche was aggressively opposed to the antisemites. Not because he was a fan of Jews, but because he regarded them (the antisemities) as stupid scum.
Hmm..
If you don't know about 19th-century German antisemitism, just Google it.
I certainly do, but I would say that the point I'm making more there, is that Germany also had an emancipatory and intellectual tradition alongside its strongly nationalist one. Hence a lot of Jews were able to flourish there.
Whilst it is possible to have any of a number of perfectly reasonable views on Lineker and his tweet, it is unquestionably the case that the BBC have handled this very badly.
If I was of a suspicious mind, I'd look for Alistair Campbell pulling the strings in the background.
The BBC hierarchy didn't need to fall in to the obvious trap, though. They could have just pensioned him off at the end of the season if they really wanted rid.
There’s no conspiracy here, no Campbell in the background pulling the strings, it’s was a cock up, a simple cock up, caused by the idiots the Tory authoritarians have parachuted into the BBC to make it a government mouthpiece. It’s that simple.
Trouble is that a quiet pensioning-off wouldn't have satisfied the frothers. They want to see the iron fist, and a velvet glove would just get in the way.
I agree with everything Lineker said. But that is irrelevant.
You either agree with his right to speak in a personal capacity on Twitter or in the public domain or you don't. He's not a BBC employee and even if he was, they've been doing politics publicly for years.
Jimmy Saville Noel Edmunds Andrew Neil Richard Sharpe Tim Davey
Noel Edmonds is a good example of not aging well.
Surely you're a fan of his House Party, or Crinkly Bottom, Kinabalu ?
These were milestones of 20th Century culture.
The only Edmonds of real value was his first iteration as a smooth-as-silk DJ on Radio One. It's been all downhill since imo. Last spotted (by me) still wobbling around on the 2575th edition of Deal or No Deal, desperate retro hair and wizened face teamed with loud collared shirt and a pair of rather jarring tight blue jeans. Not for me.
Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.
How many pounds for how much time, roughly?
It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
In the end it will net out to nothing or a tiny profit on the nominal interest. Once SVB UK has been bought the loans will be paid back from cash overnight. It's a no brainer and for the government it could be them making a point to markets to show that our regulations work, ring fencing and moderate capital requirements has meant no real business interruption and no loss to to the taxpayer.
The question that needs answering first is - was it just maturity risk on T-bills that did for them?
If so, the money is 100% there - just locked up in T-bills until maturity/price rising to par.
Not T-Bills (which are short dated) but Treasuries
The issue is that it would be fine if they could be held to maturity (assuming the US government doesn’t default). However the depositors are demanding their money now. So they have to sell at a loss to fund the deposit outflow.
Yes, they are realising losses far in excess of their capital buffer. Trump allowed these smaller and mid sized banks to basically not bother with it meaning they're doing what RBS and HBOS did when they went bankrupt, running at 40-70:1 leverage. Apparently the US didn't learn the lessons of the UK financial crash.
Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.
How many pounds for how much time, roughly?
It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
In the end it will net out to nothing or a tiny profit on the nominal interest. Once SVB UK has been bought the loans will be paid back from cash overnight. It's a no brainer and for the government it could be them making a point to markets to show that our regulations work, ring fencing and moderate capital requirements has meant no real business interruption and no loss to to the taxpayer.
The question that needs answering first is - was it just maturity risk on T-bills that did for them?
If so, the money is 100% there - just locked up in T-bills until maturity/price rising to par.
Not T-Bills (which are short dated) but Treasuries
The issue is that it would be fine if they could be held to maturity (assuming the US government doesn’t default). However the depositors are demanding their money now. So they have to sell at a loss to fund the deposit outflow.
Yes - if it’s true that it’s just a liquidity problem, then the money is there.
Hence the classic would be to arrange a buyout of the wreckage by one of the big banks, that can cover the deposit outflow in the short term.
Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.
How many pounds for how much time, roughly?
It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
In the end it will net out to nothing or a tiny profit on the nominal interest. Once SVB UK has been bought the loans will be paid back from cash overnight. It's a no brainer and for the government it could be them making a point to markets to show that our regulations work, ring fencing and moderate capital requirements has meant no real business interruption and no loss to to the taxpayer.
The question that needs answering first is - was it just maturity risk on T-bills that did for them?
If so, the money is 100% there - just locked up in T-bills until maturity/price rising to par.
Not T-Bills (which are short dated) but Treasuries
The issue is that it would be fine if they could be held to maturity (assuming the US government doesn’t default). However the depositors are demanding their money now. So they have to sell at a loss to fund the deposit outflow.
Yes - if it’s true that it’s just a liquidity problem, then the money is there.
Hence the classic would be to arrange a buyout of the wreckage by one of the big banks, that can cover the deposit outflow in the short term.
It's more like RBS/HBOS, the assets may not be there which is why some as suggesting the US government may need to step in as they did back then with TARP.
By the end of the month I expect to see the start of criminal proceedings against the many politicians and officials who are responsible around the world. (2/2)
I keep hearing how the banks are much better capitalised than in 2008. That isn't saying much though is it? If we are going to have depositor guarantees surely there needs to be a requirement for much more capital. I'm quite happy to help firms who are temporarily without funds because their bank has gone bust but you need to be careful you aren't getting into corporate welfare. Obviously the bank bond holders and shareholders get nothing.
Also on SVB UK, if Hunt does nothing around 300 perfectly viable startups will be looking at the abyss because they can't make payroll and up to 20k highly paid and productive jobs will disappear from the economy. He's got to step in tomorrow and ensure access to finance is available until the SVB UK book has been purchased. It is absolutely imperative, if he doesn't the UK will take a big hit to its reputation for stable business conditions, if he does it will be greatly enhanced, especially if the sale of the SVB UK book goes smoothly because of ring fencing and UK capital regulations.
How many pounds for how much time, roughly?
It's clearly the sort of thing government should be doing, as cash machine of last resort, but quite a few recent decisions seem motivated by spending as little as possible today, whatever the consequences down the line.
In the end it will net out to nothing or a tiny profit on the nominal interest. Once SVB UK has been bought the loans will be paid back from cash overnight. It's a no brainer and for the government it could be them making a point to markets to show that our regulations work, ring fencing and moderate capital requirements has meant no real business interruption and no loss to to the taxpayer.
The question that needs answering first is - was it just maturity risk on T-bills that did for them?
If so, the money is 100% there - just locked up in T-bills until maturity/price rising to par.
Not T-Bills (which are short dated) but Treasuries
The issue is that it would be fine if they could be held to maturity (assuming the US government doesn’t default). However the depositors are demanding their money now. So they have to sell at a loss to fund the deposit outflow.
Yes, they are realising losses far in excess of their capital buffer. Trump allowed these smaller and mid sized banks to basically not bother with it meaning they're doing what RBS and HBOS did when they went bankrupt, running at 40-70:1 leverage. Apparently the US didn't learn the lessons of the UK financial crash.
Isn't that always the way?
A crisis happens, rules are put in place to prevent a repeat, time passes, the rules become seen as a pointless impediment to making big profits?
In this case, the time interval looks awfully short, but Trump is an fool and the life cycle of business is faster than in the past.
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which was an equally stupid comment. But that is not the point. People should be allowed to make stupid comments without fear of their personal comments being used to push them out of their jobs.
You are utterly utterly utterly utterly wrong.
It was not a stupid comment, it was perfect.
The Tories and their friends are labelling absolutely everyone who comes across on a dingy a criminal, part of an invasion force - and insisting they should be treated as criminals.
If you suggested to Braverman and Sunak it would be a good idea if the asylum seekers in hotels awaiting processing wore something, like an armband to identify what they are, they’d think it a good idea.
The language of 1930s Germany was EXACTLY THE SAME labelling people who done no wrong, never been convicted of a crime as second class people and criminals. And in fact the language of 1930s Germany didn’t begin in Germany in the thirties, didn’t it. it’s as old as the human race.
The problem with PB on this is there are not enough Christians here thinking in a Christian way.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
The term “antisemitism” was invented there, as self description by people who hated Jews.
Interestingly, Nietzsche was aggressively opposed to the antisemites. Not because he was a fan of Jews, but because he regarded them (the antisemities) as stupid scum.
Hmm..
If you don't know about 19th-century German antisemitism, just Google it.
I certainly do, but I would say that the point I'm making more there, is that Germany also had an emancipatory and intellectual tradition alongside its strongly nationalist one. Hence a lot of Jews were able to flourish there.
Fortunately people manage to flourish in a lot of places in the face of prejudice against them.
But perhaps you missed the nonsense that was being discussed about "it [anti-semitism in Germany] all started after ww1".
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
The government is working on a plan so that UK tech firms caught up in the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank won't run out of cash, it has said.
The Treasury said it wanted to "minimise damage to some of our most promising companies in the UK" after the US bank's failure last Friday.
US regulators shut down the bank on Friday in what is the largest failure of a US bank since 2008.
The bank's UK subsidiary will be put into insolvency from Sunday evening.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey "were up late last night" and have been "working through the weekend to come up with a solution" to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank UK, Mr Hunt said on Sunday.
I keep hearing how the banks are much better capitalised than in 2008. That isn't saying much though is it? If we are going to have depositor guarantees surely there needs to be a requirement for much more capital. I'm quite happy to help firms who are temporarily without funds because their bank has gone bust but you need to be careful you aren't getting into corporate welfare. Obviously the bank bond holders and shareholders get nothing.
They are in this country and other countries that have regulatory rules to cover this.
The issue here isn’t, as far as we know, that depositors money has been lost. It’s that the US bank had a liquidity crisis - they could get the money out of the Government securities they held to give depositors there money *now*, without taking a major loss on the sale of the securities.
So someone needs to hold the securities to maturity, while paying the depositors *their* money, in the present.
It's deeply ironic that Berlin opened a Jewish Museum 6 days before Hitler took power.
The first Jewish Museum in Berlin was founded on 24 January 1933, under the leadership of Karl Schwartz, six days before the Nazis officially gained power. The museum was built next to the Neue Synagoge on Oranienburger Straße and, in addition to curating Jewish history, also featured collections of modern Jewish art. Schwartz intended the museum as a means to revitalise Jewish creativity, and to demonstrate that Jewish history was living history.[2] The museum's art collection was also seen as a contribution to German art history and one of the last exhibitions to be held was a retrospective of the German impressionist, Ernst Oppler in 1937.[3] To reflect this focus on living history, the entrance hall of the museum both contained busts of prominent German Jews, such as Moses Mendelssohn and Abraham Geiger, and also a number of works by contemporary Jewish artists such as Arnold Zadikow and Lesser Ury.[2]
On 10 November 1938, during the 'November Pogroms', known as Kristallnacht, the museum was shut down by the Gestapo, and the museum's inventory was confiscated.[2] In 1976 a "Society for a Jewish Museum" formed and, three years later, the Berlin Museum, which chronicled the city's history, established a Jewish Department,[4] but already, discussions about constructing a new museum dedicated to Jewish history in Berlin were being held.[5]
Speaking of people going off piste Andrew Bridgen now blaming the us department of defence for the virus and vaccines.
can confirm that during my visit to Washington DC last Christmas/ New Year I was informed that the US DoD were responsible for both the virus and the vaccines. Fort Detrick was named. Also a facility in Canada. (1/2)
Andrew Bridgen's a weirdo... Another Westminster oddball (For other examples see Keith Vaz, John Bercow, Liz Truss, Lloyd Russell-Moyle etc etc etc) who would probably be unemployable in any other walk of life...
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
The term “antisemitism” was invented there, as self description by people who hated Jews.
Interestingly, Nietzsche was aggressively opposed to the antisemites. Not because he was a fan of Jews, but because he regarded them (the antisemities) as stupid scum.
Hmm..
If you don't know about 19th-century German antisemitism, just Google it.
I certainly do, but I would say that the point I'm making more there, is that Germany also had an emancipatory and intellectual tradition alongside its strongly nationalist one. Hence a lot of Jews were able to flourish there.
Fortunately people manage to flourish in a lot of places in the face of prejudice against them.
But perhaps you missed the nonsense that was being discussed about "it [anti-semitism in Germany] all started after ww1".
I certainly don't agree with that last point. Germany had a strong and latent prejudiced tradition against the Jews, and nordicist nationalism, alongside its cultural and intellectual tradition that had allowed so many Jews to flourish, so as soon as things went wrong, they were the first and natural scapegoats for a lot of people.
Germany is a natural leader in all things, quite a few Germans had been schooled to believe, both intellectual, cultural and military, so if things had gone wrong it must have been the fault of this internal, not-completely-German group.
If it cuts the number of boats crossing the Channel it will have been worth it for Sunak
You Tories are just playing classic dog-whistle politics. The reality is that asylum seekers are super low compared to most of Europe.
HYUFD:" If it cuts the number of boats crossing the Channel it will have been worth it for Sunak"
me: - no specific target for the cut - no time period (so, fort instance, HYUFD could claim it was Mr Sunak rather than, say, bad weather) - no consideration of it being *our* money - logically, HYUFD thinks spending £550m (as agreed so far) is worth it if it reduces the total by one boat - and, as always, always, whether it is good for the Tory Party, not the UK
SNAP POLL: Britons say BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker
All Britons: 27% right / 53% wrong Con voters: 51% / 36% Lab voters: 10% / 75%
Whomp whomp
Its a bit more complicated than that.....
Most Britons... 1. Think the BBC are in the wrong over suspending Lineker; 2. Don't think it's acceptable to compare gov policy with that of the Nazis; 3. Support sports correspondents promoting their own politics on their own personal channels; 4. Like Stopping The Boats™
I did comment earlier that that seems to be an accurate analysis of public opinion
With the exception of the stopping the boats bit which I didn't comment on, that is pretty much exactly what I said last night. Everyone is wrong.
The Government for their specific recent policy announcements regarding the boat people. Lineker for comparing these policies to the Nazis The BBC for punishing Lineker for making this comparison.
However we can now add some people who are right.
All those people who have spoken up and refused to back the BBC in their idiotic actions. Including all those refusing to appear today - some of whom are, quite possibly, putting their careers on the line over this.
Except Lineker did not compare these policies to the Nazis. He compared the language used to that of Germany in the 1930s.
Which was an equally stupid comment. But that is not the point. People should be allowed to make stupid comments without fear of their personal comments being used to push them out of their jobs.
You are utterly utterly utterly utterly wrong.
It was not a stupid comment, it was perfect.
The Tories and their friends are labelling absolutely everyone who comes across on a dingy a criminal, part of an invasion force - and insisting they should be treated as criminals.
If you suggested to Braverman and Sunak it would be a good idea if the asylum seekers in hotels awaiting processing wore something, like an armband to identify what they are, they’d think it a good idea.
The language of 1930s Germany was EXACTLY THE SAME labelling people who done no wrong, never been convicted of a crime as second class people and criminals. And in fact the language of 1930s Germany didn’t begin in Germany in the thirties, didn’t it. it’s as old as the human race.
The problem with PB on this is there are not enough Christians here thinking in a Christian way.
Needn't be Christianity, of course.
Terry Pratchett was no Christian, for example;
"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is." "It's a lot more complicated than that--" "No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts." "Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes--" "But they starts with thinking about people as things..."
Which is why "Stop the boats" is a clever but dangerous slogan. It's about stopping things, not people. By focusing on the awfulness of the boats, it's easier to skip over the people in them.
The main effective way the Government is to deal with the boats is the French agreement. Stop them before they get into the water.
However that costs half a billion pounds and the voters the Conservative party are targeting do not like the payment to the French.
So the Baverman language and refugee policy is one big slab of red meat to those voters from the dead cat announcement aimed at focusing attention away from the French payment.
The Lineker controversy helps that approach.
A political approach by the opposition parties once this kerfuffle dies down would be to highlight the money going to the French.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
Isn’t it a case of both things were true?
Antisemitism was a big thing in Germany - Houston Stewart Chamberlain waves hello - but in day to day life, there was an equally marked level of liberalism towards Jews, compared to several other countries.
The main effective way the Government is to deal with the boats is the French agreement. Stop them before they get into the water.
However that costs half a billion pounds and the voters the Conservative party are targeting do not like the payment to the French.
So the Baverman language and refugee policy is one big slab of red meat to those voters from the dead cat announcement aimed at focusing attention away from the French payment.
The Lineker controversy helps that approach.
A political approach by the opposition parties once this kerfuffle dies down would be to highlight the money going to the French.
It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now
It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15
It didn't
No pundits
World commentary
It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
Isn’t it a case of both things were true?
Antisemitism was a big thing in Germany - Houston Stewart Chamberlain waves hello - but in day to day life, there was an equally marked level of liberalism towards Jews, compared to several other countries.
Yes. After the Dreyfus affair and until the late 20s/early 30s it was France that was considered to have the big Antisemitism problem in Europe. Obviously there was a terrific amount in Germany too but attention was focused elsewhere
Garygate has brought us back in time to the golden years of the PB Tories and Toryherd. The rallying around the flag, the illogical and inconsistent arguments, the endless whataboutery.
In the last few days, we’ve witnessed classics of all the genres.
Or the golden age of Match Of The Day in the 90s. Shearer, Wrighty, John Barnes and Matt Le Tissier with his goal of the season contenders.
If it cuts the number of boats crossing the Channel it will have been worth it for Sunak
You Tories are just playing classic dog-whistle politics. The reality is that asylum seekers are super low compared to most of Europe.
HYUFD:" If it cuts the number of boats crossing the Channel it will have been worth it for Sunak"
me: - no specific target for the cut - no time period (so, fort instance, HYUFD could claim it was Mr Sunak rather than, say, bad weather) - no consideration of it being *our* money - logically, HYUFD thinks spending £550m (as agreed so far) is worth it if it reduces the total by one boat - and, as always, always, whether it is good for the Tory Party, not the UK
It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now
It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15
It didn't
No pundits
World commentary
It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
Isn’t it a case of both things were true?
Antisemitism was a big thing in Germany - Houston Stewart Chamberlain waves hello - but in day to day life, there was an equally marked level of liberalism towards Jews, compared to several other countries.
Yes. After the Dreyfus affair and until the late 20s/early 30s it was France that was considered to have the big Antisemitism problem in Europe. Obviously there was a terrific amount in Germany too but attention was focused elsewhere
Helped by the fact that the antisemites and HSC were considered to be part and parcel of Kaiserism, which was somewhat eclipsed following some small disturbances in 1914-18.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
Just been reading his 'Death in Hamburg' about the 1892 cholera in Hamburg. Quite striking how many Jews there were and how active, some v. rich, some v. poor. And how relatively fringe antisemitism was.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
Isn’t it a case of both things were true?
Antisemitism was a big thing in Germany - Houston Stewart Chamberlain waves hello - but in day to day life, there was an equally marked level of liberalism towards Jews, compared to several other countries.
Well, yes, but since I said there was prejudice but it was milder, as in, less ruthlessly enforced, I don't think you can say 'both things were true.' It's not as though Germany was 'notorious for its antisemitism.' The much greater anti-religious prejudice was directed against the Catholic Church - which was state enforced through the Kulturkampf.
If I was of a suspicious mind, I'd look for Alistair Campbell pulling the strings in the background.
The BBC hierarchy didn't need to fall in to the obvious trap, though. They could have just pensioned him off at the end of the season if they really wanted rid.
There’s no conspiracy here, no Campbell in the background pulling the strings, it’s was a cock up, a simple cock up, caused by the idiots the Tory authoritarians have parachuted into the BBC to make it a government mouthpiece. It’s that simple.
I didn't say I actually believed the conspiracy.
Stupidity all round is always the default explanation.
I mean, what exactly did the BBC hierarchy expect to happen?
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
When I first went to Auschwitz it was said Germany was the country in Europe where the Jews were the most integrated at the turn of the century because of the lack of antisemitic behaviour to them from the state and people from the 1800 onwards.
But Chris knows better than Professor Evans and the people who run the Auschwitz memorial.
I understand Lineker is 63 so he is in the autumn of his career and I expect he will develop a political career going forward
Funny. I didn't think he was that old. He's older than Lynam was when he left the BBC.
Lineker could retire today and be set for the rest of his life.
I can't see a political career beckoning however. Which party would he join I wonder?
There's certainly a bit of space for a low tax, socially liberal and pro-immigration movement.
A party which would attract the votes of rich metropolitans and posho university towns but few others.
Its effectively what the LibDems have become.
I don't know about that. They feel fairly beige. I haven't followed them/Davey too closely of late but they seem to more middle ground rather than radical.
The beigeness being part of the problem - apart from a general metropolitan ambience what do the LibDems stand for ? Higher house prices and the EU.
They've become the party for people who are anti-government but who are too posh to vote Labour.
Scotland being somewhat different and where SLD have become the anti-SNP party in a few areas where they are historically strong and are either posh or in the Highlands and Islands.
LOL, SLD could not fill a minibus. They only survive by getting loser seats on the list. They are neither socialiast, Liberal or Democratic.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
Isn’t it a case of both things were true?
Antisemitism was a big thing in Germany - Houston Stewart Chamberlain waves hello - but in day to day life, there was an equally marked level of liberalism towards Jews, compared to several other countries.
Well, yes, but since I said there was prejudice but it was milder, as in, less ruthlessly enforced, I don't think you can say 'both things were true.' It's not as though Germany was 'notorious for its antisemitism.' The much greater anti-religious prejudice was directed against the Catholic Church - which was state enforced through the Kulturkampf.
It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now
It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15
It didn't
No pundits
World commentary
It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
They can't though. Last night was a novelty.
I asked this yesterday.
If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
When I first went to Auschwitz it was said Germany was the country in Europe where the Jews were the most integrated at the turn of the century because of the lack of antisemitic behaviour to them from the state and people from the 1800 onwards.
But Chris knows better than Professor Evans and the people who run the Auschwitz memorial.
Anti-Semitism in Germany largely came from the Volkisch movement which was a fairly recent thing. With a couple of exceptions, Jews were treated well throughout the history of the Holy Roman Empire.
Though I struggle to believe Jews were more integrated in Germany than in Britain, who had a Jewish PM multiple times in the 1800s.
I keep hearing how the banks are much better capitalised than in 2008. That isn't saying much though is it? If we are going to have depositor guarantees surely there needs to be a requirement for much more capital. I'm quite happy to help firms who are temporarily without funds because their bank has gone bust but you need to be careful you aren't getting into corporate welfare. Obviously the bank bond holders and shareholders get nothing.
They are in this country and other countries that have regulatory rules to cover this.
The issue here isn’t, as far as we know, that depositors money has been lost. It’s that the US bank had a liquidity crisis - they could get the money out of the Government securities they held to give depositors there money *now*, without taking a major loss on the sale of the securities.
So someone needs to hold the securities to maturity, while paying the depositors *their* money, in the present.
Isn't the leverage ratio something like 30/1? Hardly secure by historical standards, no?
I've actually bothered to have a look at the stats on "small boats" migration. Albanian migration is a new phenomenon, and really quite significant. In summer 2022 they made up 42% of people making the crossing, 95% were male. Albania is designated a "safe" country, and these migrants have had to pass through multiple safe countries to get here.
When the facts look like this, Labour finds itself in a tricky position. They need to understand that the situation has changed - this isn't Afghans anymore. I'm pro-immigration (at least compared with the average position of PB posters), will almost certainly vote Labour in 2024, and want us to accept more refugees (Stuart posted some pretty shameful stats on this last night), but even I recognise that this is not desirable.
1) Deaths in the channel 2) Pressure on the resources of the Coastguard and RNLI 3) Asylum system clogged up 4) Income for human trafficking gangs
What Lineker wrote was spot on. The BBC however was right to take the action it did as his words were a direct contravention of their guidelines. And the whole sports presenter commenting on politics thing is a red herring. Gazza is very much a face of the BBC.
But, god bless us, for all that nevertheless we Brits just don't like large institutions, still less HMG, appearing to bully people for their views, whether they should have been expressed or not.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
The term “antisemitism” was invented there, as self description by people who hated Jews.
Interestingly, Nietzsche was aggressively opposed to the antisemites. Not because he was a fan of Jews, but because he regarded them (the antisemities) as stupid scum.
Hmm..
If you don't know about 19th-century German antisemitism, just Google it.
I certainly do, but I would say that the point I'm making more there, is that Germany also had an emancipatory and intellectual tradition alongside its strongly nationalist one. Hence a lot of Jews were able to flourish there.
That’s true but I guess it could be argued that emancipation (which I believe initially required Jews to take gentile names) lulled Jews in to a false sense of security and encouraged them to believe all those extremists could never hold sway over them. German Jews were probably the most assimilated in Europe yet this still ended up with WWI veterans and holders of the Knights Cross being rounded up and forced into cattle cars. I visited Gleis 17 for the first time on my last trip to Berlin, a sobering experience. Along the edge of the platforms are steel ribbons stamped with the dates, the number of Jews transported and their destination. Sometimes over a thousand of Berlin’s Jews a day were being taken east, and the fuckers were still doing it in March 1945 with the Red Army only a hundred miles away.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
When I first went to Auschwitz it was said Germany was the country in Europe where the Jews were the most integrated at the turn of the century because of the lack of antisemitic behaviour to them from the state and people from the 1800 onwards.
But Chris knows better than Professor Evans and the people who run the Auschwitz memorial.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
When I first went to Auschwitz it was said Germany was the country in Europe where the Jews were the most integrated at the turn of the century because of the lack of antisemitic behaviour to them from the state and people from the 1800 onwards.
But Chris knows better than Professor Evans and the people who run the Auschwitz memorial.
I agree with everything Lineker said. But that is irrelevant.
You either agree with his right to speak in a personal capacity on Twitter or in the public domain or you don't. He's not a BBC employee and even if he was, they've been doing politics publicly for years.
Jimmy Saville Noel Edmunds Andrew Neil Richard Sharpe Tim Davey
Noel Edmonds is a good example of not aging well.
He looks very little different now to how he did in 1975....
It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now
It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15
It didn't
No pundits
World commentary
It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
I watched it for the first time last night, out of curiosity. I won't be watching it again. There must be many like me.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
If you're relying on an argument from authority, the least you have to do is quote him and cite the source.
But I'd be willing to bet he didn't say anything as ridiculous as that anti-semitism in Germany didn't "really" begin until after World War I. Because - I repeat - Germany was notorious for anti-semitism in the late 19th century.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
Isn’t it a case of both things were true?
Antisemitism was a big thing in Germany - Houston Stewart Chamberlain waves hello - but in day to day life, there was an equally marked level of liberalism towards Jews, compared to several other countries.
Well, yes, but since I said there was prejudice but it was milder, as in, less ruthlessly enforced, I don't think you can say 'both things were true.' It's not as though Germany was 'notorious for its antisemitism.' The much greater anti-religious prejudice was directed against the Catholic Church - which was state enforced through the Kulturkampf.
Was it not a big thing in England as well
Not by then. It was in the middle ages but England had a comparatively low level of antisemitism from Cromwell's readmission onwards. Not perfect by any means - not good as the US - but certainly not as bad as most of Europe. Disraeli (ethnically Jewish but an Anglican convert) was Victoria's favourite PM.
Oh...sorry...this is a Malc post. You are now going to insult me and call me a "Little Englander" or some such thing for the temerity of saying something positive about the Sub-Human English...fire away Mr Malc!
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
Isn’t it a case of both things were true?
Antisemitism was a big thing in Germany - Houston Stewart Chamberlain waves hello - but in day to day life, there was an equally marked level of liberalism towards Jews, compared to several other countries.
Well, yes, but since I said there was prejudice but it was milder, as in, less ruthlessly enforced, I don't think you can say 'both things were true.' It's not as though Germany was 'notorious for its antisemitism.' The much greater anti-religious prejudice was directed against the Catholic Church - which was state enforced through the Kulturkampf.
Well, the antisemitic movement originated there and you had HSC being feted by the great and the good.
I agree with everything Lineker said. But that is irrelevant.
You either agree with his right to speak in a personal capacity on Twitter or in the public domain or you don't. He's not a BBC employee and even if he was, they've been doing politics publicly for years.
Jimmy Saville Noel Edmunds Andrew Neil Richard Sharpe Tim Davey
Noel Edmonds is a good example of not aging well.
He looks very little different now to how he did in 1975....
Noel Edmonds is somebody who was utterly screwed by a bank.
Noel Edmonds has reached an agreement with Lloyds Banking Group worth a reported £5m after his former business was destroyed following fraud at one of its branches.
The TV star had been in a long-running court battle with the bank and originally sought compensation of more than £60m.
As well as the payout, the bank apologised for the distress caused to Edmonds - who previously said he had tried to kill himself after his business was ruined by the scam.
Staff at the HBOS branch in Reading ran the £245m loans fraud between 2003 and 2007.
It wiped out several small businesses and they used the profits on things such as luxury holidays and high-end prostitutes. Six staff were jailed in 2017.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
If you're relying on an argument from authority, the least you have to do is quote him and cite the source.
But I'd be willing to bet he didn't say anything as ridiculous as that anti-semitism in Germany didn't "really" begin until after World War I. Because - I repeat - Germany was notorious for anti-semitism in the late 19th century.
It really wasn't. Sure there was prejudice, but no way was it 'notorious' for it. Certainly not compared to France or Russia which really were notorious for it.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
When I first went to Auschwitz it was said Germany was the country in Europe where the Jews were the most integrated at the turn of the century because of the lack of antisemitic behaviour to them from the state and people from the 1800 onwards.
But Chris knows better than Professor Evans and the people who run the Auschwitz memorial.
Well, quote him, if he really said there was no anti-semitism in Germany before World War I.
Frankly, I think you know he didn't say anything so ridiculous.
The BBC however was right to take the action it did as his words were a direct contravention of their guidelines.
As we used to say here, link?
A guy who was apparently employed to enforce those guidelines says they were not.
The example of them not applying specifically deals with a sports presenter opining on politics (or the arts).
But this reading denies that Gary Lineker is closely associated with the BBC. I don't accept this. I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
If you're relying on an argument from authority, the least you have to do is quote him and cite the source.
But I'd be willing to bet he didn't say anything as ridiculous as that anti-semitism in Germany didn't "really" begin until after World War I. Because - I repeat - Germany was notorious for anti-semitism in the late 19th century.
It really wasn't. Sure there was prejudice, but no way was it 'notorious' for it. Certainly not compared to France or Russia which really were notorious for it.
So quote the authority you're relying on. He said there was no anti-semitism in Germany before World War I. Really?
Whilst it is possible to have any of a number of perfectly reasonable views on Lineker and his tweet, it is unquestionably the case that the BBC have handled this very badly.
And who is going to pay the price for that?
It looks like it should be Davie
An instructive case with some similarities will be very familiar to you and other posters who remember The Morning Line.
That grew from obscurity and over the years achieved a popularity that extended well beyond the niche racing audience it began with. Then, at the height of its popularity, it was taken over by a new production team and they wanted one of the chief presenters out; that was John McCririck, whom I'm sure you remember. His views were not compatible with the image the new producers wished to present. One or two others resigned in sympathy with him, and a few others were dismissed because they no longer fitted.
McCririck sued the company and lost. I read the judgement, and agreed with it. They had every right to dismiss him. It was unwise though. The programme's popularity went into a steep decline from which it never recovered, and it eventually closed down.
I agree with everything Lineker said. But that is irrelevant.
You either agree with his right to speak in a personal capacity on Twitter or in the public domain or you don't. He's not a BBC employee and even if he was, they've been doing politics publicly for years.
Jimmy Saville Noel Edmunds Andrew Neil Richard Sharpe Tim Davey
Noel Edmonds is a good example of not aging well.
He looks very little different now to how he did in 1975....
Noel Edmonds is somebody who was utterly screwed by a bank.
Noel Edmonds has reached an agreement with Lloyds Banking Group worth a reported £5m after his former business was destroyed following fraud at one of its branches.
The TV star had been in a long-running court battle with the bank and originally sought compensation of more than £60m.
As well as the payout, the bank apologised for the distress caused to Edmonds - who previously said he had tried to kill himself after his business was ruined by the scam.
Staff at the HBOS branch in Reading ran the £245m loans fraud between 2003 and 2007.
It wiped out several small businesses and they used the profits on things such as luxury holidays and high-end prostitutes. Six staff were jailed in 2017.
The BBC however was right to take the action it did as his words were a direct contravention of their guidelines.
As we used to say here, link?
A guy who was apparently employed to enforce those guidelines says they were not.
In any case, how legally enforceable are guidelines? Surely the clue’s in the name, there to guide rather than order (very obviously so in the cases of Brillo, Sugar etc).
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
Isn’t it a case of both things were true?
Antisemitism was a big thing in Germany - Houston Stewart Chamberlain waves hello - but in day to day life, there was an equally marked level of liberalism towards Jews, compared to several other countries.
Well, yes, but since I said there was prejudice but it was milder, as in, less ruthlessly enforced, I don't think you can say 'both things were true.' It's not as though Germany was 'notorious for its antisemitism.' The much greater anti-religious prejudice was directed against the Catholic Church - which was state enforced through the Kulturkampf.
Well, the antisemitic movement originated there and you had HSC being feted by the great and the good.
What do you make of the Wilhelm–HSC letters?
That they were both unpleasant people and as mad as a box of frogs. I'm not sure why that's controversial.
But the Kaiser was an equal opportunities hater. He despised everyone.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
Isn’t it a case of both things were true?
Antisemitism was a big thing in Germany - Houston Stewart Chamberlain waves hello - but in day to day life, there was an equally marked level of liberalism towards Jews, compared to several other countries.
Well, yes, but since I said there was prejudice but it was milder, as in, less ruthlessly enforced, I don't think you can say 'both things were true.' It's not as though Germany was 'notorious for its antisemitism.' The much greater anti-religious prejudice was directed against the Catholic Church - which was state enforced through the Kulturkampf.
Well, the antisemitic movement originated there and you had HSC being feted by the great and the good.
What do you make of the Wilhelm–HSC letters?
That they were both unpleasant people and as mad as a box of frogs. I'm not sure why that's controversial.
But the Kaiser was an equal opportunities hater. He despised everyone.
It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now
It was due to start broadcasting at 12:15
It didn't
No pundits
World commentary
It is far better without pundits, indeed this Lineker episode may have made programme makers question their value, certainly at the reported figures they are paid
Last night's "highlights" show was up half a million viewers on the previous week wasn't it? If they can keep that up week on week just think of the money the BBC could save...
I watched it for the first time last night, out of curiosity. I won't be watching it again. There must be many like me.
I agree. It was a novelty.
That said there probably is an argument as to how much punditry is required on sports programming generally (and the fact every broadcaster does it doesn’t mean that it’a immune to change). Certainly you can question the need to have everyone sat around in a fancy studio (on location too for things like the Olympics or WC) when overlaid graphics and commentary should do the trick.
Apropos of the current discussion, this is a photo of German Jewish soldiers celebrating Hanukkah on the Eastern Front in 1916. Chilling to think of what would happen to the people in this picture who survived the war in their early middle-age.
Is the 'Rule' that we mustn't liken anything here to 1930s Germany until it's become sufficiently like 1930s Germany not to be hyperbole?
In which case, what does "Lessons From History" mean?
The point about 1930s Germany is that it preceded 1940s Germany, which was a lot worse, and if people had acted against 1930s Germany earlier, 1940s Germany might have been avoided. Why not compare to 1920s Germany if you want to make a linear argument?
Yes why not (if appropriate). Decades are an artificial way to view history anyway. On this specific matter - whipping up feeling against outsiders and implying it's patriotic to go along with it - the most appropriate 'time in Germany' comparisons would be to when this sort of stuff first started to gain traction there. Was that in the 30s or earlier? I don't know.
Anti semitism percolated throughout germany in the 1920s. You could say it all started after ww1.
I don't think anti-Semitism in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter, really began after WW1.
Well, in Germany yes it did. In fact prior to the First World War Jews considered Germany one of the safest countries sin Europe for them, well ahead of Russia (pogroms) and France (L'affaire Dreyfus).
Sure, there was prejudice against the Jews, but it was far milder than in almost any other European country. Hitler therefore was rather a break from left field (although he was not of course technically a German either and seems to have picked up his anti-semitism in pre-war Vienna).
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Germany was notorious for antisemitism in the late 19th century.
Not nonsense. He's completely correct.
Because you say so, despite being completely ignorant of what you're talking about. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing?
You're welcome to tell my source, Professor Sir Richard Evans of Cambridge University, that he's wrong.
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
If you're relying on an argument from authority, the least you have to do is quote him and cite the source.
But I'd be willing to bet he didn't say anything as ridiculous as that anti-semitism in Germany didn't "really" begin until after World War I. Because - I repeat - Germany was notorious for anti-semitism in the late 19th century.
It really wasn't. Sure there was prejudice, but no way was it 'notorious' for it. Certainly not compared to France or Russia which really were notorious for it.
So quote the authority you're relying on. He said there was no anti-semitism in Germany before World War I. Really?
No. And nor did I. And nor has anyone else. What we said was it was milder in form than most other countries and I later added that your statement 'Germany was notorious for its antisemitism' is flat out wrong, which is also correct.
I think you might benefit from rereading my comment before disappearing down a Hyufd style rabbit hole and threatening to nuke the Falklands.
If you are interested however, and can read German, try Kneipengesprache im Kaissereich (Bar Talk in the German Empire).
The BBC however was right to take the action it did as his words were a direct contravention of their guidelines.
As we used to say here, link?
A guy who was apparently employed to enforce those guidelines says they were not.
In any case, how legally enforceable are guidelines? Surely the clue’s in the name, there to guide rather than order (very obviously so in the cases of Brillo, Sugar etc).
And herein lies the problem. The BBC doesn’t even really know what it’s own guidelines and rules are, what it’s internal processes should be, and has a hideously inconsistent approach to enforcement.
For a large, well-established organisation that is hugely embarrassing.
That said there probably is an argument as to how much punditry is required on sports programming generally (and the fact every broadcaster does it doesn’t mean that it’a immune to change). Certainly you can question the need to have everyone sat around in a fancy studio (on location too for things like the Olympics or WC) when overlaid graphics and commentary should do the trick.
I don't think that's true
It seems to me some of the most popular Olympics coverage is the round up show when there is no live action and it's all clips with presenters and pundits
Comments
Interestingly, Nietzsche was aggressively opposed to the antisemites. Not because he was a fan of Jews, but because he regarded them (the antisemities) as stupid scum.
Something wrong with your logic, to put it mildly.
It would poison investment in the U.K. significantly.
They've become the party for people who are anti-government but who are too posh to vote Labour.
Scotland being somewhat different and where SLD have become the anti-SNP party in a few areas where they are historically strong and are either posh or in the Highlands and Islands.
On the other hand he was philosophically antisemitic - see "the Genealogy of Morality". He did also have a bit of a habit of regarding nearly everyone except himself as stupid.
It might be that's easier to do in times when Butskellism or Balmeronism is the order of the day, with a fair number of politicians who wouldn't look that out of place working with the other lot.
can confirm that during my visit to Washington DC last Christmas/ New Year I was informed that the US DoD were responsible for both the virus and the vaccines. Fort Detrick was named. Also a facility in Canada. (1/2)
10:19 AM · Mar 12, 2023
·
128.5K
Views
https://twitter.com/ABridgen/status/1634861570957225984?s=20
What's interesting is that this may actually show the upside of the current UK regulatory framework for banking, a foreign owned lender has gone bust, the UK branch is fully ring fenced and is basically ok with the clients facing much less uncertainty and losses than clients of the parent.
In the last few days, we’ve witnessed classics of all the genres.
At one point writing - “The Jews, however, are beyond any doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race now living in Europe; they know how to prevail even under the worst conditions (even better than under favourable conditions), by means of virtues that today one would like to mark as vices – thanks above all to a resolute faith that need not be ashamed before “modern ideas”
Which is a bit weird sounding in the other direction….
By the end of the month I expect to see the start of criminal proceedings against the many politicians and officials who are responsible around the world. (2/2)
10:19 AM · Mar 12, 2023
·
47.1K
Views
https://twitter.com/ABridgen/status/1634861697910599680?s=20
I’ve already said Trump’s deregulation of banks capitalised under $250bn ought to be reversed.
Stress tests might have prevented SVB’s huge gamble on low yielding bonds at the top of the market. A more modest gamble would have trashed their profits, but they’d likely have survived.
The issue is that it would be fine if they could be held to maturity (assuming the US government doesn’t default). However the depositors are demanding their money now. So they have to sell at a loss to fund the deposit outflow.
It looks like it should be Davie
Until they put their taxes up.
Instead it is in fact showing The Hairy Bikers
Hence the classic would be to arrange a buyout of the wreckage by one of the big banks, that can cover the deposit outflow in the short term.
A crisis happens, rules are put in place to prevent a repeat, time passes, the rules become seen as a pointless impediment to making big profits?
In this case, the time interval looks awfully short, but Trump is an fool and the life cycle of business is faster than in the past.
It was not a stupid comment, it was perfect.
The Tories and their friends are labelling absolutely everyone who comes across on a dingy a criminal, part of an invasion force - and insisting they should be treated as criminals.
If you suggested to Braverman and Sunak it would be a good idea if the asylum seekers in hotels awaiting processing wore something, like an armband to identify what they are, they’d think it a good idea.
The language of 1930s Germany was EXACTLY THE SAME labelling people who done no wrong, never been convicted of a crime as second class people and criminals. And in fact the language of 1930s Germany didn’t begin in Germany in the thirties, didn’t it. it’s as old as the human race.
The problem with PB on this is there are not enough Christians here thinking in a Christian way.
But perhaps you missed the nonsense that was being discussed about "it [anti-semitism in Germany] all started after ww1".
If he changes his mind as a result, I will endorse your views.
Order of priority is:
- Fixed charge holders
- Guaranteed deposits/employment claims
- Uninsured deposits for micro / small / medium companies*
- Other creditors/other depositors
* less than (a) turnover of €50m; (b) net assets of €43m; (c) 250 employees
That sounds like the micro/small/medium companies probably won’t lose money - good - but doesn’t offset the need for government liquidity provision
The issue here isn’t, as far as we know, that depositors money has been lost. It’s that the US bank had a liquidity crisis - they could get the money out of the Government securities they held to give depositors there money *now*, without taking a major loss on the sale of the securities.
So someone needs to hold the securities to maturity, while paying the depositors *their* money, in the present.
It doesn't kick off until 12.30 and is actually live on BBC 2 now
The first Jewish Museum in Berlin was founded on 24 January 1933, under the leadership of Karl Schwartz, six days before the Nazis officially gained power. The museum was built next to the Neue Synagoge on Oranienburger Straße and, in addition to curating Jewish history, also featured collections of modern Jewish art. Schwartz intended the museum as a means to revitalise Jewish creativity, and to demonstrate that Jewish history was living history.[2] The museum's art collection was also seen as a contribution to German art history and one of the last exhibitions to be held was a retrospective of the German impressionist, Ernst Oppler in 1937.[3] To reflect this focus on living history, the entrance hall of the museum both contained busts of prominent German Jews, such as Moses Mendelssohn and Abraham Geiger, and also a number of works by contemporary Jewish artists such as Arnold Zadikow and Lesser Ury.[2]
On 10 November 1938, during the 'November Pogroms', known as Kristallnacht, the museum was shut down by the Gestapo, and the museum's inventory was confiscated.[2] In 1976 a "Society for a Jewish Museum" formed and, three years later, the Berlin Museum, which chronicled the city's history, established a Jewish Department,[4] but already, discussions about constructing a new museum dedicated to Jewish history in Berlin were being held.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Museum_Berlin#History
Politics does attract em doesn't it?
Germany is a natural leader in all things, quite a few Germans had been schooled to believe, both intellectual, cultural and military, so if things had gone wrong it must have been the fault of this internal, not-completely-German group.
It didn't
No pundits
World commentary
Terry Pratchett was no Christian, for example;
"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
"It's a lot more complicated than that--"
"No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."
"Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes--"
"But they starts with thinking about people as things..."
Which is why "Stop the boats" is a clever but dangerous slogan. It's about stopping things, not people. By focusing on the awfulness of the boats, it's easier to skip over the people in them.
However that costs half a billion pounds and the voters the Conservative party are targeting do not like the payment to the French.
So the Baverman language and refugee policy is one big slab of red meat to those voters from the dead cat announcement aimed at focusing attention away from the French payment.
The Lineker controversy helps that approach.
A political approach by the opposition parties once this kerfuffle dies down would be to highlight the money going to the French.
Antisemitism was a big thing in Germany - Houston Stewart Chamberlain waves hello - but in day to day life, there was an equally marked level of liberalism towards Jews, compared to several other countries.
…
Most of royals bank with a state owned banked which is a horrific potential typo.
Losing all your money in a sudden bank crash is exactly the kind of cheap plot device soap writers love.
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2023/02/scottish-independence-gender-recognition-de-facto-referendum-my-latest-polling-from-scotland/
Stupidity all round is always the default explanation.
I mean, what exactly did the BBC hierarchy expect to happen?
But Chris knows better than Professor Evans and the people who run the Auschwitz memorial.
I asked this yesterday.
If the pundits add no value, why does every broadcaster of every sport on the planet use them?
Though I struggle to believe Jews were more integrated in Germany than in Britain, who had a Jewish PM multiple times in the 1800s.
When the facts look like this, Labour finds itself in a tricky position. They need to understand that the situation has changed - this isn't Afghans anymore. I'm pro-immigration (at least compared with the average position of PB posters), will almost certainly vote Labour in 2024, and want us to accept more refugees (Stuart posted some pretty shameful stats on this last night), but even I recognise that this is not desirable.
1) Deaths in the channel
2) Pressure on the resources of the Coastguard and RNLI
3) Asylum system clogged up
4) Income for human trafficking gangs
But, god bless us, for all that nevertheless we Brits just don't like large institutions, still less HMG, appearing to bully people for their views, whether they should have been expressed or not.
I visited Gleis 17 for the first time on my last trip to Berlin, a sobering experience. Along the edge of the platforms are steel ribbons stamped with the dates, the number of Jews transported and their destination. Sometimes over a thousand of Berlin’s Jews a day were being taken east, and the fuckers were still doing it in March 1945 with the Red Army only a hundred miles away.
A guy who was apparently employed to enforce those guidelines says they were not.
But I'm more modest than Chris.
But I'd be willing to bet he didn't say anything as ridiculous as that anti-semitism in Germany didn't "really" begin until after World War I. Because - I repeat - Germany was notorious for anti-semitism in the late 19th century.
Oh...sorry...this is a Malc post. You are now going to insult me and call me a "Little Englander" or some such thing for the temerity of saying something positive about the Sub-Human English...fire away Mr Malc!
What do you make of the Wilhelm–HSC letters?
Noel Edmonds has reached an agreement with Lloyds Banking Group worth a reported £5m after his former business was destroyed following fraud at one of its branches.
The TV star had been in a long-running court battle with the bank and originally sought compensation of more than £60m.
As well as the payout, the bank apologised for the distress caused to Edmonds - who previously said he had tried to kill himself after his business was ruined by the scam.
Staff at the HBOS branch in Reading ran the £245m loans fraud between 2003 and 2007.
It wiped out several small businesses and they used the profits on things such as luxury holidays and high-end prostitutes. Six staff were jailed in 2017.
https://news.sky.com/story/noel-edmonds-agrees-deal-with-lloyds-over-bank-fraud-case-11771607
Frankly, I think you know he didn't say anything so ridiculous.
But this reading denies that Gary Lineker is closely associated with the BBC. I don't accept this. I think that Gary Lineker is very much associated with the BBC indeed is a face of the BBC.
That grew from obscurity and over the years achieved a popularity that extended well beyond the niche racing audience it began with. Then, at the height of its popularity, it was taken over by a new production team and they wanted one of the chief presenters out; that was John McCririck, whom I'm sure you remember. His views were not compatible with the image the new producers wished to present. One or two others resigned in sympathy with him, and a few others were dismissed because they no longer fitted.
McCririck sued the company and lost. I read the judgement, and agreed with it. They had every right to dismiss him. It was unwise though. The programme's popularity went into a steep decline from which it never recovered, and it eventually closed down.
I can see something similar happening with MOTD.
But the Kaiser was an equal opportunities hater. He despised everyone.
That said there probably is an argument as to how much punditry is required on sports programming generally (and the fact every broadcaster does it doesn’t mean that it’a immune to change). Certainly you can question the need to have everyone sat around in a fancy studio (on location too for things like the Olympics or WC) when overlaid graphics and commentary should do the trick.
I think you might benefit from rereading my comment before disappearing down a Hyufd style rabbit hole and threatening to nuke the Falklands.
If you are interested however, and can read German, try Kneipengesprache im Kaissereich (Bar Talk in the German Empire).
And now I have work to do. Have a good afternoon.
Did you get your knickers in a twist over that?
No, thought not.
For a large, well-established organisation that is hugely embarrassing.
It seems to me some of the most popular Olympics coverage is the round up show when there is no live action and it's all clips with presenters and pundits
We could ask the person on the Clapham omnibus and I would wager that they would think so also.