"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
The misanthropic knob has been saying this for years, decades. It would be noteworthy if he said anything positive about the English, or anyone.
Perhaps that whole genre of Remoaner Anglo-bashing can be traced back to his influence.
This Anglo-bashing is cultural appropriation. The Welsh have been doing it for a thousand years and some Johnny-come-latelies have just rocked up with their North London lattes and claimed it as their own. Disgusting.
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You are quite right. Also, as a goy, I am strictly neutral as to whether the shoah was inimical to jews. Who am I to judge?
Non sequitur alert. And. To my mind, an extremely offensive one.
No, it makes perfect and very obvious sense. It offends you only because of the accuracy with which it skewers you.
No it doesn't. You do this a lot. You produce an analogy that that you think proves your point but doesn't. It is always possible to have two different scenarios where in one case you have to be within a set to appreciate consequences and other scenarios where you can appreciate the consequences when outside of the set. You assume an analogy proves a point. It doesn't. Analogies are useful to clarify the logic of the point only, it doesn't make it conclusive.
That makes no sense to me, it's like a cargo cult invocation of set theory. But I think you are the guy who had an operatic 48 hour wobbly at me shortly after I joined the site for presuming to disagree with you, because you had quote a degree in logic unquote, so definitely bedtime for me.
a) I thought we got over that, but the wobbly was because you were very insensitive simply because I had to leave the site for a few hours to sort out the clearance of my deceased father's house so had to postpone the discussion to which you reacted badly. Some things are more important than PB. I can't believe you don't get that.
b) The degree in logic jibe was because you are quite arrogant about this stuff. I noted you used the same quote ' You are not very good at this are you ' again - very arrogant. That is why you got that comment.
c) In terms of the contents of the discussion you think you can always appreciate something even if you outside of the set. That is clearly not true. There are lots of examples where that isn't true. So giving an analogy which supports your view doesn't mean your view is always right. Analogies have their limitations. Your analogy was very clear cut, but it doesn't prove what @dixiedean posted wasn't also true (admittedly that was a matter of opinion). Nearly all your arguments rely on analogies and they are always very good and can make the logical argument very clear. However that doesn't make it always right though.
In a nut shell one can think of examples where to appreciate something you have to be part of it and other examples where you don't have to be part of it to appreciate it. Because you have given an example of the latter doesn't mean the former doesn't exist.
Can I recommend you read Surfaces and Essences by Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander? In it, they argue for the centrality and inescapability of analogy in human reasoning. I think you would be convinced to reword what you've said above in the light of that book. That said, I think you'd correct in what you're getting at. Analogies are sometime inapplicable to a given situation. But you can't rid yourself of analogies because they are integral to intelligence.
Well, quite. A sound analogy is as sound an argument as you are going to find on a May morning. You attack one by showing where it breaks down, not by saying Ooooh, you and your analogies.
And saying "I am right, I have got a degree in logic" is so far beyond pathetic that it is very difficult to know what the response is other than "liar."
You really are a piece of work aren't you. Why can't you have a civilised discussion rather being offensive?
a) I have explained why your argument is flawed. There is nothing wrong with an accurate analogy, but it is easy to get it wrong and I have pointed out where it is flawed.
b) Only you have brought up the 'degree in logic' this time and as explained last time it was a barb because you were being so arrogant and offensive. As I also pointed out, as far as I am aware no such thing exists. I do however have a degree in mathematics from Manchester University and I specialised in logic in my 2nd and 3rd year. I do not appreciate being called a liar. I graduated in 1976.
As usual, as you did last time (when I had to leave), you jump to inaccurate conclusions, yet you don't accept you might have other stuff wrong. As I said very arrogant.
PS I also never said what you said I said. Taking something out of context is also a failing.
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
It is a little ironic that we have a heading that "Silence is not golden" when the BBC are going to such lengths to protect the identity of one of their male presenters who is alleged to have acted in a seriously inappropriate way. I have no idea who this person is but I have to question why this identity is being withheld. Has it occurred to the police or the BBC that this may not be an entirely isolated event? Is it not at least possible that disclosure will bring forward other complainers?
I suspect that the identity will be fairly well known with 24 hours or so but I would still question why it was withheld at all.
None of which takes anything at all from the excellent points made by @Cyclefree in her thread header, of course.
"Why isn't BBC presenter being named by the media?"
Ten years ago, Sally Bercow, wife of the then Speaker of the House of Commons, had to pay damages to ....
Even though its clear the individual was not what was claimed, that a settlement had to be paid etc, it just keeps bringing up the name of the individual back into the public domain. They could have just reported it as Sally Bercow hinted that an individual as a paedo, which was untrue, and had to pay damages.
To a lesser extent, the same way as Michael Vaughan continuously now is was alleged to have say racist thing, but...
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
You are quite right. Also, as a goy, I am strictly neutral as to whether the shoah was inimical to jews. Who am I to judge?
Non sequitur alert. And. To my mind, an extremely offensive one.
No, it makes perfect and very obvious sense. It offends you only because of the accuracy with which it skewers you.
No it doesn't. You do this a lot. You produce an analogy that that you think proves your point but doesn't. It is always possible to have two different scenarios where in one case you have to be within a set to appreciate consequences and other scenarios where you can appreciate the consequences when outside of the set. You assume an analogy proves a point. It doesn't. Analogies are useful to clarify the logic of the point only, it doesn't make it conclusive.
That makes no sense to me, it's like a cargo cult invocation of set theory. But I think you are the guy who had an operatic 48 hour wobbly at me shortly after I joined the site for presuming to disagree with you, because you had quote a degree in logic unquote, so definitely bedtime for me.
a) I thought we got over that, but the wobbly was because you were very insensitive simply because I had to leave the site for a few hours to sort out the clearance of my deceased father's house so had to postpone the discussion to which you reacted badly. Some things are more important than PB. I can't believe you don't get that.
b) The degree in logic jibe was because you are quite arrogant about this stuff. I noted you used the same quote ' You are not very good at this are you ' again - very arrogant. That is why you got that comment.
c) In terms of the contents of the discussion you think you can always appreciate something even if you outside of the set. That is clearly not true. There are lots of examples where that isn't true. So giving an analogy which supports your view doesn't mean your view is always right. Analogies have their limitations. Your analogy was very clear cut, but it doesn't prove what @dixiedean posted wasn't also true (admittedly that was a matter of opinion). Nearly all your arguments rely on analogies and they are always very good and can make the logical argument very clear. However that doesn't make it always right though.
In a nut shell one can think of examples where to appreciate something you have to be part of it and other examples where you don't have to be part of it to appreciate it. Because you have given an example of the latter doesn't mean the former doesn't exist.
Can I recommend you read Surfaces and Essences by Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander? In it, they argue for the centrality and inescapability of analogy in human reasoning. I think you would be convinced to reword what you've said above in the light of that book. That said, I think you'd correct in what you're getting at. Analogies are sometime inapplicable to a given situation. But you can't rid yourself of analogies because they are integral to intelligence.
Well, quite. A sound analogy is as sound an argument as you are going to find on a May morning. You attack one by showing where it breaks down, not by saying Ooooh, you and your analogies.
And saying "I am right, I have got a degree in logic" is so far beyond pathetic that it is very difficult to know what the response is other than "liar."
You really are a piece of work aren't you. Why can't you have a civilised discussion rather being offensive?
a) I have explained why your argument is flawed. There is nothing wrong with an accurate analogy, but it is easy to get it wrong and I have pointed out where it is flawed.
b) Only you have brought up the 'degree in logic' this time and as explained last time it was a barb because you were being so arrogant and offensive. As I also pointed out, as far as I am aware no such thing exists. I do however have a degree in mathematics from Manchester University and I specialised in logic in my 2nd and 3rd year. I do not appreciate being called a liar. I graduated in 1976.
As usual, as you did last time (when I had to leave), you jump to inaccurate conclusions, yet you don't accept you might have other stuff wrong. As I said very arrogant.
PS I also never said what you said I said. Taking something out of context is also a failing.
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
The misanthropic knob has been saying this for years, decades. It would be noteworthy if he said anything positive about the English, or anyone.
Misanglothropic?
I am reliably informed that the English may be defined as human.
Even the ones from Yorkshire?
Yorkshire is only coincidentally in England.
Yorkshire is the England of England, says my wife. She is from Yorkshire and is human but I'm still not sure about her parents. Perhaps she was adopted.
I think that the last paragraph of the erudite header is somewhat harsh on the Mayor. His silence (if indeed he is, and remains, silent) obviously does not indicate that he agrees with the rather obnoxious speaker at the rally. Indeed, I'm absolutely sure that Khan condemns any calls to violence on the streets of London, be it against 'terfs', JSO protestors, ER or whoever. But it's special pleading to expect him to comment on this case specifically among the myriad of unpleasantry that must cross his desk every day.
Dealing with the law is the Met's job (yes, I know).
If he can take time to issue a Tweet in praise of the march, he can take time to issue a tweet saying that threats of violence against women are wrong, especially when he has said that this is what men should do in his own policy for which he likes to take the credit.
It is a little ironic that we have a heading that "Silence is not golden" when the BBC are going to such lengths to protect the identity of one of their male presenters who is alleged to have acted in a seriously inappropriate way. I have no idea who this person is but I have to question why this identity is being withheld. Has it occurred to the police or the BBC that this may not be an entirely isolated event? Is it not at least possible that disclosure will bring forward other complainers?
I suspect that the identity will be fairly well known with 24 hours or so but I would still question why it was withheld at all.
None of which takes anything at all from the excellent points made by @Cyclefree in her thread header, of course.
I don't particularly want to find out who it is, but it'll become blindingly obvious over the coming days and weeks to anyone who regularly watches BBC News which presenter has suddenly disappeared from screens.
I think that the last paragraph of the erudite header is somewhat harsh on the Mayor. His silence (if indeed he is, and remains, silent) obviously does not indicate that he agrees with the rather obnoxious speaker at the rally. Indeed, I'm absolutely sure that Khan condemns any calls to violence on the streets of London, be it against 'terfs', JSO protestors, ER or whoever. But it's special pleading to expect him to comment on this case specifically among the myriad of unpleasantry that must cross his desk every day.
Dealing with the law is the Met's job (yes, I know).
If he can take time to issue a Tweet in praise of the march, he can take time to issue a tweet saying that threats of violence against women are wrong, especially when he has said that this is what men should do in his own policy for which he likes to take the credit.
The mayor of London is also the Police and Crime Commissioner. If, as you have detailed, there are grounds for thinking a crime might have been committed by the speaker, is there an argument to say the PCC should actively avoid speaking in a way that could prejudice an investigation or case? That is an issue you've been very sensitive to in other contexts: you seemed to be of the opinion that private comments to colleagues about the party membership of Nicola Sturgeon were beyond the pale. Yet here you are demanding public comments from the PCC on the very substance of a possible crime? Doesn't that strike you as a little inconsistent?
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
Organisations like BLM, Stonewall and Mermaids need to be put out to grass.
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
Are we genuinely wondering if a Spectator article writer is a Leaver? I thought it was compulsory.
There are a variety of views on Europe at the Spectator.
Some people believe in severing all ties with the EU. Others take a different view, believing only a proper cleansing war can finally rid the world of the European Union.
Did the writer of this piece contact the Mayor's office for a comment?
I think if you're demanding in an article that someone make a comment about an event yesterday, you should at least make that effort.
Yes I did. Before writing it.
Ok, I'll bite. What form did this contact take? I have a picture of you yelling over his wall.
The trans pride event in London started at 1pm Sat Jul 8[1]. I don't know at what time the person made the offensive remark, but mediocrity says around 4pm. You would have to have noted the remark, contacted Khan, waited a day, not received a reply, written the article, sent it to OGH for approval, got one of the mods to format it and got it published by 10pm Sunday.
Two points.
* It is a mark of our times that news spreads instantly and we demand instant responses, even when implausible * God you're fast. The fastest it took me to write an article (Coronation) was five days, and that's only because I was ill.
"Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me."
Are we genuinely wondering if a Spectator article writer is a Leaver? I thought it was compulsory.
There are a variety of views on Europe at the Spectator.
Some people believe in severing all ties with the EU. Others take a different view, believing only a proper cleansing war can finally rid the world of the European Union.
"I'm not known for being tough on immigration - but we must give the Rwanda plan a chance Despite protestations, no one has put forward an alternative to the PM’s scheme. We can no longer simply do nothing Ken Clarke"
Are there no organisations prepared to stand up to Stonewall and Mermaids, or at least try and explain to them that their actions are inimical to Trans people?
Surely that's for trans people to decide?
Yes but mermaids and stonewalls agenda does not just affect trans people it also affects biological women.
That wasn't my point. The poster asserted that those organisations are inimical to trans rights. Only trans people can judge whether they are or are not.
That is a ridiculous comment. You do not have to be a member of a group to be able to observe and understand organisations that might be detrimental to their cause. Indeed it is often the case that those most closely/directly involved are the very people who are unable to judge what might be doing them good or harm within wider society.
An obvious example. Trump and his message are very bad for the lower middle classes of the USA - the very people he claims to be representing. And yet, whilst most external observers can see he is just using them and is very bad for their cause, that section of US society is the one most likely to support him because they believe he is acting in their best interests.
Yes but. An outsider telling them that has limited utility.
The alternative being to let them continue to be used and misled by organsations that are actively damaging their cause?
Of course I am not the one who should be doing the telling. But the question posed by Fairliered was whether or not there are organisations that can do this and would be taken seriously?
But you and Fairliered are the ones asserting it is damaging their cause. And "used and misled" is quite emotive language, implying it is deliberate on some level. Misguided may be better. I say it is for trans people to decide that.
And as in the example I have given you would be completely wrong. Indeed it is often the people who are being most used and hurt who are unable (or unwilling) to see it.
This is not, as you seek to claim, to say that we are saying that they are stupid or thick. This is a normal human condition and we see it all over the world and all the way down through history from otherwise highly intelligent people. None of us are immune from it. But it doesn't make it any less real.
Which may be true. We can all be wrong. Are you 100% convinced you are right? Or is it multi millions of funding from the Evangelical Right in the USA that has made a relatively innocuous niche issue so very controversial?
Um. No. Massive straw man from you there. It is controversial because it has real world effects on other people. The whole debate is about whether it is right to sacrifice one set of rights (those of straight and gay women) for the sake of another set of rights (those of Transgender women).
There must be a compromise available but organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids are unwilling to even discuss it and simply insist that their view and their way is the only one. They are as much fundamentalists in their own way as the idiots who simply oppose anything to do with transgender rights.
Organisations like BLM, Stonewall and Mermaids need to be put out to grass.
"I'm not known for being tough on immigration - but we must give the Rwanda plan a chance Despite protestations, no one has put forward an alternative to the PM’s scheme. We can no longer simply do nothing Ken Clarke"
Perhaps surprisingly I have some sympathy with the principle, if not the execution. If we do not wish to quarter unofficial migrants in the UK, then we must place them elsewhere. Rwanda is not my first choice, but noodling about the choice of elsewhere does not alter the principle. People keep insisting that policy decisions be done instantly, perfectly, and for free. It's not like that.
Just worked it out I think. Serious serious skadoodles for the BBC, dam on the story breaks tomorrow I reckon.
Someone pointed out that a line from The Thick Of It refers in passing to a 'rumour' about possibly the same person.
Given that the Thick of It had to restructure itself rapidly after Chris Langham got caught (a decision that fronted Peter Capaldi, improved the show immeasurably, and eventually gave us the Twelfth Doctor, so there's that), there's a degree of irony here.
"Stuart Campbell – the man behind pro-independence blog Wings Over Scotland – claimed last month that First Direct, his bank for over 25 years, cancelled his personal account out of the blue, without even informing him. He only found out when his card was declined at the supermarket.
First Direct offered no explanation as to why it did this to Campbell. But it’s possible to make an educated guess. As well as campaigning for Scottish independence, Campbell has not held back when attacking the excesses of woke ideology. Recently, he has been especially critical of the SNP’s trans policies."
"Stuart Campbell – the man behind pro-independence blog Wings Over Scotland – claimed last month that First Direct, his bank for over 25 years, cancelled his personal account out of the blue, without even informing him. He only found out when his card was declined at the supermarket.
First Direct offered no explanation as to why it did this to Campbell. But it’s possible to make an educated guess. As well as campaigning for Scottish independence, Campbell has not held back when attacking the excesses of woke ideology. Recently, he has been especially critical of the SNP’s trans policies."
"Stuart Campbell – the man behind pro-independence blog Wings Over Scotland – claimed last month that First Direct, his bank for over 25 years, cancelled his personal account out of the blue, without even informing him. He only found out when his card was declined at the supermarket.
First Direct offered no explanation as to why it did this to Campbell. But it’s possible to make an educated guess. As well as campaigning for Scottish independence, Campbell has not held back when attacking the excesses of woke ideology. Recently, he has been especially critical of the SNP’s trans policies."
"Stuart Campbell – the man behind pro-independence blog Wings Over Scotland – claimed last month that First Direct, his bank for over 25 years, cancelled his personal account out of the blue, without even informing him. He only found out when his card was declined at the supermarket.
First Direct offered no explanation as to why it did this to Campbell. But it’s possible to make an educated guess. As well as campaigning for Scottish independence, Campbell has not held back when attacking the excesses of woke ideology. Recently, he has been especially critical of the SNP’s trans policies."
[Naked Attraction. People have too many tattoos these days]
[Although I did see A Spy Among Friends earlier. It was good by modern standards, although apparently they did not have sunlight in the 50s. Guy Pearce did his Prometheus voice, Damien Lewis was good]
"Stuart Campbell – the man behind pro-independence blog Wings Over Scotland – claimed last month that First Direct, his bank for over 25 years, cancelled his personal account out of the blue, without even informing him. He only found out when his card was declined at the supermarket.
First Direct offered no explanation as to why it did this to Campbell. But it’s possible to make an educated guess. As well as campaigning for Scottish independence, Campbell has not held back when attacking the excesses of woke ideology. Recently, he has been especially critical of the SNP’s trans policies."
[Naked Attraction. People have too many tattoos these days]
[Although I did see A Spy Among Friends earlier. It was good by modern standards, although apparently they did not have sunlight in the 50s. Guy Pearce did his Prometheus voice, Damien Lewis was good]
[Am torn. Shall I watch "A Most Violent Year" on the Great Movies Channel or "First Dates" on E4?]
"Stuart Campbell – the man behind pro-independence blog Wings Over Scotland – claimed last month that First Direct, his bank for over 25 years, cancelled his personal account out of the blue, without even informing him. He only found out when his card was declined at the supermarket.
First Direct offered no explanation as to why it did this to Campbell. But it’s possible to make an educated guess. As well as campaigning for Scottish independence, Campbell has not held back when attacking the excesses of woke ideology. Recently, he has been especially critical of the SNP’s trans policies."
"Stuart Campbell – the man behind pro-independence blog Wings Over Scotland – claimed last month that First Direct, his bank for over 25 years, cancelled his personal account out of the blue, without even informing him. He only found out when his card was declined at the supermarket.
First Direct offered no explanation as to why it did this to Campbell. But it’s possible to make an educated guess. As well as campaigning for Scottish independence, Campbell has not held back when attacking the excesses of woke ideology. Recently, he has been especially critical of the SNP’s trans policies."
[Naked Attraction. People have too many tattoos these days]
What is the correct number of tattoos that a person should have?
Glib answer. Zero.
Unglib answer: some tattoos are very good - I saw one guy with a whole Buddhist scene on his back and buttocks, done in a black and white style with fine line-crossing, and those Maori tattoos that were fashionable in the Noughties were quite good, and the Rose tattoos on Cheryl's buttocks seemed good, and the delicate filligree under women's breasts seems to work - but as a rule of thumb people do them piecemeal, they don't fit together nor the person's contours, the colours fade rapidly and they come across as random incoherent squiggles containing meaningless or offensive imagery.
"Stuart Campbell – the man behind pro-independence blog Wings Over Scotland – claimed last month that First Direct, his bank for over 25 years, cancelled his personal account out of the blue, without even informing him. He only found out when his card was declined at the supermarket.
First Direct offered no explanation as to why it did this to Campbell. But it’s possible to make an educated guess. As well as campaigning for Scottish independence, Campbell has not held back when attacking the excesses of woke ideology. Recently, he has been especially critical of the SNP’s trans policies."
[Naked Attraction. People have too many tattoos these days]
[Although I did see A Spy Among Friends earlier. It was good by modern standards, although apparently they did not have sunlight in the 50s. Guy Pearce did his Prometheus voice, Damien Lewis was good]
[Am torn. Shall I watch "A Most Violent Year" on the Great Movies Channel or "First Dates" on E4?]
[I went for "First Dates". There's a young Essexsh couple. They're talking animatedly. About tattoos. Oh godsdamnit]
"Stuart Campbell – the man behind pro-independence blog Wings Over Scotland – claimed last month that First Direct, his bank for over 25 years, cancelled his personal account out of the blue, without even informing him. He only found out when his card was declined at the supermarket.
First Direct offered no explanation as to why it did this to Campbell. But it’s possible to make an educated guess. As well as campaigning for Scottish independence, Campbell has not held back when attacking the excesses of woke ideology. Recently, he has been especially critical of the SNP’s trans policies."
Other political figures who have had accounts or closed include Jeremy Hunt and Ken Clarke, who have not campaigned for Scottish independence. As your linked article finally gets round to admitting, it is most likely the enhanced anti-money laundering procedures for PEPs (politically exposed persons) that are to blame, as indeed even Nigel Farage has said. Either banks are too trigger happy or PEP customers are unwilling to jump through intrusive and bureaucratic hoops demanded by the banks.
Of course, as punters many of us face the same problems with having betting accounts closed for similar reasons.
Comments
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/british-expats-in-the-eu-fear-a-stronger-euro-far-more-than-they-fear-brexit/
a) I have explained why your argument is flawed. There is nothing wrong with an accurate analogy, but it is easy to get it wrong and I have pointed out where it is flawed.
b) Only you have brought up the 'degree in logic' this time and as explained last time it was a barb because you were being so arrogant and offensive. As I also pointed out, as far as I am aware no such thing exists. I do however have a degree in mathematics from Manchester University and I specialised in logic in my 2nd and 3rd year. I do not appreciate being called a liar. I graduated in 1976.
As usual, as you did last time (when I had to leave), you jump to inaccurate conclusions, yet you don't accept you might have other stuff wrong. As I said very arrogant.
PS I also never said what you said I said. Taking something out of context is also a failing.
Ten years ago, Sally Bercow, wife of the then Speaker of the House of Commons, had to pay damages to ....
Even though its clear the individual was not what was claimed, that a settlement had to be paid etc, it just keeps bringing up the name of the individual back into the public domain. They could have just reported it as Sally Bercow hinted that an individual as a paedo, which was untrue, and had to pay damages.
To a lesser extent, the same way as Michael Vaughan continuously now is was alleged to have say racist thing, but...
The fact you don't care about this speaks only to your lack of a moral compass.
She is from Yorkshire and is human but I'm still not sure about her parents. Perhaps she was adopted.
How the hell can anyone think that criticising someone saying to "punch [women] in the f***ing face" is about "trans issues"?
You can be 100% pro-trans and 100% against 'punching women in the f***ing face'.
That is an issue you've been very sensitive to in other contexts: you seemed to be of the opinion that private comments to colleagues about the party membership of Nicola Sturgeon were beyond the pale. Yet here you are demanding public comments from the PCC on the very substance of a possible crime? Doesn't that strike you as a little inconsistent?
Some people believe in severing all ties with the EU. Others take a different view, believing only a proper cleansing war can finally rid the world of the European Union.
Two points.
* It is a mark of our times that news spreads instantly and we demand instant responses, even when implausible
* God you're fast. The fastest it took me to write an article (Coronation) was five days, and that's only because I was ill.
Notes
[1] https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/uk/london-trans-pride-2023-date-location-and-route-revealed/articleshow/101522224.cms
"I'm not known for being tough on immigration - but we must give the Rwanda plan a chance
Despite protestations, no one has put forward an alternative to the PM’s scheme. We can no longer simply do nothing
Ken Clarke"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/09/mps-must-give-the-rwanda-plan-a-chance/
"Stuart Campbell – the man behind pro-independence blog Wings Over Scotland – claimed last month that First Direct, his bank for over 25 years, cancelled his personal account out of the blue, without even informing him. He only found out when his card was declined at the supermarket.
First Direct offered no explanation as to why it did this to Campbell. But it’s possible to make an educated guess. As well as campaigning for Scottish independence, Campbell has not held back when attacking the excesses of woke ideology. Recently, he has been especially critical of the SNP’s trans policies."
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/07/07/the-terrifying-rise-of-debanking/
Unglib answer: some tattoos are very good - I saw one guy with a whole Buddhist scene on his back and buttocks, done in a black and white style with fine line-crossing, and those Maori tattoos that were fashionable in the Noughties were quite good, and the Rose tattoos on Cheryl's buttocks seemed good, and the delicate filligree under women's breasts seems to work - but as a rule of thumb people do them piecemeal, they don't fit together nor the person's contours, the colours fade rapidly and they come across as random incoherent squiggles containing meaningless or offensive imagery.
That's probably more info than you wanted...😀
Of course, as punters many of us face the same problems with having betting accounts closed for similar reasons.
Jeremy Hunt denied bank account by Monzo
Chancellor is among multiple politicians to have accounts denied and cards cancelled because of 'disproportionate' money laundering rules
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/08/jeremy-hunt-denied-bank-account-american-express-monzo/ (£££)