The photo of the poppy sellers at Charing Cross Station surrounded by pro-Palestine demonstrators yesterday afternoon has resonated with me all day.
As someone said, it may well turn out to be one of those iconic images which says so much about who we are and where we are. The immediate thought for me was incomprehension - two groups of people, united by war and peace, but whose worlds and perspectives are completely alien to each other.
Perhaps the biggest misnomer is the notion we live in a United Kingdom. We may be many things and we certainly are a Kingdom but United - in so many ways, no.
Perhaps not, but worth bearing in mind that such people who walk through central London on a protest march and do things notable /outrageous enough to get reported are a tiny fraction of the overall population.
Nevertheless, I agree it is still disturbing.
And part of the point of this country is that we aren’t United in lock step. Which is very untidy and means we don’t get to do this
The Nazis never achieved an absolute majority even after they gained power and held the last "free" election. All you need is a majority cowed by a violent ruthless minority - the Bolsheviks showed that in 1917.
In the wake of the re-occupation of the Rhineland and after the Anschluss, support for the Nazi party and Hitler reached stratospheric levels. Similarly after the fall of France.
This was what the opposition to Hitler found, incidentally, not just Nazi propaganda.
Greater Germany was very popular with the Germans.
Not doubting you, but how was this "support" actually measurable in a dictatorship?
If you think Boris Johnson or Liz Truss or even Rishi Sunak deserve the prize for "person who has successfully wrecked their own political career", I offer as an alternative nomination, Sadiq Khan.
His decision to run for a third term as London Mayor will be seen as the greatest act of self-inflicted career harm since Gerald Ratner thought he'd be honest about his company's products.
Even though I find Susan Hall to have the personality and charisma of a small paper bag, there's a very real chance (in my view) she will snatch the Mayoralty next year because Sadiq is universally loathed in Outer London despite the ULEZ being a bit of a damp squib.
Sadiq could have eschewed a third term, found himself a nice safe seat in London and got himself on the Ministerial ladder in a Starmer Government with the possibility of a Cabinet post in a couple of reshuffles. A replacement Labour candidate would have had a real chance of reconnecting with London voters and would have inflicted as heavy a defeat on Susan Hall as (find your own analogy, something from the Punic Wars usually works).
Khan's error was he made his decision far too early - in the early stages of the pandemic when Johnson was still being worshipped by most and the Conservatives were miles ahead in the polls. Khan obviously calculated there was no way Starmer was going to win against the Chief Optimist so he (Khan) could continue to be a significant Labour voice in the country.
That turned out well, didn't it?
If Susan Hall beats Khan in London and Starmer beats Sunak nationwide that will be confirmation to Conservatives they need to move right in opposition
That would be the wrong conclusion. Sometimes elections are won not because you have the best candidate and the best policies but because you have the least worst candidate and the less unpopular policies.
Under FPTP, Hall could win with a smaller vote share than Bailey managed last time if Labour's vote fragments or stays at home. She would then waste her four years attacking the Labour Government at every turn and in 2028 she'll be the one on the wrong end of an election defeat which itself would be a confidence boost for Labour in advance of a 2029 election.
Parties often draw the wrong conclusions from things, though... especially when it is things they want to believe anyway. See also the Uxbridge by-election, which has nudged the Conservatives in a direction that works in Zone 6 and similar fringes of other metropolises, but makes them less popular overall.
The big question is what Comrade Jez decides to do. If he stands, the game might be afoot. Need some polling now that ULEZ opposition is shrinking to a very angry minority.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
"One of Scotland Yard’s most senior officers is facing the sack if found guilty of procuring information held on police systems to undermine a bullying probe against him."
A Deputy Assistant Commissioner. The article contains this gem - even after the bullying allegations against him were substantiated, he was promoted to become the Met's Head of Standards. (Who even realised the Met was meant to have standards let alone someone in charge of upholding them?)
By whom?
Need you ask. Cressida Dick. She appointed him because he was, in her eyes, a "very capable man” doing excellent work at the Met. Of course he was.
Apart from ticking diversity boxes what did Cressida Dick do to continually get promoted ?
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
Not convinced. The polling suggests most people are sympathetic to both sides in this fight and they also know how much work SKS has done to eject the antisemitism from his party. We’ve all lived with the fact there are crazies on the right of the Tories, even during the Cameron years, so I’m not sure the fringe will have that much effect.
The simple point, and it's why the actually quite fair, "You sat in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet" attacks don't get much purchase, is that Starmer has shown himself prepared to face down his party's extremes to the extent he's often the one the crazies are ranting at.
That's a pretty stark contrast to, say, Tory conference, which seemed utterly out of control as a carnival of madder parts of the right.
In fact, the less palatable the protests are, the more it might strengthen him - as those who are broadly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause on the left, but are sensible enough to see there's a big problem with its extremes, might see the positives of his more considered approach.
"One of Scotland Yard’s most senior officers is facing the sack if found guilty of procuring information held on police systems to undermine a bullying probe against him."
A Deputy Assistant Commissioner. The article contains this gem - even after the bullying allegations against him were substantiated, he was promoted to become the Met's Head of Standards. (Who even realised the Met was meant to have standards let alone someone in charge of upholding them?)
By whom?
Need you ask. Cressida Dick. She appointed him because he was, in her eyes, a "very capable man” doing excellent work at the Met. Of course he was.
Apart from ticking diversity boxes what did Cressida Dick do to continually get promoted ?
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
Which poll was this? And what was the mirror image of those supporting Israel uncritically, with no sympathy for the Palestinians?
As far as I can see, the vast majority either have no opinion or favour a 2 state solution, which incidentally is also our governments position.
"One of Scotland Yard’s most senior officers is facing the sack if found guilty of procuring information held on police systems to undermine a bullying probe against him."
A Deputy Assistant Commissioner. The article contains this gem - even after the bullying allegations against him were substantiated, he was promoted to become the Met's Head of Standards. (Who even realised the Met was meant to have standards let alone someone in charge of upholding them?)
By whom?
Need you ask. Cressida Dick. She appointed him because he was, in her eyes, a "very capable man” doing excellent work at the Met. Of course he was.
Apart from ticking diversity boxes what did Cressida Dick do to continually get promoted ?
If you think Boris Johnson or Liz Truss or even Rishi Sunak deserve the prize for "person who has successfully wrecked their own political career", I offer as an alternative nomination, Sadiq Khan.
His decision to run for a third term as London Mayor will be seen as the greatest act of self-inflicted career harm since Gerald Ratner thought he'd be honest about his company's products.
Even though I find Susan Hall to have the personality and charisma of a small paper bag, there's a very real chance (in my view) she will snatch the Mayoralty next year because Sadiq is universally loathed in Outer London despite the ULEZ being a bit of a damp squib.
Sadiq could have eschewed a third term, found himself a nice safe seat in London and got himself on the Ministerial ladder in a Starmer Government with the possibility of a Cabinet post in a couple of reshuffles. A replacement Labour candidate would have had a real chance of reconnecting with London voters and would have inflicted as heavy a defeat on Susan Hall as (find your own analogy, something from the Punic Wars usually works).
Khan's error was he made his decision far too early - in the early stages of the pandemic when Johnson was still being worshipped by most and the Conservatives were miles ahead in the polls. Khan obviously calculated there was no way Starmer was going to win against the Chief Optimist so he (Khan) could continue to be a significant Labour voice in the country.
That turned out well, didn't it?
If Susan Hall beats Khan in London and Starmer beats Sunak nationwide that will be confirmation to Conservatives they need to move right in opposition
Hall would only beat Khan if Corbyn stands and splits the votes . So it’s hardly an endorsement of moving to the right.
"One of Scotland Yard’s most senior officers is facing the sack if found guilty of procuring information held on police systems to undermine a bullying probe against him."
A Deputy Assistant Commissioner. The article contains this gem - even after the bullying allegations against him were substantiated, he was promoted to become the Met's Head of Standards. (Who even realised the Met was meant to have standards let alone someone in charge of upholding them?)
By whom?
Need you ask. Cressida Dick. She appointed him because he was, in her eyes, a "very capable man” doing excellent work at the Met. Of course he was.
Apart from ticking diversity boxes what did Cressida Dick do to continually get promoted ?
She certainly seems good at persuading people at the top of her worth.
In Richard Henriques' excellent memoir he talks about many cases and topics, including excoriating the police over Operation Midland for example, but in his chapter on the de Menezes case he is quite glowing about her qualities.
Obviously he has a great deal more knowledge, experience, and wisdom than I, but given her tenure as Commissioner as observed as a layman, he and the jury appear to have taken as sincere what looks, on paper, like trite admissions of contrition and bog standard 'lessons to be learned' evasiveness.
'From Cressida Dick there was no implied criticism of the prosecution for bringing the case, nor resentment at having to face quesitoning. She readily acknowledged the scale of the tragedy and the necessity to examine the facts in the closest detail. As I watched this cross-examination, I concluded that both combatants had very bright futures...
The jury retired for a short time only, before returning with a note. They had reached a verdict but wished to add a rider...they indicated that they found the case proven but wished to exonerate Cressida DIck from all blame. I readily agreed to the jury's request. I congratulate them on their wisdom. It may well have contributed to Cressida Dick's appointment as Commissioner in April 2017'. From Crime to Crime Pages 246-247.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/05/trump-revenge-second-term/ Donald Trump and his allies have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term, with the former president naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute and his associates drafting plans to potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to allow him to deploy the military against civil demonstrations.
In private, Trump has told advisers and friends in recent months that he wants the Justice Department to investigate onetime officials and allies who have become critical of his time in office, including his former chief of staff, John Kelly, and former attorney general William P. Barr, as well as his ex-attorney Ty Cobb and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley, according to people who have talked to him, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. Trump has also talked of prosecuting officials at the FBI and Justice Department, a person familiar with the matter said.
In public, Trump has vowed to appoint a special prosecutor to “go after” President Biden and his family. The former president has frequently made corruption accusations against them that are not supported by available evidence.
To facilitate Trump’s ability to direct Justice Department actions, his associates have been drafting plans to dispense with 50 years of policy and practice intended to shield criminal prosecutions from political considerations. Critics have called such ideas dangerous and unconstitutional…
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Yes, but the National Front were only ever a tiny fringe organisation who were almost universally held in contempt. Whereas this generation of anti-semites appear to get a free pass.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
The example was illustrative of the tendency not location specific - we've definitely had equivalent actions and statements, including the Hamas paraglider one, as the tendency is being seen all across the West and the specific form is hardly the critical point, it's the brazenness of the racism and support of atrocities, even if the number specifically saying they support that is stated to be low.
Am I supposed to be reassured because people who have made equally as atrocious statements and actions have not done that specific one? Come off it, that's complete quibbling, the point that some number of people at these events are very open about that kind of belief, and so indicative of wider support for it, is the more troubling thing.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
In the future we will be horrified that humans killed living mammals and ate their meat: we will have lab grown meat that does the tasty job
In the future we will be horrified that humans enslaved intelligent mammals and kept them as "pets" solely for amusement: we will have AI companions (embodied in fluffy toys, for the friendless, selfish inadequates)
Timescale?
You will first eat lab grown meat in the next 10 to 12 years. But it will probably only become the dominant form of protein in 40 or 50 years.
And it may take a century before you are able to grow a steak that is indistinguishable from the "real thing".
(And RFK will claim that it gives you cancer. For the record, it won't.)
RFK is the cause of cancer.
Prove me wrong.
In current polls RFK may be Biden's best chance of re election as he takes more voters who would otherwise vote for Trump than Biden voters
At the moment RFK is probably taking more votes from Trump than Biden. But if RFK's campaign really takes off it could start to be the other way round.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
It's fine though, if that happened elsewhere we can totally ignore all the statements and images which definitely support the same point which are happening here...
I don't doubt for a second people who are pulling down posters of kidnapped children would wholly support the person who had that poster, since they don't need to show support for Palestine by doing that, they are doing it because they hate jews. I personally don't think those doing that for example should be given benefit of the doubt because they didn't hold that particular poster, and whilst I do not think at all that most, all, or even a large chunk of protestors agree with that hatred, we've seen far too many incidents to think it is an inconsequential number, even if it is, say, 5%.
5% of people thinking like that should be terrifying. Especially for a group which is less than 0.5% of the population.
In the future we will be horrified that humans killed living mammals and ate their meat: we will have lab grown meat that does the tasty job
In the future we will be horrified that humans enslaved intelligent mammals and kept them as "pets" solely for amusement: we will have AI companions (embodied in fluffy toys, for the friendless, selfish inadequates)
Timescale?
You will first eat lab grown meat in the next 10 to 12 years. But it will probably only become the dominant form of protein in 40 or 50 years.
And it may take a century before you are able to grow a steak that is indistinguishable from the "real thing".
(And RFK will claim that it gives you cancer. For the record, it won't.)
RFK is the cause of cancer.
Prove me wrong.
In current polls RFK may be Biden's best chance of re election as he takes more voters who would otherwise vote for Trump than Biden voters
At the moment RFK is probably taking more votes from Trump than Biden. But if RFK's campaign really takes off it could start to be the other way round.
Why would any Dem supporter vote for boy Kennedy ?
Anyone think Biden might get displaced by Kennedy as the main challenger to Trump?
0%
How many on left hand side of politics are yearning for a vaccine denying conspiracy theorist? And that’s just his presentable views.
There is time for events to align with his views. A doctor friend recently reported to me that her and most of her colleagues now privately shy away from recommending the vaccine to all but the elderly, because they are anecdotally seeing odd incidences of cancer that have left them scratching their heads. To the extent that they are also busily reminding under 40s of the early symptoms of cancer even in social settings.
Now perhaps there is nothing to this. But there is a non zero chance that rfk and his ilk will be able to claim the “I told you so” hill.
Total rot.
"...they are anecdotally seeing odd incidences of cancer that have left them scratching their heads
That describes most instances of cancer surely? Most of the friends and acquaintances I have known who have suffered cancer have been 'odd instances' - i.e. they've just been unlucky.
My own view is that it is too early to tell what will be the long-term side effects of the vaccines. Normally, I would not give a moment to such thoughts but it gets forgotten that mRNA had not been through the standard testing procedures for a vaccine but had been sped-tracked through because of Covid. Potentially more important though is that the companies involved were given waivers by the US Government for any future liabilities for side effects caused by the vaccines. When you have (1) a big bucket of money waiting to be made (2) a focus on getting something out as quickly as possibly and (3) no liability for anything that goes wrong, that usually flashes warning bells.
For disclosure, I have had three vaccine shots.
That's not true: mRNA has been used for a number of cancer treatments, albeit in much smaller sample sizes.
If (and it's an enormous if) mRNA vaccines caused cancer (and it would be good if those who suggested that it might could possibly propose a mechanism), then we would see it in differential cancer rates between countries which where AstraZeneca first and those which were Pfizer/Moderna first.
I’m not a molecular scientist so can’t propose anything. All I do is pass on what’s being discussed behind closed doors in the staff room of one of the country’s bigger hospitals.
As I said, perhaps (probably?) there’s nothing in it. But the story was in the context that no one that votes for Biden would vote for RFK because of his anti vax views. And all I do is tell you (at least in the uk), there are strongly pro vaccination medical professionals who are asking serious questions about the appropriateness of the all adult covid vaccine programme.
Considering practically every one is vaccinated how do they get any comparison to a non vaccinated group and consequently a cause and effect. There could be numerous other reasons, not least the obvious one @Foxy pointed out of delayed diagnosis. Doctors aren't generally stupid, so don't jump to such rash conclusions.. I am married to one and consequently know a few. This sounds like utter bollocks.
It would be a pretty odd thing for me to make up this conversation. And it would be a pretty odd thing for this dr to make it up to me. I don’t think they are jumping to any rash conclusions but have sufficient intellectual curiosity to be asking whether they are seeing anything strange in response to 2020-2022 (the pandemic itself and society’s reaction to it).
Anyhow, there really is nothing more boring and miserable than thinking and talking about anything to do with covid. People were talking about the US election before I shoved my beak in so I do apologise.
Another reason why the story sounds dubious is that there is no roll out for say the under 40s currently for them to discourage taking it so it would not arise and the current roll out to the healthy over 65s (not vulnerable) is going like a train. Both these facts seem to disagree with the story and it would be highly irresponsible for a doctor discourage people taking a vaccine against medical advice. They could be struck off.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
What a ridiculous suggestion.
The Israelis kept going with the Oslo Accords post-Rabin.
It was Arafat that rejected peace, not Ehud Barak.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
The example was illustrative of the tendency not location specific - we've definitely had equivalent actions and statements, including the Hamas paraglider one, as the tendency is being seen all across the West and the specific form is hardly the critical point, it's the brazenness of the racism and support of atrocities, even if the number specifically saying they support that is stated to be low.
Am I supposed to be reassured because people who have made equally as atrocious statements and actions have not done that specific one? Come off it, that's complete quibbling, the point that some number of people at these events are very open about that kind of belief, and so indicative of wider support for it, is the more troubling thing.
Anyway: I bloody love bonfire night. Halloween is fancy dress and cosmetics and haribo and alcopops; Bonfire Night is real ale sausages and thick woolly jumpers and walking boots and parkin and explosions and big skies and the smell of cordite. It's just so ... real. After Friday night's display at the rugby club, tonight was the ninth annual Cookie family back garden display - having grown from a consolation prize after a disappointing non-display at a local pub in 2014 to this year's 50-people-strong extravaganza. Once again we got away without serious injuries so I'm feeling pretty satisfied with the evening.
Anyway: I bloody love bonfire night. Halloween is fancy dress and cosmetics and haribo and alcopops; Bonfire Night is real ale sausages and thick woolly jumpers and walking boots and parkin and explosions and big skies and the smell of cordite. It's just so ... real. After Friday night's display at the rugby club, tonight was the ninth annual Cookie family back garden display - having grown from a consolation prize after a disappointing non-display at a local pub in 2014 to this year's 50-people-strong extravaganza. Once again we got away without serious injuries so I'm feeling pretty satisfied with the evening.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
Arafat then turned down an awful lot that was on the table in 2000.
"One of Scotland Yard’s most senior officers is facing the sack if found guilty of procuring information held on police systems to undermine a bullying probe against him."
A Deputy Assistant Commissioner. The article contains this gem - even after the bullying allegations against him were substantiated, he was promoted to become the Met's Head of Standards. (Who even realised the Met was meant to have standards let alone someone in charge of upholding them?)
By whom?
Need you ask. Cressida Dick. She appointed him because he was, in her eyes, a "very capable man” doing excellent work at the Met. Of course he was.
Apart from ticking diversity boxes what did Cressida Dick do to continually get promoted ?
She retired from the police then went to some unspecified job at the Foreign Office before coming back as Met Commissioner.
Wild guess: she protected some higher up politico over the July 2005 shooting and promotion was her reward.
I well believe she has failed upwards but suspect that's more due to connections than to being rewarded for that.
Afterall 2005 was under Labour, while she got promoted under the Tories.
What politico could she have protected under Labour that would have given her a promotion under the Tories?
We used to worry about a Russian amphibious assault on Odesa, but now Ukraine launches special forces raids to destroy Russia's air defences in Crimea. The Ukrainians hit a new Russian missile ship in Kerch in the last couple of days.
There's so much emphasis on the land front line that the successes Ukraine has had on the sea and in the air (destroying a number of Russian aircraft in Russian airbases) are overlooked.
Russia withdrew from the Grain deal, but Ukraine has managed to export grain by sea regardless. The Russians are unable to even maintain a blockade of civilian shipping in the Black Sea.
The signs of waning Russian power are all around. I am very optimistic that Ukraine will emerge victorious if the West does not talk itself into defeat.
I think that is true, but the 5 month offensive has led to a gain of territory more akin to Western Front battles in WW1 than anything we saw in 2022. It looks as if there will be attrition and stalemate for some time. Drones seem to have nullified armoured advances by both reconnaissance and direct attack.
The other notable Ukranian success is in counter-battery fire on Russian artillery. The rate of loss of artillery pieces has gained pace, and it seems the Russians are using more obsolete pieces and as barrels wear also having to move to closer range.
It's hard to know for sure with fog of war etc.
Will the arrival of the F16s next year make much difference? Are the Ukrainians majoring on suppressing Russian air defences in the meantime? Game-changer?
The F-16s are very important for Ukraine in that they are totemic symbol of Western support a very visible demonstration of how good Green T-Shirt is at rattling the medicant's bowl.
But if you look at the delivery schedule then the military effect is minimal to unknown.
Denmark are sending 19, Biden made them sell the other 24 to Argentina, LOL. Thats 6 this year, 8 in 2024 and 5 in 2025.
The Netherlands, using a sunak.xlsx style formulation, have said they will donate 'up to' 42 but have been very quiet on the subject ever since the summer.
A lot depends on how much effort Lockheed-Martin puts into establishing the multi-national F-16 training centre in Constanta, Romania and the capacity of that training pipeline when it's operational. All the Europeans expect the US to pay for it because of course they do. If that turns out not to be the case then there will be a lot of protracted wrangling over the finances which will inevitably delay matters.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
Which poll was this? And what was the mirror image of those supporting Israel uncritically, with no sympathy for the Palestinians?
As far as I can see, the vast majority either have no opinion or favour a 2 state solution, which incidentally is also our governments position.
Actually that was the proportion just supporting Israel with no sympathy for Palestinians. The mirror doesn’t seem to have been tested but reading between the lines it looks similar - see US and Western European polling referenced in the thread below. Given 20% of people believe any old shit on any topic like the moon landings being faked I count that as a win.
Anyway: I bloody love bonfire night. Halloween is fancy dress and cosmetics and haribo and alcopops; Bonfire Night is real ale sausages and thick woolly jumpers and walking boots and parkin and explosions and big skies and the smell of cordite. It's just so ... real. After Friday night's display at the rugby club, tonight was the ninth annual Cookie family back garden display - having grown from a consolation prize after a disappointing non-display at a local pub in 2014 to this year's 50-people-strong extravaganza. Once again we got away without serious injuries so I'm feeling pretty satisfied with the evening.
Used to love it, but I’ve somehow lost all interest in the years since my kids grew up.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
What a ridiculous suggestion.
The Israelis kept going with the Oslo Accords post-Rabin.
It was Arafat that rejected peace, not Ehud Barak.
Blood-stained copy of the lyrics of "Shir LaShalom" (שיר לשלום) or "Song for Peace", found in Yitzhak Rabin's pocket after the assassination:
"One of Scotland Yard’s most senior officers is facing the sack if found guilty of procuring information held on police systems to undermine a bullying probe against him."
A Deputy Assistant Commissioner. The article contains this gem - even after the bullying allegations against him were substantiated, he was promoted to become the Met's Head of Standards. (Who even realised the Met was meant to have standards let alone someone in charge of upholding them?)
By whom?
Need you ask. Cressida Dick. She appointed him because he was, in her eyes, a "very capable man” doing excellent work at the Met. Of course he was.
Apart from ticking diversity boxes what did Cressida Dick do to continually get promoted ?
She certainly seems good at persuading people at the top of her worth.
In Richard Henriques' excellent memoir he talks about many cases and topics, including excoriating the police over Operation Midland for example, but in his chapter on the de Menezes case he is quite glowing about her qualities.
Obviously he has a great deal more knowledge, experience, and wisdom than I, but given her tenure as Commissioner as observed as a layman, he and the jury appear to have taken as sincere what looks, on paper, like trite admissions of contrition and bog standard 'lessons to be learned' evasiveness.
'From Cressida Dick there was no implied criticism of the prosecution for bringing the case, nor resentment at having to face quesitoning. She readily acknowledged the scale of the tragedy and the necessity to examine the facts in the closest detail. As I watched this cross-examination, I concluded that both combatants had very bright futures...
The jury retired for a short time only, before returning with a note. They had reached a verdict but wished to add a rider...they indicated that they found the case proven but wished to exonerate Cressida DIck from all blame. I readily agreed to the jury's request. I congratulate them on their wisdom. It may well have contributed to Cressida Dick's appointment as Commissioner in April 2017'. From Crime to Crime Pages 246-247.
It was a Health and Safety prosecution.
None of what the judge says there is incompatible with my wild theory.
Of course it's entirely possible that the other candidates were even worse than her. Quite likely in fact, given what we've learnt of the Met - and other forces since then.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
Which poll was this? And what was the mirror image of those supporting Israel uncritically, with no sympathy for the Palestinians?
As far as I can see, the vast majority either have no opinion or favour a 2 state solution, which incidentally is also our governments position.
Actually that was the proportion just supporting Israel with no sympathy for Palestinians. The mirror doesn’t seem to have been tested but reading between the lines it looks similar - see US and Western European polling referenced in the thread below. Given 20% of people believe any old shit on any topic like the moon landings being faked I count that as a win.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
What a ridiculous suggestion.
The Israelis kept going with the Oslo Accords post-Rabin.
It was Arafat that rejected peace, not Ehud Barak.
It's absurd to blame one side for the failure of the talks. It would be more accurate to say that both sides wanted peace, but neither side was prepared to make the concessions that would satisfy the other side.
The reason I've switched my diet is in part as diabetes runs in my family and I want to avoid it, and this diet is good for those with or at risk of diabetes.
My dad was vegetarian and his diet gave him diabetes around the time he was the age I'm at now, though he didn't realise it until he got sick and his doctors said he'd had it for about a decade. He changed his diet, found it impossible to stick to a healthy vegetarian diabetic-friendly diet, then suddenly after decades of vegetarianism started eating meat again.
Now when we go out its funny as he'll order a mixed grill but hold the chips, just a plate of meat and eggs and that's what he has and he's so much healthier than he was. Probably added years back on to his life expectancy.
So if anyone comes at me with any vegan bullshit they can stick it where the sun doesn't shine. I not only love my meat, I value my health too much to go vegan thank you very much.
I remember my GP asking about my diet and I said it was "Kinda meat and two veg". And got a thorough ticking off for not eating lots of carbs as that what was on the NHS diet sheet.
I explained it made me feel really bad, lethargic and gave me stomach ache to the point I would wake up in the middle of the night and have to neck Gaviscon. No matter! The diet sheet is the law!
So I just had to start lying to him about my diet.
Best advice about diet is to eat real food and in moderate amounts.
Real food being meat, fish, vegetables, fruit and dairy etc - but not processed crap, sugar and MSG which seems to be everywhere, and easily creeps in if you're not constantly on your toes.
That was rather my argument. The practice nurse doubled down on it when I - after interrogation - admitted to having used a tablespoon of a jarred Thai sauce in the past year because the ingredients were tricky to get in reasonable quantities.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
What a ridiculous suggestion.
The Israelis kept going with the Oslo Accords post-Rabin.
It was Arafat that rejected peace, not Ehud Barak.
It's absurd to blame one side for the failure of the talks. It would be more accurate to say that both sides wanted peace, but neither side was prepared to make the concessions that would satisfy the other side.
Its entirely rational to blame Arafat, and I believe Bill Clinton did.
And its the Palestinians who have suffered most for Arafat's obstinance, not the Israelis.
"One of Scotland Yard’s most senior officers is facing the sack if found guilty of procuring information held on police systems to undermine a bullying probe against him."
A Deputy Assistant Commissioner. The article contains this gem - even after the bullying allegations against him were substantiated, he was promoted to become the Met's Head of Standards. (Who even realised the Met was meant to have standards let alone someone in charge of upholding them?)
By whom?
Need you ask. Cressida Dick. She appointed him because he was, in her eyes, a "very capable man” doing excellent work at the Met. Of course he was.
Apart from ticking diversity boxes what did Cressida Dick do to continually get promoted ?
She retired from the police then went to some unspecified job at the Foreign Office before coming back as Met Commissioner.
Wild guess: she protected some higher up politico over the July 2005 shooting and promotion was her reward.
I well believe she has failed upwards but suspect that's more due to connections than to being rewarded for that.
Afterall 2005 was under Labour, while she got promoted under the Tories.
What politico could she have protected under Labour that would have given her a promotion under the Tories?
Politicians from all parties have a common interest in senior police officers taking the rap for politicians' decisions.
Anyway: I bloody love bonfire night. Halloween is fancy dress and cosmetics and haribo and alcopops; Bonfire Night is real ale sausages and thick woolly jumpers and walking boots and parkin and explosions and big skies and the smell of cordite. It's just so ... real. After Friday night's display at the rugby club, tonight was the ninth annual Cookie family back garden display - having grown from a consolation prize after a disappointing non-display at a local pub in 2014 to this year's 50-people-strong extravaganza. Once again we got away without serious injuries so I'm feeling pretty satisfied with the evening.
Used to love it, but I’ve somehow lost all interest in the years since my kids grew up.
Having kids does help. I always liked it - but somehow since the kids have been around it has become Important To Do Properly. There's also a slightly bittersweet note now - of the 50 people there, with the exception of one anomalous two year old, the kids ranged from 14 to 8 - and it was noticeable that suddenly much less supervision - and while this is welcome, it's also apparent that before too long they'll all have moved on. But anyway - Bonfire Night is great. You're not required to have any particular emotion, and if you're inclined to attach any meaning to it you can basically make up whichever you choose ( I choose a celebration of a rejection of absolutism, but other interpretations are available). Essentially it's a celebration of loud noises.
We used to worry about a Russian amphibious assault on Odesa, but now Ukraine launches special forces raids to destroy Russia's air defences in Crimea. The Ukrainians hit a new Russian missile ship in Kerch in the last couple of days.
There's so much emphasis on the land front line that the successes Ukraine has had on the sea and in the air (destroying a number of Russian aircraft in Russian airbases) are overlooked.
Russia withdrew from the Grain deal, but Ukraine has managed to export grain by sea regardless. The Russians are unable to even maintain a blockade of civilian shipping in the Black Sea.
The signs of waning Russian power are all around. I am very optimistic that Ukraine will emerge victorious if the West does not talk itself into defeat.
I think that is true, but the 5 month offensive has led to a gain of territory more akin to Western Front battles in WW1 than anything we saw in 2022. It looks as if there will be attrition and stalemate for some time. Drones seem to have nullified armoured advances by both reconnaissance and direct attack.
The other notable Ukranian success is in counter-battery fire on Russian artillery. The rate of loss of artillery pieces has gained pace, and it seems the Russians are using more obsolete pieces and as barrels wear also having to move to closer range.
It's hard to know for sure with fog of war etc.
Will the arrival of the F16s next year make much difference? Are the Ukrainians majoring on suppressing Russian air defences in the meantime? Game-changer?
The F-16s are very important for Ukraine in that they are totemic symbol of Western support a very visible demonstration of how good Green T-Shirt is at rattling the medicant's bowl.
But if you look at the delivery schedule then the military effect is minimal to unknown.
Denmark are sending 19, Biden made them sell the other 24 to Argentina, LOL. Thats 6 this year, 8 in 2024 and 5 in 2025.
The Netherlands, using a sunak.xlsx style formulation, have said they will donate 'up to' 42 but have been very quiet on the subject ever since the summer.
A lot depends on how much effort Lockheed-Martin puts into establishing the multi-national F-16 training centre in Constanta, Romania and the capacity of that training pipeline when it's operational. All the Europeans expect the US to pay for it because of course they do. If that turns out not to be the case then there will be a lot of protracted wrangling over the finances which will inevitably delay matters.
The article in the Economist is an interesting vision. Air supremacy with mass drones rather than pointy nosed jets, coupled with home designed missiles for counter battery fire and interdiction of Russian logistics.
“In an early-2023 survey of 55,000 college students: - 72% of Jewish Students wanted to censor criticism of BLM. - 74% of Jewish Students did not want to censor antiwhite speech”
"One of Scotland Yard’s most senior officers is facing the sack if found guilty of procuring information held on police systems to undermine a bullying probe against him."
A Deputy Assistant Commissioner. The article contains this gem - even after the bullying allegations against him were substantiated, he was promoted to become the Met's Head of Standards. (Who even realised the Met was meant to have standards let alone someone in charge of upholding them?)
By whom?
Need you ask. Cressida Dick. She appointed him because he was, in her eyes, a "very capable man” doing excellent work at the Met. Of course he was.
Apart from ticking diversity boxes what did Cressida Dick do to continually get promoted ?
What is interesting is the questions that won’t be asked.
Who pointed this guy in the direction of someone who would break the rules to give him the data?
He’s caught and a few other will go down. But the #NU10K who did the favour for him - which he fucked up - will cruise on.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
What a ridiculous suggestion.
The Israelis kept going with the Oslo Accords post-Rabin.
It was Arafat that rejected peace, not Ehud Barak.
It's absurd to blame one side for the failure of the talks. It would be more accurate to say that both sides wanted peace, but neither side was prepared to make the concessions that would satisfy the other side.
In particular the Israelis wouldn't allow a Palestinian state to have control of its own finances and border.
You would have thought that Brexiteers would understand that, but it seems not.
In the future we will be horrified that humans killed living mammals and ate their meat: we will have lab grown meat that does the tasty job
In the future we will be horrified that humans enslaved intelligent mammals and kept them as "pets" solely for amusement: we will have AI companions (embodied in fluffy toys, for the friendless, selfish inadequates)
Timescale?
You will first eat lab grown meat in the next 10 to 12 years. But it will probably only become the dominant form of protein in 40 or 50 years.
And it may take a century before you are able to grow a steak that is indistinguishable from the "real thing".
(And RFK will claim that it gives you cancer. For the record, it won't.)
RFK is the cause of cancer.
Prove me wrong.
In current polls RFK may be Biden's best chance of re election as he takes more voters who would otherwise vote for Trump than Biden voters
At the moment RFK is probably taking more votes from Trump than Biden. But if RFK's campaign really takes off it could start to be the other way round.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
What a ridiculous suggestion.
The Israelis kept going with the Oslo Accords post-Rabin.
It was Arafat that rejected peace, not Ehud Barak.
It's absurd to blame one side for the failure of the talks. It would be more accurate to say that both sides wanted peace, but neither side was prepared to make the concessions that would satisfy the other side.
Its entirely rational to blame Arafat, and I believe Bill Clinton did.
And its the Palestinians who have suffered most for Arafat's obstinance, not the Israelis.
And others have blamed the Israelis, in particular for their intransigence with regard to any right of return, even a limited and regulated one. There is no way that Arafat could have sold that to the Palestinians.
The fact is that neither side was able to make the concessions needed to reach common ground.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
What a ridiculous suggestion.
The Israelis kept going with the Oslo Accords post-Rabin.
It was Arafat that rejected peace, not Ehud Barak.
Blood-stained copy of the lyrics of "Shir LaShalom" (שיר לשלום) or "Song for Peace", found in Yitzhak Rabin's pocket after the assassination:
"In the weeks before the assassination, Netanyahu, then head of the opposition, and other senior Likud members attended a right-wing political rally in Jerusalem where protesters branded Rabin a “traitor,” “murderer,” and “Nazi” for signing a peace agreement with the Palestinians earlier that year.
He also marched in a Ra’anana protest as demonstrators behind him carried a mock coffin."
Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see anyone here -- even one of those who claim to be brilliant -- warn me not to watch the Seahawks game. (I didn't watch whole thing.)
That said, here's a important correction on dogs: 'Village Dogs are "outside" dogs found around the world living in and around human settlements. They're also known as island dogs, pariah dogs, or free-ranging dogs. Many Village Dog populations precede the formation of modern breed dogs. They make up about 3/4s of the billion or so dogs living on Earth today.'
In short, most dogs are not pets.
(In this area, there are many feral cats -- but their population is kept in check by the local coyotes, who also sometimes kill small dogs.)
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
What a ridiculous suggestion.
The Israelis kept going with the Oslo Accords post-Rabin.
It was Arafat that rejected peace, not Ehud Barak.
It's absurd to blame one side for the failure of the talks. It would be more accurate to say that both sides wanted peace, but neither side was prepared to make the concessions that would satisfy the other side.
Its entirely rational to blame Arafat, and I believe Bill Clinton did.
And its the Palestinians who have suffered most for Arafat's obstinance, not the Israelis.
And others have blamed the Israelis, in particular for their intransigence with regard to any right of return, even a limited and regulated one. There is no way that Arafat could have sold that to the Palestinians.
The fact is that neither side was able to make the concessions needed to reach common ground.
The Palestinians reacted strongly negatively to the proposed cantonization of the West Bank into three blocs, which the Palestinian delegation likened to South African Bantustans, a loaded word that was disputed by the Israeli and American negotiators.[18] Settlement blocs, bypassed roads and annexed lands would create barriers between Nablus and Jenin with Ramallah. The Ramallah bloc would in turn be divided from Bethlehem and Hebron. A separate and smaller bloc would contain Jericho. Further, the border between West Bank and Jordan would additionally be under Israeli control. The Palestinian Authority would receive pockets of East Jerusalem which would be surrounded entirely by annexed lands in the West Bank.[19]
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
WhIsat a ridiculous suggestion.
The Israelis kept going with the Oslo Accords post-Rabin.
It was Arafat that rejected peace, not Ehud Barak.
It's absurd to blame one side for the failure of the talks. It would be more accurate to say that both sides wanted peace, but neither side was prepared to make the concessions that would satisfy the other side.
Its entirely rational to blame Arafat, and I believe Bill Clinton did.
And its the Palestinians who have suffered most for Arafat's obstinance, not the Israelis.
And others have blamed the Israelis, in particular for their intransigence with regard to any right of return, even a limited and regulated one. There is no way that Arafat could have sold that to the Palestinians.
The fact is that neither side was able to make the concessions needed to reach common ground.
Don't be preposterous.
There is no way that Palestinians could "return" to a state they were never born in, nor had ever lived in, they would have a state of their own, that was the entire point of the negotiations.
Israel has a state, Palestinians don't, and the fault for that lies squarely at Arafat for rejecting one when he had one offered and available. Had Arafat acted differently, Palestinians would live in a state called Palestine right now.
Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see anyone here -- even one of those who claim to be brilliant -- warn me not to watch the Seahawks game. (I didn't watch whole thing.)
That said, here's a important correction on dogs: 'Village Dogs are "outside" dogs found around the world living in and around human settlements. They're also known as island dogs, pariah dogs, or free-ranging dogs. Many Village Dog populations precede the formation of modern breed dogs. They make up about 3/4s of the billion or so dogs living on Earth today.'
In short, most dogs are not pets.
(In this area, there are many feral cats -- but their population is kept in check by the local coyotes, who also sometimes kill small dogs.)
I think there is evidence that dogs and humans have lived and hunted together for tens of thousands of years, but that cats are much more recently domesticated, being tolerated for vermin control rather than pets in a modern sense.
But the dogs who have chosen to ally with indivdual human families have been good for us in many ways and, with some exceptions, have earned their pay.
In general, kids who grow up with dogs are better at getting along with other people. In general, adults who have dogs in the US are happier and healthier.
(Full disclosure: No, I don't have a dog, since I don't have a yard.)
"One of Scotland Yard’s most senior officers is facing the sack if found guilty of procuring information held on police systems to undermine a bullying probe against him."
A Deputy Assistant Commissioner. The article contains this gem - even after the bullying allegations against him were substantiated, he was promoted to become the Met's Head of Standards. (Who even realised the Met was meant to have standards let alone someone in charge of upholding them?)
By whom?
Need you ask. Cressida Dick. She appointed him because he was, in her eyes, a "very capable man” doing excellent work at the Met. Of course he was.
Apart from ticking diversity boxes what did Cressida Dick do to continually get promoted ?
There are alot of very high up people in Whitehall with an inordinate fondness for Dick.
Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see anyone here -- even one of those who claim to be brilliant -- warn me not to watch the Seahawks game. (I didn't watch whole thing.)
That said, here's a important correction on dogs: 'Village Dogs are "outside" dogs found around the world living in and around human settlements. They're also known as island dogs, pariah dogs, or free-ranging dogs. Many Village Dog populations precede the formation of modern breed dogs. They make up about 3/4s of the billion or so dogs living on Earth today.'
In short, most dogs are not pets.
(In this area, there are many feral cats -- but their population is kept in check by the local coyotes, who also sometimes kill small dogs.)
I think there is evidence that dogs and humans have lived and hunted together for tens of thousands of years, but that cats are much more recently domesticated, being tolerated for vermin control rather than pets in a modern sense.
Hence the much deeper bond that exists.
Sheep and goats were domesticated before cats too.
The most important question in world politics this year.
David Axelrod @davidaxelrod · 7h Only @JoeBiden can make this decision. If he continues to run, he will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. What he needs to decide is whether that is wise; whether it's in HIS best interest or the country's?
Dr. Foxy - From what I have read, I think you are right about the difference between dogs and cats.
Several years ago, I read an article which supports that view. In Chicago, rats can be a serious problem, and some people have resorted to capturing alley cats, keeping them for a while in a cage, and then getting them used to regular feeding. They then release the cats, hoping they will stay around to control the local rats.
(Some of you will be surprised to learn that Chicago has such problems, but it does.)
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
WhIsat a ridiculous suggestion.
The Israelis kept going with the Oslo Accords post-Rabin.
It was Arafat that rejected peace, not Ehud Barak.
It's absurd to blame one side for the failure of the talks. It would be more accurate to say that both sides wanted peace, but neither side was prepared to make the concessions that would satisfy the other side.
Its entirely rational to blame Arafat, and I believe Bill Clinton did.
And its the Palestinians who have suffered most for Arafat's obstinance, not the Israelis.
And others have blamed the Israelis, in particular for their intransigence with regard to any right of return, even a limited and regulated one. There is no way that Arafat could have sold that to the Palestinians.
The fact is that neither side was able to make the concessions needed to reach common ground.
Don't be preposterous.
There is no way that Palestinians could "return" to a state they were never born in, nor had ever lived in, they would have a state of their own, that was the entire point of the negotiations.
Israel has a state, Palestinians don't, and the fault for that lies squarely at Arafat for rejecting one when he had one offered and available. Had Arafat acted differently, Palestinians would live in a state called Palestine right now.
The only person being preposterous is you. The variously nuanced opinions of everyone else on this site stand in stark contrast to your cartoon-like image of Israeli goodies and Palestinian baddies.
The most important question in world politics this year.
David Axelrod @davidaxelrod · 7h Only @JoeBiden can make this decision. If he continues to run, he will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. What he needs to decide is whether that is wise; whether it's in HIS best interest or the country's?
Well it depends. If there is a Dem in the wings who can beat Trump, it's in the country's interests for him to step down. But if stepping down leads to Kamala as the nominee, it's in the country's interest for him to stay on.
(By the way, I learned rather recently, certainly within the last ten years, that most dogs are not family pets. An observant travel writer, who spent time in Asia and Africa would probably have noticed that.)
But the dogs who have chosen to ally with indivdual human families have been good for us in many ways and, with some exceptions, have earned their pay.
In general, kids who grow up with dogs are better at getting along with other people. In general, adults who have dogs in the US are happier and healthier.
(Full disclosure: No, I don't have a dog, since I don't have a yard.)
Had the COVID booster. And the flu jab today. One in each arm. Stiff neck and bit of a headache. Bumped onto the list due to the fact I am frequently bitten. Got a week off on the sick too. Be much happier if we routinely had safe staffing levels and safe staff, mind.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
WhIsat a ridiculous suggestion.
The Israelis kept going with the Oslo Accords post-Rabin.
It was Arafat that rejected peace, not Ehud Barak.
It's absurd to blame one side for the failure of the talks. It would be more accurate to say that both sides wanted peace, but neither side was prepared to make the concessions that would satisfy the other side.
Its entirely rational to blame Arafat, and I believe Bill Clinton did.
And its the Palestinians who have suffered most for Arafat's obstinance, not the Israelis.
And others have blamed the Israelis, in particular for their intransigence with regard to any right of return, even a limited and regulated one. There is no way that Arafat could have sold that to the Palestinians.
The fact is that neither side was able to make the concessions needed to reach common ground.
Don't be preposterous.
There is no way that Palestinians could "return" to a state they were never born in, nor had ever lived in, they would have a state of their own, that was the entire point of the negotiations.
Israel has a state, Palestinians don't, and the fault for that lies squarely at Arafat for rejecting one when he had one offered and available. Had Arafat acted differently, Palestinians would live in a state called Palestine right now.
The only person being preposterous is you. The variously nuanced opinions of everyone else on this site stand in stark contrast to your cartoon-like image of Israeli goodies and Palestinian baddies.
Not all Palestinians are baddies, Hamas and Arafat are though.
And I regret the tragedy that it is the Palestinians suffer much, much more from being under people like Arafat and then Hamas, than Israelis do.
Israel has a state of its own, and would have one regardless of how Camp David went in 2000. Palestinians don't, and they don't because Arafat rejected it when he had the opportunity.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
WhIsat a ridiculous suggestion.
The Israelis kept going with the Oslo Accords post-Rabin.
It was Arafat that rejected peace, not Ehud Barak.
It's absurd to blame one side for the failure of the talks. It would be more accurate to say that both sides wanted peace, but neither side was prepared to make the concessions that would satisfy the other side.
Its entirely rational to blame Arafat, and I believe Bill Clinton did.
And its the Palestinians who have suffered most for Arafat's obstinance, not the Israelis.
And others have blamed the Israelis, in particular for their intransigence with regard to any right of return, even a limited and regulated one. There is no way that Arafat could have sold that to the Palestinians.
The fact is that neither side was able to make the concessions needed to reach common ground.
Don't be preposterous.
There is no way that Palestinians could "return" to a state they were never born in, nor had ever lived in, they would have a state of their own, that was the entire point of the negotiations.
Israel has a state, Palestinians don't, and the fault for that lies squarely at Arafat for rejecting one when he had one offered and available. Had Arafat acted differently, Palestinians would live in a state called Palestine right now.
The only person being preposterous is you. The variously nuanced opinions of everyone else on this site stand in stark contrast to your cartoon-like image of Israeli goodies and Palestinian baddies.
Not all Palestinians are baddies, Hamas and Arafat are though.
And I regret the tragedy that it is the Palestinians suffer much, much more from being under people like Arafat and then Hamas, than Israelis do.
Israel has a state of its own, and would have one regardless of how Camp David went in 2000. Palestinians don't, and they don't because Arafat rejected it when he had the opportunity.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
WhIsat a ridiculous suggestion.
The Israelis kept going with the Oslo Accords post-Rabin.
It was Arafat that rejected peace, not Ehud Barak.
It's absurd to blame one side for the failure of the talks. It would be more accurate to say that both sides wanted peace, but neither side was prepared to make the concessions that would satisfy the other side.
Its entirely rational to blame Arafat, and I believe Bill Clinton did.
And its the Palestinians who have suffered most for Arafat's obstinance, not the Israelis.
And others have blamed the Israelis, in particular for their intransigence with regard to any right of return, even a limited and regulated one. There is no way that Arafat could have sold that to the Palestinians.
The fact is that neither side was able to make the concessions needed to reach common ground.
Don't be preposterous.
There is no way that Palestinians could "return" to a state they were never born in, nor had ever lived in, they would have a state of their own, that was the entire point of the negotiations.
Israel has a state, Palestinians don't, and the fault for that lies squarely at Arafat for rejecting one when he had one offered and available. Had Arafat acted differently, Palestinians would live in a state called Palestine right now.
The only person being preposterous is you. The variously nuanced opinions of everyone else on this site stand in stark contrast to your cartoon-like image of Israeli goodies and Palestinian baddies.
Not all Palestinians are baddies, Hamas and Arafat are though.
And I regret the tragedy that it is the Palestinians suffer much, much more from being under people like Arafat and then Hamas, than Israelis do.
Israel has a state of its own, and would have one regardless of how Camp David went in 2000. Palestinians don't, and they don't because Arafat rejected it when he had the opportunity.
The Palestinians reacted strongly negatively to the proposed cantonization of the West Bank into three blocs, which the Palestinian delegation likened to South African Bantustans, a loaded word that was disputed by the Israeli and American negotiators.[18] Settlement blocs, bypassed roads and annexed lands would create barriers between Nablus and Jenin with Ramallah. The Ramallah bloc would in turn be divided from Bethlehem and Hebron. A separate and smaller bloc would contain Jericho. Further, the border between West Bank and Jordan would additionally be under Israeli control. The Palestinian Authority would receive pockets of East Jerusalem which would be surrounded entirely by annexed lands in the West Bank.[19]
The reason I've switched my diet is in part as diabetes runs in my family and I want to avoid it, and this diet is good for those with or at risk of diabetes.
My dad was vegetarian and his diet gave him diabetes around the time he was the age I'm at now, though he didn't realise it until he got sick and his doctors said he'd had it for about a decade. He changed his diet, found it impossible to stick to a healthy vegetarian diabetic-friendly diet, then suddenly after decades of vegetarianism started eating meat again.
Now when we go out its funny as he'll order a mixed grill but hold the chips, just a plate of meat and eggs and that's what he has and he's so much healthier than he was. Probably added years back on to his life expectancy.
So if anyone comes at me with any vegan bullshit they can stick it where the sun doesn't shine. I not only love my meat, I value my health too much to go vegan thank you very much.
I remember my GP asking about my diet and I said it was "Kinda meat and two veg". And got a thorough ticking off for not eating lots of carbs as that what was on the NHS diet sheet.
I explained it made me feel really bad, lethargic and gave me stomach ache to the point I would wake up in the middle of the night and have to neck Gaviscon. No matter! The diet sheet is the law!
So I just had to start lying to him about my diet.
Best advice about diet is to eat real food and in moderate amounts.
Real food being meat, fish, vegetables, fruit and dairy etc - but not processed crap, sugar and MSG which seems to be everywhere, and easily creeps in if you're not constantly on your toes.
That was rather my argument. The practice nurse doubled down on it when I - after interrogation - admitted to having used a tablespoon of a jarred Thai sauce in the past year because the ingredients were tricky to get in reasonable quantities.
Ah-ha! Guilty!
{Tailgunner Joe Mode}
Have you now, or ever been known to use pre-flaked Parmesan?
{lots of expendable flashbulbs expending, audience in expectant hush}
Anyway: I bloody love bonfire night. Halloween is fancy dress and cosmetics and haribo and alcopops; Bonfire Night is real ale sausages and thick woolly jumpers and walking boots and parkin and explosions and big skies and the smell of cordite. It's just so ... real. After Friday night's display at the rugby club, tonight was the ninth annual Cookie family back garden display - having grown from a consolation prize after a disappointing non-display at a local pub in 2014 to this year's 50-people-strong extravaganza. Once again we got away without serious injuries so I'm feeling pretty satisfied with the evening.
Used to love it, but I’ve somehow lost all interest in the years since my kids grew up.
Having kids does help. I always liked it - but somehow since the kids have been around it has become Important To Do Properly. There's also a slightly bittersweet note now - of the 50 people there, with the exception of one anomalous two year old, the kids ranged from 14 to 8 - and it was noticeable that suddenly much less supervision - and while this is welcome, it's also apparent that before too long they'll all have moved on. But anyway - Bonfire Night is great. You're not required to have any particular emotion, and if you're inclined to attach any meaning to it you can basically make up whichever you choose ( I choose a celebration of a rejection of absolutism, but other interpretations are available). Essentially it's a celebration of loud noises.
Simon Wood @SimonJWoodUK Bonfire Night means Black Peas….
Black peas, also called parched peas or dapple peas, are cooked purple-podded peas.
They are a traditional Lancashire dish usually served with lashings of malt vinegar, and traditionally on or around Bonfire Night (5 November).
Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see anyone here -- even one of those who claim to be brilliant -- warn me not to watch the Seahawks game. (I didn't watch whole thing.)
That said, here's a important correction on dogs: 'Village Dogs are "outside" dogs found around the world living in and around human settlements. They're also known as island dogs, pariah dogs, or free-ranging dogs. Many Village Dog populations precede the formation of modern breed dogs. They make up about 3/4s of the billion or so dogs living on Earth today.'
In short, most dogs are not pets.
(In this area, there are many feral cats -- but their population is kept in check by the local coyotes, who also sometimes kill small dogs.)
I think there is evidence that dogs and humans have lived and hunted together for tens of thousands of years, but that cats are much more recently domesticated, being tolerated for vermin control rather than pets in a modern sense.
Hence the much deeper bond that exists.
The amusing point is that it's Leon, rather than the PB pet owners, who anthropomorphises cats and dogs.
Anyway: I bloody love bonfire night. Halloween is fancy dress and cosmetics and haribo and alcopops; Bonfire Night is real ale sausages and thick woolly jumpers and walking boots and parkin and explosions and big skies and the smell of cordite. It's just so ... real. After Friday night's display at the rugby club, tonight was the ninth annual Cookie family back garden display - having grown from a consolation prize after a disappointing non-display at a local pub in 2014 to this year's 50-people-strong extravaganza. Once again we got away without serious injuries so I'm feeling pretty satisfied with the evening.
Used to love it, but I’ve somehow lost all interest in the years since my kids grew up.
Having kids does help. I always liked it - but somehow since the kids have been around it has become Important To Do Properly. There's also a slightly bittersweet note now - of the 50 people there, with the exception of one anomalous two year old, the kids ranged from 14 to 8 - and it was noticeable that suddenly much less supervision - and while this is welcome, it's also apparent that before too long they'll all have moved on. But anyway - Bonfire Night is great. You're not required to have any particular emotion, and if you're inclined to attach any meaning to it you can basically make up whichever you choose ( I choose a celebration of a rejection of absolutism, but other interpretations are available). Essentially it's a celebration of loud noises.
Simon Wood @SimonJWoodUK Bonfire Night means Black Peas….
Black peas, also called parched peas or dapple peas, are cooked purple-podded peas.
They are a traditional Lancashire dish usually served with lashings of malt vinegar, and traditionally on or around Bonfire Night (5 November).
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
WhIsat a ridiculous suggestion.
The Israelis kept going with the Oslo Accords post-Rabin.
It was Arafat that rejected peace, not Ehud Barak.
It's absurd to blame one side for the failure of the talks. It would be more accurate to say that both sides wanted peace, but neither side was prepared to make the concessions that would satisfy the other side.
Its entirely rational to blame Arafat, and I believe Bill Clinton did.
And its the Palestinians who have suffered most for Arafat's obstinance, not the Israelis.
And others have blamed the Israelis, in particular for their intransigence with regard to any right of return, even a limited and regulated one. There is no way that Arafat could have sold that to the Palestinians.
The fact is that neither side was able to make the concessions needed to reach common ground.
Don't be preposterous.
There is no way that Palestinians could "return" to a state they were never born in, nor had ever lived in, they would have a state of their own, that was the entire point of the negotiations.
Israel has a state, Palestinians don't, and the fault for that lies squarely at Arafat for rejecting one when he had one offered and available. Had Arafat acted differently, Palestinians would live in a state called Palestine right now.
The only person being preposterous is you. The variously nuanced opinions of everyone else on this site stand in stark contrast to your cartoon-like image of Israeli goodies and Palestinian baddies.
Not all Palestinians are baddies, Hamas and Arafat are though.
And I regret the tragedy that it is the Palestinians suffer much, much more from being under people like Arafat and then Hamas, than Israelis do.
Israel has a state of its own, and would have one regardless of how Camp David went in 2000. Palestinians don't, and they don't because Arafat rejected it when he had the opportunity.
A few posters have mentioned here that Labour's lead isn't being impacted by what is going on in the Middle East and the Pro-Palestine demos.
It is a fair point to make but it is worth a reminder that the same was said around two years ago when we started to have the new stories start about BJ's behaviour and Tory leads were staying stable. It actually took time for the narrative to start being reflected in the polling numbers.
FWIS, I think SKS has been fundamentally right with his stance but there may be come a point when voters start to associate the Labour brand as a whole as being sympathetic to the Palestinians and that is likely to be a drag if the current type of protests continue with protestors occupying train stations, marching on Remembrance Day, shouting at kids coming out off McDonalds etc.
The opposite, I think. Most people are sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Like to give some evidence for that? Most people seem to be neutral.
Anecdotally I've always assumed much natural sympathy lies with the Palestinians. They are the ones lacking most of the power after all. It's not surprising to me that would still be the case.
What has surprised me is many people going waaaay beyond that to open support of Hamas (or if not that far, of Hamas's actions, which is no real distinction).
Sympathy for the plight of the civilian Palestinian doesn't require that, hence my surpise.
Polling this weekend showed those claiming to be sympathetic to Palestinians with no sympathy for Israel at around 3% of those polled.
We mustn’t let TV news and social media kid us that the crazies are the majority.
If even 3% of people are tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, putting pictures of Hamas paragliders on their backpacks, and holding up signs showing a Star of David put into a trash can with a message about cleaning up the world, then that is 3% too many.
But more problematic is that they are not quiet about such things, they are not sneaking about or being evasive about their opinion, they are open and proud of it. That says to me that whatever a poll says it is a lot more than 3% who think that way, or they'd not be confident enough to be so bold. White supremacists as a counter example usually (not always) seek to claim not to be white supremacists, they try to use more acceptable language to cover for what they think.
Not so, here, little fear of being ostracised or condemned by anyone whose opinion they actually care about.
That sign of a Star of David being put into a trash can is a straightforward copy of what the National Front have used in the past.
Wasn't the picture from a demonstration in Poland, not the UK?
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
WhIsat a ridiculous suggestion.
The Israelis kept going with the Oslo Accords post-Rabin.
It was Arafat that rejected peace, not Ehud Barak.
It's absurd to blame one side for the failure of the talks. It would be more accurate to say that both sides wanted peace, but neither side was prepared to make the concessions that would satisfy the other side.
Its entirely rational to blame Arafat, and I believe Bill Clinton did.
And its the Palestinians who have suffered most for Arafat's obstinance, not the Israelis.
And others have blamed the Israelis, in particular for their intransigence with regard to any right of return, even a limited and regulated one. There is no way that Arafat could have sold that to the Palestinians.
The fact is that neither side was able to make the concessions needed to reach common ground.
Don't be preposterous.
There is no way that Palestinians could "return" to a state they were never born in, nor had ever lived in, they would have a state of their own, that was the entire point of the negotiations.
Israel has a state, Palestinians don't, and the fault for that lies squarely at Arafat for rejecting one when he had one offered and available. Had Arafat acted differently, Palestinians would live in a state called Palestine right now.
The only person being preposterous is you. The variously nuanced opinions of everyone else on this site stand in stark contrast to your cartoon-like image of Israeli goodies and Palestinian baddies.
Not all Palestinians are baddies, Hamas and Arafat are though.
And I regret the tragedy that it is the Palestinians suffer much, much more from being under people like Arafat and then Hamas, than Israelis do.
Israel has a state of its own, and would have one regardless of how Camp David went in 2000. Palestinians don't, and they don't because Arafat rejected it when he had the opportunity.
The Palestinians reacted strongly negatively to the proposed cantonization of the West Bank into three blocs, which the Palestinian delegation likened to South African Bantustans, a loaded word that was disputed by the Israeli and American negotiators.[18] Settlement blocs, bypassed roads and annexed lands would create barriers between Nablus and Jenin with Ramallah. The Ramallah bloc would in turn be divided from Bethlehem and Hebron. A separate and smaller bloc would contain Jericho. Further, the border between West Bank and Jordan would additionally be under Israeli control. The Palestinian Authority would receive pockets of East Jerusalem which would be surrounded entirely by annexed lands in the West Bank.[19]
The Palestinians have rejected every single offer of statehood ever made to them, and will continue to reject any future offers, because they fundamentally reject the right of the state of Israel to exist. The peace process is pointless until a Palestinian leader with broad support from their own people can sign up to formal recognition of the state of Israel. Only Arafat - in 1994 - has ever come close to that, and it's by no means clear that he ever had the ability to push the Oslo Accords through to completion.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 2h Anyone on the Right of politics pleased about a Trump victory should consider this: he'll come after conservatives and neo-cons first, because he considers them disloyal, and also more of a threat than liberals. Anyone thinking they'll ride it out will be sadly mistaken.
Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see anyone here -- even one of those who claim to be brilliant -- warn me not to watch the Seahawks game. (I didn't watch whole thing.)
That said, here's a important correction on dogs: 'Village Dogs are "outside" dogs found around the world living in and around human settlements. They're also known as island dogs, pariah dogs, or free-ranging dogs. Many Village Dog populations precede the formation of modern breed dogs. They make up about 3/4s of the billion or so dogs living on Earth today.'
In short, most dogs are not pets.
(In this area, there are many feral cats -- but their population is kept in check by the local coyotes, who also sometimes kill small dogs.)
I think there is evidence that dogs and humans have lived and hunted together for tens of thousands of years, but that cats are much more recently domesticated, being tolerated for vermin control rather than pets in a modern sense.
Hence the much deeper bond that exists.
The amusing point is that it's Leon, rather than the PB pet owners, who anthropomorphises cats and dogs.
Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see anyone here -- even one of those who claim to be brilliant -- warn me not to watch the Seahawks game. (I didn't watch whole thing.)
That said, here's a important correction on dogs: 'Village Dogs are "outside" dogs found around the world living in and around human settlements. They're also known as island dogs, pariah dogs, or free-ranging dogs. Many Village Dog populations precede the formation of modern breed dogs. They make up about 3/4s of the billion or so dogs living on Earth today.'
In short, most dogs are not pets.
(In this area, there are many feral cats -- but their population is kept in check by the local coyotes, who also sometimes kill small dogs.)
I think there is evidence that dogs and humans have lived and hunted together for tens of thousands of years, but that cats are much more recently domesticated, being tolerated for vermin control rather than pets in a modern sense.
Hence the much deeper bond that exists.
The amusing point is that it's Leon, rather than the PB pet owners, who anthropomorphises cats and dogs.
I think a lot of the problem behaviour from dogs is from being anthromorphised. Dogs need to be treated and respected as dogs. An understanding of dog desires and body language makes for a much happier and safer dog.
Anyway: I bloody love bonfire night. Halloween is fancy dress and cosmetics and haribo and alcopops; Bonfire Night is real ale sausages and thick woolly jumpers and walking boots and parkin and explosions and big skies and the smell of cordite. It's just so ... real. After Friday night's display at the rugby club, tonight was the ninth annual Cookie family back garden display - having grown from a consolation prize after a disappointing non-display at a local pub in 2014 to this year's 50-people-strong extravaganza. Once again we got away without serious injuries so I'm feeling pretty satisfied with the evening.
Used to love it, but I’ve somehow lost all interest in the years since my kids grew up.
Having kids does help. I always liked it - but somehow since the kids have been around it has become Important To Do Properly. There's also a slightly bittersweet note now - of the 50 people there, with the exception of one anomalous two year old, the kids ranged from 14 to 8 - and it was noticeable that suddenly much less supervision - and while this is welcome, it's also apparent that before too long they'll all have moved on. But anyway - Bonfire Night is great. You're not required to have any particular emotion, and if you're inclined to attach any meaning to it you can basically make up whichever you choose ( I choose a celebration of a rejection of absolutism, but other interpretations are available). Essentially it's a celebration of loud noises.
Simon Wood @SimonJWoodUK Bonfire Night means Black Peas….
Black peas, also called parched peas or dapple peas, are cooked purple-podded peas.
They are a traditional Lancashire dish usually served with lashings of malt vinegar, and traditionally on or around Bonfire Night (5 November).
Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see anyone here -- even one of those who claim to be brilliant -- warn me not to watch the Seahawks game. (I didn't watch whole thing.)
That said, here's a important correction on dogs: 'Village Dogs are "outside" dogs found around the world living in and around human settlements. They're also known as island dogs, pariah dogs, or free-ranging dogs. Many Village Dog populations precede the formation of modern breed dogs. They make up about 3/4s of the billion or so dogs living on Earth today.'
In short, most dogs are not pets.
(In this area, there are many feral cats -- but their population is kept in check by the local coyotes, who also sometimes kill small dogs.)
I think there is evidence that dogs and humans have lived and hunted together for tens of thousands of years, but that cats are much more recently domesticated, being tolerated for vermin control rather than pets in a modern sense.
Hence the much deeper bond that exists.
The amusing point is that it's Leon, rather than the PB pet owners, who anthropomorphises cats and dogs.
Anyway: I bloody love bonfire night. Halloween is fancy dress and cosmetics and haribo and alcopops; Bonfire Night is real ale sausages and thick woolly jumpers and walking boots and parkin and explosions and big skies and the smell of cordite. It's just so ... real. After Friday night's display at the rugby club, tonight was the ninth annual Cookie family back garden display - having grown from a consolation prize after a disappointing non-display at a local pub in 2014 to this year's 50-people-strong extravaganza. Once again we got away without serious injuries so I'm feeling pretty satisfied with the evening.
Used to love it, but I’ve somehow lost all interest in the years since my kids grew up.
Having kids does help. I always liked it - but somehow since the kids have been around it has become Important To Do Properly. There's also a slightly bittersweet note now - of the 50 people there, with the exception of one anomalous two year old, the kids ranged from 14 to 8 - and it was noticeable that suddenly much less supervision - and while this is welcome, it's also apparent that before too long they'll all have moved on. But anyway - Bonfire Night is great. You're not required to have any particular emotion, and if you're inclined to attach any meaning to it you can basically make up whichever you choose ( I choose a celebration of a rejection of absolutism, but other interpretations are available). Essentially it's a celebration of loud noises.
Simon Wood @SimonJWoodUK Bonfire Night means Black Peas….
Black peas, also called parched peas or dapple peas, are cooked purple-podded peas.
They are a traditional Lancashire dish usually served with lashings of malt vinegar, and traditionally on or around Bonfire Night (5 November).
Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see anyone here -- even one of those who claim to be brilliant -- warn me not to watch the Seahawks game. (I didn't watch whole thing.)
That said, here's a important correction on dogs: 'Village Dogs are "outside" dogs found around the world living in and around human settlements. They're also known as island dogs, pariah dogs, or free-ranging dogs. Many Village Dog populations precede the formation of modern breed dogs. They make up about 3/4s of the billion or so dogs living on Earth today.'
In short, most dogs are not pets.
(In this area, there are many feral cats -- but their population is kept in check by the local coyotes, who also sometimes kill small dogs.)
I think there is evidence that dogs and humans have lived and hunted together for tens of thousands of years, but that cats are much more recently domesticated, being tolerated for vermin control rather than pets in a modern sense.
Hence the much deeper bond that exists.
The amusing point is that it's Leon, rather than the PB pet owners, who anthropomorphises cats and dogs.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 2h From CBS: Trump 51%-Biden 48%.
“This helps put Trump in a better position—three points over Biden—a number that is slightly higher than September's and which would almost surely translate into a comfortable Electoral College win for Trump…”
Anyway: I bloody love bonfire night. Halloween is fancy dress and cosmetics and haribo and alcopops; Bonfire Night is real ale sausages and thick woolly jumpers and walking boots and parkin and explosions and big skies and the smell of cordite. It's just so ... real. After Friday night's display at the rugby club, tonight was the ninth annual Cookie family back garden display - having grown from a consolation prize after a disappointing non-display at a local pub in 2014 to this year's 50-people-strong extravaganza. Once again we got away without serious injuries so I'm feeling pretty satisfied with the evening.
Used to love it, but I’ve somehow lost all interest in the years since my kids grew up.
Having kids does help. I always liked it - but somehow since the kids have been around it has become Important To Do Properly. There's also a slightly bittersweet note now - of the 50 people there, with the exception of one anomalous two year old, the kids ranged from 14 to 8 - and it was noticeable that suddenly much less supervision - and while this is welcome, it's also apparent that before too long they'll all have moved on. But anyway - Bonfire Night is great. You're not required to have any particular emotion, and if you're inclined to attach any meaning to it you can basically make up whichever you choose ( I choose a celebration of a rejection of absolutism, but other interpretations are available). Essentially it's a celebration of loud noises.
Simon Wood @SimonJWoodUK Bonfire Night means Black Peas….
Black peas, also called parched peas or dapple peas, are cooked purple-podded peas.
They are a traditional Lancashire dish usually served with lashings of malt vinegar, and traditionally on or around Bonfire Night (5 November).
I gotta feeling that even in Lancashire most have never heard of that dish.
Badly Drawn Boy @badly_drawn_boy · 10h Growing up in Bolton, Black peas were an annual treat on Bonfire night! Since moving to Manchester in the mid 90s I’ve rarely met anyone who’s heard of Black peas. Thanks Simon
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 1h “Donald Trump and allies have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term…and his associates drafting plans to potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day…”
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 1h “Donald Trump and allies have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term…and his associates drafting plans to potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day…”
Let’s call this what it is: Trump is planning a military dictatorship. This is radical stuff that would end America as we know it. It must lead every newscast until every voter fully understands what this is. Yet it’s not even the top story in the Post. https://twitter.com/ianbassin/status/1721211484162883761
The most important question in world politics this year.
David Axelrod @davidaxelrod · 7h Only @JoeBiden can make this decision. If he continues to run, he will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. What he needs to decide is whether that is wise; whether it's in HIS best interest or the country's?
Well it depends. If there is a Dem in the wings who can beat Trump, it's in the country's interests for him to step down. But if stepping down leads to Kamala as the nominee, it's in the country's interest for him to stay on.
The problem is that Biden, who will be 81yrs old at the time of the election, is the only candidate that the Dems *can* field. Bernie Sanders still has his faculties but will be 82/3 and they don't want him. RFK is an anti-vaxxer nutjob and might actually win, but the Dems won't want him. They have had eight years since 2016 and still can't compute things have changed and can't field a candidate with working-class appeal.
There is a part of me that thinks the Dems deserve to lose so they can re-evaluate what they stand for (see also UK Cons), but the Republicans are stone-cold insane in their conviction that power is theirs by right of conquest. So they're stuck with a man who is one stumble from weeing himself.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 1h “Donald Trump and allies have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term…and his associates drafting plans to potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day…”
Let’s call this what it is: Trump is planning a military dictatorship. This is radical stuff that would end America as we know it. It must lead every newscast until every voter fully understands what this is. Yet it’s not even the top story in the Post. https://twitter.com/ianbassin/status/1721211484162883761
The most important question in world politics this year.
David Axelrod @davidaxelrod · 7h Only @JoeBiden can make this decision. If he continues to run, he will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. What he needs to decide is whether that is wise; whether it's in HIS best interest or the country's?
Well it depends. If there is a Dem in the wings who can beat Trump, it's in the country's interests for him to step down. But if stepping down leads to Kamala as the nominee, it's in the country's interest for him to stay on.
The problem is that Biden, who will be 81yrs old at the time of the election, is the only candidate that the Dems *can* field. Bernie Sanders still has his faculties but will be 82/3 and they don't want him. RFK is an anti-vaxxer nutjob and might actually win, but the Dems won't want him. They have had eight years since 2016 and still can't compute things have changed and can't field a candidate with working-class appeal.
There is a part of me that thinks the Dems deserve to lose so they can re-evaluate what they stand for (see also UK Cons), but the Republicans are stone-cold insane in their conviction that power is theirs by right of conquest. So they're stuck with a man who is one stumble from weeing himself.
The most important question in world politics this year.
David Axelrod @davidaxelrod · 7h Only @JoeBiden can make this decision. If he continues to run, he will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. What he needs to decide is whether that is wise; whether it's in HIS best interest or the country's?
Well it depends. If there is a Dem in the wings who can beat Trump, it's in the country's interests for him to step down. But if stepping down leads to Kamala as the nominee, it's in the country's interest for him to stay on.
The problem is that Biden, who will be 81yrs old at the time of the election, is the only candidate that the Dems *can* field. Bernie Sanders still has his faculties but will be 82/3 and they don't want him. RFK is an anti-vaxxer nutjob and might actually win, but the Dems won't want him. They have had eight years since 2016 and still can't compute things have changed and can't field a candidate with working-class appeal.
There is a part of me that thinks the Dems deserve to lose so they can re-evaluate what they stand for (see also UK Cons), but the Republicans are stone-cold insane in their conviction that power is theirs by right of conquest. So they're stuck with a man who is one stumble from weeing himself.
Why not Kamala Harris?
Does not command popular support and does not seem to have impressed in the job. Happy to be contradicted if wrong.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 1h “Donald Trump and allies have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term…and his associates drafting plans to potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day…”
Let’s call this what it is: Trump is planning a military dictatorship. This is radical stuff that would end America as we know it. It must lead every newscast until every voter fully understands what this is. Yet it’s not even the top story in the Post. https://twitter.com/ianbassin/status/1721211484162883761
It is not 100 per cent clear what Trump is referring to because he goes on to say he "then" won 12 million more votes at the election, which he did: 74M in 2020 when losing to Biden vs 62M when beating Hillary (who got 65M votes in the wrong places). Clearly the "50 states" is wrong for 2016 and the 2018 mid-terms.
The most important question in world politics this year.
David Axelrod @davidaxelrod · 7h Only @JoeBiden can make this decision. If he continues to run, he will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. What he needs to decide is whether that is wise; whether it's in HIS best interest or the country's?
Well it depends. If there is a Dem in the wings who can beat Trump, it's in the country's interests for him to step down. But if stepping down leads to Kamala as the nominee, it's in the country's interest for him to stay on.
The problem is that Biden, who will be 81yrs old at the time of the election, is the only candidate that the Dems *can* field. Bernie Sanders still has his faculties but will be 82/3 and they don't want him. RFK is an anti-vaxxer nutjob and might actually win, but the Dems won't want him. They have had eight years since 2016 and still can't compute things have changed and can't field a candidate with working-class appeal.
There is a part of me that thinks the Dems deserve to lose so they can re-evaluate what they stand for (see also UK Cons), but the Republicans are stone-cold insane in their conviction that power is theirs by right of conquest. So they're stuck with a man who is one stumble from weeing himself.
They've got loads of plausible candidates, I don't know why you'd bring up Bernie Sanders and RFK Jr. Whitmer, KLOBUCHAR, Newsom, Buttigieg. The problem is that firstly it's not clear the primary voters would pick one of those as Kamala is next in line, and secondly it's not totally clear that they'd outperform Biden who has incumbency and is good at winning old white people in the Rust Belt who are important because of the way the electoral college works.
In the future we will be horrified that humans killed living mammals and ate their meat: we will have lab grown meat that does the tasty job
In the future we will be horrified that humans enslaved intelligent mammals and kept them as "pets" solely for amusement: we will have AI companions (embodied in fluffy toys, for the friendless, selfish inadequates)
Timescale?
You will first eat lab grown meat in the next 10 to 12 years. But it will probably only become the dominant form of protein in 40 or 50 years.
And it may take a century before you are able to grow a steak that is indistinguishable from the "real thing".
(And RFK will claim that it gives you cancer. For the record, it won't.)
RFK is the cause of cancer.
Prove me wrong.
In current polls RFK may be Biden's best chance of re election as he takes more voters who would otherwise vote for Trump than Biden voters
At the moment RFK is probably taking more votes from Trump than Biden. But if RFK's campaign really takes off it could start to be the other way round.
Much more likely to take more from Trump than currently polled, as more Democrats would notice that he wasn't the RFK they were thinking of.
This isn't a joke BTW: a pollster tested this by showing the sample two RFKs and asking them to identify the one they're talking about, and it turned out that most of his Dem support is from people who have got the wrong RFK.
"One of Scotland Yard’s most senior officers is facing the sack if found guilty of procuring information held on police systems to undermine a bullying probe against him."
A Deputy Assistant Commissioner. The article contains this gem - even after the bullying allegations against him were substantiated, he was promoted to become the Met's Head of Standards. (Who even realised the Met was meant to have standards let alone someone in charge of upholding them?)
By whom?
Need you ask. Cressida Dick. She appointed him because he was, in her eyes, a "very capable man” doing excellent work at the Met. Of course he was.
Apart from ticking diversity boxes what did Cressida Dick do to continually get promoted ?
She retired from the police then went to some unspecified job at the Foreign Office before coming back as Met Commissioner.
Wild guess: she protected some higher up politico over the July 2005 shooting and promotion was her reward.
Seems unlikely given there was a change of government in the meanwhile.
I think she probably just knew the right people at the right moment.
The article is a more interesting analysis than that. I hadn't realised how dire is the state of Taiwan's army. And the US is only just starting to help address that.
They have pretty decent airforce, and a respectable navy, but on their own they're likely insufficient to defeat a determined Chinese invasion - a sustained missile attack might take out most of their airforce on the ground, for example.
This remains the real point.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67282107 ...William Chung, a research fellow at the Institute for National Defence and Security Research in Taipei, says Taiwan still cannot hope to deter China by itself. This is the other lesson from the war in Ukraine. "International society has to decide whether Taiwan matters," he says. "If the G7 or Nato think Taiwan is important for their own interests, then we have to internationalise the Taiwan situation - because that's what will make China think twice about the cost."..
Given its overwhelming importance for chip production, it's absolutely in western interests to deter any invasion. The economic consequences of a war would dwarf those of the one in Ukraine - whether that resulted in a quick victory for China, or a prolonged conflict destroying their chip fabs.
The article is a more interesting analysis than that. I hadn't realised how dire is the state of Taiwan's army. And the US is only just starting to help address that.
They have pretty decent airforce, and a respectable navy, but on their own they're likely insufficient to defeat a determined Chinese invasion - a sustained missile attack might take out most of their airforce on the ground, for example.
This remains the real point.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67282107 ...William Chung, a research fellow at the Institute for National Defence and Security Research in Taipei, says Taiwan still cannot hope to deter China by itself. This is the other lesson from the war in Ukraine. "International society has to decide whether Taiwan matters," he says. "If the G7 or Nato think Taiwan is important for their own interests, then we have to internationalise the Taiwan situation - because that's what will make China think twice about the cost."..
Given its overwhelming importance for chip production, it's absolutely in western interests to deter any invasion. The economic consequences of a war would dwarf those of the one in Ukraine - whether that resulted in a quick victory for China, or a prolonged conflict destroying their chip fabs.
I remember covid when demand for chips surged and whole industries literally,stopped, like the car industry.
Localisation of chip manufacture is starting to happen but demand is rising too.
After his latest hat-trick on Saturday, Kane signified three the German way with thumb and two fingers, rather than the British way with three fingers.
There's something about Countdown numbers experts as both Rachel Riley and her predecessor Carol Vorderman are more politically active on TwiX than Gary Lineker. Here, Vorders weighs into sleaze allegations arising from Nadine Dorries's book. (And another reason Elon Musk's rebranding Twitter was a bad idea.)
ANOTHER Tory MP Yes...another one accused of rape “There may have been five victims of X – who have been subject to a range of offences including multiple rapes.”
Today Oliver Dowden, Tory Chairman from 21-22 said he could not “say for certain” that his party did not pay an alleged victim’s private hospital fees.
How much more are they hiding?
How are they still in govt?
If ever there was proof that our system is no longer fit for purpose, it's this Tory govt.
And all the other Tory MPs who stay silent....remember this..
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing"
The article is a more interesting analysis than that. I hadn't realised how dire is the state of Taiwan's army. And the US is only just starting to help address that.
They have pretty decent airforce, and a respectable navy, but on their own they're likely insufficient to defeat a determined Chinese invasion - a sustained missile attack might take out most of their airforce on the ground, for example.
This remains the real point.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67282107 ...William Chung, a research fellow at the Institute for National Defence and Security Research in Taipei, says Taiwan still cannot hope to deter China by itself. This is the other lesson from the war in Ukraine. "International society has to decide whether Taiwan matters," he says. "If the G7 or Nato think Taiwan is important for their own interests, then we have to internationalise the Taiwan situation - because that's what will make China think twice about the cost."..
Given its overwhelming importance for chip production, it's absolutely in western interests to deter any invasion. The economic consequences of a war would dwarf those of the one in Ukraine - whether that resulted in a quick victory for China, or a prolonged conflict destroying their chip fabs.
I remember covid when demand for chips surged and whole industries literally,stopped, like the car industry.
Localisation of chip manufacture is starting to happen but demand is rising too.
What happened with Covid, was that the car manufacturers cut production and cancelled orders for chips, but then the demand came back and the chips were on long lead times, as the chip production had been booked out far in advance and for more profitable chips.
Any war in Taiwan would be a whole lot worse - the chip factories themselves take several years to build, and the many cheap chips that go into cars and consumer electronics would get a whole lot more expensive. There’s a handful of chip factories under construction in the West, which will be able to mitigate the damage to some extent, but it will feel too little too late.
The article is a more interesting analysis than that. I hadn't realised how dire is the state of Taiwan's army. And the US is only just starting to help address that.
They have pretty decent airforce, and a respectable navy, but on their own they're likely insufficient to defeat a determined Chinese invasion - a sustained missile attack might take out most of their airforce on the ground, for example.
This remains the real point.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67282107 ...William Chung, a research fellow at the Institute for National Defence and Security Research in Taipei, says Taiwan still cannot hope to deter China by itself. This is the other lesson from the war in Ukraine. "International society has to decide whether Taiwan matters," he says. "If the G7 or Nato think Taiwan is important for their own interests, then we have to internationalise the Taiwan situation - because that's what will make China think twice about the cost."..
Given its overwhelming importance for chip production, it's absolutely in western interests to deter any invasion. The economic consequences of a war would dwarf those of the one in Ukraine - whether that resulted in a quick victory for China, or a prolonged conflict destroying their chip fabs.
I remember covid when demand for chips surged and whole industries literally,stopped, like the car industry.
Localisation of chip manufacture is starting to happen but demand is rising too.
What happened with Covid, was that the car manufacturers cut production and cancelled orders for chips, but then the demand came back and the chips were on long lead times, as the chip production had been booked out far in advance and for more profitable chips.
Any war in Taiwan would be a whole lot worse - the chip factories themselves take several years to build, and the many cheap chips that go into cars and consumer electronics would get a whole lot more expensive. There’s a handful of chip factories under construction in the West, which will be able to mitigate the damage to some extent, but it will feel too little too late.
Speaking of which, does anyone know what is happening with the car industry now? I'm waiting to get a car, since prices surged I thought I'd wait until they fall back down but they don't seem to be falling - however given inflation, perhaps a freeze is as good as a fall and all we'll get?
Is there still a chip backlog inflating prices? Is that not going to go away any time soon?
The article is a more interesting analysis than that. I hadn't realised how dire is the state of Taiwan's army. And the US is only just starting to help address that.
They have pretty decent airforce, and a respectable navy, but on their own they're likely insufficient to defeat a determined Chinese invasion - a sustained missile attack might take out most of their airforce on the ground, for example.
This remains the real point.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67282107 ...William Chung, a research fellow at the Institute for National Defence and Security Research in Taipei, says Taiwan still cannot hope to deter China by itself. This is the other lesson from the war in Ukraine. "International society has to decide whether Taiwan matters," he says. "If the G7 or Nato think Taiwan is important for their own interests, then we have to internationalise the Taiwan situation - because that's what will make China think twice about the cost."..
Given its overwhelming importance for chip production, it's absolutely in western interests to deter any invasion. The economic consequences of a war would dwarf those of the one in Ukraine - whether that resulted in a quick victory for China, or a prolonged conflict destroying their chip fabs.
I remember covid when demand for chips surged and whole industries literally,stopped, like the car industry.
Localisation of chip manufacture is starting to happen but demand is rising too.
What happened with Covid, was that the car manufacturers cut production and cancelled orders for chips, but then the demand came back and the chips were on long lead times, as the chip production had been booked out far in advance and for more profitable chips.
Any war in Taiwan would be a whole lot worse - the chip factories themselves take several years to build, and the many cheap chips that go into cars and consumer electronics would get a whole lot more expensive. There’s a handful of chip factories under construction in the West, which will be able to mitigate the damage to some extent, but it will feel too little too late.
Speaking of which, does anyone know what is happening with the car industry now? I'm waiting to get a car, since prices surged I thought I'd wait until they fall back down but they don't seem to be falling - however given inflation, perhaps a freeze is as good as a fall and all we'll get?
Is there still a chip backlog inflating prices? Is that not going to go away any time soon?
Used car prices are starting to fall, and in the US are now falling rapidly from the over-inflation of the last couple of years.
New cars are a total mess, because the supply and demand for models aren’t lining up. The average consumer wants to buy what might be their last petrol-powered car, and there’s not enough of them to go round. Meanwhile, the EV technology has evolved rapidly, and the dealers have loads of old-tech new cars sat on forecourts, as everyone is about to have their lunch eaten by cheap Chinese brands that are good enough for most people.
Comments
The big question is what Comrade Jez decides to do. If he stands, the game might be afoot. Need some polling now that ULEZ opposition is shrinking to a very angry minority.
That's a pretty stark contrast to, say, Tory conference, which seemed utterly out of control as a carnival of madder parts of the right.
In fact, the less palatable the protests are, the more it might strengthen him - as those who are broadly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause on the left, but are sensible enough to see there's a big problem with its extremes, might see the positives of his more considered approach.
As far as I can see, the vast majority either have no opinion or favour a 2 state solution, which incidentally is also our governments position.
https://metro.co.uk/2014/10/03/potato-found-growing-in-womans-vagina-after-she-used-it-as-contraception-4891242/
In Richard Henriques' excellent memoir he talks about many cases and topics, including excoriating the police over Operation Midland for example, but in his chapter on the de Menezes case he is quite glowing about her qualities.
Obviously he has a great deal more knowledge, experience, and wisdom than I, but given her tenure as Commissioner as observed as a layman, he and the jury appear to have taken as sincere what looks, on paper, like trite admissions of contrition and bog standard 'lessons to be learned' evasiveness.
'From Cressida Dick there was no implied criticism of the prosecution for bringing the case, nor resentment at having to face quesitoning. She readily acknowledged the scale of the tragedy and the necessity to examine the facts in the closest detail. As I watched this cross-examination, I concluded that both combatants had very bright futures...
The jury retired for a short time only, before returning with a note. They had reached a verdict but wished to add a rider...they indicated that they found the case proven but wished to exonerate Cressida DIck from all blame. I readily agreed to the jury's request. I congratulate them on their wisdom. It may well have contributed to Cressida Dick's appointment as Commissioner in April 2017'.
From Crime to Crime Pages 246-247.
BTW it isn't unusual to see Israeli flags at British far right rallies, such as the EDL marches.
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2017-08-04/ty-article/why-the-u-k-s-neo-nazis-are-posing-with-israeli-flags/0000017f-e746-df2c-a1ff-ff579fdb0000
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/05/trump-revenge-second-term/
Donald Trump and his allies have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term, with the former president naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute and his associates drafting plans to potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to allow him to deploy the military against civil demonstrations.
In private, Trump has told advisers and friends in recent months that he wants the Justice Department to investigate onetime officials and allies who have become critical of his time in office, including his former chief of staff, John Kelly, and former attorney general William P. Barr, as well as his ex-attorney Ty Cobb and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley, according to people who have talked to him, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. Trump has also talked of prosecuting officials at the FBI and Justice Department, a person familiar with the matter said.
In public, Trump has vowed to appoint a special prosecutor to “go after” President Biden and his family. The former president has frequently made corruption accusations against them that are not supported by available evidence.
To facilitate Trump’s ability to direct Justice Department actions, his associates have been drafting plans to dispense with 50 years of policy and practice intended to shield criminal prosecutions from political considerations. Critics have called such ideas dangerous and unconstitutional…
Am I supposed to be reassured because people who have made equally as atrocious statements and actions have not done that specific one? Come off it, that's complete quibbling, the point that some number of people at these events are very open about that kind of belief, and so indicative of wider support for it, is the more troubling thing.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/student-antisemitic-sign-palestine-protest/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin
Due to the ultimate failure of further progress on the Oslo Accords, there is a popular view of the assassination that regards it as having been highly "successful" if not the "most successful" political assassination in modern history in terms of achieving the political goals of its perpetrator.[60]
I don't doubt for a second people who are pulling down posters of kidnapped children would wholly support the person who had that poster, since they don't need to show support for Palestine by doing that, they are doing it because they hate jews. I personally don't think those doing that for example should be given benefit of the doubt because they didn't hold that particular poster, and whilst I do not think at all that most, all, or even a large chunk of protestors agree with that hatred, we've seen far too many incidents to think it is an inconsequential number, even if it is, say, 5%.
5% of people thinking like that should be terrifying. Especially for a group which is less than 0.5% of the population.
The Israelis kept going with the Oslo Accords post-Rabin.
It was Arafat that rejected peace, not Ehud Barak.
Afterall 2005 was under Labour, while she got promoted under the Tories.
What politico could she have protected under Labour that would have given her a promotion under the Tories?
But if you look at the delivery schedule then the military effect is minimal to unknown.
Denmark are sending 19, Biden made them sell the other 24 to Argentina, LOL. Thats 6 this year, 8 in 2024 and 5 in 2025.
The Netherlands, using a sunak.xlsx style formulation, have said they will donate 'up to' 42 but have been very quiet on the subject ever since the summer.
A lot depends on how much effort Lockheed-Martin puts into establishing the multi-national F-16 training centre in Constanta, Romania and the capacity of that training pipeline when it's operational. All the Europeans expect the US to pay for it because of course they do. If that turns out not to be the case then there will be a lot of protracted wrangling over the finances which will inevitably delay matters.
Here’s the polling:
https://x.com/sundersays/status/1721107432175173961?s=46
Really quite reassuring overall.
None of what the judge says there is incompatible with my wild theory.
Of course it's entirely possible that the other candidates were even worse than her. Quite likely in fact, given what we've learnt of the Met - and other forces since then.
Ah-ha! Guilty!
And its the Palestinians who have suffered most for Arafat's obstinance, not the Israelis.
There's also a slightly bittersweet note now - of the 50 people there, with the exception of one anomalous two year old, the kids ranged from 14 to 8 - and it was noticeable that suddenly much less supervision - and while this is welcome, it's also apparent that before too long they'll all have moved on.
But anyway - Bonfire Night is great. You're not required to have any particular emotion, and if you're inclined to attach any meaning to it you can basically make up whichever you choose ( I choose a celebration of a rejection of absolutism, but other interpretations are available). Essentially it's a celebration of loud noises.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/11/01/ukraines-commander-in-chief-on-the-breakthrough-he-needs-to-beat-russia
I struggle to think of a successful campaign of manoeuvre since 1918 that didn't require air supremacy. Without it attrition is the default.
Isn’t that in the Bible?
“In an early-2023 survey of 55,000 college students:
- 72% of Jewish Students wanted to censor criticism of BLM.
- 74% of Jewish Students did not want to censor antiwhite speech”
https://x.com/fentasyl/status/1721272931223810516?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Who pointed this guy in the direction of someone who would break the rules to give him the data?
He’s caught and a few other will go down. But the #NU10K who did the favour for him - which he fucked up - will cruise on.
You would have thought that Brexiteers would understand that, but it seems not.
"How RFK Could Ruin The 2024 Election", Monsieur Z, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u62C4lwZcec
The fact is that neither side was able to make the concessions needed to reach common ground.
He also marched in a Ra’anana protest as demonstrators behind him carried a mock coffin."
https://www.timesofisrael.com/labor-chief-michaeli-rabin-was-assassinated-with-netanyahus-cooperation/
That said, here's a important correction on dogs: 'Village Dogs are "outside" dogs found around the world living in and around human settlements. They're also known as island dogs, pariah dogs, or free-ranging dogs. Many Village Dog populations precede the formation of modern breed dogs. They make up about 3/4s of the billion or so dogs living on Earth today.'
In short, most dogs are not pets.
(In this area, there are many feral cats -- but their population is kept in check by the local coyotes, who also sometimes kill small dogs.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit
There is no way that Palestinians could "return" to a state they were never born in, nor had ever lived in, they would have a state of their own, that was the entire point of the negotiations.
Israel has a state, Palestinians don't, and the fault for that lies squarely at Arafat for rejecting one when he had one offered and available. Had Arafat acted differently, Palestinians would live in a state called Palestine right now.
Hence the much deeper bond that exists.
In general, kids who grow up with dogs are better at getting along with other people. In general, adults who have dogs in the US are happier and healthier.
(Full disclosure: No, I don't have a dog, since I don't have a yard.)
That deep bond still exists in places like Wales.
David Axelrod
@davidaxelrod
·
7h
Only @JoeBiden can make this decision. If he continues to run, he will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. What he needs to decide is whether that is wise; whether it's in HIS best interest or the country's?
https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/1721189100986806558
Several years ago, I read an article which supports that view. In Chicago, rats can be a serious problem, and some people have resorted to capturing alley cats, keeping them for a while in a cage, and then getting them used to regular feeding. They then release the cats, hoping they will stay around to control the local rats.
(Some of you will be surprised to learn that Chicago has such problems, but it does.)
My apologies for omitting that.
(By the way, I learned rather recently, certainly within the last ten years, that most dogs are not family pets. An observant travel writer, who spent time in Asia and Africa would probably have noticed that.)
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/dogs-win-worst-pet-for-14th-year-in-row-2013091379444
Stiff neck and bit of a headache.
Bumped onto the list due to the fact I am frequently bitten.
Got a week off on the sick too.
Be much happier if we routinely had safe staffing levels and safe staff, mind.
And I regret the tragedy that it is the Palestinians suffer much, much more from being under people like Arafat and then Hamas, than Israelis do.
Israel has a state of its own, and would have one regardless of how Camp David went in 2000. Palestinians don't, and they don't because Arafat rejected it when he had the opportunity.
The Palestinians reacted strongly negatively to the proposed cantonization of the West Bank into three blocs, which the Palestinian delegation likened to South African Bantustans, a loaded word that was disputed by the Israeli and American negotiators.[18] Settlement blocs, bypassed roads and annexed lands would create barriers between Nablus and Jenin with Ramallah. The Ramallah bloc would in turn be divided from Bethlehem and Hebron. A separate and smaller bloc would contain Jericho. Further, the border between West Bank and Jordan would additionally be under Israeli control. The Palestinian Authority would receive pockets of East Jerusalem which would be surrounded entirely by annexed lands in the West Bank.[19]
https://london.metro-memory.com
I expect all PBers to get 100% within 20 mins. 😊
Have you now, or ever been known to use pre-flaked Parmesan?
{lots of expendable flashbulbs expending, audience in expectant hush}
Simon Wood
@SimonJWoodUK
Bonfire Night means Black Peas….
Black peas, also called parched peas or dapple peas, are cooked purple-podded peas.
They are a traditional Lancashire dish usually served with lashings of malt vinegar, and traditionally on or around Bonfire Night (5 November).
https://twitter.com/SimonJWoodUK/status/1721155823294972052
Bonfire night also means treacle toffee, which I love, even if my teeth do not.
Glen O'Hara
@gsoh31
·
2h
Anyone on the Right of politics pleased about a Trump victory should consider this: he'll come after conservatives and neo-cons first, because he considers them disloyal, and also more of a threat than liberals. Anyone thinking they'll ride it out will be sadly mistaken.
That's cos you're from Cheshire.
PS. Warrington is too really.
@BillKristol
·
2h
From CBS: Trump 51%-Biden 48%.
“This helps put Trump in a better position—three points over Biden—a number that is slightly higher than September's and which would almost surely translate into a comfortable Electoral College win for Trump…”
https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1721271632428146799
@badly_drawn_boy
·
10h
Growing up in Bolton, Black peas were an annual treat on Bonfire night! Since moving to Manchester in the mid 90s I’ve rarely met anyone who’s heard of Black peas. Thanks Simon
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2023/11/05
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
1h
“Donald Trump and allies have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term…and his associates drafting plans to potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day…”
https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1721297691311841469
https://twitter.com/ianbassin/status/1721211484162883761
The lunatic is now claiming he won all 50 states last time.
https://twitter.com/DavidCayJ/status/1721239712982351983
There is a part of me that thinks the Dems deserve to lose so they can re-evaluate what they stand for (see also UK Cons), but the Republicans are stone-cold insane in their conviction that power is theirs by right of conquest. So they're stuck with a man who is one stumble from weeing himself.
That 50 states clip is insane.
Sarah Baxter / Times Radio"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6cPkryMTOY
This isn't a joke BTW: a pollster tested this by showing the sample two RFKs and asking them to identify the one they're talking about, and it turned out that most of his Dem support is from people who have got the wrong RFK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67282107
Lee Anderson: Tory MP apologises to doctor over strike tweet
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67329731
I think she probably just knew the right people at the right moment.
The article is a more interesting analysis than that. I hadn't realised how dire is the state of Taiwan's army. And the US is only just starting to help address that.
They have pretty decent airforce, and a respectable navy, but on their own they're likely insufficient to defeat a determined Chinese invasion - a sustained missile attack might take out most of their airforce on the ground, for example.
This remains the real point.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67282107
...William Chung, a research fellow at the Institute for National Defence and Security Research in Taipei, says Taiwan still cannot hope to deter China by itself. This is the other lesson from the war in Ukraine.
"International society has to decide whether Taiwan matters," he says. "If the G7 or Nato think Taiwan is important for their own interests, then we have to internationalise the Taiwan situation - because that's what will make China think twice about the cost."..
Given its overwhelming importance for chip production, it's absolutely in western interests to deter any invasion.
The economic consequences of a war would dwarf those of the one in Ukraine - whether that resulted in a quick victory for China, or a prolonged conflict destroying their chip fabs.
Localisation of chip manufacture is starting to happen but demand is rising too.
https://www.astutegroup.com/resources/nine-governments-set-to-fund-new-localised-chip-fabs/
Harry Kane scored 3 for Bayern Munich and proved he'd already be a better spy than Michael Fassbender in INGLORIOUS BASTERDS.
https://twitter.com/ATRightMovies/status/1721312180241359252
After his latest hat-trick on Saturday, Kane signified three the German way with thumb and two fingers, rather than the British way with three fingers.
ANOTHER Tory MP
Yes...another one accused of rape
“There may have been five victims of X – who have been subject to a range of offences including multiple rapes.”
Today Oliver Dowden, Tory Chairman from 21-22 said he could not “say for certain” that his party did not pay an alleged victim’s private hospital fees.
How much more are they hiding?
How are they still in govt?
If ever there was proof that our system is no longer fit for purpose, it's this Tory govt.
And all the other Tory MPs who stay silent....remember this..
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/oliver-dowden-cover-up-rape-tory-mp-b2441911.html
https://twitter.com/carolvorders/status/1721203173942055297
Any war in Taiwan would be a whole lot worse - the chip factories themselves take several years to build, and the many cheap chips that go into cars and consumer electronics would get a whole lot more expensive. There’s a handful of chip factories under construction in the West, which will be able to mitigate the damage to some extent, but it will feel too little too late.
Is there still a chip backlog inflating prices? Is that not going to go away any time soon?
New cars are a total mess, because the supply and demand for models aren’t lining up. The average consumer wants to buy what might be their last petrol-powered car, and there’s not enough of them to go round. Meanwhile, the EV technology has evolved rapidly, and the dealers have loads of old-tech new cars sat on forecourts, as everyone is about to have their lunch eaten by cheap Chinese brands that are good enough for most people.