I'd assumed that the title Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was a satirical invention by Private Eye. I gather, however, that it's for real.
Divine intervention.
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton it is now. He sounds like he solves mysteries from the pen of Dorothy L Sayers. In fact, he told the House of Lords, it was the vicar’s wife who telephoned to say he absolutely had to take the village name (so I guess we’re lucky the rector of Pratts Bottom didn’t get to him first), revealing all in a debut speech that was elegant and funny.
I've just read that; I didn't realise Ken Clarke is in a wheelchair these days. Although the last time I saw him on TV, he did seem to have aged a lot.
He just sounds like such a grown up. Hunt is the only one who comes close in this government.
Steve Coogan in 1990 doing an impression of Clarke (04:20)
Meanwhile, Ireland’s new Hate Speech laws are quite mind-blowingly Orwellian
“People don’t realise how extreme Ireland’s hate speech bill is. Up to 12 months in prison for refusing to give password to your devices if suspected of committing hate speech. 12 months for refusing to allow the State read messages between you and your spouse. It’s authoritarian.”
People like Ruth Dudley Edwards, and Eoghan Harris have been extremely critical.
The Irish Establishment has now entered the "You have to destroy democracy / free speech to protect democracy / free speech" mindset. It will only end one way and what makes their attitude even more mind-numbingly dumb is that their Police are unarmed / govern by consent and the Irish Army will in no way intervene.
The irony of ironies if they end up calling in the UK for help....
It will only end way? Yes. The bill will pass with some amendments, I imagine. People are so skittish (!) on here sometimes.
Mmmm, it is a bill with which you have sympathy therefore it is "skittish" to get worried about it.
I meant all this "only end one way" and "destroy free speech and democracy" sort of thing. I get the passion, and that's fine, but if you use up that type of language on something like this you'll have nowhere to go (linguistically) if god forbid we do have to confront a serious threat to freedom and democracy here in the UK or Ireland.
Would you not describe a "you must give us all yoir passwords if we suspect you of wrongspeak" bill as a serious threat to freedom in Ireland?
I'd assumed that the title Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was a satirical invention by Private Eye. I gather, however, that it's for real.
Divine intervention.
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton it is now. He sounds like he solves mysteries from the pen of Dorothy L Sayers. In fact, he told the House of Lords, it was the vicar’s wife who telephoned to say he absolutely had to take the village name (so I guess we’re lucky the rector of Pratts Bottom didn’t get to him first), revealing all in a debut speech that was elegant and funny.
I've just read that; I didn't realise Ken Clarke is in a wheelchair these days. Although the last time I saw him on TV, he did seem to have aged a lot.
He's 83 tbf.
That's not old!
My former MP Gloria de Piero did a long interview with him a year ago on GB News.
I can't comment on how good it is, as I've only just started listening.
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Sounds like a wise move for them really
Did they actually move?
Lots of people in Essex moved from the East End; in fact an Asian family who’ve moved to my parents road in Hornchurch cited the amount of Asians in East London as their reason for moving
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Meanwhile, Ireland’s new Hate Speech laws are quite mind-blowingly Orwellian
“People don’t realise how extreme Ireland’s hate speech bill is. Up to 12 months in prison for refusing to give password to your devices if suspected of committing hate speech. 12 months for refusing to allow the State read messages between you and your spouse. It’s authoritarian.”
People like Ruth Dudley Edwards, and Eoghan Harris have been extremely critical.
The Irish Establishment has now entered the "You have to destroy democracy / free speech to protect democracy / free speech" mindset. It will only end one way and what makes their attitude even more mind-numbingly dumb is that their Police are unarmed / govern by consent and the Irish Army will in no way intervene.
The irony of ironies if they end up calling in the UK for help....
It will only end way? Yes. The bill will pass with some amendments, I imagine. People are so skittish (!) on here sometimes.
Mmmm, it is a bill with which you have sympathy therefore it is "skittish" to get worried about it.
I meant all this "only end one way" and "destroy free speech and democracy" sort of thing. I get the passion, and that's fine, but if you use up that type of language on something like this you'll have nowhere to go (linguistically) if god forbid we do have to confront a serious threat to freedom and democracy here in the UK or Ireland.
Would you not describe a "you must give us all yoir passwords if we suspect you of wrongspeak" bill as a serious threat to freedom in Ireland?
It is a serious threat to free speech and free thought and likely in breach of the ECHR. It is not at all surprising in a country like Ireland which has absorbed the totalitarian tendencies of the Irish Catholic Church and is now using them to achieve exactly what the Irish Catholic Church achieved while it was in control - silence about anything it did not like and the shunning and departure of anyone who tried to speak freely about what was going on.
See, for instance, the treatment of John McGahern, a teacher forced out of his job after publishing his first novels about the dark underbelly of Irish family life - violence and silence. He had to leave the country.
It is precisely this which allowed the abuse of children, the Magdalene laundries, and so on to continue for so long. It did not suit those in power to have these things spoken about and so every effort was made to stop anyone doing so.
This Bill seeks to achieve much the same. It is dressed up in the language of politeness and kindness and preventing discomfort and making people feel insecure. But the result is the same. Under such a bill anyone telling the truth about the Christian Brothers' violent abuse of children could have been prosecuted for making priests feel "discomfort" and "insecure" and classed as "hate".
Ireland's political class has always been self-interested and corrupt. But it now seems to have become remarkably stupid as well.
Edited: I have a lot on but happy to do a header on this if there's interest.
FPT: John McWhorter has this to say about British ancestry in "Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue": "It turns out that only about 4 percent of British men's genetic material is traceable to a migration from across the North Sea. Moreover, essentially none of British women's genetic material traces back to such a migration, meaning that the invaders were not couples with children, such that women and young'uns would bulk up the total. Rather the invaders were just a bunch of guys. In fact, evidently, the famous Germanic invaders numbered about 250,000, about as many people who live in a modest-sized nurg like Jersey City. (pp. 12-13)
(Incidentally, linguist McWhorter is also worth reading on race relations in the US.)
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Think that's also true in USA today.
Was also somewhat true in early-20th century America, with difference that, back then, anti-immigrant sentiment and politics also included suburban areas where immigrants of that era had yet to penetrate in large numbers.
Of course, back then the fault line in USA debate over immigration, was Catholicism, not Islam (or race).
So much so that in the Pacific Northwest, the Ku Klux Klan, which required members to be natural-born US citizens, enrolled Canadian and Scandinavian Protestants into a special KKK auxiliary.
On other side of USA, the Acadians/Cajuns of Louisiana were KKK targets (along with Italians in New Orelans) and thus key part of the anti-Klan coalition.
Whereas by turn of 20th>21st century, many Cajuns were supporters of former KKK Wizard (and Nazi) David Duke when he ran for governor.
In America, the grandchildren of one pack of immigrants, are frequently prominent in the nativist "UnWelcome Wagon" confronting yet another passel of (for the time being) outlandish outlanders.
Isn’t that to do though with pure maths / truisms?
If you have a population area that is 50% immigrants, then you are unlikely to find much support for stopping immigration amongst that segment. In effect, your addressable market is only the remaining 50%.
No, it's much more the fear and dislike of the unknown. Those who have never mixed with people of other ethnic backgrounds are far more likely to have negative views about them, in my experience.
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Sounds like a wise move for them really
Did they actually move?
Lots of people in Essex moved from the East End; in fact an Asian family who’ve moved to my parents road in Hornchurch cited the amount of Asians in East London as their reason for moving
But I did mean ‘move’ as in ‘decision’
Indian chap posted on our town's FB page the other day looking for work and several people posted 'welcoming' posts, and gave good, practical advice of suitable work.
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Think that's also true in USA today.
Was also somewhat true in early-20th century America, with difference that, back then, anti-immigrant sentiment and politics also included suburban areas where immigrants of that era had yet to penetrate in large numbers.
Of course, back then the fault line in USA debate over immigration, was Catholicism, not Islam (or race).
So much so that in the Pacific Northwest, the Ku Klux Klan, which required members to be natural-born US citizens, enrolled Canadian and Scandinavian Protestants into a special KKK auxiliary.
On other side of USA, the Acadians/Cajuns of Louisiana were KKK targets (along with Italians in New Orelans) and thus key part of the anti-Klan coalition.
Whereas by turn of 20th>21st century, many Cajuns were supporters of former KKK Wizard (and Nazi) David Duke when he ran for governor.
In America, the grandchildren of one pack of immigrants, are frequently prominent in the nativist "UnWelcome Wagon" confronting yet another passel of (for the time being) outlandish outlanders.
Isn’t that to do though with pure maths / truisms?
If you have a population area that is 50% immigrants, then you are unlikely to find much support for stopping immigration amongst that segment. In effect, your addressable market is only the remaining 50%.
No, it's much more the fear and dislike of the unknown. Those who have never mixed with people of other ethnic backgrounds are far more likely to have negative views about them, in my experience.
Indeed. In my experience working class white Londoners are generally the least racist people you will meet. Go down the road to Kent or even just the more homogeneous outer boroughs and it's a different story.
FPT: John McWhorter has this to say about British ancestry in "Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue": "It turns out that only about 4 percent of British men's genetic material is traceable to a migration from across the North Sea. Moreover, essentially none of British women's genetic material traces back to such a migration, meaning that the invaders were not couples with children, such that women and young'uns would bulk up the total. Rather the invaders were just a bunch of guys. In fact, evidently, the famous Germanic invaders numbered about 250,000, about as many people who live in a modest-sized nurg like Jersey City. (pp. 12-13)
(Incidentally, linguist McWhorter is also worth reading on race relations in the US.)
Yes but with a British population of 3 million or so at that time, that is a significant number, particularly with the age structure of the population meaning half were children and only a quarter adult males.
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Think that's also true in USA today.
Was also somewhat true in early-20th century America, with difference that, back then, anti-immigrant sentiment and politics also included suburban areas where immigrants of that era had yet to penetrate in large numbers.
Of course, back then the fault line in USA debate over immigration, was Catholicism, not Islam (or race).
So much so that in the Pacific Northwest, the Ku Klux Klan, which required members to be natural-born US citizens, enrolled Canadian and Scandinavian Protestants into a special KKK auxiliary.
On other side of USA, the Acadians/Cajuns of Louisiana were KKK targets (along with Italians in New Orelans) and thus key part of the anti-Klan coalition.
Whereas by turn of 20th>21st century, many Cajuns were supporters of former KKK Wizard (and Nazi) David Duke when he ran for governor.
In America, the grandchildren of one pack of immigrants, are frequently prominent in the nativist "UnWelcome Wagon" confronting yet another passel of (for the time being) outlandish outlanders.
Isn’t that to do though with pure maths / truisms?
If you have a population area that is 50% immigrants, then you are unlikely to find much support for stopping immigration amongst that segment. In effect, your addressable market is only the remaining 50%.
No, it's much more the fear and dislike of the unknown. Those who have never mixed with people of other ethnic backgrounds are far more likely to have negative views about them, in my experience.
Indeed. In my experience working class white Londoners are generally the least racist people you will meet. Go down the road to Kent or even just the more homogeneous outer boroughs and it's a different story.
It’s obviously a while since you’ve been to Outer London….
FPT: John McWhorter has this to say about British ancestry in "Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue": "It turns out that only about 4 percent of British men's genetic material is traceable to a migration from across the North Sea. Moreover, essentially none of British women's genetic material traces back to such a migration, meaning that the invaders were not couples with children, such that women and young'uns would bulk up the total. Rather the invaders were just a bunch of guys. In fact, evidently, the famous Germanic invaders numbered about 250,000, about as many people who live in a modest-sized nurg like Jersey City. (pp. 12-13)
(Incidentally, linguist McWhorter is also worth reading on race relations in the US.)
If 250,000 = 4% that would imply that there were 6.25m men in Celtic Britain when the Angles and Saxons invaded, which seems rather high.
FPT: John McWhorter has this to say about British ancestry in "Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue": "It turns out that only about 4 percent of British men's genetic material is traceable to a migration from across the North Sea. Moreover, essentially none of British women's genetic material traces back to such a migration, meaning that the invaders were not couples with children, such that women and young'uns would bulk up the total. Rather the invaders were just a bunch of guys. In fact, evidently, the famous Germanic invaders numbered about 250,000, about as many people who live in a modest-sized nurg like Jersey City. (pp. 12-13)
(Incidentally, linguist McWhorter is also worth reading on race relations in the US.)
If 250,000 = 4% that would imply that there were 6.25m men in Celtic Britain when the Angles and Saxons invaded, which seems rather high.
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Think that's also true in USA today.
Was also somewhat true in early-20th century America, with difference that, back then, anti-immigrant sentiment and politics also included suburban areas where immigrants of that era had yet to penetrate in large numbers.
Of course, back then the fault line in USA debate over immigration, was Catholicism, not Islam (or race).
So much so that in the Pacific Northwest, the Ku Klux Klan, which required members to be natural-born US citizens, enrolled Canadian and Scandinavian Protestants into a special KKK auxiliary.
On other side of USA, the Acadians/Cajuns of Louisiana were KKK targets (along with Italians in New Orelans) and thus key part of the anti-Klan coalition.
Whereas by turn of 20th>21st century, many Cajuns were supporters of former KKK Wizard (and Nazi) David Duke when he ran for governor.
In America, the grandchildren of one pack of immigrants, are frequently prominent in the nativist "UnWelcome Wagon" confronting yet another passel of (for the time being) outlandish outlanders.
Isn’t that to do though with pure maths / truisms?
If you have a population area that is 50% immigrants, then you are unlikely to find much support for stopping immigration amongst that segment. In effect, your addressable market is only the remaining 50%.
True, as far as it goes.
However, another factor among the 50%-or-whatever non-immigrants in urbs/burbs, is the fact that we actually know many immigrants personally, as neighbors, coworkers, local business/professionals. Along with their children & etc.
Meanwhile, Ireland’s new Hate Speech laws are quite mind-blowingly Orwellian
“People don’t realise how extreme Ireland’s hate speech bill is. Up to 12 months in prison for refusing to give password to your devices if suspected of committing hate speech. 12 months for refusing to allow the State read messages between you and your spouse. It’s authoritarian.”
People like Ruth Dudley Edwards, and Eoghan Harris have been extremely critical.
The Irish Establishment has now entered the "You have to destroy democracy / free speech to protect democracy / free speech" mindset. It will only end one way and what makes their attitude even more mind-numbingly dumb is that their Police are unarmed / govern by consent and the Irish Army will in no way intervene.
The irony of ironies if they end up calling in the UK for help....
It will only end way? Yes. The bill will pass with some amendments, I imagine. People are so skittish (!) on here sometimes.
Mmmm, it is a bill with which you have sympathy therefore it is "skittish" to get worried about it.
I meant all this "only end one way" and "destroy free speech and democracy" sort of thing. I get the passion, and that's fine, but if you use up that type of language on something like this you'll have nowhere to go (linguistically) if god forbid we do have to confront a serious threat to freedom and democracy here in the UK or Ireland.
Would you not describe a "you must give us all yoir passwords if we suspect you of wrongspeak" bill as a serious threat to freedom in Ireland?
It is a serious threat to free speech and free thought and likely in breach of the ECHR. It is not at all surprising in a country like Ireland which has absorbed the totalitarian tendencies of the Irish Catholic Church and is now using them to achieve exactly what the Irish Catholic Church achieved while it was in control - silence about anything it did not like and the shunning and departure of anyone who tried to speak freely about what was going on.
See, for instance, the treatment of John McGahern, a teacher forced out of his job after publishing his first novels about the dark underbelly of Irish family life - violence and silence. He had to leave the country.
It is precisely this which allowed the abuse of children, the Magdalene laundries, and so on to continue for so long. It did not suit those in power to have these things spoken about and so every effort was made to stop anyone doing so.
This Bill seeks to achieve much the same. It is dressed up in the language of politeness and kindness and preventing discomfort and making people feel insecure. But the result is the same. Under such a bill anyone telling the truth about the Christian Brothers' violent abuse of children could have been prosecuted for making priests feel "discomfort" and "insecure" and classed as "hate".
Ireland's political class has always been self-interested and corrupt. But it now seems to have become remarkably stupid as well.
Edited: I have a lot on but happy to do a header on this if there's interest.
I would be quite interested - especially in a like-for-like comparison with the UK.
Here aiui, depending on circumstances, withholding a password or PIN can be up to 5 years in prison (if related to national security / child abuse).
I believe it came in under Blair's authoritarian RIPA Act before 2000.
Dr. Foxy - What McWhorter is trying to establish in that paragraph is that the invasion did not almost "wipe out" the existing population. And that modern English still owes much to that population.
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Think that's also true in USA today.
Was also somewhat true in early-20th century America, with difference that, back then, anti-immigrant sentiment and politics also included suburban areas where immigrants of that era had yet to penetrate in large numbers.
Of course, back then the fault line in USA debate over immigration, was Catholicism, not Islam (or race).
So much so that in the Pacific Northwest, the Ku Klux Klan, which required members to be natural-born US citizens, enrolled Canadian and Scandinavian Protestants into a special KKK auxiliary.
On other side of USA, the Acadians/Cajuns of Louisiana were KKK targets (along with Italians in New Orelans) and thus key part of the anti-Klan coalition.
Whereas by turn of 20th>21st century, many Cajuns were supporters of former KKK Wizard (and Nazi) David Duke when he ran for governor.
In America, the grandchildren of one pack of immigrants, are frequently prominent in the nativist "UnWelcome Wagon" confronting yet another passel of (for the time being) outlandish outlanders.
Isn’t that to do though with pure maths / truisms?
If you have a population area that is 50% immigrants, then you are unlikely to find much support for stopping immigration amongst that segment. In effect, your addressable market is only the remaining 50%.
No, it's much more the fear and dislike of the unknown. Those who have never mixed with people of other ethnic backgrounds are far more likely to have negative views about them, in my experience.
Indeed. In my experience working class white Londoners are generally the least racist people you will meet. Go down the road to Kent or even just the more homogeneous outer boroughs and it's a different story.
It’s obviously a while since you’ve been to Outer London….
Not really, I get out to places Bexley and Bromley quite often. They are a lot whiter than Lewisham.
I'd assumed that the title Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was a satirical invention by Private Eye. I gather, however, that it's for real.
Divine intervention.
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton it is now. He sounds like he solves mysteries from the pen of Dorothy L Sayers. In fact, he told the House of Lords, it was the vicar’s wife who telephoned to say he absolutely had to take the village name (so I guess we’re lucky the rector of Pratts Bottom didn’t get to him first), revealing all in a debut speech that was elegant and funny.
I've just read that; I didn't realise Ken Clarke is in a wheelchair these days. Although the last time I saw him on TV, he did seem to have aged a lot.
He's 83 tbf.
The same age as Sir Tom Jones.
That reminds me - I'm doing a turn as him at the work karaoke. Jones, not Clarke.
Meanwhile, Ireland’s new Hate Speech laws are quite mind-blowingly Orwellian
“People don’t realise how extreme Ireland’s hate speech bill is. Up to 12 months in prison for refusing to give password to your devices if suspected of committing hate speech. 12 months for refusing to allow the State read messages between you and your spouse. It’s authoritarian.”
People like Ruth Dudley Edwards, and Eoghan Harris have been extremely critical.
The Irish Establishment has now entered the "You have to destroy democracy / free speech to protect democracy / free speech" mindset. It will only end one way and what makes their attitude even more mind-numbingly dumb is that their Police are unarmed / govern by consent and the Irish Army will in no way intervene.
The irony of ironies if they end up calling in the UK for help....
It will only end way? Yes. The bill will pass with some amendments, I imagine. People are so skittish (!) on here sometimes.
Mmmm, it is a bill with which you have sympathy therefore it is "skittish" to get worried about it.
I meant all this "only end one way" and "destroy free speech and democracy" sort of thing. I get the passion, and that's fine, but if you use up that type of language on something like this you'll have nowhere to go (linguistically) if god forbid we do have to confront a serious threat to freedom and democracy here in the UK or Ireland.
It’s not passion really, it is more rationality. Nations are built on trust, once that breaks down - and that happens particularly when one side feels as though it is being ignored / the rules are rigged against them - they fail.
So I make the point because you are making the classic mistake of downplaying the implications because you agree with who is bringing it / why it is being brought rather than the principle.
I'm a moderate on this as on most things apart from the British Empire and private schools. I favour hate speech laws about where we have it. If Ireland are trying to go much beyond that it needs debating and probably amending. Which will surely happen. All normal as one seeks to strike a workable balance in this tricky area.
Why must people be constantly overeacting to things? This is my question really. I mean, look at Elon Musk. He's super concerned (he says) about this. The guy can't seem to get through a minute without getting ants in his pants about something. And half the time it's not even his pants.
I wish people would exercise a bit of judgement and decorum. Maybe it's my age showing. I'm 63.
I am a fan of Peter Hitchens; 15 years ago I would probably have disagreed with him on everything. In fact 14 years ago I went to see his brother Christopher debate religion alongside Stephen Fry as I was kind of on their side of that debate. I think it might have been Anne Widdecombe they argued with. But now I think he is quite a thoughtful voice of reason on many issues, as well as being an easy punchbag for those who disagree, thanks to his old fashioned ways
Anyway, I’d say his ‘likes’ include
Train travel (pre privatisation) Cycling (he recently wrote about how great it was to see so many people now cycling in London) The Lives of Others & Never Look Back (two films he recommended that I enjoyed) The King James Bible Travel
He strongly dislikes cars, and is very pro-public transport, as you say.
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Think that's also true in USA today.
Was also somewhat true in early-20th century America, with difference that, back then, anti-immigrant sentiment and politics also included suburban areas where immigrants of that era had yet to penetrate in large numbers.
Of course, back then the fault line in USA debate over immigration, was Catholicism, not Islam (or race).
So much so that in the Pacific Northwest, the Ku Klux Klan, which required members to be natural-born US citizens, enrolled Canadian and Scandinavian Protestants into a special KKK auxiliary.
On other side of USA, the Acadians/Cajuns of Louisiana were KKK targets (along with Italians in New Orelans) and thus key part of the anti-Klan coalition.
Whereas by turn of 20th>21st century, many Cajuns were supporters of former KKK Wizard (and Nazi) David Duke when he ran for governor.
In America, the grandchildren of one pack of immigrants, are frequently prominent in the nativist "UnWelcome Wagon" confronting yet another passel of (for the time being) outlandish outlanders.
Isn’t that to do though with pure maths / truisms?
If you have a population area that is 50% immigrants, then you are unlikely to find much support for stopping immigration amongst that segment. In effect, your addressable market is only the remaining 50%.
True, as far as it goes.
However, another factor among the 50%-or-whatever non-immigrants in urbs/burbs, is the fact that we actually know many immigrants personally, as neighbors, coworkers, local business/professionals. Along with their children & etc.
Which is also true. But then you had the factor that urban areas also tend to attract more graduate professional types who are likely to be more liberal in their views reflecting both their education and also a self-selection element (i.e. those who feel most comfortable with immigration / liberal ideas choose to live in cities / high immigrant areas, whereas those that do not, do not.
Hence, it goes back to the root question. Is the tendency to be more pro-immigrant in high immigrant areas to do with the experiences of living with immigrants or because the people who live in those areas are immigrants themselves and / or have a natural pre-ordained inclination to be pro-immigration i.e. it has nothing to do with their experiences?
Dr. Foxy - What McWhorter is trying to establish in that paragraph is that the invasion did not almost "wipe out" the existing population. And that modern English still owes much to that population.
Frances Pryor made the case in this book that the Saxon invasion was mostly a peaceful cultural event, citing the absence of archaeological evidence of battles, burnt villages etc, rather than a conquest as generally understood.
I don't know enough archeology to dispute his claims, but it is an interesting argument. It would fit with having only a minor genetic influence on our make up.
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Well that makes logical sense doesn't it. If there's something happening in another place you don't like, then you'd want to stop it happening in your area before it does happen. (This isn't an endorsement of that opinion, just pointing out that it's a rational position).
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Think that's also true in USA today.
Was also somewhat true in early-20th century America, with difference that, back then, anti-immigrant sentiment and politics also included suburban areas where immigrants of that era had yet to penetrate in large numbers.
Of course, back then the fault line in USA debate over immigration, was Catholicism, not Islam (or race).
So much so that in the Pacific Northwest, the Ku Klux Klan, which required members to be natural-born US citizens, enrolled Canadian and Scandinavian Protestants into a special KKK auxiliary.
On other side of USA, the Acadians/Cajuns of Louisiana were KKK targets (along with Italians in New Orelans) and thus key part of the anti-Klan coalition.
Whereas by turn of 20th>21st century, many Cajuns were supporters of former KKK Wizard (and Nazi) David Duke when he ran for governor.
In America, the grandchildren of one pack of immigrants, are frequently prominent in the nativist "UnWelcome Wagon" confronting yet another passel of (for the time being) outlandish outlanders.
Isn’t that to do though with pure maths / truisms?
If you have a population area that is 50% immigrants, then you are unlikely to find much support for stopping immigration amongst that segment. In effect, your addressable market is only the remaining 50%.
No, it's much more the fear and dislike of the unknown. Those who have never mixed with people of other ethnic backgrounds are far more likely to have negative views about them, in my experience.
Sorry, if 50% of the population is immigrant, of course it is going to skew the parties. That is just logically.
Re your answer, as I said to @SeaShantyIrish2 there is likely to be a strong element of self-selection bias when it comes to the views i.e. people's reported positive views on immigration are more likely to reflect their pre-ordained views rather than their actual experiences.
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Think that's also true in USA today.
Was also somewhat true in early-20th century America, with difference that, back then, anti-immigrant sentiment and politics also included suburban areas where immigrants of that era had yet to penetrate in large numbers.
Of course, back then the fault line in USA debate over immigration, was Catholicism, not Islam (or race).
So much so that in the Pacific Northwest, the Ku Klux Klan, which required members to be natural-born US citizens, enrolled Canadian and Scandinavian Protestants into a special KKK auxiliary.
On other side of USA, the Acadians/Cajuns of Louisiana were KKK targets (along with Italians in New Orelans) and thus key part of the anti-Klan coalition.
Whereas by turn of 20th>21st century, many Cajuns were supporters of former KKK Wizard (and Nazi) David Duke when he ran for governor.
In America, the grandchildren of one pack of immigrants, are frequently prominent in the nativist "UnWelcome Wagon" confronting yet another passel of (for the time being) outlandish outlanders.
Isn’t that to do though with pure maths / truisms?
If you have a population area that is 50% immigrants, then you are unlikely to find much support for stopping immigration amongst that segment. In effect, your addressable market is only the remaining 50%.
True, as far as it goes.
However, another factor among the 50%-or-whatever non-immigrants in urbs/burbs, is the fact that we actually know many immigrants personally, as neighbors, coworkers, local business/professionals. Along with their children & etc.
Which is also true. But then you had the factor that urban areas also tend to attract more graduate professional types who are likely to be more liberal in their views reflecting both their education and also a self-selection element (i.e. those who feel most comfortable with immigration / liberal ideas choose to live in cities / high immigrant areas, whereas those that do not, do not.
Hence, it goes back to the root question. Is the tendency to be more pro-immigrant in high immigrant areas to do with the experiences of living with immigrants or because the people who live in those areas are immigrants themselves and / or have a natural pre-ordained inclination to be pro-immigration i.e. it has nothing to do with their experiences?
I suspect that the answer is more complex, in that places where both migrant and native population feel marginalised is quite different to where both migrant and native population feel they are doing well.
An African friend of mine gets nothing but respect when out and about in Lincs as the (correct) assumption is that he is a Doctor at the hospital or academic at the University.
It's in Nottingham he gets hassle for "driving while black".
Dr. Foxy - What McWhorter is trying to establish in that paragraph is that the invasion did not almost "wipe out" the existing population. And that modern English still owes much to that population.
Frances Pryor made the case in this book that the Saxon invasion was mostly a peaceful cultural event, citing the absence of archaeological evidence of battles, burnt villages etc, rather than a conquest as generally understood.
I don't know enough archeology to dispute his claims, but it is an interesting argument. It would fit with having only a minor genetic influence on our make up.
I think this is strongly backed up by archaeology and it is certainly the prevailing view these days.
I'd assumed that the title Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was a satirical invention by Private Eye. I gather, however, that it's for real.
Divine intervention.
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton it is now. He sounds like he solves mysteries from the pen of Dorothy L Sayers. In fact, he told the House of Lords, it was the vicar’s wife who telephoned to say he absolutely had to take the village name (so I guess we’re lucky the rector of Pratts Bottom didn’t get to him first), revealing all in a debut speech that was elegant and funny.
I've just read that; I didn't realise Ken Clarke is in a wheelchair these days. Although the last time I saw him on TV, he did seem to have aged a lot.
He just sounds like such a grown up. Hunt is the only one who comes close in this government.
Steve Coogan in 1990 doing an impression of Clarke (04:20)
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Think that's also true in USA today.
Was also somewhat true in early-20th century America, with difference that, back then, anti-immigrant sentiment and politics also included suburban areas where immigrants of that era had yet to penetrate in large numbers.
Of course, back then the fault line in USA debate over immigration, was Catholicism, not Islam (or race).
So much so that in the Pacific Northwest, the Ku Klux Klan, which required members to be natural-born US citizens, enrolled Canadian and Scandinavian Protestants into a special KKK auxiliary.
On other side of USA, the Acadians/Cajuns of Louisiana were KKK targets (along with Italians in New Orelans) and thus key part of the anti-Klan coalition.
Whereas by turn of 20th>21st century, many Cajuns were supporters of former KKK Wizard (and Nazi) David Duke when he ran for governor.
In America, the grandchildren of one pack of immigrants, are frequently prominent in the nativist "UnWelcome Wagon" confronting yet another passel of (for the time being) outlandish outlanders.
Isn’t that to do though with pure maths / truisms?
If you have a population area that is 50% immigrants, then you are unlikely to find much support for stopping immigration amongst that segment. In effect, your addressable market is only the remaining 50%.
True, as far as it goes.
However, another factor among the 50%-or-whatever non-immigrants in urbs/burbs, is the fact that we actually know many immigrants personally, as neighbors, coworkers, local business/professionals. Along with their children & etc.
Which is also true. But then you had the factor that urban areas also tend to attract more graduate professional types who are likely to be more liberal in their views reflecting both their education and also a self-selection element (i.e. those who feel most comfortable with immigration / liberal ideas choose to live in cities / high immigrant areas, whereas those that do not, do not.
Hence, it goes back to the root question. Is the tendency to be more pro-immigrant in high immigrant areas to do with the experiences of living with immigrants or because the people who live in those areas are immigrants themselves and / or have a natural pre-ordained inclination to be pro-immigration i.e. it has nothing to do with their experiences?
I suspect that the answer is more complex, in that places where both migrant and native population feel marginalised is quite different to where both migrant and native population feel they are doing well.
An African friend of mine gets nothing but respect when out and about in Lincs as the (correct) assumption is that he is a Doctor at the hospital or academic at the University.
It's in Nottingham he gets hassle for "driving while black".
I am with you on this one - it is a lot more complex than just to assume "people have naturally more positive experiences if they live in high immigration areas". It will depend on the wealth of the area, composition etc and also individual characteristics.
To give one small anecdote: My parents live in a cul-de-sac and liked have Somali neighbours because they said they kept their places clean and there was no trouble. They have now moved out and the latest set of neighbours who are also immigrants elicit a more mixed response. We forget it often comes down to individual behaviour.
No doubt they have different reasons for wanting to come here. Most may be economic immigrants, others may be asylum seekers, and at least a few, no doubt, are ChiCom agents. To call all of them simply "immigrants" is a serious mistake, since the policies appropriate to, for example, asylum seekers, should be different from those appropriate to economic immigrants.
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Think that's also true in USA today.
Was also somewhat true in early-20th century America, with difference that, back then, anti-immigrant sentiment and politics also included suburban areas where immigrants of that era had yet to penetrate in large numbers.
Of course, back then the fault line in USA debate over immigration, was Catholicism, not Islam (or race).
So much so that in the Pacific Northwest, the Ku Klux Klan, which required members to be natural-born US citizens, enrolled Canadian and Scandinavian Protestants into a special KKK auxiliary.
On other side of USA, the Acadians/Cajuns of Louisiana were KKK targets (along with Italians in New Orelans) and thus key part of the anti-Klan coalition.
Whereas by turn of 20th>21st century, many Cajuns were supporters of former KKK Wizard (and Nazi) David Duke when he ran for governor.
In America, the grandchildren of one pack of immigrants, are frequently prominent in the nativist "UnWelcome Wagon" confronting yet another passel of (for the time being) outlandish outlanders.
Isn’t that to do though with pure maths / truisms?
If you have a population area that is 50% immigrants, then you are unlikely to find much support for stopping immigration amongst that segment. In effect, your addressable market is only the remaining 50%.
No, it's much more the fear and dislike of the unknown. Those who have never mixed with people of other ethnic backgrounds are far more likely to have negative views about them, in my experience.
Indeed. In my experience working class white Londoners are generally the least racist people you will meet. Go down the road to Kent or even just the more homogeneous outer boroughs and it's a different story.
It’s obviously a while since you’ve been to Outer London….
Not really, I get out to places Bexley and Bromley quite often. They are a lot whiter than Lewisham.
But also noticeably less white than they used to be. Comparing the 2011 and 2021 censuses (censii?), Bromley has gone from 84% white to 77%, and Havering from 88% to 75%.
And I suspect that if they haven't reached the "ah, it's fine" tipping point, they're probably pretty close. Might not affect the 2024 elections in the "Essex/Kent Actually" wall, but likely to be relevant for 2028.
I'd assumed that the title Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was a satirical invention by Private Eye. I gather, however, that it's for real.
Divine intervention.
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton it is now. He sounds like he solves mysteries from the pen of Dorothy L Sayers. In fact, he told the House of Lords, it was the vicar’s wife who telephoned to say he absolutely had to take the village name (so I guess we’re lucky the rector of Pratts Bottom didn’t get to him first), revealing all in a debut speech that was elegant and funny.
I've just read that; I didn't realise Ken Clarke is in a wheelchair these days. Although the last time I saw him on TV, he did seem to have aged a lot.
He's 83 tbf.
That's not old!
My former MP Gloria de Piero did a long interview with him a year ago on GB News.
I can't comment on how good it is, as I've only just started listening.
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Well that makes logical sense doesn't it. If there's something happening in another place you don't like, then you'd want to stop it happening in your area before it does happen. (This isn't an endorsement of that opinion, just pointing out that it's a rational position).
But why do the people who have minimal experience of it dislike it more than the people who experience it every day? Who is likely to have the opinion most rooted in reality, I wonder?
Meanwhile, Ireland’s new Hate Speech laws are quite mind-blowingly Orwellian
“People don’t realise how extreme Ireland’s hate speech bill is. Up to 12 months in prison for refusing to give password to your devices if suspected of committing hate speech. 12 months for refusing to allow the State read messages between you and your spouse. It’s authoritarian.”
People like Ruth Dudley Edwards, and Eoghan Harris have been extremely critical.
The Irish Establishment has now entered the "You have to destroy democracy / free speech to protect democracy / free speech" mindset. It will only end one way and what makes their attitude even more mind-numbingly dumb is that their Police are unarmed / govern by consent and the Irish Army will in no way intervene.
The irony of ironies if they end up calling in the UK for help....
It will only end way? Yes. The bill will pass with some amendments, I imagine. People are so skittish (!) on here sometimes.
Mmmm, it is a bill with which you have sympathy therefore it is "skittish" to get worried about it.
I meant all this "only end one way" and "destroy free speech and democracy" sort of thing. I get the passion, and that's fine, but if you use up that type of language on something like this you'll have nowhere to go (linguistically) if god forbid we do have to confront a serious threat to freedom and democracy here in the UK or Ireland.
Would you not describe a "you must give us all yoir passwords if we suspect you of wrongspeak" bill as a serious threat to freedom in Ireland?
It is a serious threat to free speech and free thought and likely in breach of the ECHR. It is not at all surprising in a country like Ireland which has absorbed the totalitarian tendencies of the Irish Catholic Church and is now using them to achieve exactly what the Irish Catholic Church achieved while it was in control - silence about anything it did not like and the shunning and departure of anyone who tried to speak freely about what was going on.
See, for instance, the treatment of John McGahern, a teacher forced out of his job after publishing his first novels about the dark underbelly of Irish family life - violence and silence. He had to leave the country.
It is precisely this which allowed the abuse of children, the Magdalene laundries, and so on to continue for so long. It did not suit those in power to have these things spoken about and so every effort was made to stop anyone doing so.
This Bill seeks to achieve much the same. It is dressed up in the language of politeness and kindness and preventing discomfort and making people feel insecure. But the result is the same. Under such a bill anyone telling the truth about the Christian Brothers' violent abuse of children could have been prosecuted for making priests feel "discomfort" and "insecure" and classed as "hate".
Ireland's political class has always been self-interested and corrupt. But it now seems to have become remarkably stupid as well.
Edited: I have a lot on but happy to do a header on this if there's interest.
Quite so. I think being a small country makes it worse. There is (literally) less room for disagreement. Everyone in power knows each other; if Scotland went Indy it would suffer the same, we already see some of these issues in Holyrood
Mr Sunak surely cannot want Mr Cameron's expertise on foreign policy. His major achievement in that field was to destroy Libya, replacing the despot Gaddafi with wild, burning chaos. This one action triggered the giant explosion in human trafficking across the Mediterranean which has utterly transformed Europe and European politics for the worse. He also supported the failed attempt to overthrow the nasty Syrian dictator, Bashar Assad, supposedly in the name of democracy and freedom.
In Germany, the fascinating Sahra Wagenknecht, an Iranian-German former Communist raised and educated in Marxist East Germany, has set herself up as an apostle of an entirely new politics – Left-wing on social policy, but opposed to mass immigration.
Unlike many of her concrete-headed Left-wing comrades, who have for years told their working-class supporters to like mass migration or lump it, Ms Wagenknecht has grasped these sudden vast increases in population make perfectly reasonable people genuinely unhappy.
Until now, the uncomfortably Right-wing Alliance For Germany (AFD) party has been picking up their votes. Ms Wagenknecht thinks this should stop and has sensibly argued: 'Germans don't vote for the AFD because they're Right-wing. They vote for them because they're angry.' Imagine a smart and combative female combination of Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn, and you might get close.
"An entirely new politics - Left-wing on social policy, but opposed to mass immigration".
Not sure that's entirely new. Isn't it essentially what Pim Fortuyn stodd for in the Netherlands, and to a somewhat lesser extent (he is mixed on social policy) Geert Wilders?
She is also pretty pro-Russia.
Which plays better in her stronghold of the east of Germany than old West Germany.
Hush, we’re not supposed to mention that the working classes long ignored over immigration might also be a bit Putiny. That’s all down to the dreadful appeasing German establishment desperate for business as usual.
Meanwhile, Ireland’s new Hate Speech laws are quite mind-blowingly Orwellian
“People don’t realise how extreme Ireland’s hate speech bill is. Up to 12 months in prison for refusing to give password to your devices if suspected of committing hate speech. 12 months for refusing to allow the State read messages between you and your spouse. It’s authoritarian.”
People like Ruth Dudley Edwards, and Eoghan Harris have been extremely critical.
The Irish Establishment has now entered the "You have to destroy democracy / free speech to protect democracy / free speech" mindset. It will only end one way and what makes their attitude even more mind-numbingly dumb is that their Police are unarmed / govern by consent and the Irish Army will in no way intervene.
The irony of ironies if they end up calling in the UK for help....
It will only end way? Yes. The bill will pass with some amendments, I imagine. People are so skittish (!) on here sometimes.
Mmmm, it is a bill with which you have sympathy therefore it is "skittish" to get worried about it.
I meant all this "only end one way" and "destroy free speech and democracy" sort of thing. I get the passion, and that's fine, but if you use up that type of language on something like this you'll have nowhere to go (linguistically) if god forbid we do have to confront a serious threat to freedom and democracy here in the UK or Ireland.
Would you not describe a "you must give us all yoir passwords if we suspect you of wrongspeak" bill as a serious threat to freedom in Ireland?
It is a serious threat to free speech and free thought and likely in breach of the ECHR. It is not at all surprising in a country like Ireland which has absorbed the totalitarian tendencies of the Irish Catholic Church and is now using them to achieve exactly what the Irish Catholic Church achieved while it was in control - silence about anything it did not like and the shunning and departure of anyone who tried to speak freely about what was going on.
See, for instance, the treatment of John McGahern, a teacher forced out of his job after publishing his first novels about the dark underbelly of Irish family life - violence and silence. He had to leave the country.
It is precisely this which allowed the abuse of children, the Magdalene laundries, and so on to continue for so long. It did not suit those in power to have these things spoken about and so every effort was made to stop anyone doing so.
This Bill seeks to achieve much the same. It is dressed up in the language of politeness and kindness and preventing discomfort and making people feel insecure. But the result is the same. Under such a bill anyone telling the truth about the Christian Brothers' violent abuse of children could have been prosecuted for making priests feel "discomfort" and "insecure" and classed as "hate".
Ireland's political class has always been self-interested and corrupt. But it now seems to have become remarkably stupid as well.
Edited: I have a lot on but happy to do a header on this if there's interest.
Meanwhile, Ireland’s new Hate Speech laws are quite mind-blowingly Orwellian
“People don’t realise how extreme Ireland’s hate speech bill is. Up to 12 months in prison for refusing to give password to your devices if suspected of committing hate speech. 12 months for refusing to allow the State read messages between you and your spouse. It’s authoritarian.”
People like Ruth Dudley Edwards, and Eoghan Harris have been extremely critical.
The Irish Establishment has now entered the "You have to destroy democracy / free speech to protect democracy / free speech" mindset. It will only end one way and what makes their attitude even more mind-numbingly dumb is that their Police are unarmed / govern by consent and the Irish Army will in no way intervene.
The irony of ironies if they end up calling in the UK for help....
It will only end way? Yes. The bill will pass with some amendments, I imagine. People are so skittish (!) on here sometimes.
Mmmm, it is a bill with which you have sympathy therefore it is "skittish" to get worried about it.
I meant all this "only end one way" and "destroy free speech and democracy" sort of thing. I get the passion, and that's fine, but if you use up that type of language on something like this you'll have nowhere to go (linguistically) if god forbid we do have to confront a serious threat to freedom and democracy here in the UK or Ireland.
It’s not passion really, it is more rationality. Nations are built on trust, once that breaks down - and that happens particularly when one side feels as though it is being ignored / the rules are rigged against them - they fail.
So I make the point because you are making the classic mistake of downplaying the implications because you agree with who is bringing it / why it is being brought rather than the principle.
I'm a moderate on this as on most things apart from the British Empire and private schools. I favour hate speech laws about where we have it. If Ireland are trying to go much beyond that it needs debating and probably amending. Which will surely happen. All normal as one seeks to strike a workable balance in this tricky area.
Why must people be constantly overeacting to things? This is my question really. I mean, look at Elon Musk. He's super concerned (he says) about this. The guy can't seem to get through a minute without getting ants in his pants about something. And half the time it's not even his pants.
I wish people would exercise a bit of judgement and decorum. Maybe it's my age showing. I'm 63.
To be fair, your points re constantly overreacting could equally apply to anything to do with Trump on this site where the level of overreaction is extreme. Mention the Orange One and people seem to lose their heads in an orgy of calls of fascist, dictator etc. In my mind, it is all overdone and, at times, unintentionally hilarious.
However, to get back to the point re the proposed Bill, @Cyclefree - as ever on these issues - makes an excellent point. The drivers of the Bill are the same that led the Ireland of old to shut down any criticism of the Catholic Church and hide child abuse. In the future, it is a ready made tool for any far-right regime to crack down on dissent.
As always, it is the principle we should be concerned about, not whether it suits our side here and now.
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Sounds like a wise move for them really
Did they actually move?
Lots of people in Essex moved from the East End; in fact an Asian family who’ve moved to my parents road in Hornchurch cited the amount of Asians in East London as their reason for moving
But I did mean ‘move’ as in ‘decision’
Indian chap posted on our town's FB page the other day looking for work and several people posted 'welcoming' posts, and gave good, practical advice of suitable work.
I can’t think that there are many places where that wouldn’t be the case. It’s not like Blazing Saddles!
The problem seems to be when tangible differences to the neighbourhood occur - for instance one of my friends told me yesterday that my old Play School near his house in Hornchurch/Elm Park is being turned into a Mosque and he wants to move away on the back of it
Often when the place people grew up in changes, they move away. @Stuartinromford isn’t actually from Romford, so thinks it seems ok; almost everyone I know from growing up lived near Romford and it’s just a place they wouldn’t want to live - more like East London than Essex now
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Well that makes logical sense doesn't it. If there's something happening in another place you don't like, then you'd want to stop it happening in your area before it does happen. (This isn't an endorsement of that opinion, just pointing out that it's a rational position).
But why do the people who have minimal experience of it dislike it more than the people who experience it every day? Who is likely to have the opinion most rooted in reality, I wonder?
People from the suburbs who travel into London have quite a good grasp of what the more immigrant heavy areas are like. Just because they don’t live in them doesn’t mean they never pass by
Your point makes no sense - it’s like saying people who don’t like a certain type of food are those who don’t eat it that often ; it’s because they don’t like it
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Think that's also true in USA today.
Was also somewhat true in early-20th century America, with difference that, back then, anti-immigrant sentiment and politics also included suburban areas where immigrants of that era had yet to penetrate in large numbers.
Of course, back then the fault line in USA debate over immigration, was Catholicism, not Islam (or race).
So much so that in the Pacific Northwest, the Ku Klux Klan, which required members to be natural-born US citizens, enrolled Canadian and Scandinavian Protestants into a special KKK auxiliary.
On other side of USA, the Acadians/Cajuns of Louisiana were KKK targets (along with Italians in New Orelans) and thus key part of the anti-Klan coalition.
Whereas by turn of 20th>21st century, many Cajuns were supporters of former KKK Wizard (and Nazi) David Duke when he ran for governor.
In America, the grandchildren of one pack of immigrants, are frequently prominent in the nativist "UnWelcome Wagon" confronting yet another passel of (for the time being) outlandish outlanders.
Isn’t that to do though with pure maths / truisms?
If you have a population area that is 50% immigrants, then you are unlikely to find much support for stopping immigration amongst that segment. In effect, your addressable market is only the remaining 50%.
No, it's much more the fear and dislike of the unknown. Those who have never mixed with people of other ethnic backgrounds are far more likely to have negative views about them, in my experience.
Indeed. In my experience working class white Londoners are generally the least racist people you will meet. Go down the road to Kent or even just the more homogeneous outer boroughs and it's a different story.
It’s obviously a while since you’ve been to Outer London….
Not really, I get out to places Bexley and Bromley quite often. They are a lot whiter than Lewisham.
But also noticeably less white than they used to be. Comparing the 2011 and 2021 censuses (censii?), Bromley has gone from 84% white to 77%, and Havering from 88% to 75%.
And I suspect that if they haven't reached the "ah, it's fine" tipping point, they're probably pretty close. Might not affect the 2024 elections in the "Essex/Kent Actually" wall, but likely to be relevant for 2028.
I was in Chorlton last week. Cycled past the high school. Not a white child in sight, though I can't imagine that was wholly representative. Later, on the main drag at 8pm, 50/50 white / non-white. But in the bar I was drinking in, 100% white. Interesting perspectives on the same place.
Given Lord Cameron's "issues" with Greensill, it was inappropriate to bring him back. I would have been much happier if, for example, William Hague was returned to the cabinet.
Really? William Hague who boasted in 2012 that "President Assad's days are numbered" ?
I'd assumed that the title Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was a satirical invention by Private Eye. I gather, however, that it's for real.
Divine intervention.
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton it is now. He sounds like he solves mysteries from the pen of Dorothy L Sayers. In fact, he told the House of Lords, it was the vicar’s wife who telephoned to say he absolutely had to take the village name (so I guess we’re lucky the rector of Pratts Bottom didn’t get to him first), revealing all in a debut speech that was elegant and funny.
I've just read that; I didn't realise Ken Clarke is in a wheelchair these days. Although the last time I saw him on TV, he did seem to have aged a lot.
He just sounds like such a grown up. Hunt is the only one who comes close in this government.
Steve Coogan in 1990 doing an impression of Clarke (04:20)
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Think that's also true in USA today.
Was also somewhat true in early-20th century America, with difference that, back then, anti-immigrant sentiment and politics also included suburban areas where immigrants of that era had yet to penetrate in large numbers.
Of course, back then the fault line in USA debate over immigration, was Catholicism, not Islam (or race).
So much so that in the Pacific Northwest, the Ku Klux Klan, which required members to be natural-born US citizens, enrolled Canadian and Scandinavian Protestants into a special KKK auxiliary.
On other side of USA, the Acadians/Cajuns of Louisiana were KKK targets (along with Italians in New Orelans) and thus key part of the anti-Klan coalition.
Whereas by turn of 20th>21st century, many Cajuns were supporters of former KKK Wizard (and Nazi) David Duke when he ran for governor.
In America, the grandchildren of one pack of immigrants, are frequently prominent in the nativist "UnWelcome Wagon" confronting yet another passel of (for the time being) outlandish outlanders.
Isn’t that to do though with pure maths / truisms?
If you have a population area that is 50% immigrants, then you are unlikely to find much support for stopping immigration amongst that segment. In effect, your addressable market is only the remaining 50%.
No, it's much more the fear and dislike of the unknown. Those who have never mixed with people of other ethnic backgrounds are far more likely to have negative views about them, in my experience.
Sorry, if 50% of the population is immigrant, of course it is going to skew the parties. That is just logically.
Re your answer, as I said to @SeaShantyIrish2 there is likely to be a strong element of self-selection bias when it comes to the views i.e. people's reported positive views on immigration are more likely to reflect their pre-ordained views rather than their actual experiences.
What does 'if 50% of the population is immigrant' mean? Do you mean people born overseas who have moved to Britain? If so, I think only Brent would meet your 50% criteria, so I am not sure how relevant that is for this discussion.
My point is that when I have lived and worked in an areas with very low ethnic diversity (Selby, Hastings) I have come across more instances of racial prejudice than when I have lived in more mixed areas (e.g. Southwark, Leeds, Halifax).
This is not scientific, but I don't think it can be explained by the pure maths of the number of immigrants in each area. As I said, it's a product of unfamiliarity causing fear and dislike.
I'd assumed that the title Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was a satirical invention by Private Eye. I gather, however, that it's for real.
Divine intervention.
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton it is now. He sounds like he solves mysteries from the pen of Dorothy L Sayers. In fact, he told the House of Lords, it was the vicar’s wife who telephoned to say he absolutely had to take the village name (so I guess we’re lucky the rector of Pratts Bottom didn’t get to him first), revealing all in a debut speech that was elegant and funny.
I've just read that; I didn't realise Ken Clarke is in a wheelchair these days. Although the last time I saw him on TV, he did seem to have aged a lot.
He just sounds like such a grown up. Hunt is the only one who comes close in this government.
Steve Coogan in 1990 doing an impression of Clarke (04:20)
It seems blindingly obvious that the Democrats can't possibly field Biden, and if they did that Trump would romp home. On the other hand Trump is ghastly, so maybe the democratic thinking is that he can't possibly run, and in such a case a known (very ancient) figure will win.
Could it be that Biden is planning to stand down at a late stage? For a number of reasons he is postponing it: 1. He wants to keep his options open though he knows in his heart he's not up to it. 2. He doesn't want to be a lame duck any more than he is. 3 (and this is the key one). He knows Kamala is not up to it either and that Trump would likely beat her. He has a good working relationship with her and wants to postpone the pain of telling her he will not endorse her as his successor as long as possible.
I'd assumed that the title Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was a satirical invention by Private Eye. I gather, however, that it's for real.
Divine intervention.
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton it is now. He sounds like he solves mysteries from the pen of Dorothy L Sayers. In fact, he told the House of Lords, it was the vicar’s wife who telephoned to say he absolutely had to take the village name (so I guess we’re lucky the rector of Pratts Bottom didn’t get to him first), revealing all in a debut speech that was elegant and funny.
I've just read that; I didn't realise Ken Clarke is in a wheelchair these days. Although the last time I saw him on TV, he did seem to have aged a lot.
He just sounds like such a grown up. Hunt is the only one who comes close in this government.
Steve Coogan in 1990 doing an impression of Clarke (04:20)
Meanwhile, Ireland’s new Hate Speech laws are quite mind-blowingly Orwellian
“People don’t realise how extreme Ireland’s hate speech bill is. Up to 12 months in prison for refusing to give password to your devices if suspected of committing hate speech. 12 months for refusing to allow the State read messages between you and your spouse. It’s authoritarian.”
People like Ruth Dudley Edwards, and Eoghan Harris have been extremely critical.
The Irish Establishment has now entered the "You have to destroy democracy / free speech to protect democracy / free speech" mindset. It will only end one way and what makes their attitude even more mind-numbingly dumb is that their Police are unarmed / govern by consent and the Irish Army will in no way intervene.
The irony of ironies if they end up calling in the UK for help....
It will only end way? Yes. The bill will pass with some amendments, I imagine. People are so skittish (!) on here sometimes.
Mmmm, it is a bill with which you have sympathy therefore it is "skittish" to get worried about it.
I meant all this "only end one way" and "destroy free speech and democracy" sort of thing. I get the passion, and that's fine, but if you use up that type of language on something like this you'll have nowhere to go (linguistically) if god forbid we do have to confront a serious threat to freedom and democracy here in the UK or Ireland.
Would you not describe a "you must give us all yoir passwords if we suspect you of wrongspeak" bill as a serious threat to freedom in Ireland?
It is a serious threat to free speech and free thought and likely in breach of the ECHR. It is not at all surprising in a country like Ireland which has absorbed the totalitarian tendencies of the Irish Catholic Church and is now using them to achieve exactly what the Irish Catholic Church achieved while it was in control - silence about anything it did not like and the shunning and departure of anyone who tried to speak freely about what was going on.
See, for instance, the treatment of John McGahern, a teacher forced out of his job after publishing his first novels about the dark underbelly of Irish family life - violence and silence. He had to leave the country.
It is precisely this which allowed the abuse of children, the Magdalene laundries, and so on to continue for so long. It did not suit those in power to have these things spoken about and so every effort was made to stop anyone doing so.
This Bill seeks to achieve much the same. It is dressed up in the language of politeness and kindness and preventing discomfort and making people feel insecure. But the result is the same. Under such a bill anyone telling the truth about the Christian Brothers' violent abuse of children could have been prosecuted for making priests feel "discomfort" and "insecure" and classed as "hate".
Ireland's political class has always been self-interested and corrupt. But it now seems to have become remarkably stupid as well.
Edited: I have a lot on but happy to do a header on this if there's interest.
Quite so. I think being a small country makes it worse. There is (literally) less room for disagreement. Everyone in power knows each other; if Scotland went Indy it would suffer the same, we already see some of these issues in Holyrood
God only knows how it will go if Sinn Fein enter government. Ireland is becoming a seriously strange outrider with its near-total lack of empathy for Israel which has led to a breakdown in relations.
Given Lord Cameron's "issues" with Greensill, it was inappropriate to bring him back. I would have been much happier if, for example, William Hague was returned to the cabinet.
Really? William Hague who boasted in 2012 that "President Assad's days are numbered" ?
William Hague is arguably the most overrated Conservative politician. He was wrong about almost everything but he's got a deep voice, a sense of humour and has been around almost forever, which makes him an elder statesman and party grandee.
I'd assumed that the title Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was a satirical invention by Private Eye. I gather, however, that it's for real.
Divine intervention.
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton it is now. He sounds like he solves mysteries from the pen of Dorothy L Sayers. In fact, he told the House of Lords, it was the vicar’s wife who telephoned to say he absolutely had to take the village name (so I guess we’re lucky the rector of Pratts Bottom didn’t get to him first), revealing all in a debut speech that was elegant and funny.
I've just read that; I didn't realise Ken Clarke is in a wheelchair these days. Although the last time I saw him on TV, he did seem to have aged a lot.
He just sounds like such a grown up. Hunt is the only one who comes close in this government.
Steve Coogan in 1990 doing an impression of Clarke (04:20)
A dislikeable persona, perhaps, but a comic genius
What's wrong with him? I rather like him. In particular his work with Hacked Off.
He's a damned wokist and therefore the devil's spawn.
Coogan is known as an arrogant REDACTED REDACTED throughout the industry. To his credit, he knows this: one of the genius aspects of The Trip is that he knowingly plays himself, as he is
Given Lord Cameron's "issues" with Greensill, it was inappropriate to bring him back. I would have been much happier if, for example, William Hague was returned to the cabinet.
Really? William Hague who boasted in 2012 that "President Assad's days are numbered" ?
William Hague is arguably the most overrated Conservative politician. He was wrong about almost everything but he's got a deep voice, a sense of humour and has been around almost forever, which makes him an elder statesman and party grandee.
It's strange how radically peoples perceptions of others vary (independently of political stuff). I rather like Hague, but you clearly don't. Ed Davey cropped up, I think this morning. I think he's totally useless and just don't like him, and yet he seems to have his fans.
I'd assumed that the title Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was a satirical invention by Private Eye. I gather, however, that it's for real.
Divine intervention.
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton it is now. He sounds like he solves mysteries from the pen of Dorothy L Sayers. In fact, he told the House of Lords, it was the vicar’s wife who telephoned to say he absolutely had to take the village name (so I guess we’re lucky the rector of Pratts Bottom didn’t get to him first), revealing all in a debut speech that was elegant and funny.
I've just read that; I didn't realise Ken Clarke is in a wheelchair these days. Although the last time I saw him on TV, he did seem to have aged a lot.
He's 83 tbf.
That's not old!
My former MP Gloria de Piero did a long interview with him a year ago on GB News.
I can't comment on how good it is, as I've only just started listening.
Meanwhile, Ireland’s new Hate Speech laws are quite mind-blowingly Orwellian
“People don’t realise how extreme Ireland’s hate speech bill is. Up to 12 months in prison for refusing to give password to your devices if suspected of committing hate speech. 12 months for refusing to allow the State read messages between you and your spouse. It’s authoritarian.”
People like Ruth Dudley Edwards, and Eoghan Harris have been extremely critical.
The Irish Establishment has now entered the "You have to destroy democracy / free speech to protect democracy / free speech" mindset. It will only end one way and what makes their attitude even more mind-numbingly dumb is that their Police are unarmed / govern by consent and the Irish Army will in no way intervene.
The irony of ironies if they end up calling in the UK for help....
It will only end way? Yes. The bill will pass with some amendments, I imagine. People are so skittish (!) on here sometimes.
Mmmm, it is a bill with which you have sympathy therefore it is "skittish" to get worried about it.
I meant all this "only end one way" and "destroy free speech and democracy" sort of thing. I get the passion, and that's fine, but if you use up that type of language on something like this you'll have nowhere to go (linguistically) if god forbid we do have to confront a serious threat to freedom and democracy here in the UK or Ireland.
Would you not describe a "you must give us all yoir passwords if we suspect you of wrongspeak" bill as a serious threat to freedom in Ireland?
It is a serious threat to free speech and free thought and likely in breach of the ECHR. It is not at all surprising in a country like Ireland which has absorbed the totalitarian tendencies of the Irish Catholic Church and is now using them to achieve exactly what the Irish Catholic Church achieved while it was in control - silence about anything it did not like and the shunning and departure of anyone who tried to speak freely about what was going on.
See, for instance, the treatment of John McGahern, a teacher forced out of his job after publishing his first novels about the dark underbelly of Irish family life - violence and silence. He had to leave the country.
It is precisely this which allowed the abuse of children, the Magdalene laundries, and so on to continue for so long. It did not suit those in power to have these things spoken about and so every effort was made to stop anyone doing so.
This Bill seeks to achieve much the same. It is dressed up in the language of politeness and kindness and preventing discomfort and making people feel insecure. But the result is the same. Under such a bill anyone telling the truth about the Christian Brothers' violent abuse of children could have been prosecuted for making priests feel "discomfort" and "insecure" and classed as "hate".
Ireland's political class has always been self-interested and corrupt. But it now seems to have become remarkably stupid as well.
Edited: I have a lot on but happy to do a header on this if there's interest.
Quite so. I think being a small country makes it worse. There is (literally) less room for disagreement. Everyone in power knows each other; if Scotland went Indy it would suffer the same, we already see some of these issues in Holyrood
Given Lord Cameron's "issues" with Greensill, it was inappropriate to bring him back. I would have been much happier if, for example, William Hague was returned to the cabinet.
Really? William Hague who boasted in 2012 that "President Assad's days are numbered" ?
Are you seriously telling me that President Assad has an unlimited number of days ahead of him?
Could it be that Biden is planning to stand down at a late stage? For a number of reasons he is postponing it: 1. He wants to keep his options open though he knows in his heart he's not up to it. 2. He doesn't want to be a lame duck any more than he is. 3 (and this is the key one). He knows Kamala is not up to it either and that Trump would likely beat her. He has a good working relationship with her and wants to postpone the pain of telling her he will not endorse her as his successor as long as possible.
1. Sadly, I suspect he feels he is up to it. 2. Is the only plausible reason imo. But it's probably just wishful thinking. 3. Nah. He'd have no compunction telling Harris whenever he needs to.
Could it be: 4. He's not sure who would be best placed to beat Trump?
Could it be that Biden is planning to stand down at a late stage? For a number of reasons he is postponing it: 1. He wants to keep his options open though he knows in his heart he's not up to it. 2. He doesn't want to be a lame duck any more than he is. 3 (and this is the key one). He knows Kamala is not up to it either and that Trump would likely beat her. He has a good working relationship with her and wants to postpone the pain of telling her he will not endorse her as his successor as long as possible.
The other issue is the - sadly effective - way Trump is able to humiliate and intimidate opponents by browbeating them in debates and by seizing on a real or imagined character trait and coining a pithy name for it. Pocahontas (which was genius), crooked Hilary, Little Marco and so on. The one person so far it didn’t work on was Joe Biden.
Of the possible successors Mayor Pete would I think have the best chance of neutralising this. He’s a very good debater, quick on his feet and seems unflappable.
Has there ever been polling or research into the effect of a candidates name? Someone asked about Ed Davey - I don’t know a lot about him other than he reminds me a bit of Morrissey, but ‘Davey’ doesn’t sound like a strong enough name to be PM, or leader of a party somehow
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Well that makes logical sense doesn't it. If there's something happening in another place you don't like, then you'd want to stop it happening in your area before it does happen. (This isn't an endorsement of that opinion, just pointing out that it's a rational position).
But why do the people who have minimal experience of it dislike it more than the people who experience it every day? Who is likely to have the opinion most rooted in reality, I wonder?
People from the suburbs who travel into London have quite a good grasp of what the more immigrant heavy areas are like. Just because they don’t live in them doesn’t mean they never pass by
Your point makes no sense - it’s like saying people who don’t like a certain type of food are those who don’t eat it that often ; it’s because they don’t like it
My Father-in-law doesn't like foreign food. He's never tried any because he knows he's not going to like it.
Has there ever been polling or research into the effect of a candidates name? Someone asked about Ed Davey - I don’t know a lot about him other than he reminds me a bit of Morrissey, but ‘Davey’ doesn’t sound like a strong enough name to be PM, or leader of a party somehow
There must be some effect; Ed Hitler's never going to do very well is he?
Could it be that Biden is planning to stand down at a late stage? For a number of reasons he is postponing it: 1. He wants to keep his options open though he knows in his heart he's not up to it. 2. He doesn't want to be a lame duck any more than he is. 3 (and this is the key one). He knows Kamala is not up to it either and that Trump would likely beat her. He has a good working relationship with her and wants to postpone the pain of telling her he will not endorse her as his successor as long as possible.
1. Sadly, I suspect he feels he is up to it. 2. Is the only plausible reason imo. But it's probably just wishful thinking. 3. Nah. He'd have no compunction telling Harris whenever he needs to.
Could it be: 4. He's not sure who would be best placed to beat Trump?
iirc it is almost too late now for a standing down and new candidates to be on primary ballots in a lot of states.
I guess they might find a way around that somehow if needs be???
Ed Davey is useless. What has he done? Is he LD leader.. one never hears him.
Is that a function of not getting a question at PMQs?
He’s won a string of by-elections, made huge gains in local government elections and refocused the Lib Dem’s electoral strategy from the hubris of the Swinson years to a much more focused approach now.
He has also pushed policy along by proposing several Lib Dem measures which then became Labour or government policy.
His party has had consistently the most grown up and measured approach to Israel-Gaza.
He was responsible for most of the last decade’s massive growth in renewable generation due to policies pushed through when he was the energy minister in the coalition.
He’s had a tragic family life for decades and been a carer multiple times.
But he doesn’t get a question at PMQs and gets less coverage in the media than more “exciting” characters like Corbyn or Farage.
Has there ever been polling or research into the effect of a candidates name? Someone asked about Ed Davey - I don’t know a lot about him other than he reminds me a bit of Morrissey, but ‘Davey’ doesn’t sound like a strong enough name to be PM, or leader of a party somehow
There must be some effect; Ed Hitler's never going to do very well is he?
Keir Starmer sounds mysterious, powerful and somewhat exotic. Rishi Sunak fairly neutral. Boris Johnson bouncy and jovial. Liz Truss unserious. Jeremy Corbyn sort of Victorian. I think John Major’s name was a handicap because it sounded very, well, John Major.
I'd assumed that the title Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was a satirical invention by Private Eye. I gather, however, that it's for real.
Divine intervention.
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton it is now. He sounds like he solves mysteries from the pen of Dorothy L Sayers. In fact, he told the House of Lords, it was the vicar’s wife who telephoned to say he absolutely had to take the village name (so I guess we’re lucky the rector of Pratts Bottom didn’t get to him first), revealing all in a debut speech that was elegant and funny.
I've just read that; I didn't realise Ken Clarke is in a wheelchair these days. Although the last time I saw him on TV, he did seem to have aged a lot.
He's 83 tbf.
That's not old!
Given the average life expectancy for males in the UK is 81, technically it is old
Has there ever been polling or research into the effect of a candidates name? Someone asked about Ed Davey - I don’t know a lot about him other than he reminds me a bit of Morrissey, but ‘Davey’ doesn’t sound like a strong enough name to be PM, or leader of a party somehow
There must be some effect; Ed Hitler's never going to do very well is he?
Far too many tabloid headers along the lines of "Who do you think you are kidding...?"
Meanwhile, Ireland’s new Hate Speech laws are quite mind-blowingly Orwellian
“People don’t realise how extreme Ireland’s hate speech bill is. Up to 12 months in prison for refusing to give password to your devices if suspected of committing hate speech. 12 months for refusing to allow the State read messages between you and your spouse. It’s authoritarian.”
People like Ruth Dudley Edwards, and Eoghan Harris have been extremely critical.
The Irish Establishment has now entered the "You have to destroy democracy / free speech to protect democracy / free speech" mindset. It will only end one way and what makes their attitude even more mind-numbingly dumb is that their Police are unarmed / govern by consent and the Irish Army will in no way intervene.
The irony of ironies if they end up calling in the UK for help....
It will only end way? Yes. The bill will pass with some amendments, I imagine. People are so skittish (!) on here sometimes.
Mmmm, it is a bill with which you have sympathy therefore it is "skittish" to get worried about it.
I meant all this "only end one way" and "destroy free speech and democracy" sort of thing. I get the passion, and that's fine, but if you use up that type of language on something like this you'll have nowhere to go (linguistically) if god forbid we do have to confront a serious threat to freedom and democracy here in the UK or Ireland.
Would you not describe a "you must give us all yoir passwords if we suspect you of wrongspeak" bill as a serious threat to freedom in Ireland?
It is a serious threat to free speech and free thought and likely in breach of the ECHR. It is not at all surprising in a country like Ireland which has absorbed the totalitarian tendencies of the Irish Catholic Church and is now using them to achieve exactly what the Irish Catholic Church achieved while it was in control - silence about anything it did not like and the shunning and departure of anyone who tried to speak freely about what was going on.
See, for instance, the treatment of John McGahern, a teacher forced out of his job after publishing his first novels about the dark underbelly of Irish family life - violence and silence. He had to leave the country.
It is precisely this which allowed the abuse of children, the Magdalene laundries, and so on to continue for so long. It did not suit those in power to have these things spoken about and so every effort was made to stop anyone doing so.
This Bill seeks to achieve much the same. It is dressed up in the language of politeness and kindness and preventing discomfort and making people feel insecure. But the result is the same. Under such a bill anyone telling the truth about the Christian Brothers' violent abuse of children could have been prosecuted for making priests feel "discomfort" and "insecure" and classed as "hate".
Ireland's political class has always been self-interested and corrupt. But it now seems to have become remarkably stupid as well.
Edited: I have a lot on but happy to do a header on this if there's interest.
Sinn Fein, like the Scientologists, endlessly litigate against those who criticise them. They would use this legislation to the max.
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Well that makes logical sense doesn't it. If there's something happening in another place you don't like, then you'd want to stop it happening in your area before it does happen. (This isn't an endorsement of that opinion, just pointing out that it's a rational position).
But why do the people who have minimal experience of it dislike it more than the people who experience it every day? Who is likely to have the opinion most rooted in reality, I wonder?
People from the suburbs who travel into London have quite a good grasp of what the more immigrant heavy areas are like. Just because they don’t live in them doesn’t mean they never pass by
Your point makes no sense - it’s like saying people who don’t like a certain type of food are those who don’t eat it that often ; it’s because they don’t like it
My Father-in-law doesn't like foreign food. He's never tried any because he knows he's not going to like it.
Could it be that Biden is planning to stand down at a late stage? For a number of reasons he is postponing it: 1. He wants to keep his options open though he knows in his heart he's not up to it. 2. He doesn't want to be a lame duck any more than he is. 3 (and this is the key one). He knows Kamala is not up to it either and that Trump would likely beat her. He has a good working relationship with her and wants to postpone the pain of telling her he will not endorse her as his successor as long as possible.
The other issue is the - sadly effective - way Trump is able to humiliate and intimidate opponents by browbeating them in debates and by seizing on a real or imagined character trait and coining a pithy name for it. Pocahontas (which was genius), crooked Hilary, Little Marco and so on. The one person so far it didn’t work on was Joe Biden.
Of the possible successors Mayor Pete would I think have the best chance of neutralising this. He’s a very good debater, quick on his feet and seems unflappable.
Trump did use the 'Sleepy Joe' line. Do these derogatory nicknames Trump comes up with have any effect? Could it be that Hilary Clinton was just not that good a candidate?
PB should be able to come up with a good name for Trump. 'Convict Trump' maybe? 'Donald Perp'? You guys will do much better than those.
Given Lord Cameron's "issues" with Greensill, it was inappropriate to bring him back. I would have been much happier if, for example, William Hague was returned to the cabinet.
Really? William Hague who boasted in 2012 that "President Assad's days are numbered" ?
William Hague is arguably the most overrated Conservative politician. He was wrong about almost everything but he's got a deep voice, a sense of humour and has been around almost forever, which makes him an elder statesman and party grandee.
In an alternative timeline he'd currently be regarded as a latter day Enoch Powell after his prediction about Britain turning into a foreign land.
I'd assumed that the title Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was a satirical invention by Private Eye. I gather, however, that it's for real.
Divine intervention.
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton it is now. He sounds like he solves mysteries from the pen of Dorothy L Sayers. In fact, he told the House of Lords, it was the vicar’s wife who telephoned to say he absolutely had to take the village name (so I guess we’re lucky the rector of Pratts Bottom didn’t get to him first), revealing all in a debut speech that was elegant and funny.
I've just read that; I didn't realise Ken Clarke is in a wheelchair these days. Although the last time I saw him on TV, he did seem to have aged a lot.
He's 83 tbf.
That's not old!
Given the average life expectancy for males in the UK is 81, technically it is old
Furthermore, the life expectancy of males in 1942 was probably about 68.
It reminds me of the apocryphal story about the silly undergraduate who said to the university Chancellor "I wouldn't want to be 90." "You won't say that when you're 89," snapped back Harold Macmillan, sharp as a tack.
Could it be that Biden is planning to stand down at a late stage? For a number of reasons he is postponing it: 1. He wants to keep his options open though he knows in his heart he's not up to it. 2. He doesn't want to be a lame duck any more than he is. 3 (and this is the key one). He knows Kamala is not up to it either and that Trump would likely beat her. He has a good working relationship with her and wants to postpone the pain of telling her he will not endorse her as his successor as long as possible.
The other issue is the - sadly effective - way Trump is able to humiliate and intimidate opponents by browbeating them in debates and by seizing on a real or imagined character trait and coining a pithy name for it. Pocahontas (which was genius), crooked Hilary, Little Marco and so on. The one person so far it didn’t work on was Joe Biden.
Of the possible successors Mayor Pete would I think have the best chance of neutralising this. He’s a very good debater, quick on his feet and seems unflappable.
Trump did use the 'Sleepy Joe' line. Do these derogatory nicknames Trump comes up with have any effect? Could it be that Hilary Clinton was just not that good a candidate?
PB should be able to come up with a good name for Trump. 'Convict Trump' maybe? 'Donald Perp'? You guys will do much better than those.
If his opponent was Mayor Pete, he’d call him Buttplug.
So it turns out the Algerian child stabber in Dublin was once the subject of a deportation order. Which he fought for five years. No wonder the Gardai wanted to keep it all quiet
Small price to pay for those with the right mindset to feel good about themselves.
Funnily enough, it is never their children or their areas that get attacked....
People who are most opposed to immigration tend to live in areas with the lowest immigration, in this country at least.
Well that makes logical sense doesn't it. If there's something happening in another place you don't like, then you'd want to stop it happening in your area before it does happen. (This isn't an endorsement of that opinion, just pointing out that it's a rational position).
But why do the people who have minimal experience of it dislike it more than the people who experience it every day? Who is likely to have the opinion most rooted in reality, I wonder?
People from the suburbs who travel into London have quite a good grasp of what the more immigrant heavy areas are like. Just because they don’t live in them doesn’t mean they never pass by
Your point makes no sense - it’s like saying people who don’t like a certain type of food are those who don’t eat it that often ; it’s because they don’t like it
My Father-in-law doesn't like foreign food. He's never tried any because he knows he's not going to like it.
Sounds like my kids… the racist fuckers!
He's not a racist tbf, not since he got to know the non-white staff at the care home who cared for his late wife at any rate. Familiarity breed understanding.
Could it be that Biden is planning to stand down at a late stage? For a number of reasons he is postponing it: 1. He wants to keep his options open though he knows in his heart he's not up to it. 2. He doesn't want to be a lame duck any more than he is. 3 (and this is the key one). He knows Kamala is not up to it either and that Trump would likely beat her. He has a good working relationship with her and wants to postpone the pain of telling her he will not endorse her as his successor as long as possible.
The other issue is the - sadly effective - way Trump is able to humiliate and intimidate opponents by browbeating them in debates and by seizing on a real or imagined character trait and coining a pithy name for it. Pocahontas (which was genius), crooked Hilary, Little Marco and so on. The one person so far it didn’t work on was Joe Biden.
Of the possible successors Mayor Pete would I think have the best chance of neutralising this. He’s a very good debater, quick on his feet and seems unflappable.
Trump did use the 'Sleepy Joe' line. Do these derogatory nicknames Trump comes up with have any effect? Could it be that Hilary Clinton was just not that good a candidate?
PB should be able to come up with a good name for Trump. 'Convict Trump' maybe? 'Donald Perp'? You guys will do much better than those.
If his opponent was Mayor Pete, he’d call him Buttplug.
Yeah, good one, but that's not helping us keep Trump out and save Western Democracy.
Who are the Democrats who are polling better? And even if they can be found, would they be the ones to win the nomination? Would a contentious debate between leftists and centrists help or hinder the Democrats?
Has there ever been polling or research into the effect of a candidates name? Someone asked about Ed Davey - I don’t know a lot about him other than he reminds me a bit of Morrissey, but ‘Davey’ doesn’t sound like a strong enough name to be PM, or leader of a party somehow
There must be some effect; Ed Hitler's never going to do very well is he?
Could it be that Biden is planning to stand down at a late stage? For a number of reasons he is postponing it: 1. He wants to keep his options open though he knows in his heart he's not up to it. 2. He doesn't want to be a lame duck any more than he is. 3 (and this is the key one). He knows Kamala is not up to it either and that Trump would likely beat her. He has a good working relationship with her and wants to postpone the pain of telling her he will not endorse her as his successor as long as possible.
The other issue is the - sadly effective - way Trump is able to humiliate and intimidate opponents by browbeating them in debates and by seizing on a real or imagined character trait and coining a pithy name for it. Pocahontas (which was genius), crooked Hilary, Little Marco and so on. The one person so far it didn’t work on was Joe Biden.
Of the possible successors Mayor Pete would I think have the best chance of neutralising this. He’s a very good debater, quick on his feet and seems unflappable.
Trump did use the 'Sleepy Joe' line. Do these derogatory nicknames Trump comes up with have any effect? Could it be that Hilary Clinton was just not that good a candidate?
PB should be able to come up with a good name for Trump. 'Convict Trump' maybe? 'Donald Perp'? You guys will do much better than those.
If his opponent was Mayor Pete, he’d call him Buttplug.
Yeah, good one, but that's not helping us keep Trump out and save Western Democracy.
The best way to keep Trump out is to offer Trump's policies in a different package.
Could it be that Biden is planning to stand down at a late stage? For a number of reasons he is postponing it: 1. He wants to keep his options open though he knows in his heart he's not up to it. 2. He doesn't want to be a lame duck any more than he is. 3 (and this is the key one). He knows Kamala is not up to it either and that Trump would likely beat her. He has a good working relationship with her and wants to postpone the pain of telling her he will not endorse her as his successor as long as possible.
The other issue is the - sadly effective - way Trump is able to humiliate and intimidate opponents by browbeating them in debates and by seizing on a real or imagined character trait and coining a pithy name for it. Pocahontas (which was genius), crooked Hilary, Little Marco and so on. The one person so far it didn’t work on was Joe Biden.
Of the possible successors Mayor Pete would I think have the best chance of neutralising this. He’s a very good debater, quick on his feet and seems unflappable.
Trump did use the 'Sleepy Joe' line. Do these derogatory nicknames Trump comes up with have any effect? Could it be that Hilary Clinton was just not that good a candidate?
PB should be able to come up with a good name for Trump. 'Convict Trump' maybe? 'Donald Perp'? You guys will do much better than those.
If his opponent was Mayor Pete, he’d call him Buttplug.
Yeah, good one, but that's not helping us keep Trump out and save Western Democracy.
The best way to keep Trump out is to offer Trump's policies in a different package.
Build a massive wall all around Mar-a-lago? I like your thinking.
Could it be that Biden is planning to stand down at a late stage? For a number of reasons he is postponing it: 1. He wants to keep his options open though he knows in his heart he's not up to it. 2. He doesn't want to be a lame duck any more than he is. 3 (and this is the key one). He knows Kamala is not up to it either and that Trump would likely beat her. He has a good working relationship with her and wants to postpone the pain of telling her he will not endorse her as his successor as long as possible.
The other issue is the - sadly effective - way Trump is able to humiliate and intimidate opponents by browbeating them in debates and by seizing on a real or imagined character trait and coining a pithy name for it. Pocahontas (which was genius), crooked Hilary, Little Marco and so on. The one person so far it didn’t work on was Joe Biden.
Of the possible successors Mayor Pete would I think have the best chance of neutralising this. He’s a very good debater, quick on his feet and seems unflappable.
Trump did use the 'Sleepy Joe' line. Do these derogatory nicknames Trump comes up with have any effect? Could it be that Hilary Clinton was just not that good a candidate?
PB should be able to come up with a good name for Trump. 'Convict Trump' maybe? 'Donald Perp'? You guys will do much better than those.
If his opponent was Mayor Pete, he’d call him Buttplug.
Yeah, good one, but that's not helping us keep Trump out and save Western Democracy.
The best way to keep Trump out is to offer Trump's policies in a different package.
Build a massive wall all around Mar-a-lago? I like your thinking.
Could it be that Biden is planning to stand down at a late stage? For a number of reasons he is postponing it: 1. He wants to keep his options open though he knows in his heart he's not up to it. 2. He doesn't want to be a lame duck any more than he is. 3 (and this is the key one). He knows Kamala is not up to it either and that Trump would likely beat her. He has a good working relationship with her and wants to postpone the pain of telling her he will not endorse her as his successor as long as possible.
The other issue is the - sadly effective - way Trump is able to humiliate and intimidate opponents by browbeating them in debates and by seizing on a real or imagined character trait and coining a pithy name for it. Pocahontas (which was genius), crooked Hilary, Little Marco and so on. The one person so far it didn’t work on was Joe Biden.
Of the possible successors Mayor Pete would I think have the best chance of neutralising this. He’s a very good debater, quick on his feet and seems unflappable.
Trump did use the 'Sleepy Joe' line. Do these derogatory nicknames Trump comes up with have any effect? Could it be that Hilary Clinton was just not that good a candidate?
PB should be able to come up with a good name for Trump. 'Convict Trump' maybe? 'Donald Perp'? You guys will do much better than those.
If his opponent was Mayor Pete, he’d call him Buttplug.
Yeah, good one, but that's not helping us keep Trump out and save Western Democracy.
The best way to keep Trump out is to offer Trump's policies in a different package.
How does one repackage racism, mysoginy, economic incontinence and good old fashioned fascism?
All the millions the big stores including M & S spend on their Xmas promotions have been shown up by a wonderful promotion of an Enniskillen pub shot on an I phone highlighting beautifully the spirit of Christmas and seen on line worldwide
Given Lord Cameron's "issues" with Greensill, it was inappropriate to bring him back. I would have been much happier if, for example, William Hague was returned to the cabinet.
Really? William Hague who boasted in 2012 that "President Assad's days are numbered" ?
William Hague is arguably the most overrated Conservative politician. He was wrong about almost everything but he's got a deep voice, a sense of humour and has been around almost forever, which makes him an elder statesman and party grandee.
The fact that he is an "elder stateman" while being a couple of weeks younger than me makes me dislike him even more.
Has there ever been polling or research into the effect of a candidates name? Someone asked about Ed Davey - I don’t know a lot about him other than he reminds me a bit of Morrissey, but ‘Davey’ doesn’t sound like a strong enough name to be PM, or leader of a party somehow
There must be some effect; Ed Hitler's never going to do very well is he?
Could it be that Biden is planning to stand down at a late stage? For a number of reasons he is postponing it: 1. He wants to keep his options open though he knows in his heart he's not up to it. 2. He doesn't want to be a lame duck any more than he is. 3 (and this is the key one). He knows Kamala is not up to it either and that Trump would likely beat her. He has a good working relationship with her and wants to postpone the pain of telling her he will not endorse her as his successor as long as possible.
The other issue is the - sadly effective - way Trump is able to humiliate and intimidate opponents by browbeating them in debates and by seizing on a real or imagined character trait and coining a pithy name for it. Pocahontas (which was genius), crooked Hilary, Little Marco and so on. The one person so far it didn’t work on was Joe Biden.
Of the possible successors Mayor Pete would I think have the best chance of neutralising this. He’s a very good debater, quick on his feet and seems unflappable.
Trump did use the 'Sleepy Joe' line. Do these derogatory nicknames Trump comes up with have any effect? Could it be that Hilary Clinton was just not that good a candidate?
PB should be able to come up with a good name for Trump. 'Convict Trump' maybe? 'Donald Perp'? You guys will do much better than those.
If his opponent was Mayor Pete, he’d call him Buttplug.
Yeah, good one, but that's not helping us keep Trump out and save Western Democracy.
The best way to keep Trump out is to offer Trump's policies in a different package.
Build a massive wall all around Mar-a-lago? I like your thinking.
It would become the Florida Kremlin.
Or Lubyanka.
It's a rather pretty drive along the coast road past Mar-a-Lago but if it needs to be surrounded by 20-ft walls with razor wire and gun-towers, so be it.
Meanwhile, Ireland’s new Hate Speech laws are quite mind-blowingly Orwellian
“People don’t realise how extreme Ireland’s hate speech bill is. Up to 12 months in prison for refusing to give password to your devices if suspected of committing hate speech. 12 months for refusing to allow the State read messages between you and your spouse. It’s authoritarian.”
People like Ruth Dudley Edwards, and Eoghan Harris have been extremely critical.
The Irish Establishment has now entered the "You have to destroy democracy / free speech to protect democracy / free speech" mindset. It will only end one way and what makes their attitude even more mind-numbingly dumb is that their Police are unarmed / govern by consent and the Irish Army will in no way intervene.
The irony of ironies if they end up calling in the UK for help....
It will only end way? Yes. The bill will pass with some amendments, I imagine. People are so skittish (!) on here sometimes.
Mmmm, it is a bill with which you have sympathy therefore it is "skittish" to get worried about it.
I meant all this "only end one way" and "destroy free speech and democracy" sort of thing. I get the passion, and that's fine, but if you use up that type of language on something like this you'll have nowhere to go (linguistically) if god forbid we do have to confront a serious threat to freedom and democracy here in the UK or Ireland.
Would you not describe a "you must give us all yoir passwords if we suspect you of wrongspeak" bill as a serious threat to freedom in Ireland?
It is a serious threat to free speech and free thought and likely in breach of the ECHR. It is not at all surprising in a country like Ireland which has absorbed the totalitarian tendencies of the Irish Catholic Church and is now using them to achieve exactly what the Irish Catholic Church achieved while it was in control - silence about anything it did not like and the shunning and departure of anyone who tried to speak freely about what was going on.
See, for instance, the treatment of John McGahern, a teacher forced out of his job after publishing his first novels about the dark underbelly of Irish family life - violence and silence. He had to leave the country.
It is precisely this which allowed the abuse of children, the Magdalene laundries, and so on to continue for so long. It did not suit those in power to have these things spoken about and so every effort was made to stop anyone doing so.
This Bill seeks to achieve much the same. It is dressed up in the language of politeness and kindness and preventing discomfort and making people feel insecure. But the result is the same. Under such a bill anyone telling the truth about the Christian Brothers' violent abuse of children could have been prosecuted for making priests feel "discomfort" and "insecure" and classed as "hate".
Ireland's political class has always been self-interested and corrupt. But it now seems to have become remarkably stupid as well.
Edited: I have a lot on but happy to do a header on this if there's interest.
I would be quite interested - especially in a like-for-like comparison with the UK.
Here aiui, depending on circumstances, withholding a password or PIN can be up to 5 years in prison (if related to national security / child abuse).
I believe it came in under Blair's authoritarian RIPA Act before 2000.
I don't think we have clean hands on this one.
That's a really high bar of evidence to get a warrant for a search though. What is proposed in Ireland is no judicial oversight and police judgement of suspected "hate speech" which could stretch as far as someone being suspected of saying something simple like "transgender women are men in dresses" being locked up for a year if they refused to hand over passwords for your WhatsApp messages to be read.
Robert Reich @RBReich · 16m It's no longer simply "Democrats vs. Republicans."
We've been pulled into a struggle between democracy and fascism, between freedom and strongman tyranny.
The 2024 general election is less than a year away. Know the stakes.
===
First stop Iowa. Just over a month.
It isn't, even if Trump wins again he isn't going to be a dictator unless the army back him and they didn't even support his Capitol Hill attempted 'coup' when he was still President in Jan 2021
Given Lord Cameron's "issues" with Greensill, it was inappropriate to bring him back. I would have been much happier if, for example, William Hague was returned to the cabinet.
Really? William Hague who boasted in 2012 that "President Assad's days are numbered" ?
William Hague is arguably the most overrated Conservative politician. He was wrong about almost everything but he's got a deep voice, a sense of humour and has been around almost forever, which makes him an elder statesman and party grandee.
It's strange how radically peoples perceptions of others vary (independently of political stuff). I rather like Hague, but you clearly don't. Ed Davey cropped up, I think this morning. I think he's totally useless and just don't like him, and yet he seems to have his fans.
No, I like Hague, and could listen to him all day; I just don't rate him very highly.
Could it be that Biden is planning to stand down at a late stage? For a number of reasons he is postponing it: 1. He wants to keep his options open though he knows in his heart he's not up to it. 2. He doesn't want to be a lame duck any more than he is. 3 (and this is the key one). He knows Kamala is not up to it either and that Trump would likely beat her. He has a good working relationship with her and wants to postpone the pain of telling her he will not endorse her as his successor as long as possible.
The other issue is the - sadly effective - way Trump is able to humiliate and intimidate opponents by browbeating them in debates and by seizing on a real or imagined character trait and coining a pithy name for it. Pocahontas (which was genius), crooked Hilary, Little Marco and so on. The one person so far it didn’t work on was Joe Biden.
Of the possible successors Mayor Pete would I think have the best chance of neutralising this. He’s a very good debater, quick on his feet and seems unflappable.
Trump did use the 'Sleepy Joe' line. Do these derogatory nicknames Trump comes up with have any effect? Could it be that Hilary Clinton was just not that good a candidate?
PB should be able to come up with a good name for Trump. 'Convict Trump' maybe? 'Donald Perp'? You guys will do much better than those.
'Sleepy Joe' didn't work - I think in part as it's fairly weak sauce (if the worst thing about someone is being old and doddery, well fine), easily put to bed (sorry) with some OK campaign/media/debate appearances (think Reagan's famous line) and pointed at a weakness that Trump also shares - they're both old men who show it in their own way.
It also may have even helped Biden by lowering expectations. I think it certainly did with those on the left who tried to call Biden 'senile'. As when he actually got through debates without screwing them up it was viewed as him doing well. Whereas if he'd gone in as the early favourite he started as but underwhelmed, he may have been toast.
As for 2024 polling, there's still a long way to go yet. At this time in 2003 Howard Dean was the next Democratic nominee. Biden won't be writing off his chances yet by any means - especially as Democrats have tended to outperform polls since 2020.
Robert Reich @RBReich · 16m It's no longer simply "Democrats vs. Republicans."
We've been pulled into a struggle between democracy and fascism, between freedom and strongman tyranny.
The 2024 general election is less than a year away. Know the stakes.
===
First stop Iowa. Just over a month.
It isn't, even if Trump wins again he isn't going to be a dictator unless the army back him and they didn't even support his Capitol Hill attempted 'coup' when he was still President in Jan 2021
One of his people's first tasks will be removing any military commander not 'sufficiently patriotic'. They have learned that lesson.
Comments
(In the US, I prefer secretaries of state who have some direct experience with evil, Kissinger, for example.)
Wouldn't be wanting to fight a war in that.
But I did mean ‘move’ as in ‘decision’
See, for instance, the treatment of John McGahern, a teacher forced out of his job after publishing his first novels about the dark underbelly of Irish family life - violence and silence. He had to leave the country.
It is precisely this which allowed the abuse of children, the Magdalene laundries, and so on to continue for so long. It did not suit those in power to have these things spoken about and so every effort was made to stop anyone doing so.
This Bill seeks to achieve much the same. It is dressed up in the language of politeness and kindness and preventing discomfort and making people feel insecure. But the result is the same. Under such a bill anyone telling the truth about the Christian Brothers' violent abuse of children could have been prosecuted for making priests feel "discomfort" and "insecure" and classed as "hate".
Ireland's political class has always been self-interested and corrupt. But it now seems to have become remarkably stupid as well.
Edited: I have a lot on but happy to do a header on this if there's interest.
"It turns out that only about 4 percent of British men's genetic material is traceable to a migration from across the North Sea. Moreover, essentially none of British women's genetic material traces back to such a migration, meaning that the invaders were not couples with children, such that women and young'uns would bulk up the total. Rather the invaders were just a bunch of guys. In fact, evidently, the famous Germanic invaders numbered about 250,000, about as many people who live in a modest-sized nurg like Jersey City. (pp. 12-13)
(Incidentally, linguist McWhorter is also worth reading on race relations in the US.)
However, another factor among the 50%-or-whatever non-immigrants in urbs/burbs, is the fact that we actually know many immigrants personally, as neighbors, coworkers, local business/professionals. Along with their children & etc.
Here aiui, depending on circumstances, withholding a password or PIN can be up to 5 years in prison (if related to national security / child abuse).
I believe it came in under Blair's authoritarian RIPA Act before 2000.
I don't think we have clean hands on this one.
It's not unusual.
I am already wearing my coat.
Why must people be constantly overeacting to things? This is my question really. I mean, look at Elon Musk. He's super concerned (he says) about this. The guy can't seem to get through a minute without getting ants in his pants about something. And half the time it's not even his pants.
I wish people would exercise a bit of judgement and decorum. Maybe it's my age showing. I'm 63.
(McWhorter got his numbers from Stephen Oppenheimer's "The Origin of the British: A Genetic Detective Story".)
Hence, it goes back to the root question. Is the tendency to be more pro-immigrant in high immigrant areas to do with the experiences of living with immigrants or because the people who live in those areas are immigrants themselves and / or have a natural pre-ordained inclination to be pro-immigration i.e. it has nothing to do with their experiences?
Britain AD: A Quest for Arthur, England and the Anglo-Saxons https://amzn.eu/d/28FE8HY
I don't know enough archeology to dispute his claims, but it is an interesting argument. It would fit with having only a minor genetic influence on our make up.
Re your answer, as I said to @SeaShantyIrish2 there is likely to be a strong element of self-selection bias when it comes to the views i.e. people's reported positive views on immigration are more likely to reflect their pre-ordained views rather than their actual experiences.
An African friend of mine gets nothing but respect when out and about in Lincs as the (correct) assumption is that he is a Doctor at the hospital or academic at the University.
It's in Nottingham he gets hassle for "driving while black".
A dislikeable persona, perhaps, but a comic genius
To give one small anecdote: My parents live in a cul-de-sac and liked have Somali neighbours because they said they kept their places clean and there was no trouble. They have now moved out and the latest set of neighbours who are also immigrants elicit a more mixed response. We forget it often comes down to individual behaviour.
No doubt they have different reasons for wanting to come here. Most may be economic immigrants, others may be asylum seekers, and at least a few, no doubt, are ChiCom agents. To call all of them simply "immigrants" is a serious mistake, since the policies appropriate to, for example, asylum seekers, should be different from those appropriate to economic immigrants.
In my opinion, the same is true for the UK.
And I suspect that if they haven't reached the "ah, it's fine" tipping point, they're probably pretty close. Might not affect the 2024 elections in the "Essex/Kent Actually" wall, but likely to be relevant for 2028.
However, to get back to the point re the proposed Bill, @Cyclefree - as ever on these issues - makes an excellent point. The drivers of the Bill are the same that led the Ireland of old to shut down any criticism of the Catholic Church and hide child abuse. In the future, it is a ready made tool for any far-right regime to crack down on dissent.
As always, it is the principle we should be concerned about, not whether it suits our side here and now.
The problem seems to be when tangible differences to the neighbourhood occur - for instance one of my friends told me yesterday that my old Play School near his house in Hornchurch/Elm Park is being turned into a Mosque and he wants to move away on the back of it
Often when the place people grew up in changes, they move away. @Stuartinromford isn’t actually from Romford, so thinks it seems ok; almost everyone I know from growing up lived near Romford and it’s just a place they wouldn’t want to live - more like East London than Essex now
Your point makes no sense - it’s like saying people who don’t like a certain type of food are those who don’t eat it that often ; it’s because they don’t like it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election#National_poll_results
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/ukpopulationbycountryofbirthandnationality/yearendingjune2021#non-uk-populations-regional-comparisons
My point is that when I have lived and worked in an areas with very low ethnic diversity (Selby, Hastings) I have come across more instances of racial prejudice than when I have lived in more mixed areas (e.g. Southwark, Leeds, Halifax).
This is not scientific, but I don't think it can be explained by the pure maths of the number of immigrants in each area. As I said, it's a product of unfamiliarity causing fear and dislike.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBLbdaAJD44
(Caveat: I'm useless on US Political betting)
1. He wants to keep his options open though he knows in his heart he's not up to it.
2. He doesn't want to be a lame duck any more than he is.
3 (and this is the key one). He knows Kamala is not up to it either and that Trump would likely beat her. He has a good working relationship with her and wants to postpone the pain of telling her he will not endorse her as his successor as long as possible.
Peter Zeihan quite interesting on the Irish dliemma - "Ireland Needs a New Game Plan": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1X7liBj-Tw&ab_channel=ZeihanonGeopolitics
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24171452/230343-nbc-november-2023-poll_111923-release-v2.pdf
I am not sure it's a collective Democrat decision though; I fear it's all down to Joe B.
2. Is the only plausible reason imo. But it's probably just wishful thinking.
3. Nah. He'd have no compunction telling Harris whenever he needs to.
Could it be:
4. He's not sure who would be best placed to beat Trump?
Of the possible successors Mayor Pete would I think have the best chance of neutralising this. He’s a very good debater, quick on his feet and seems unflappable.
Trump getting sent to jail is far more likely to impact them than whoever the Democratic nominee is.
Indeed given the last poll has Trump on 47% (unchanged from 2020) and Biden on 43% (down 8% from 2020) and 10% undecided that is even more key
I guess they might find a way around that somehow if needs be???
He has also pushed policy along by proposing several Lib Dem measures which then became Labour or government
policy.
His party has had consistently the most grown up and measured approach to Israel-Gaza.
He was responsible for most of the last decade’s massive growth in renewable generation due to policies pushed through when he was the energy minister in the coalition.
He’s had a tragic family life for decades and been a carer multiple times.
But he doesn’t get a question at PMQs and gets less coverage in the media than more “exciting” characters like Corbyn or Farage.
Robert Reich
@RBReich
·
16m
It's no longer simply "Democrats vs. Republicans."
We've been pulled into a struggle between democracy and fascism, between freedom and strongman tyranny.
The 2024 general election is less than a year away. Know the stakes.
===
First stop Iowa. Just over a month.
PB should be able to come up with a good name for Trump. 'Convict Trump' maybe? 'Donald Perp'? You guys will do much better than those.
It reminds me of the apocryphal story about the silly undergraduate who said to the university Chancellor "I wouldn't want to be 90." "You won't say that when you're 89," snapped back Harold Macmillan, sharp as a tack.
And even if they can be found, would they be the ones to win the nomination?
Would a contentious debate between leftists and centrists help or hinder the Democrats?
All the millions the big stores including M & S spend on their Xmas promotions have been shown up by a wonderful promotion of an Enniskillen pub shot on an I phone highlighting beautifully the spirit of Christmas and seen on line worldwide
https://www.tiktok.com/@goss.ie/video/7305556255496539424
It's a rather pretty drive along the coast road past Mar-a-Lago but if it needs to be surrounded by 20-ft walls with razor wire and gun-towers, so be it.
It also may have even helped Biden by lowering expectations. I think it certainly did with those on the left who tried to call Biden 'senile'. As when he actually got through debates without screwing them up it was viewed as him doing well. Whereas if he'd gone in as the early favourite he started as but underwhelmed, he may have been toast.
As for 2024 polling, there's still a long way to go yet. At this time in 2003 Howard Dean was the next Democratic nominee. Biden won't be writing off his chances yet by any means - especially as Democrats have tended to outperform polls since 2020.