How can you not be lifelong rich from the all the money generated by Monty Python and its spinoffs? The movies, esp Life of Brian and Holy Grail, must surely generate significant royalties. Grail and Brian are regularly counted in the top 20 comedies of all time
Yes, I recall seeing the Pythons ranked by wealth a decade or two back, and Eric Idle was far, far richer than any of the others - on the back of, inter alia, Spamalot. Writing hit musicals is pretty lucrative.
He was saying he last made money 20 or so years ago. Hasn’t seen Cleese in 7 years. Gilliams daughter manages the Python stuff.
My sympathy is pretty non existent given the disputes over the Rutles with Neil Innes.
It is generally believed that the Pythons made a profit of around £11 million (£2.2 million each) from Monty Python Live (Mostly) in 2014.
So either they were lying then about its success, or he is lying now about its failure.
Good Queen Bess said she wouldn't try to make windows into people's souls.
PB Tories used to say Britain should concentrate on helping Christian refugees, rather than Muslim ones.
Now, instead of accepting a conversion at face value, and asking their co-religionist to help out at the Church Fete by carrying the tea urn, PB Tories are willing to run the risk of sending genuine Christians back to a martyr's death, because of their obsession they everyone else is abusing the system.
No, I would send them ALL back
Enough. Zero net migration, no more asylum
Why? The immiseration of thousands of people, most of whom are normal people living normal lives, will not in any way improve the lives of the worst off in the country - that requires a functioning economy for working people and adequate social services, something we do not currently have and would not magically appear by chucking everyone out of the country you believe shouldn't be here. And where do you stop? Are those born here by immigrant families okay? Third generation? And, the cry of the right whenever anything else is suggested, what about cost and civil liberties? How expensive would a mass deportation effort be, and how would people wrongly caught in that net contest it? If these kind of things are expedited, what happens if the full force of the government's fist wrongly decided you are an immigrant and shouldn't be here any longer? Border fascism is not the answer - it just puts up a wall that encloses the next scapegoat.
How about if we follow your approach of direct local democracy? Have a referendum in every town to decide whether that town will accept asylum seekers. You can't very well argue against that, can you?
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
The Labour front bench are saying that he 'fell for an online conspiracy theory'. I thought this was red-on-red infighting, but it appears to be the Labour line for his defence. Hardly a ringing defence, is it?
Labour (sadly) are committing an egregious error. At moment one, within an hour, they should have said "Whatever it says on the ballot Labour have no candidate in Rochdale, he is suspended from the party. Sorry. Sotto voce: vote LD".
If they’d done that, he’d still probably have won.
Looking at the list of Rochdale Labour councillors there are quite a few with what appear to be ‘Muslim’ names. I suspect some of them might sympathise with the candidate. Secondly, when the terrible event happened there were quite a few rumours floating about who or what lay behind it.
It was almost certainly not true, but as conspiracy theories go it was towards the more plausible end of the spectrum. That may not be saying much, but I suspect that in itself this won't be terminal to Labour's chances in Rochdale.
While it’s not likely to be true - the only reason it isn’t true is that if the alerts had been raised they were simply dismissed as another shout of “wolf”.
What I think is worth saying is that there do seem to be a lot of younger voters who don’t understand that you can’t have an opinion on everything because the real world requires you to keep quiet at times - and Israel is a prime example of no nice solution
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
The problem with what Ali said is not that he talked of Israel neglecting warnings from Egypt and the US, it’s that he suggested Israel knew an attack was coming and deliberately let it happen. Those “facts” aren’t true.
There was far too much anti-Semitism among the Corbynite left, and still is. It would be better for the left to recognise that than to constantly complain that it was just a stick to beat Corbyn with.
Israeli intelligence was made aware by other states of the potential of an attack - similarly to how prior to 9/11 the US intelligence apparatus did have information warning them about that. I accept that doesn't therefore mean it was "allowed" to happen - big state apparatuses prioritise things differently and are prone to ignoring things they are predisposed to think are unlikely. I think this is what happened re Oct 7th - Israeli intelligence was probably warned and thought "we know Hamas, this is overblown, they can't possibly breach the fence and, anyway, we want to focus on the West Bank".
And it isn't just Corbyn, though. Bernie Sanders was also called an anti-Semite for not being Zionist enough. Germany is arresting and charging Jewish people right now for protesting against the war in Palestine, claiming they are abetting anti-Semitism. I've talked here before about the lefts anti-Semitism, it is a problem. Whereas Johnson was never scrutinised for the book he wrote that played in Jewish tropes, and no one took seriously the concern that the Jewish leader of the Labour party was constantly mocked for his weirdness, being unable to eat a bacon sandwich and the clear troping of his father.
Great. So we agree that, while Israel may have made grave mistakes before 7 October, what Ali said was wrong.
On Corbyn, your comments about Sanders, Germany and Johnson are whataboutery.
"millions upon millions of Americans have direct experience with the challenge of advanced age — either as their own minds and bodies ultimately slow down or as they watch it happen to friends and relatives. That same experience makes Americans immune to political spin on the issue. No matter how powerful your rhetoric, you can’t browbeat Americans out of a concern as obvious and relatable as the fact that age matters."
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
I mean this is going to be an interesting "no true scotsman" conversation. I would argue going to synagogue is just a slow way of converting to Christianity - you've got to learn the basics. Even Paul started as Jewish.
So did a bloke called Jesus who was quite important in Christianity.
Well I'm not convinced of the historicity of Jesus, so I didn't use him as the example (and arguably even if he was a historical figure Paul still had more impact on the growth of Christianity then Jesus did).
I'm intrigued. Why would you take that position? No academics in the relevant fields do.
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
As I have said before Anne Applebaum is one of the best journalists working today and she is particularly good on eastern Europe. She is spot on here.
"millions upon millions of Americans have direct experience with the challenge of advanced age — either as their own minds and bodies ultimately slow down or as they watch it happen to friends and relatives. That same experience makes Americans immune to political spin on the issue. No matter how powerful your rhetoric, you can’t browbeat Americans out of a concern as obvious and relatable as the fact that age matters."
ny times
It does.
But it's difficult to believe it will matter if Biden is up against Trump, who is barely younger and has many other significant drawbacks apart from age and mental decline.
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
The problem with what Ali said is not that he talked of Israel neglecting warnings from Egypt and the US, it’s that he suggested Israel knew an attack was coming and deliberately let it happen. Those “facts” aren’t true.
There was far too much anti-Semitism among the Corbynite left, and still is. It would be better for the left to recognise that than to constantly complain that it was just a stick to beat Corbyn with.
Israeli intelligence was made aware by other states of the potential of an attack - similarly to how prior to 9/11 the US intelligence apparatus did have information warning them about that. I accept that doesn't therefore mean it was "allowed" to happen - big state apparatuses prioritise things differently and are prone to ignoring things they are predisposed to think are unlikely. I think this is what happened re Oct 7th - Israeli intelligence was probably warned and thought "we know Hamas, this is overblown, they can't possibly breach the fence and, anyway, we want to focus on the West Bank".
Or even "let them attack, they won't get through the fence and we'll kill a lot more of them that way".
I don't know how Bondegozou can say the "facts" aren't true. It's an unknown.
Ridiculous amount of faux outrage by some Tories .
Louise Ellman MP supports the Labour decision to support Ali .
Simple fact is, it’s doing Labour more political and reputational damage standing by him, than cutting him loose. After such a distasteful comment he deserves to be cut loose. He said something far more disgusting than what got Long-Bailey the sack, so the lack of consistency is going off like a flipping Klaxon.
The Labour Party - all political party’s - need to make it loud and clear, British democracy isn’t about being a great representative of your community by believing in the same offensive crackpot conspiracy theories of the constituents, but that no one can be an MP and legislator if they believe in offensive crackpot conspiracy theories.
A lot of MPs would lose the whip if you enforced that idea. Not saying it’s a bad idea, just that a lot of MPs would lose the whip.
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
France doesn't, nor does Germany, Italy, Spain or Canada
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
“and as far as I'm aware the facts are true” You may wish to rethink your post, or how you are saying it - because your post is insulting as it stands. The intelligence failure does not confirm or support this conspiracy in any way, as you are clearly claiming it does.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
I mean this is going to be an interesting "no true scotsman" conversation. I would argue going to synagogue is just a slow way of converting to Christianity - you've got to learn the basics. Even Paul started as Jewish.
So did a bloke called Jesus who was quite important in Christianity.
Well I'm not convinced of the historicity of Jesus, so I didn't use him as the example (and arguably even if he was a historical figure Paul still had more impact on the growth of Christianity then Jesus did).
I know religious persecution is grounds for asylum. Do you think people not believing in your historicity is also grounds for asylum?
Ridiculous amount of faux outrage by some Tories .
Louise Ellman MP supports the Labour decision to support Ali .
Simple fact is, it’s doing Labour more political and reputational damage standing by him, than cutting him loose. After such a distasteful comment he deserves to be cut loose. He said something far more disgusting than what got Long-Bailey the sack, so the lack of consistency is going off like a flipping Klaxon.
The Labour Party - all political party’s - need to make it loud and clear, British democracy isn’t about being a great representative of your community by believing in the same offensive crackpot conspiracy theories of the constituents, but that no one can be an MP and legislator if they believe in offensive crackpot conspiracy theories.
Trouble is, if you get rid of one person for spouting conspiracy theories, where do you stop?
Especially with Gorgeous George waiting in the wings.
And re: the news from Romford, at least that's one less by election to worry about.
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
He essentially said that Israel was behind the attack. Whether or not that meets anyone's definition of anti-Semitism, it seems a pretty rum thing to be saying.
Well, no, he said they knowingly let it happen, which is different (although still problematic, of course). Again, it's similar to what some people (obviously incorrectly) said about the Bush admin for 9/11 - it was allowed to happen to increase the security state.
Good Queen Bess said she wouldn't try to make windows into people's souls.
PB Tories used to say Britain should concentrate on helping Christian refugees, rather than Muslim ones.
Now, instead of accepting a conversion at face value, and asking their co-religionist to help out at the Church Fete by carrying the tea urn, PB Tories are willing to run the risk of sending genuine Christians back to a martyr's death, because of their obsession they everyone else is abusing the system.
Well it’s one of those situations where any policy will be problematic. Like benefits fraud. You either have a policy that lets ne’er do wells in on false pretences, or a policy that sends devout Christians to be persecuted abroad.
Given that Christianity, as a religion, is founded on the ideal of martyrdom, I guess you're really doing them a favour by returning them to a hideous death. They will be rewarded in the next life, after all.
Martyrdom is subtly distinct from cynicism. Central to the understanding of Christianity and Islam alike, it doesn't suddenly render (for example) the massacre of the innocents, whether in Bethlehem or Gaza now any better.
Ridiculous amount of faux outrage by some Tories .
Louise Ellman MP supports the Labour decision to support Ali .
Simple fact is, it’s doing Labour more political and reputational damage standing by him, than cutting him loose. After such a distasteful comment he deserves to be cut loose. He said something far more disgusting than what got Long-Bailey the sack, so the lack of consistency is going off like a flipping Klaxon.
The Labour Party - all political party’s - need to make it loud and clear, British democracy isn’t about being a great representative of your community by believing in the same offensive crackpot conspiracy theories of the constituents, but that no one can be an MP and legislator if they believe in offensive crackpot conspiracy theories.
A lot of MPs would lose the whip if you enforced that idea. Not saying it’s a bad idea, just that a lot of MPs would lose the whip.
Really? Apart from this one Labour candidate, how many MPs can you name pushing crackpot and insulting conspiracy theories?
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
“and as far as I'm aware the facts are true” You may wish to rethink your post, or how you are saying it - because your post is insulting as it stands. The intelligence failure does not confirm or support this conspiracy in any way, as you are clearly claiming it does.
The facts that I was referring to was that Egyptian and US intelligence had said something to Israel - not that Israel allowed the attack to happen, as I feel the part I wrote in parenthesis clearly outlines.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
The Labour front bench are saying that he 'fell for an online conspiracy theory'. I thought this was red-on-red infighting, but it appears to be the Labour line for his defence. Hardly a ringing defence, is it?
Labour (sadly) are committing an egregious error. At moment one, within an hour, they should have said "Whatever it says on the ballot Labour have no candidate in Rochdale, he is suspended from the party. Sorry. Sotto voce: vote LD".
If they’d done that, he’d still probably have won.
Looking at the list of Rochdale Labour councillors there are quite a few with what appear to be ‘Muslim’ names. I suspect some of them might sympathise with the candidate. Secondly, when the terrible event happened there were quite a few rumours floating about who or what lay behind it.
It was almost certainly not true, but as conspiracy theories go it was towards the more plausible end of the spectrum. That may not be saying much, but I suspect that in itself this won't be terminal to Labour's chances in Rochdale.
While it’s not likely to be true - the only reason it isn’t true is that if the alerts had been raised they were simply dismissed as another shout of “wolf”.
What I think is worth saying is that there do seem to be a lot of younger voters who don’t understand that you can’t have an opinion on everything because the real world requires you to keep quiet at times - and Israel is a prime example of no nice solution
Tell me about it.
This is a fight in which I have no dog, and no wish to have one. Really annoys some people.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
I mean this is going to be an interesting "no true scotsman" conversation. I would argue going to synagogue is just a slow way of converting to Christianity - you've got to learn the basics. Even Paul started as Jewish.
So did a bloke called Jesus who was quite important in Christianity.
Well I'm not convinced of the historicity of Jesus, so I didn't use him as the example (and arguably even if he was a historical figure Paul still had more impact on the growth of Christianity then Jesus did).
I know religious persecution is grounds for asylum. Do you think people not believing in your historicity is also grounds for asylum?
I don't know what you're getting at - but if a state was persecuting someone for having the belief in a purely mystical Jesus (or visa versa) then sure, they should get asylum.
How can you not be lifelong rich from the all the money generated by Monty Python and its spinoffs? The movies, esp Life of Brian and Holy Grail, must surely generate significant royalties. Grail and Brian are regularly counted in the top 20 comedies of all time
What would generate the royalties nowadays though? I suppose Idle would get a cut from every DVD sold, but is there much of that?
Streaming, for a start
A quick google tells me you can watch Life of Brian for $4 on Apple TV
Given how mega famous it is, it's not hard to inagine it being streamed, say, 500,000 times a year, around the world, with a global population of 8 billion
That is two million bucks right there, for just one movie in the Python backlist
Plus royalties from the TV, musicals, songs (Bright Side of Life)
Idle mentions shit lawyers in his tirade, seems to be they must have had REALLY shit lawyers. And where did the money go when they WERE minting it? Did they all spaff it on hookers and blow?
Wasn't there an expensive court case over the Spamalot musical? I think because it was based on a film, so they ended up having to pay lots in royalties...
Yes, the producer of the movie.
Also Neil Innes was looking at a court case in 2014. Not sure how that went
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
As I have said before Anne Applebaum is one of the best journalists working today and she is particularly good on eastern Europe. She is spot on here.
It doesn't hurt her knowledge that she's married to Poland's current foreign minister.
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
The problem with what Ali said is not that he talked of Israel neglecting warnings from Egypt and the US, it’s that he suggested Israel knew an attack was coming and deliberately let it happen. Those “facts” aren’t true.
There was far too much anti-Semitism among the Corbynite left, and still is. It would be better for the left to recognise that than to constantly complain that it was just a stick to beat Corbyn with.
Israeli intelligence was made aware by other states of the potential of an attack - similarly to how prior to 9/11 the US intelligence apparatus did have information warning them about that. I accept that doesn't therefore mean it was "allowed" to happen - big state apparatuses prioritise things differently and are prone to ignoring things they are predisposed to think are unlikely. I think this is what happened re Oct 7th - Israeli intelligence was probably warned and thought "we know Hamas, this is overblown, they can't possibly breach the fence and, anyway, we want to focus on the West Bank".
Or even "let them attack, they won't get through the fence and we'll kill a lot more of them that way".
I don't know how Bondegozou can say the "facts" aren't true. It's an unknown.
Ali said (and has since apologised for), “They deliberately took the security off”. Do you have the slightest piece of evidence to support that?
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
France doesn't, nor does Germany, Italy, Spain or Canada
How can you not be lifelong rich from the all the money generated by Monty Python and its spinoffs? The movies, esp Life of Brian and Holy Grail, must surely generate significant royalties. Grail and Brian are regularly counted in the top 20 comedies of all time
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Ridiculous amount of faux outrage by some Tories .
Louise Ellman MP supports the Labour decision to support Ali .
Simple fact is, it’s doing Labour more political and reputational damage standing by him, than cutting him loose. After such a distasteful comment he deserves to be cut loose. He said something far more disgusting than what got Long-Bailey the sack, so the lack of consistency is going off like a flipping Klaxon.
The Labour Party - all political party’s - need to make it loud and clear, British democracy isn’t about being a great representative of your community by believing in the same offensive crackpot conspiracy theories of the constituents, but that no one can be an MP and legislator if they believe in offensive crackpot conspiracy theories.
The same Ellman loudly proclaimed on Twitter the decision to suspend Andy McDonald for a far more innocuous comment as the right thing to do etc etc.
The absolute hypocrisy of labour and the labour right on this just stinks.
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
The problem with what Ali said is not that he talked of Israel neglecting warnings from Egypt and the US, it’s that he suggested Israel knew an attack was coming and deliberately let it happen. Those “facts” aren’t true.
There was far too much anti-Semitism among the Corbynite left, and still is. It would be better for the left to recognise that than to constantly complain that it was just a stick to beat Corbyn with.
Israeli intelligence was made aware by other states of the potential of an attack - similarly to how prior to 9/11 the US intelligence apparatus did have information warning them about that. I accept that doesn't therefore mean it was "allowed" to happen - big state apparatuses prioritise things differently and are prone to ignoring things they are predisposed to think are unlikely. I think this is what happened re Oct 7th - Israeli intelligence was probably warned and thought "we know Hamas, this is overblown, they can't possibly breach the fence and, anyway, we want to focus on the West Bank".
Or even "let them attack, they won't get through the fence and we'll kill a lot more of them that way".
I don't know how Bondegozou can say the "facts" aren't true. It's an unknown.
Ali said (and has since apologised for), “They deliberately took the security off”. Do you have the slightest piece of evidence to support that?
No, and neither do I have evidence to suggest it is untrue. Do you?
The Labour front bench are saying that he 'fell for an online conspiracy theory'. I thought this was red-on-red infighting, but it appears to be the Labour line for his defence. Hardly a ringing defence, is it?
Labour (sadly) are committing an egregious error. At moment one, within an hour, they should have said "Whatever it says on the ballot Labour have no candidate in Rochdale, he is suspended from the party. Sorry. Sotto voce: vote LD".
If they’d done that, he’d still probably have won.
Looking at the list of Rochdale Labour councillors there are quite a few with what appear to be ‘Muslim’ names. I suspect some of them might sympathise with the candidate. Secondly, when the terrible event happened there were quite a few rumours floating about who or what lay behind it.
It was almost certainly not true, but as conspiracy theories go it was towards the more plausible end of the spectrum. That may not be saying much, but I suspect that in itself this won't be terminal to Labour's chances in Rochdale.
Thing is, so what if the Israeli government let it happen? Sure, if I were an Israeli, I'd be livid at them, but unless the theory is extended to say it was a Mossad operation, then it was still perpetrated by Palestinians.
I don't quite understand the attraction to it as a theory. I'm not sure what they think it means. What it says to me is, the white people are seen as the grown ups who should make sure the brown people don't do bad things. As has been said many times on here, it's a thoroughly racist view of the world.
If it were true, and I knew it to be so, all it would tell me is that these things are more complex than widely supposed.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
I mean this is going to be an interesting "no true scotsman" conversation. I would argue going to synagogue is just a slow way of converting to Christianity - you've got to learn the basics. Even Paul started as Jewish.
So did a bloke called Jesus who was quite important in Christianity.
Well I'm not convinced of the historicity of Jesus, so I didn't use him as the example (and arguably even if he was a historical figure Paul still had more impact on the growth of Christianity then Jesus did).
I'm intrigued. Why would you take that position? No academics in the relevant fields do.
Indeed. For example the late Maurice Casey, atheist and outstanding scholar of the ancient Semitic world has written one of the finest ever accounts of Jesus's life. He regarded those who doubted the historical Jesus with horror, and regarded the Christian faith as untrue and predicated on bits of imaginary history which got entwined with the real thing.
I can't name a serious ancient historian of the period who doubts the reality of the historical Jesus. He is better attested than the great majority of names from the ancient world.
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
France doesn't, nor does Germany, Italy, Spain or Canada
https://www.politico.eu/article/us-and-germany-a-reversal-of-fortunes/ ..Scholz committed to spending €100 billion on buying new equipment and meeting NATO’s goal of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense. And while overcoming bureaucratic inertia has proven difficult, Berlin will meet NATO’s defense spending goal this year after all. It will play a key part in bolstering NATO’s defense and deterrence efforts as well, including the deployment of a brigade in Lithuania starting next year. Furthermore, Germany has also become Ukraine’s largest supporter in Europe by far, sending both more military and economic aid than any other nation aside the U.S. The over €17 billion in military support Berlin has committed to Ukraine through October 2023 (according to the most up-to-date data) is more than a third of the U.S. commitment (€44 billion) and more than double that of Britain’s (€7 billion), making Germany the third largest contributor...
"millions upon millions of Americans have direct experience with the challenge of advanced age — either as their own minds and bodies ultimately slow down or as they watch it happen to friends and relatives. That same experience makes Americans immune to political spin on the issue. No matter how powerful your rhetoric, you can’t browbeat Americans out of a concern as obvious and relatable as the fact that age matters."
ny times
It does.
But it's difficult to believe it will matter if Biden is up against Trump, who is barely younger and has many other significant drawbacks apart from age and mental decline.
It will matter. 70% of Dem voters say he is too old. Incredible number.
As Luntz was tweeting the other day - Biden voters are speaking clearly and no one is listening on this.
When columnists on NY Times are saying he needs to withdraw and let a younger Dem continue the fight you know the tectonic plates are shifting.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
I mean this is going to be an interesting "no true scotsman" conversation. I would argue going to synagogue is just a slow way of converting to Christianity - you've got to learn the basics. Even Paul started as Jewish.
So did a bloke called Jesus who was quite important in Christianity.
Well I'm not convinced of the historicity of Jesus, so I didn't use him as the example (and arguably even if he was a historical figure Paul still had more impact on the growth of Christianity then Jesus did).
I'm intrigued. Why would you take that position? No academics in the relevant fields do.
I had no particular interest in the issue and then read Richard Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Christ" after my then girlfriend suggested it to me after seeing an unrelated lecture of his. He is an historian who specialised in classical science and pre-Christian Judaism, and he also had no particular strength of feeling on the issue (and tended to assume the academic status quo was probably fine) before he was commissioned by a coalition of theists and atheists to do some post-doc research into the matter. After his research he concluded that it was more likely then not in his mind that Jesus was not an historical figure. Even if you aren't convinced by his conclusion, I found the book very interesting for the depths he goes in to Judaism after the destruction of the temple, the history of mystery cults, and the clearly literary and polemic (not historical) nature of the Gospels.
"millions upon millions of Americans have direct experience with the challenge of advanced age — either as their own minds and bodies ultimately slow down or as they watch it happen to friends and relatives. That same experience makes Americans immune to political spin on the issue. No matter how powerful your rhetoric, you can’t browbeat Americans out of a concern as obvious and relatable as the fact that age matters."
ny times
It does.
But it's difficult to believe it will matter if Biden is up against Trump, who is barely younger and has many other significant drawbacks apart from age and mental decline.
It will matter. 70% of Dem voters say he is too old. Incredible number.
As Luntz was tweeting the other day - Biden voters are speaking clearly and no one is listening on this.
When columnists on NY Times are saying he needs to withdraw and let a younger Dem continue the fight you know the tectonic plates are shifting.
It won't matter if he's up against Trump. Because better to vote for a doddering geezer who's a bit past it than a doddering geezer who's a bit past it *and* is a criminal, traitor and threat to democracy.
Do you honestly think they will stay at home or vote Republican in that scenario?
They think he's too old. So do I. Possibly even so do his cabinet. But he's the alternative to Trump and I'm pretty sure that will be enough.
Of course, that's Dems. How will independents react? Probably much the same way, in the end.
Which is why I keep coming back to the Republicans have taken leave of their collective senses not to vote for De Santis (who may be a nasty human being but isn't senile) or Haley.
Labour have a real problem with their Rochdale candidate. Someone said the Tories were stoking it - no, they're not. The very worst this looks is when someone quotes Keir Starmer - it is STARMER attacking Ali in the form of the absolutist statements issued beforehand.
My solution: 1. Disown Ali. Legally the person runs, not the party. Like the former Green candidate his name stays on the ballot, with a party ID, but everyone made clear he is disowned 2. Suspend the CLP. They heard his comments and then chose to select him. Doing so has brought the party into disrepute in 2 ways - they knew the candidate has a serious issue and did nothing, and then they chose to endorse him.
The end result? Labour show they are tough on bigots and reclaim the high ground. We likely get Gorgeous elected which will highlight the shithousery of the Workers Revolutionary Party and draw the sting out of a potential pro-Hamas vote.
Get it done. Or this will roll on and on and on like an SNP coverup of kids watching footie on a government iPad.
There's a plaque outside a Friend's meeting house in Derbyshire that memorialises the life and death of an Austrian Jew who converted to Catholicism in an attempt to escape the Nazis, and ended up becoming a Quaker when in England.
Conversion in these circumstances isn't exactly new.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
The problem with what Ali said is not that he talked of Israel neglecting warnings from Egypt and the US, it’s that he suggested Israel knew an attack was coming and deliberately let it happen. Those “facts” aren’t true.
There was far too much anti-Semitism among the Corbynite left, and still is. It would be better for the left to recognise that than to constantly complain that it was just a stick to beat Corbyn with.
Israeli intelligence was made aware by other states of the potential of an attack - similarly to how prior to 9/11 the US intelligence apparatus did have information warning them about that. I accept that doesn't therefore mean it was "allowed" to happen - big state apparatuses prioritise things differently and are prone to ignoring things they are predisposed to think are unlikely. I think this is what happened re Oct 7th - Israeli intelligence was probably warned and thought "we know Hamas, this is overblown, they can't possibly breach the fence and, anyway, we want to focus on the West Bank".
Or even "let them attack, they won't get through the fence and we'll kill a lot more of them that way".
I don't know how Bondegozou can say the "facts" aren't true. It's an unknown.
Ali said (and has since apologised for), “They deliberately took the security off”. Do you have the slightest piece of evidence to support that?
That wasn't something I considered fact - I assumed that was opinion and I was clearly making that delineation by my explanation of my thought process for why someone might say that. The facts, I would say, are that other states shared intelligence with Israel prior to the Oct 7th attack warning them that something was going to happen on Oct 7th. Apologies if that was unclear.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Over 40% of the English population self identify as Christian. I think it would be a good idea never to test out their state of theological/Bible/church/Christian knowledge. Many would more or less get Zero. For most, being Christian is vaguer than that, and about living according to a sort of communal set of values, and occasionally enjoying the narrative of the Christian year. Anyone who doesn't like that way of being religious isn't going to like much about the UK.
"Tomorrow is Pancake Day. Analyse and discuss its calendrical, historical, biblical and theological place in the Christian life and yearly cycle in 10,000 words".
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
With interesting further implications for legality.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
Interesting question. Does C of E require them of anyone who wants to get married in their parish church?
No.
As it is the established Church of English people who are actually citizens of this country. Muslims coming to the UK facing no persecution from their nation of origin using 'conversion' to Christianity while in the UK as a quick way to get a UK passport are a different matter
"Met drops rape case against Tory MP Andrew Rosindell A spokesman for the Romford MP said he had been 'completely exonerated' after he was accused of rape, sexual assault and misconduct"
Ridiculous amount of faux outrage by some Tories .
Louise Ellman MP supports the Labour decision to support Ali .
Simple fact is, it’s doing Labour more political and reputational damage standing by him, than cutting him loose. After such a distasteful comment he deserves to be cut loose. He said something far more disgusting than what got Long-Bailey the sack, so the lack of consistency is going off like a flipping Klaxon.
The Labour Party - all political party’s - need to make it loud and clear, British democracy isn’t about being a great representative of your community by believing in the same offensive crackpot conspiracy theories of the constituents, but that no one can be an MP and legislator if they believe in offensive crackpot conspiracy theories.
A lot of MPs would lose the whip if you enforced that idea. Not saying it’s a bad idea, just that a lot of MPs would lose the whip.
Really? Apart from this one Labour candidate, how many MPs can you name pushing crackpot and insulting conspiracy theories?
"millions upon millions of Americans have direct experience with the challenge of advanced age — either as their own minds and bodies ultimately slow down or as they watch it happen to friends and relatives. That same experience makes Americans immune to political spin on the issue. No matter how powerful your rhetoric, you can’t browbeat Americans out of a concern as obvious and relatable as the fact that age matters."
ny times
It does.
But it's difficult to believe it will matter if Biden is up against Trump, who is barely younger and has many other significant drawbacks apart from age and mental decline.
It will matter. 70% of Dem voters say he is too old. Incredible number.
As Luntz was tweeting the other day - Biden voters are speaking clearly and no one is listening on this.
When columnists on NY Times are saying he needs to withdraw and let a younger Dem continue the fight you know the tectonic plates are shifting.
It won't matter if he's up against Trump. Because better to vote for a doddering geezer who's a bit past it than a doddering geezer who's a bit past it *and* is a criminal, traitor and threat to democracy.
Do you honestly think they will stay at home or vote Republican in that scenario?
They think he's too old. So do I. Possibly even so do his cabinet. But he's the alternative to Trump and I'm pretty sure that will be enough.
Of course, that's Dems. How will independents react? Probably much the same way, in the end.
Which is why I keep coming back to the Republicans have taken leave of their collective senses not to vote for De Santis (who may be a nasty human being but isn't senile) or Haley.
Trump is confused, too old and a threat to rule of law, world peace and democracy. Indeed, he is threat to the very idea of rational thought.
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
This is interesting - especially in light of Putin's recent (dud of) an interview with Carlson. I was listening to a review of the interview that noted that it didn't seem to serve the shared purposes of the two people involved - namely saying all the talking points needed for the American right to get on board with Trump doing exactly this when he wins again, and instead was much more of Putin doing some historical revisionism and occasionally insulting Carlson, with Carlson seeming mostly confused, trying to get Putin to join him in his talking points (how Russia is the real defender of the West and Christendom and is fighting against the international deep state) with the occasional real journalistic question in seemingly out of a belief that Putin was having the conversation in good faith. Maybe that was Putin just recognising that he can win a war of attrition with Ukraine and starting his victory lap, or maybe Putin didn't feel he needed to play the propaganda game as he thinks Trump has it in the bag?
There's a plaque outside a Friend's meeting house in Derbyshire that memorialises the life and death of an Austrian Jew who converted to Catholicism in an attempt to escape the Nazis, and ended up becoming a Quaker when in England.
Conversion in these circumstances isn't exactly new.
We took in Jews fleeing persecution and the Nazis, he didn't need to convert
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
“and as far as I'm aware the facts are true” You may wish to rethink your post, or how you are saying it - because your post is insulting as it stands. The intelligence failure does not confirm or support this conspiracy in any way, as you are clearly claiming it does.
The facts that I was referring to was that Egyptian and US intelligence had said something to Israel - not that Israel allowed the attack to happen, as I feel the part I wrote in parenthesis clearly outlines.
It happened before. It happened in the 70s war that intelligence missed it just like this time. No one on the Israeli side wanted this Gaza conflict, not least because there isn’t a single member of the Israeli cabinet today who can tell you with any form of confidence what the achievable aims of this war are, and what the day after, and all days after, of this war actually looks like. Netanyahu’s governments have been buttering up Hamas leadership with such a light touch and clandestine money payments for years precisely to try and avoid a pogrom like that one, the worst since the Nazi’s in the Second World War - the obvious outcome is the ignominious end of Netanyahu’s career, and for the more right wing elements of his support, most probably a long spell away from cabinet tables and ministries. Yet this Labour Party candidate is pushing the idea they wanted this, you are a fellow traveller by saying it can’t be completely discounted.
What are you a fellow traveler of, why are you dangerous? The truth here is exactly the opposite of the conspiracy being pushed. Some people won’t believe the truth when they get it. The truth will be lost to impressionable minds. You, 148, you are Donald Trump.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
I mean this is going to be an interesting "no true scotsman" conversation. I would argue going to synagogue is just a slow way of converting to Christianity - you've got to learn the basics. Even Paul started as Jewish.
So did a bloke called Jesus who was quite important in Christianity.
Well I'm not convinced of the historicity of Jesus, so I didn't use him as the example (and arguably even if he was a historical figure Paul still had more impact on the growth of Christianity then Jesus did).
I know religious persecution is grounds for asylum. Do you think people not believing in your historicity is also grounds for asylum?
I don't know what you're getting at - but if a state was persecuting someone for having the belief in a purely mystical Jesus (or visa versa) then sure, they should get asylum.
It was a whimsical notion. If the state refused to believe you existed, should you get asylum.
Good Queen Bess said she wouldn't try to make windows into people's souls.
PB Tories used to say Britain should concentrate on helping Christian refugees, rather than Muslim ones.
Now, instead of accepting a conversion at face value, and asking their co-religionist to help out at the Church Fete by carrying the tea urn, PB Tories are willing to run the risk of sending genuine Christians back to a martyr's death, because of their obsession they everyone else is abusing the system.
No, I would send them ALL back
Enough. Zero net migration, no more asylum
Why? The immiseration of thousands of people, most of whom are normal people living normal lives, will not in any way improve the lives of the worst off in the country - that requires a functioning economy for working people and adequate social services, something we do not currently have and would not magically appear by chucking everyone out of the country you believe shouldn't be here. And where do you stop? Are those born here by immigrant families okay? Third generation? And, the cry of the right whenever anything else is suggested, what about cost and civil liberties? How expensive would a mass deportation effort be, and how would people wrongly caught in that net contest it? If these kind of things are expedited, what happens if the full force of the government's fist wrongly decided you are an immigrant and shouldn't be here any longer? Border fascism is not the answer - it just puts up a wall that encloses the next scapegoat.
How about if we follow your approach of direct local democracy? Have a referendum in every town to decide whether that town will accept asylum seekers. You can't very well argue against that, can you?
If before we do that we create a truly egalitarian anarchist stateless society - sure. On the other hand, whilst we have a government in hock to capital and a media apparatus controlled by capital - no that would be dumb.
How can you not be lifelong rich from the all the money generated by Monty Python and its spinoffs? The movies, esp Life of Brian and Holy Grail, must surely generate significant royalties. Grail and Brian are regularly counted in the top 20 comedies of all time
What would generate the royalties nowadays though? I suppose Idle would get a cut from every DVD sold, but is there much of that?
Streaming, for a start
A quick google tells me you can watch Life of Brian for $4 on Apple TV
Given how mega famous it is, it's not hard to inagine it being streamed, say, 500,000 times a year, around the world, with a global population of 8 billion
That is two million bucks right there, for just one movie in the Python backlist
Plus royalties from the TV, musicals, songs (Bright Side of Life)
Idle mentions shit lawyers in his tirade, seems to be they must have had REALLY shit lawyers. And where did the money go when they WERE minting it? Did they all spaff it on hookers and blow?
Wasn't there an expensive court case over the Spamalot musical? I think because it was based on a film, so they ended up having to pay lots in royalties...
Yes, the producer of the movie.
Also Neil Innes was looking at a court case in 2014. Not sure how that went
I refer honourable PB-ers to that utterly desolate article from the BBC on the Ukraine War
It's not great to read, but it is necessary. They have run out of men. I know we all want to see them thrash Putin back to Moscow, but it is not going to happen
The best they can do now is seek a Korean-style armistice and freeze the frontlines where they are
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
I mean this is going to be an interesting "no true scotsman" conversation. I would argue going to synagogue is just a slow way of converting to Christianity - you've got to learn the basics. Even Paul started as Jewish.
So did a bloke called Jesus who was quite important in Christianity.
Well I'm not convinced of the historicity of Jesus, so I didn't use him as the example (and arguably even if he was a historical figure Paul still had more impact on the growth of Christianity then Jesus did).
I'm intrigued. Why would you take that position? No academics in the relevant fields do.
I had no particular interest in the issue and then read Richard Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Christ" after my then girlfriend suggested it to me after seeing an unrelated lecture of his. He is an historian who specialised in classical science and pre-Christian Judaism, and he also had no particular strength of feeling on the issue (and tended to assume the academic status quo was probably fine) before he was commissioned by a coalition of theists and atheists to do some post-doc research into the matter. After his research he concluded that it was more likely then not in his mind that Jesus was not an historical figure. Even if you aren't convinced by his conclusion, I found the book very interesting for the depths he goes in to Judaism after the destruction of the temple, the history of mystery cults, and the clearly literary and polemic (not historical) nature of the Gospels.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
But why should being Christian help to get you asylum in this country in the first place? I thought all religions were regarded as "equal" in the UK, therefore converting to one particular religion shouldn't help people to get advantages.
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
The problem with what Ali said is not that he talked of Israel neglecting warnings from Egypt and the US, it’s that he suggested Israel knew an attack was coming and deliberately let it happen. Those “facts” aren’t true.
There was far too much anti-Semitism among the Corbynite left, and still is. It would be better for the left to recognise that than to constantly complain that it was just a stick to beat Corbyn with.
Israeli intelligence was made aware by other states of the potential of an attack - similarly to how prior to 9/11 the US intelligence apparatus did have information warning them about that. I accept that doesn't therefore mean it was "allowed" to happen - big state apparatuses prioritise things differently and are prone to ignoring things they are predisposed to think are unlikely. I think this is what happened re Oct 7th - Israeli intelligence was probably warned and thought "we know Hamas, this is overblown, they can't possibly breach the fence and, anyway, we want to focus on the West Bank".
Or even "let them attack, they won't get through the fence and we'll kill a lot more of them that way".
I don't know how Bondegozou can say the "facts" aren't true. It's an unknown.
Ali said (and has since apologised for), “They deliberately took the security off”. Do you have the slightest piece of evidence to support that?
No, and neither do I have evidence to suggest it is untrue. Do you?
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
But why should being Christian help to get you asylum in this country in the first place? I thought all religions were regarded as "equal" in the UK, therefore converting to one particular religion shouldn't help people to get advantages.
One reason would be that depending on your country of origin you may reasonably be able to make the case that your conversion to Christianity means you will be put to death for apostasy if you return.
Don't let Republicans, or anyone else, turn Trump's remarks about NATO into an argument about levels of spending. The news story is this: Trump told Russia to invade U.S. allies, to do "whatever the hell they want." This invitation to violence makes the world more dangerous. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence. Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
France doesn't, nor does Germany, Italy, Spain or Canada
https://www.politico.eu/article/us-and-germany-a-reversal-of-fortunes/ ..Scholz committed to spending €100 billion on buying new equipment and meeting NATO’s goal of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense. And while overcoming bureaucratic inertia has proven difficult, Berlin will meet NATO’s defense spending goal this year after all. It will play a key part in bolstering NATO’s defense and deterrence efforts as well, including the deployment of a brigade in Lithuania starting next year. Furthermore, Germany has also become Ukraine’s largest supporter in Europe by far, sending both more military and economic aid than any other nation aside the U.S. The over €17 billion in military support Berlin has committed to Ukraine through October 2023 (according to the most up-to-date data) is more than a third of the U.S. commitment (€44 billion) and more than double that of Britain’s (€7 billion), making Germany the third largest contributor...
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
I mean this is going to be an interesting "no true scotsman" conversation. I would argue going to synagogue is just a slow way of converting to Christianity - you've got to learn the basics. Even Paul started as Jewish.
So did a bloke called Jesus who was quite important in Christianity.
Well I'm not convinced of the historicity of Jesus, so I didn't use him as the example (and arguably even if he was a historical figure Paul still had more impact on the growth of Christianity then Jesus did).
I know religious persecution is grounds for asylum. Do you think people not believing in your historicity is also grounds for asylum?
I don't know what you're getting at - but if a state was persecuting someone for having the belief in a purely mystical Jesus (or visa versa) then sure, they should get asylum.
It was a whimsical notion. If the state refused to believe you existed, should you get asylum.
Oh - yes. This has been an issue; people who become stateless because either their state rescinds their citizenship or their state ceases to exist. At that point another state should recognise a person and give them asylum.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
Biden is yesterday's man. He isn't going to get any better - only more slowly worse at best.
Can he perform without an autocue? He struggles even with one. I'm not being ageist, I'm 74 myself. He can't react to questions and he visibly shuffles. He reminds me of President Brezhnev. Or that woman in the Tesco ad who suddenly comes to life with Alzheimers. "I've got the power."
Trump is barmy, but that's priced in. Time to introduce Kamalla. Perhaps her against Nikki?
There's a plaque outside a Friend's meeting house in Derbyshire that memorialises the life and death of an Austrian Jew who converted to Catholicism in an attempt to escape the Nazis, and ended up becoming a Quaker when in England.
Conversion in these circumstances isn't exactly new.
We took in Jews fleeing persecution and the Nazis, he didn't need to convert
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
“and as far as I'm aware the facts are true” You may wish to rethink your post, or how you are saying it - because your post is insulting as it stands. The intelligence failure does not confirm or support this conspiracy in any way, as you are clearly claiming it does.
The facts that I was referring to was that Egyptian and US intelligence had said something to Israel - not that Israel allowed the attack to happen, as I feel the part I wrote in parenthesis clearly outlines.
It happened before. It happened in the 70s war that intelligence missed it just like this time. No one on the Israeli side wanted this Gaza conflict, not least because there isn’t a single member of the Israeli cabinet today who can tell you with any form of confidence what the achievable aims of this war are, and what the day after, and all days after, of this war actually looks like. Netanyahu’s governments have been buttering up Hamas leadership with such a light touch and clandestine money payments for years precisely to try and avoid a pogrom like that one, the worst since the Nazi’s in the Second World War - the obvious outcome is the ignominious end of Netanyahu’s career, and for the more right wing elements of his support, most probably a long spell away from cabinet tables and ministries. Yet this Labour Party candidate is pushing the idea they wanted this, you are a fellow traveller by saying it can’t be completely discounted.
What are you a fellow traveler of, why are you dangerous? The truth here is exactly the opposite of the conspiracy being pushed. Some people won’t believe the truth when they get it. The truth will be lost to impressionable minds. You, 148, you are Donald Trump.
I don't particularly follow. All I'm saying is that the Israeli state intelligence agencies received information prior to the attack about the likelihood of the attack - I'm pretty sure that is public knowledge. I have also said that my conclusion on why they didn't act on that information had more to do with their belief in their own security prowess, their incredulity at Hamas having any ability to pose a serious threat, of bureaucratic issues or because their focus was on the West Bank (things that have also been discussed openly in the media). That is all I've said on the matter.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
I mean this is going to be an interesting "no true scotsman" conversation. I would argue going to synagogue is just a slow way of converting to Christianity - you've got to learn the basics. Even Paul started as Jewish.
So did a bloke called Jesus who was quite important in Christianity.
Well I'm not convinced of the historicity of Jesus, so I didn't use him as the example (and arguably even if he was a historical figure Paul still had more impact on the growth of Christianity then Jesus did).
I'm intrigued. Why would you take that position? No academics in the relevant fields do.
Indeed. For example the late Maurice Casey, atheist and outstanding scholar of the ancient Semitic world has written one of the finest ever accounts of Jesus's life. He regarded those who doubted the historical Jesus with horror, and regarded the Christian faith as untrue and predicated on bits of imaginary history which got entwined with the real thing.
I can't name a serious ancient historian of the period who doubts the reality of the historical Jesus. He is better attested than the great majority of names from the ancient world.
Yep. I loved Jesus: The Teenage Years.
Was great in particular that time when he and his mates bunked off school and went to smoke Frankincense behind the bike sheds.
I accept that it is generally accepted that he existed (Josephus et al make the odd mention, so does Mark if we can believe that Mark existed also) but it is pretty meagre fayre when we have whole histories of those around him who were likewise (!) great men.
Yermakov played for the ART Giants youth team in Dusseldorf. The night before an upcoming match, on Feb. 10, he and his teammate Artem Kozachenko were reportedly attacked with knives on the street.
Yermakov died in the hospital of injuries sustained in the attack. Kozachenko remains in intensive care.
The entire ART Giants youth team reportedly spent the night in the hospital with Yermakov and Kozachenko following the attack.
According to the FBK, the young men's attackers may have been motivated by hatred against Ukraine. The players "were attacked with knives in the street simply because they were Ukrainians," the FBK said in their announcement...
What a horrific story
Who the F would attack Ukrainians in Germany, for being Ukrainian? Are there gangs of drunken, violent Russian emigres with knives roaming Dusseldorf?
Doesn't add up
Apparently they've arrested someone, so we'll see.
There have been several examples of both anti-Ukrainian and anti-Russian violence in Germany since the war started; there are quite large numbers of both Russain and Ukrainians living there, of course.
Probably best not to jump to conclusions about this attack. FBK is in Kiev, where they are getting their info from I have no idea, but as the attack happened in Oberhausen not Düsseldorf I wouldn't trust the accuracy of the above report. Apparently there were others injured from Syria and Lebanon, the 2 arrested are described as "German-Turk" and a "German-Greek" both with criminal records. Everyone involved seems to have been aged 14-17. Doesn't sound like it's particularly connected to the Ukraine war, and gangs of Russians stabbing Ukrainians in Düsseldorf does seem to be another product of Leon's imagination.
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
“and as far as I'm aware the facts are true” You may wish to rethink your post, or how you are saying it - because your post is insulting as it stands. The intelligence failure does not confirm or support this conspiracy in any way, as you are clearly claiming it does.
The facts that I was referring to was that Egyptian and US intelligence had said something to Israel - not that Israel allowed the attack to happen, as I feel the part I wrote in parenthesis clearly outlines.
It happened before. It happened in the 70s war that intelligence missed it just like this time. No one on the Israeli side wanted this Gaza conflict, not least because there isn’t a single member of the Israeli cabinet today who can tell you with any form of confidence what the achievable aims of this war are, and what the day after, and all days after, of this war actually looks like. Netanyahu’s governments have been buttering up Hamas leadership with such a light touch and clandestine money payments for years precisely to try and avoid a pogrom like that one, the worst since the Nazi’s in the Second World War - the obvious outcome is the ignominious end of Netanyahu’s career, and for the more right wing elements of his support, most probably a long spell away from cabinet tables and ministries. Yet this Labour Party candidate is pushing the idea they wanted this, you are a fellow traveller by saying it can’t be completely discounted.
What are you a fellow traveler of, why are you dangerous? The truth here is exactly the opposite of the conspiracy being pushed. Some people won’t believe the truth when they get it. The truth will be lost to impressionable minds. You, 148, you are Donald Trump.
I don't particularly follow. All I'm saying is that the Israeli state intelligence agencies received information prior to the attack about the likelihood of the attack - I'm pretty sure that is public knowledge. I have also said that my conclusion on why they didn't act on that information had more to do with their belief in their own security prowess, their incredulity at Hamas having any ability to pose a serious threat, of bureaucratic issues or because their focus was on the West Bank (things that have also been discussed openly in the media). That is all I've said on the matter.
Yes, but why bother saying that? That’s not the bit that Ali was in trouble for saying.
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
“and as far as I'm aware the facts are true” You may wish to rethink your post, or how you are saying it - because your post is insulting as it stands. The intelligence failure does not confirm or support this conspiracy in any way, as you are clearly claiming it does.
The facts that I was referring to was that Egyptian and US intelligence had said something to Israel - not that Israel allowed the attack to happen, as I feel the part I wrote in parenthesis clearly outlines.
It happened before. It happened in the 70s war that intelligence missed it just like this time. No one on the Israeli side wanted this Gaza conflict, not least because there isn’t a single member of the Israeli cabinet today who can tell you with any form of confidence what the achievable aims of this war are, and what the day after, and all days after, of this war actually looks like. Netanyahu’s governments have been buttering up Hamas leadership with such a light touch and clandestine money payments for years precisely to try and avoid a pogrom like that one, the worst since the Nazi’s in the Second World War - the obvious outcome is the ignominious end of Netanyahu’s career, and for the more right wing elements of his support, most probably a long spell away from cabinet tables and ministries. Yet this Labour Party candidate is pushing the idea they wanted this, you are a fellow traveller by saying it can’t be completely discounted.
What are you a fellow traveler of, why are you dangerous? The truth here is exactly the opposite of the conspiracy being pushed. Some people won’t believe the truth when they get it. The truth will be lost to impressionable minds. You, 148, you are Donald Trump.
I don't particularly follow. All I'm saying is that the Israeli state intelligence agencies received information prior to the attack about the likelihood of the attack - I'm pretty sure that is public knowledge. I have also said that my conclusion on why they didn't act on that information had more to do with their belief in their own security prowess, their incredulity at Hamas having any ability to pose a serious threat, of bureaucratic issues or because their focus was on the West Bank (things that have also been discussed openly in the media). That is all I've said on the matter.
If you look at all your posts on this thread, across different subjects - you are a disrupter. You are Donald Trump.
What is the line of argument “Jesus never existed” if it’s not Trumpesque?
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
I mean this is going to be an interesting "no true scotsman" conversation. I would argue going to synagogue is just a slow way of converting to Christianity - you've got to learn the basics. Even Paul started as Jewish.
So did a bloke called Jesus who was quite important in Christianity.
Well I'm not convinced of the historicity of Jesus, so I didn't use him as the example (and arguably even if he was a historical figure Paul still had more impact on the growth of Christianity then Jesus did).
I'm intrigued. Why would you take that position? No academics in the relevant fields do.
I had no particular interest in the issue and then read Richard Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Christ" after my then girlfriend suggested it to me after seeing an unrelated lecture of his. He is an historian who specialised in classical science and pre-Christian Judaism, and he also had no particular strength of feeling on the issue (and tended to assume the academic status quo was probably fine) before he was commissioned by a coalition of theists and atheists to do some post-doc research into the matter. After his research he concluded that it was more likely then not in his mind that Jesus was not an historical figure. Even if you aren't convinced by his conclusion, I found the book very interesting for the depths he goes in to Judaism after the destruction of the temple, the history of mystery cults, and the clearly literary and polemic (not historical) nature of the Gospels.
Oh dear heaven. Richard Carrier.
He is not an historian. He is a blogger and author, albeit also the holder of a PhD from Columbia in Ancient History. Leaving aside that recently deep flaws were discovered in it on publication that the examiner missed, he believes the following:
1) That David Irving never denied the Holocaust (written in 2002, the year *after* Irving had lost a libel case because he'd repeatedly and publicly denied the Holocaust).
2) That mathematical probability and frequency are the same thing;
3) That whisky improves brain function;
4) That the Big Bang theory couldn't be correct because it was first proposed by a Christian scholar (it is worth noting he has since dropped this position as he realised it was damaging his credibility);
5) Plus, he is a notorious sex pest who repeatedly lied about his philandering and eventually lost a major libel action over it - the judge commented drily that Carrier 'had provided no evidence in support of his position.'
Other concerns:
6) In the book you reference, he not only rewrote key aspects (particularly the Rank Raglan index) to make it closer to the life of Jesus, at the expense of the heroes it was meant to categorise, but wilfully misrepresented several key scholars, who were not at all happy about it.
7) The book was not, interestingly, peer reviewed by normal processes, rather Carrier asked four of his friends to write recommendations on it to Sheffield Phoenix, which was in the process of going bust at the time and seized on anything it thought might sell. He has since repeatedly described it as 'peer reviewed.'
Quoting Richard Carrier on the subject of the historicity of Jesus is the equivalent of quoting a creationist in opposition to Richard Dawkins on the subject of biology.
He is not an academic and he will never be one. Because his work is not reliable. In fact, I'll go further. It's fraudulent.
(The only person on that list who is in any way religious, so far as I know, is McGrath.)
It is worth noting that all of these are blog posts of one description or another. That is because to my knowledge there has only ever been one review of his book in an actual academic journal, which compared his knowledge to a first year theology undergraduate and his writing style to evangelical apologetics. Petterson's review is available here: https://relegere.org/relegere/article/view/702
In response Carrier accused her of being a Christian out to get him, which led the editor of Relegere to clarify Petterson is an atheist.
"millions upon millions of Americans have direct experience with the challenge of advanced age — either as their own minds and bodies ultimately slow down or as they watch it happen to friends and relatives. That same experience makes Americans immune to political spin on the issue. No matter how powerful your rhetoric, you can’t browbeat Americans out of a concern as obvious and relatable as the fact that age matters."
ny times
It does.
But it's difficult to believe it will matter if Biden is up against Trump, who is barely younger and has many other significant drawbacks apart from age and mental decline.
It will matter. 70% of Dem voters say he is too old. Incredible number.
As Luntz was tweeting the other day - Biden voters are speaking clearly and no one is listening on this.
When columnists on NY Times are saying he needs to withdraw and let a younger Dem continue the fight you know the tectonic plates are shifting.
It won't matter if he's up against Trump. Because better to vote for a doddering geezer who's a bit past it than a doddering geezer who's a bit past it *and* is a criminal, traitor and threat to democracy.
Do you honestly think they will stay at home or vote Republican in that scenario?
They think he's too old. So do I. Possibly even so do his cabinet. But he's the alternative to Trump and I'm pretty sure that will be enough.
Of course, that's Dems. How will independents react? Probably much the same way, in the end.
Which is why I keep coming back to the Republicans have taken leave of their collective senses not to vote for De Santis (who may be a nasty human being but isn't senile) or Haley.
Trump is confused, too old and a threat to rule of law, world peace and democracy. Indeed, he is threat to the very idea of rational thought.
But enough of US voters dont care.
At very best the election is on a knife edge.
But on a knife-edge is not a confirmed outcome. Quite the opposite in fact.
Can we drop ship them some white feathers to take out on their recruiting drives ?
We need to adjust to this bitter new reality. Putin is not going to be defeated in Ukraine, or not as we once hoped. He will not be forced to cede Crimea, he will not have to retreat to the 2013 borders
It's over, I think. It doesn't matter how much aid or kit we send to Ukraine, if they don't have the men they cannot prosecute the war: that's it. Done. Unless we are prepared to put our own NATO men in the field? But of course, we are not going to do that
Kyiv needs to seek a grim ceasefire and rebuild what is left of Ukraine, and NATO needs to make sure Poland is armed with nukes
I'll lose about a grand (Which is worth more to me than plenty here I expect) if M Obama becomes president
"I'll believe it when it happens"...
I'm the same as you. I managed to lay her at 7/1 last week.
The thinking seems to be:
(1) Biden is past it, and will either 'pass-on' or withdraw (2) It can't be another white man (3) Kamala Harris is a Dem minority woman, but unpopular (4) Michelle Obama is a Dem minority woman, but very popular (5) Therefore, it must be Michelle Obama who's in poll position
The trouble is that Michelle Obama has never shown the slightest interest in any sort of political career, let alone running for President, and you can't read across from the Clintons to the Obamas, despite the fact she's written a good book, done a couple of nice speeches and comes across well on TV. Also, I don't see the mechanism by which this all suddenly changes at the 11th hour at the Convention and she's magically coronated even if she wanted to be: she'd be untested (entirely), Kamala would have first dibs at Biden's running mate and, even if she fell under a bus, others would certainly compete for it.
Because many people really believe in (1) to (5) they simply ignore this.
This is name recognition and falls into the same category as the crazy prices available for Jeb Bush and Bloomberg available last time. Her price should be at least 40/1 (and probably north of 100/1) which makes this a very good value lay.
Good Queen Bess said she wouldn't try to make windows into people's souls.
PB Tories used to say Britain should concentrate on helping Christian refugees, rather than Muslim ones.
Now, instead of accepting a conversion at face value, and asking their co-religionist to help out at the Church Fete by carrying the tea urn, PB Tories are willing to run the risk of sending genuine Christians back to a martyr's death, because of their obsession they everyone else is abusing the system.
Well it’s one of those situations where any policy will be problematic. Like benefits fraud. You either have a policy that lets ne’er do wells in on false pretences, or a policy that sends devout Christians to be persecuted abroad.
Should asylum be based on the situation when you entered the country?
Getting baptised after you arrive here (or getting married or a cat) shouldn’t create retrospective rights
I mean so what if Jesus existed. The new religion had to come from somewhere and if there was a bloke, pale complexion, long flowing beard/hair who was making a big noise about something then all well and good.
And then people began to create.
You can perfectly reasonably say Jesus existed. Can you perfectly reasonably say he existed, he was the son of god and died and rose up again on the third day. And all the other stuff.
No. No I don't think you can so what does it matter if there was an historical figure, poor bloke, onto which all this was piled.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
I mean this is going to be an interesting "no true scotsman" conversation. I would argue going to synagogue is just a slow way of converting to Christianity - you've got to learn the basics. Even Paul started as Jewish.
So did a bloke called Jesus who was quite important in Christianity.
Well I'm not convinced of the historicity of Jesus, so I didn't use him as the example (and arguably even if he was a historical figure Paul still had more impact on the growth of Christianity then Jesus did).
I'm intrigued. Why would you take that position? No academics in the relevant fields do.
I had no particular interest in the issue and then read Richard Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Christ" after my then girlfriend suggested it to me after seeing an unrelated lecture of his. He is an historian who specialised in classical science and pre-Christian Judaism, and he also had no particular strength of feeling on the issue (and tended to assume the academic status quo was probably fine) before he was commissioned by a coalition of theists and atheists to do some post-doc research into the matter. After his research he concluded that it was more likely then not in his mind that Jesus was not an historical figure. Even if you aren't convinced by his conclusion, I found the book very interesting for the depths he goes in to Judaism after the destruction of the temple, the history of mystery cults, and the clearly literary and polemic (not historical) nature of the Gospels.
Oh dear heaven. Richard Carrier.
He is not an historian. He is a blogger and author, albeit also the holder of a PhD from Columbia in Ancient History. Leaving aside that recently deep flaws were discovered in it on publication that the examiner missed, he believes the following:
1) That David Irving never denied the Holocaust (written in 2002, the year *after* Irving had lost a libel case because he'd repeatedly and publicly denied the Holocaust).
2) That mathematical probability and frequency are the same thing;
3) That whisky improves brain function;
4) That the Big Bang theory couldn't be correct because it was first proposed by a Christian scholar (it is worth noting he has since dropped this position as he realised it was damaging his credibility);
5) Plus, he is a notorious sex pest who repeatedly lied about his philandering and eventually lost a major libel action over it - the judge commented drily that Carrier 'had provided no evidence in support of his position.'
Other concerns:
6) In the book you reference, he not only rewrote key aspects (particularly the Rank Raglan index) to make it closer to the life of Jesus, at the expense of the heroes it was meant to categorise, but wilfully misrepresented several key scholars, who were not at all happy about it.
7) The book was not, interestingly, peer reviewed by normal processes, rather Carrier asked four of his friends to write recommendations on it to Sheffield Phoenix, which was in the process of going bust at the time and seized on anything it thought might sell. He has since repeatedly described it as 'peer reviewed.'
Quoting Richard Carrier on the subject of the historicity of Jesus is the equivalent of quoting a creationist in opposition to Richard Dawkins on the subject of biology.
He is not an academic and he will never be one. Because his work is not reliable. In fact, I'll go further. It's fraudulent.
I had heard of number 5 on that list - and that made me discredit him personally - but I wasn't aware of any of the other points here listed that meant he should be academically discredited and was only aware of critiques of his work that came from a clearly theistic bent. I would personally say that the Rank Raglan aspect wasn't a particularly interesting aspect to me - I was more interested by early Jewish apocrypha and the literary purpose and construction of the gospels - but would again wouldn't claim I'm personally an expert nor care that much about the topic.
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
I'll lose about a grand (Which is worth more to me than plenty here I expect) if M Obama becomes president
"I'll believe it when it happens"...
I'm the same as you. I managed to lay her at 7/1 last week.
The thinking seems to be:
(1) Biden is past it, and will either 'pass-on' or withdraw (2) It can't be another white man (3) Kamala Harris is a Dem minority woman, but unpopular (4) Michelle Obama is a Dem minority woman, but very popular (5) Therefore, it must be Michelle Obama who's in poll position
The trouble is that Michelle Obama has never shown the slightest interest in any sort of political career, let alone running for President, and you can't read across from the Clintons to the Obamas, despite the fact she's written a good book, done a couple of nice speeches and comes across well on TV. Also, I don't see the mechanism by which this all suddenly changes at the 11th hour at the Convention and she's magically coronated even if she wanted to be: she'd be untested (entirely), Kamala would have first dibs at Biden's running mate and, even if she fell under a bus, others would certainly compete for it.
Because many people really believe in (1) to (5) they simply ignore this.
This is name recognition and falls into the same category as the crazy prices available for Jeb Bush and Bloomberg available last time. Her price should be at least 40/1 (and probably north of 100/1) which makes this a very good value lay.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
OT GB News website is partially paywalled. Who knew?
The state of GBNews' finances is a very odd situation. They claim to be the victims of the PC activism affecting advertising spend, but I know someone running an SME who contacted them with a view to advertising because their client base fit GBNews' audience, and they never got back to him.
The Labour front bench are saying that he 'fell for an online conspiracy theory'. I thought this was red-on-red infighting, but it appears to be the Labour line for his defence. Hardly a ringing defence, is it?
Labour (sadly) are committing an egregious error. At moment one, within an hour, they should have said "Whatever it says on the ballot Labour have no candidate in Rochdale, he is suspended from the party. Sorry. Sotto voce: vote LD".
If they’d done that, he’d still probably have won.
Looking at the list of Rochdale Labour councillors there are quite a few with what appear to be ‘Muslim’ names. I suspect some of them might sympathise with the candidate. Secondly, when the terrible event happened there were quite a few rumours floating about who or what lay behind it.
It was almost certainly not true, but as conspiracy theories go it was towards the more plausible end of the spectrum. That may not be saying much, but I suspect that in itself this won't be terminal to Labour's chances in Rochdale.
While it’s not likely to be true - the only reason it isn’t true is that if the alerts had been raised they were simply dismissed as another shout of “wolf”.
What I think is worth saying is that there do seem to be a lot of younger voters who don’t understand that you can’t have an opinion on everything because the real world requires you to keep quiet at times - and Israel is a prime example of no nice solution
Tell me about it.
This is a fight in which I have no dog, and no wish to have one. Really annoys some people.
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
Whenever wages or the cost of living get mentioned, the right get all huffy. We're no longer in the age of hair shirts - unless you are in the bottom decide (and we'll come back to them in a minute).
For so many people in so many decently paid and well respected jobs, it doesn't matter how hard they work. Money remains a concern. For most of the people in the jobs we claim are vital for society (lets take TAs as one example), wages and conditions are genuinely insulting.
We then conflate multiple issues together. Wages are low and the cost of living high, so we need women to go back to work after having a child. But childcare costs too much. After much complaining the government announces free childcare, but refuses to pay for it.
Thats the majority of people in the middle. At the bottom, that 10% is truly screwed. They pay a poverty tax - everything costs more (rent, electricity) with a very steep marginal tax rate to get through if they are able to try and work they way out of that decile.
Back in my day ( 1970s). We had kids at school who were living in council houses with one working parent who were genuinely poor.
By the 2000s aspirational Thatcher children had their decent hospital, decent school, a mortgage, their second hand Range Rover, and a sleeve of tattoos to show off on a modest TUI holiday. These people I suspect voted Brexit, Boris and detested the Labour Party as the high taxation party of envy. This is the cohort that has been screwed hardest by austerity. The working poor is again "a thing".
The reason (replying to @RochdalePioneers not you but on an iPhone and can’t be arsed to find his post) is the redefinition of the term “poor” from absolute to relative poverty.
Both have value as measures but the use of relative poverty in headlines and reporting means that *no matter how good a job the government does* the poor are always with us.
That creates a recipe for endless government intervention rather than solving a problem.
It’s not the case that no matter how good a job the government does, the relative poor are always with us. It is the case that some changes in overall wealth don’t impact on the relative figures, but it is possible to reduce the relative figures. You just need to do something different, namely reduce economic inequality at the lower end.
Fair point
But then it’s a misnomer - it’s about reducing economic inequality not reducing poverty.
There's a plaque outside a Friend's meeting house in Derbyshire that memorialises the life and death of an Austrian Jew who converted to Catholicism in an attempt to escape the Nazis, and ended up becoming a Quaker when in England.
Conversion in these circumstances isn't exactly new.
We took in Jews fleeing persecution and the Nazis, he didn't need to convert
She converted precisely because it increased her chances of escape, though the Catholic church went as helpful as hoped. The British government at the time, of course, made it very hard for Jewish refugees to come to Britain, regardless of all the self-congratulatory back-slapping that the country now indulges in.
Which is why my Grandma was the only one of her family to escape Austria, never saw her parents again, and lost family in the gas chambers.
I'll lose about a grand (Which is worth more to me than plenty here I expect) if M Obama becomes president
"I'll believe it when it happens"...
I'm the same as you. I managed to lay her at 7/1 last week.
The thinking seems to be:
(1) Biden is past it, and will either 'pass-on' or withdraw (2) It can't be another white man (3) Kamala Harris is a Dem minority woman, but unpopular (4) Michelle Obama is a Dem minority woman, but very popular (5) Therefore, it must be Michelle Obama who's in poll position
The trouble is that Michelle Obama has never shown the slightest interest in any sort of political career, let alone running for President, and you can't read across from the Clintons to the Obamas, despite the fact she's written a good book, done a couple of nice speeches and comes across well on TV. Also, I don't see the mechanism by which this all suddenly changes at the 11th hour at the Convention and she's magically coronated even if she wanted to be: she'd be untested (entirely), Kamala would have first dibs at Biden's running mate and, even if she fell under a bus, others would certainly compete for it.
Because many people really believe in (1) to (5) they simply ignore this.
This is name recognition and falls into the same category as the crazy prices available for Jeb Bush and Bloomberg available last time. Her price should be at least 40/1 (and probably north of 100/1) which makes this a very good value lay.
He hath risen.
Welcome back CR!
It's not just that they don't want a white man, it's surely that there isn't one that's particularly suitable, of any colour.
This Azhar Ali story does nothing to help the feeling many on the left have that anti-Semitism was just a stick to beat Corbyn with - especially considering that part of his apology was all about how much the "Labour party has changed under the leadership of Keir Starmer". Like, I wouldn't call what he said anti-Semitic as much as conspiratorial and stupid (and as far as I'm aware the facts are true; Egypt and the US did warn Israeli intelligence, it's just that they cared more about the West Bank than Gaza). But this is what happens when the serious issue of anti-Semitism becomes tokenised - a sort of team sport where if you're pro Israel you can't possibly be an anti-Semite, even if you share literal Holocaust denial on the platform you own (*coughElonMuskcough*), but you are considered anti-Semitic if you're anti Zionist (and just happen to also be Jewish).
“and as far as I'm aware the facts are true” You may wish to rethink your post, or how you are saying it - because your post is insulting as it stands. The intelligence failure does not confirm or support this conspiracy in any way, as you are clearly claiming it does.
The facts that I was referring to was that Egyptian and US intelligence had said something to Israel - not that Israel allowed the attack to happen, as I feel the part I wrote in parenthesis clearly outlines.
It happened before. It happened in the 70s war that intelligence missed it just like this time. No one on the Israeli side wanted this Gaza conflict, not least because there isn’t a single member of the Israeli cabinet today who can tell you with any form of confidence what the achievable aims of this war are, and what the day after, and all days after, of this war actually looks like. Netanyahu’s governments have been buttering up Hamas leadership with such a light touch and clandestine money payments for years precisely to try and avoid a pogrom like that one, the worst since the Nazi’s in the Second World War - the obvious outcome is the ignominious end of Netanyahu’s career, and for the more right wing elements of his support, most probably a long spell away from cabinet tables and ministries. Yet this Labour Party candidate is pushing the idea they wanted this, you are a fellow traveller by saying it can’t be completely discounted.
What are you a fellow traveler of, why are you dangerous? The truth here is exactly the opposite of the conspiracy being pushed. Some people won’t believe the truth when they get it. The truth will be lost to impressionable minds. You, 148, you are Donald Trump.
I don't particularly follow. All I'm saying is that the Israeli state intelligence agencies received information prior to the attack about the likelihood of the attack - I'm pretty sure that is public knowledge. I have also said that my conclusion on why they didn't act on that information had more to do with their belief in their own security prowess, their incredulity at Hamas having any ability to pose a serious threat, of bureaucratic issues or because their focus was on the West Bank (things that have also been discussed openly in the media). That is all I've said on the matter.
Yes, but why bother saying that? That’s not the bit that Ali was in trouble for saying.
I mean, I bring it up because I don't think his view is anti-Semitic as such - he is just falling into general cynical views of state actors in the post 9/11 age.
Excl: Investigation by @thetimes into the scale of abuse of Christian conversion in the asylum system has found: - Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & burglars avoided deportation by claiming they're Christian converts - Outlandish claims lodged included a "Christian" who spent a month going to a synagogue by mistake 1/8 With @GeorgeGreenwood & @inspirellie_: thetimes.co.uk/article/509b22…
Just distinguish between asylum seekers who are Christian on arrival in the UK and fleeing persecution, who should still be granted asylum and those who are not Christian on arrival but convert while here for convenience to stay who shouldn't
Do you have a direct line to God to give you the correct shibboleth? I mean, I could answer all the questions listed in the thread and I'm not a believer - how would anyone ever know?
Well you aren't claiming to be a believer so it wouldn't apply to you.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
And? Why is that a reasonable test of faith - some people may be in countries where a bible is illegal to have, for example. Whereas God may choose to reveal himself to anyone, no? Paul didn't have a bible - he had a vision, a Damascene conversion. Are you saying those aren't possible?
Not if he didn't already in the nation you were fleeing persecution from no
So if someone arrives here and says they have no knowledge of the bible or any rituals of Christianity, but they did have a vision of Christ in their home country and started preaching The Word, and this led to their persecution - that would be good enough for you?
No, as the Word is based on the Bible so they would still need to have some Biblical knowledge
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide. But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
This is what I thought when I went to Ukraine last summer. I saw all the men on crutches, arms in slings, etc, and I thought: wow, Ukraine is going to run out of men. I said so on this site
And here we are
To be fair Russia is also running out of a lot of men too
Comments
So either they were lying then about its success, or he is lying now about its failure.
Either way, treat his words with caution.
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1757028967607844907
Note, of course, that all of the 'frontline' NATO states already spend over 2% of GDP on defence.
Poland spends even more than the US in that respect.
What I think is worth saying is that there do seem to be a lot of younger voters who don’t understand that you can’t have an opinion on everything because the real world requires you to keep quiet at times - and Israel is a prime example of no nice solution
On Corbyn, your comments about Sanders, Germany and Johnson are whataboutery.
ny times
After Putin’s talk. I found Mongolian historic map. Don’t worry. We are a peaceful and free nation
https://twitter.com/elbegdorj/status/1756818696700657935
But it's difficult to believe it will matter if Biden is up against Trump, who is barely younger and has many other significant drawbacks apart from age and mental decline.
I don't know how Bondegozou can say the "facts" aren't true. It's an unknown.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/584088/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/#:~:text=It is a target of,of their GDP on defense.
Especially with Gorgeous George waiting in the wings.
And re: the news from Romford, at least that's one less by election to worry about.
There are multiple questions on the bible, baptism, the Trinity etc that could be answered on arrival in the UK and if you fail so does your religious asylum claim and checks can also be made with churches in country of origin, even proof of being in underground ones
This is a fight in which I have no dog, and no wish to have one. Really annoys some people.
Also Neil Innes was looking at a court case in 2014. Not sure how that went
The absolute hypocrisy of labour and the labour right on this just stinks.
Now that's a theory I can support.
I can't name a serious ancient historian of the period who doubts the reality of the historical Jesus. He is better attested than the great majority of names from the ancient world.
https://www.politico.eu/article/us-and-germany-a-reversal-of-fortunes/
..Scholz committed to spending €100 billion on buying new equipment and meeting NATO’s goal of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense. And while overcoming bureaucratic inertia has proven difficult, Berlin will meet NATO’s defense spending goal this year after all. It will play a key part in bolstering NATO’s defense and deterrence efforts as well, including the deployment of a brigade in Lithuania starting next year.
Furthermore, Germany has also become Ukraine’s largest supporter in Europe by far, sending both more military and economic aid than any other nation aside the U.S. The over €17 billion in military support Berlin has committed to Ukraine through October 2023 (according to the most up-to-date data) is more than a third of the U.S. commitment (€44 billion) and more than double that of Britain’s (€7 billion), making Germany the third largest contributor...
Ukraine has run out of men. The war is lost
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68255490
—John F. Kennedy,
June 26, 1963
“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”
—Ronald Reagan,
June 12, 1987
“I would encourage [the Russians] to do whatever the hell they want.”
—Donald Trump,
April 10, 2024
https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1756757792776769977
As Luntz was tweeting the other day - Biden voters are speaking clearly and no one is listening on this.
When columnists on NY Times are saying he needs to withdraw and let a younger Dem continue the fight you know the tectonic plates are shifting.
Do you honestly think they will stay at home or vote Republican in that scenario?
They think he's too old. So do I. Possibly even so do his cabinet. But he's the alternative to Trump and I'm pretty sure that will be enough.
Of course, that's Dems. How will independents react? Probably much the same way, in the end.
Which is why I keep coming back to the Republicans have taken leave of their collective senses not to vote for De Santis (who may be a nasty human being but isn't senile) or Haley.
My solution:
1. Disown Ali. Legally the person runs, not the party. Like the former Green candidate his name stays on the ballot, with a party ID, but everyone made clear he is disowned
2. Suspend the CLP. They heard his comments and then chose to select him. Doing so has brought the party into disrepute in 2 ways - they knew the candidate has a serious issue and did nothing, and then they chose to endorse him.
The end result? Labour show they are tough on bigots and reclaim the high ground. We likely get Gorgeous elected which will highlight the shithousery of the Workers Revolutionary Party and draw the sting out of a potential pro-Hamas vote.
Get it done. Or this will roll on and on and on like an SNP coverup of kids watching footie on a government iPad.
There's a solution to this but Dems are stuck.
Conversion in these circumstances isn't exactly new.
"Tomorrow is Pancake Day. Analyse and discuss its calendrical, historical, biblical and theological place in the Christian life and yearly cycle in 10,000 words".
Granted it's not without evidence, but for now it's pure speculation.
And there's no clear solution which is obviously less risky.
A spokesman for the Romford MP said he had been 'completely exonerated' after he was accused of rape, sexual assault and misconduct"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/12/met-drops-rape-case-against-tory-mp-andrew-rosindell/
Suella Braverman (numerous immigration myths spouted)
Nick Fletcher (“international socialist concept of so-called 15-minute cities” — see https://www.newstatesman.com/thestaggers/2023/02/fifteen-minute-cities-will-be-back-conspiracy-theories-house-commons )
Mark Harper (15-minute cities are “sinister”)
Andrew Bowie (more 15-minute nonsense)
Desmond Swayne (said NHS figures on COVID were being “manipulated”)
Adam Afriyie (bigging up Ivor Cummins, COVID conspiracist)
Anyone with a presenting gig on GBNews
But enough of US voters dont care.
At very best the election is on a knife edge.
What are you a fellow traveler of, why are you dangerous? The truth here is exactly the opposite of the conspiracy being pushed. Some people won’t believe the truth when they get it. The truth will be lost to impressionable minds. You, 148, you are Donald Trump.
It's not great to read, but it is necessary. They have run out of men. I know we all want to see them thrash Putin back to Moscow, but it is not going to happen
The best they can do now is seek a Korean-style armistice and freeze the frontlines where they are
https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/01/germanys-new-plans-for-transforming-its-defence-and.html
Can he perform without an autocue? He struggles even with one. I'm not being ageist, I'm 74 myself. He can't react to questions and he visibly shuffles. He reminds me of President Brezhnev. Or that woman in the Tesco ad who suddenly comes to life with Alzheimers. "I've got the power."
Trump is barmy, but that's priced in. Time to introduce Kamalla. Perhaps her against Nikki?
Was great in particular that time when he and his mates bunked off school and went to smoke Frankincense behind the bike sheds.
I accept that it is generally accepted that he existed (Josephus et al make the odd mention, so does Mark if we can believe that Mark existed also) but it is pretty meagre fayre when we have whole histories of those around him who were likewise (!) great men.
What is the line of argument “Jesus never existed” if it’s not Trumpesque?
Truth isn’t important to you. Disrupting is.
He is not an historian. He is a blogger and author, albeit also the holder of a PhD from Columbia in Ancient History. Leaving aside that recently deep flaws were discovered in it on publication that the examiner missed, he believes the following:
1) That David Irving never denied the Holocaust (written in 2002, the year *after* Irving had lost a libel case because he'd repeatedly and publicly denied the Holocaust).
2) That mathematical probability and frequency are the same thing;
3) That whisky improves brain function;
4) That the Big Bang theory couldn't be correct because it was first proposed by a Christian scholar (it is worth noting he has since dropped this position as he realised it was damaging his credibility);
5) Plus, he is a notorious sex pest who repeatedly lied about his philandering and eventually lost a major libel action over it - the judge commented drily that Carrier 'had provided no evidence in support of his position.'
Other concerns:
6) In the book you reference, he not only rewrote key aspects (particularly the Rank Raglan index) to make it closer to the life of Jesus, at the expense of the heroes it was meant to categorise, but wilfully misrepresented several key scholars, who were not at all happy about it.
7) The book was not, interestingly, peer reviewed by normal processes, rather Carrier asked four of his friends to write recommendations on it to Sheffield Phoenix, which was in the process of going bust at the time and seized on anything it thought might sell. He has since repeatedly described it as 'peer reviewed.'
Quoting Richard Carrier on the subject of the historicity of Jesus is the equivalent of quoting a creationist in opposition to Richard Dawkins on the subject of biology.
He is not an academic and he will never be one. Because his work is not reliable. In fact, I'll go further. It's fraudulent.
Tim O'Neill (Carrier's fellow amateur historian and blogger with postgrad history qualifications) gives a readable intro to Jesus Mythicism here:
https://historyforatheists.com/2017/05/did-jesus-exist-the-jesus-myth-theory-again/
Larry Hurtado summarises some of the key issues with Carrier's book here:
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/12/02/why-the-mythical-jesus-claim-has-no-traction-with-scholars/
Bart Ehrman, one of the actual scholars Carrier has attacked, comments on Carrier's misunderstandings of his own work here: https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/
James McGrath notes issues with the Rank Raglan scale here: https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2014/12/mcg388023
Luke Barnes evaluates Carrier's methodology here: https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/final-word-on-richard-carrier/
Stephanie Fisher discusses his misunderstandings of the historical literature here: https://rjosephhoffmann.com/2012/05/22/the-jesus-process-stephanie-louise-fisher/
(The only person on that list who is in any way religious, so far as I know, is McGrath.)
It is worth noting that all of these are blog posts of one description or another. That is because to my knowledge there has only ever been one review of his book in an actual academic journal, which compared his knowledge to a first year theology undergraduate and his writing style to evangelical apologetics. Petterson's review is available here: https://relegere.org/relegere/article/view/702
In response Carrier accused her of being a Christian out to get him, which led the editor of Relegere to clarify Petterson is an atheist.
It's over, I think. It doesn't matter how much aid or kit we send to Ukraine, if they don't have the men they cannot prosecute the war: that's it. Done. Unless we are prepared to put our own NATO men in the field? But of course, we are not going to do that
Kyiv needs to seek a grim ceasefire and rebuild what is left of Ukraine, and NATO needs to make sure Poland is armed with nukes
The thinking seems to be:
(1) Biden is past it, and will either 'pass-on' or withdraw
(2) It can't be another white man
(3) Kamala Harris is a Dem minority woman, but unpopular
(4) Michelle Obama is a Dem minority woman, but very popular
(5) Therefore, it must be Michelle Obama who's in poll position
The trouble is that Michelle Obama has never shown the slightest interest in any sort of political career, let alone running for President, and you can't read across from the Clintons to the Obamas, despite the fact she's written a good book, done a couple of nice speeches and comes across well on TV. Also, I don't see the mechanism by which this all suddenly changes at the 11th hour at the Convention and she's magically coronated even if she wanted to be: she'd be untested (entirely), Kamala would have first dibs at Biden's running mate and, even if she fell under a bus, others would certainly compete for it.
Because many people really believe in (1) to (5) they simply ignore this.
This is name recognition and falls into the same category as the crazy prices available for Jeb Bush and Bloomberg available last time. Her price should be at least 40/1 (and probably north of 100/1) which makes this a very good value lay.
Getting baptised after you arrive here (or getting married or a cat) shouldn’t create retrospective rights
And then people began to create.
You can perfectly reasonably say Jesus existed. Can you perfectly reasonably say he existed, he was the son of god and died and rose up again on the third day. And all the other stuff.
No. No I don't think you can so what does it matter if there was an historical figure, poor bloke, onto which all this was piled.
And here we are
Kate Osamor removed as a Labour MP for suggesting Gaza might be genocide.
But Azhar Ali, the @UKLabour Rochdale candidate, accuses Israel of deliberately allowing the October 7 massacre and he gets full support.
But then it’s a misnomer - it’s about reducing economic inequality not reducing poverty.
Which is why my Grandma was the only one of her family to escape Austria, never saw her parents again, and lost family in the gas chambers.
It's not just that they don't want a white man, it's surely that there isn't one that's particularly suitable, of any colour.
Discuss
https://twitter.com/guy999guy/status/1757023292811014158/photo/1