Sunak didn’t make a joke at the expense of trans people, it was at the expense of Sir Keir.
It was a joke about Keir Starmer, at the expense of trans people.
Imagine if the debate were about whether you can be British but black. And he stood up and said “Starmer can’t even define a real Brit”. We’d all be in no doubt he was making a joke at the expense of black people.
Seemed to me he was mocking Sir Keir’s u-turns, and the trans one was only 99% because Starmer said that was the percentage of women that don’t have a penis wasn’t it? How is that offensive to trans?
The same joke on black people would be had Sir Keir said 99% of black people weren’t really British having earlier said 100% were
The women don't have penises jibe is deeply offensive to trans people. I would have thought that obvious. It's crude and aims to delegitimise who they are and how they think about themselves. I don't think Keir Starmer should have made that comment. Richi Sunak regurgitating it as an unfunny joke to score points is worse again .
And yet I suspect many people in the U.K. don’t think that women do have penises. That’s basic biology (basic as in lacking the nuance of biological sex where nothing is 100% absolute). Just as PB is probably skewed to well educated, well off, I suspect it is not truly reflective of the man on the Clapham omnibus.
It’s a bit like Brexit. One professorial colleague of mine kept going on about how no one he knew had voted for Brexit. He didn’t seem to consider that this was because almost everyone he knew worked at university.
I find it hard to accept that a trans woman is the same as someone born female. Many of you will think I am wrong in this. I’d only ask that dissenting views are allowed.
I don't have to comment on the morality or decency of Mr Sunak's actions last Wednesday. For our purposes it is surely more important that it was the political equivalent of crapping his pants live on national TV.
I think TSE and I were both among those who pointed out that 'letting Rishi be Rishi' might not be the genius political move the numbskulls at No 10 thought it was
Sunak didn’t make a joke at the expense of trans people, it was at the expense of Sir Keir.
It was a joke about Keir Starmer, at the expense of trans people.
Imagine if the debate were about whether you can be British but black. And he stood up and said “Starmer can’t even define a real Brit”. We’d all be in no doubt he was making a joke at the expense of black people.
Seemed to me he was mocking Sir Keir’s u-turns, and the trans one was only 99% because Starmer said that was the percentage of women that don’t have a penis wasn’t it? How is that offensive to trans?
The same joke on black people would be had Sir Keir said 99% of black people weren’t really British having earlier said 100% were
The women don't have penises jibe is deeply offensive to trans people. I would have thought that obvious. It's crude and aims to delegitimise who they are and how they think about themselves. I don't think Keir Starmer should have made that comment. Richi Sunak regurgitating it as an unfunny joke to score points is worse again .
Stating facts isn't a 'jibe'.
Not a joke either, is it?
It was a joke about Keir Starmer's u-turns, which included a reference to a fact.
Ah, so it was a joke then. Glad it has been explained to me.
It was a bleeding obvious joke to anyone who watched it. If you're determined to join in with some manufactured outrage based on a partial quote, that's on you.
I wasn't outraged. I didn't understand it. Now I understand it, I'm still not outraged. Perhaps if it had been funny, I would be, but it was all a bit too contrived and weak.
Isam thought it wasn't meant to be funny, but I'm with you. I think it was meant to be funny, although it failed.
Drunkest person I have ever seen was at Twickenham in 2002, against the Saffers, we won 53-3.
He went to the urinals, unzipped his fly, and took out his shirt corner, not his John Thomas, and proceeded to piss himself oblivious to the fact he was pissing in his trousers.
Frustrated spectators are demanding ticket refunds from England’s win over Wales after arriving at their seats to discover they would be part of an alcohol-free trial at Twickenham.
Telegraph Sport has learned of chaotic scenes said to have “ruined” the experience, with fans having to choose between throwing away beverages and consuming them quickly in order to watch the game.
One source has described a man “downing” four pints consecutively from a cardboard holder after being informed by a steward that the drinks could not be brought within view of the pitch in his area of the stadium. Guinness is sold for £7.50 a pint at matches.
It is thought that many were blindsided by the revelation that they would be sitting in a designated, alcohol-free zone. A source, who spent £117 on a ticket and a further £14.70 for two drinks prior to kick-off, before a steward explained the regulations in place, has claimed that they were at no stage told of the trial.
The only visible signage was at the steps towards the seats and then at the seats themselves. Spectators had already bought drinks upon seeing those signs. No details of the trial, which imposed regulations on 627 seats, were outlined on the ticketing app, leading spectators to feel misled and frustrated
A friend of mine recently attended a football match at Hampden Park. He said many people left the queue for the vegan food stall when they realised it was vegan-only.
Drunkest person I have ever seen was at Twickenham in 2002, against the Saffers, we won 53-3.
He went to the urinals, unzipped his fly, and took out his shirt corner, not his John Thomas, and proceeded to piss himself oblivious to the fact he was pissing in his trousers.
Frustrated spectators are demanding ticket refunds from England’s win over Wales after arriving at their seats to discover they would be part of an alcohol-free trial at Twickenham.
Telegraph Sport has learned of chaotic scenes said to have “ruined” the experience, with fans having to choose between throwing away beverages and consuming them quickly in order to watch the game.
One source has described a man “downing” four pints consecutively from a cardboard holder after being informed by a steward that the drinks could not be brought within view of the pitch in his area of the stadium. Guinness is sold for £7.50 a pint at matches.
It is thought that many were blindsided by the revelation that they would be sitting in a designated, alcohol-free zone. A source, who spent £117 on a ticket and a further £14.70 for two drinks prior to kick-off, before a steward explained the regulations in place, has claimed that they were at no stage told of the trial.
The only visible signage was at the steps towards the seats and then at the seats themselves. Spectators had already bought drinks upon seeing those signs. No details of the trial, which imposed regulations on 627 seats, were outlined on the ticketing app, leading spectators to feel misled and frustrated
Drunkest man I ever saw was in a curry house in Ramsgate. Arrived by taxi, the driver of which brought him in and paid in advance for said chaps food. When his meal arrived he started to eat and ended up with trying to consume the tablecloth…
Drunkest person I have ever seen was at Twickenham in 2002, against the Saffers, we won 53-3.
He went to the urinals, unzipped his fly, and took out his shirt corner, not his John Thomas, and proceeded to piss himself oblivious to the fact he was pissing in his trousers.
Frustrated spectators are demanding ticket refunds from England’s win over Wales after arriving at their seats to discover they would be part of an alcohol-free trial at Twickenham.
Telegraph Sport has learned of chaotic scenes said to have “ruined” the experience, with fans having to choose between throwing away beverages and consuming them quickly in order to watch the game.
One source has described a man “downing” four pints consecutively from a cardboard holder after being informed by a steward that the drinks could not be brought within view of the pitch in his area of the stadium. Guinness is sold for £7.50 a pint at matches.
It is thought that many were blindsided by the revelation that they would be sitting in a designated, alcohol-free zone. A source, who spent £117 on a ticket and a further £14.70 for two drinks prior to kick-off, before a steward explained the regulations in place, has claimed that they were at no stage told of the trial.
The only visible signage was at the steps towards the seats and then at the seats themselves. Spectators had already bought drinks upon seeing those signs. No details of the trial, which imposed regulations on 627 seats, were outlined on the ticketing app, leading spectators to feel misled and frustrated
I was at that match (no, it wasn’t me…). Did see the greatest magic trick ever. About 10,000 SA fans, everywhere shouting the odds before the kickoff, nowhere to be seen after the game… A great day out!
Drunkest person I have ever seen was at Twickenham in 2002, against the Saffers, we won 53-3.
He went to the urinals, unzipped his fly, and took out his shirt corner, not his John Thomas, and proceeded to piss himself oblivious to the fact he was pissing in his trousers.
Frustrated spectators are demanding ticket refunds from England’s win over Wales after arriving at their seats to discover they would be part of an alcohol-free trial at Twickenham.
Telegraph Sport has learned of chaotic scenes said to have “ruined” the experience, with fans having to choose between throwing away beverages and consuming them quickly in order to watch the game.
One source has described a man “downing” four pints consecutively from a cardboard holder after being informed by a steward that the drinks could not be brought within view of the pitch in his area of the stadium. Guinness is sold for £7.50 a pint at matches.
It is thought that many were blindsided by the revelation that they would be sitting in a designated, alcohol-free zone. A source, who spent £117 on a ticket and a further £14.70 for two drinks prior to kick-off, before a steward explained the regulations in place, has claimed that they were at no stage told of the trial.
The only visible signage was at the steps towards the seats and then at the seats themselves. Spectators had already bought drinks upon seeing those signs. No details of the trial, which imposed regulations on 627 seats, were outlined on the ticketing app, leading spectators to feel misled and frustrated
What's interesting about this is that football is considering going the other way. I'm dead against reversing the ban on alcohol in the stands at football (I think it's top two divisions, not sure), it really is fine as it is.
Same, I am not keen on having booze in the stands either.
Sunak didn’t make a joke at the expense of trans people, it was at the expense of Sir Keir.
It was a joke about Keir Starmer, at the expense of trans people.
Imagine if the debate were about whether you can be British but black. And he stood up and said “Starmer can’t even define a real Brit”. We’d all be in no doubt he was making a joke at the expense of black people.
Seemed to me he was mocking Sir Keir’s u-turns, and the trans one was only 99% because Starmer said that was the percentage of women that don’t have a penis wasn’t it? How is that offensive to trans?
The same joke on black people would be had Sir Keir said 99% of black people weren’t really British having earlier said 100% were
The women don't have penises jibe is deeply offensive to trans people. I would have thought that obvious. It's crude and aims to delegitimise who they are and how they think about themselves. I don't think Keir Starmer should have made that comment. Richi Sunak regurgitating it as an unfunny joke to score points is worse again .
It is not offensive to transsexuals who've completed their transition and had gender reassignment surgery, because they don't have penises.
This is a key dividing line. If someone cannot live as their original gender, and are given some relief by a physical transformation, that is fine and it is cruel and ill-bred to remind them of their original gender constantly. However, a 'trans woman' who owns and enjoys the use of their male genitalia does not fit into that category, and there is a panoply of physical, psychological, safeguarding, sporting, and other reasons why their assumption of the female gender should not automatically have the weight of the law behind it.
Why should a woman have part of her body cut off to satisfy you?
It seems like such a deeply weird and creepy thing for people to say. What next? Hem length inspections? Mandatory makeup? Looking people indoors for being insufficiently elegant?
The real question is surely why should all of our legal, sporting, penal, education systems etc. be upended because someone with a working cock and balls who enjoys penetrative sex is claiming to be a woman?
The point that reassignment has been completed is the point where there should be a legal recognition of gender having been changed. That's a very logical and fair proposition, and one that eliminates a great many of the controversial debates we're seeing play out currently.
Sunak didn’t make a joke at the expense of trans people, it was at the expense of Sir Keir.
It was a joke about Keir Starmer, at the expense of trans people.
Imagine if the debate were about whether you can be British but black. And he stood up and said “Starmer can’t even define a real Brit”. We’d all be in no doubt he was making a joke at the expense of black people.
Seemed to me he was mocking Sir Keir’s u-turns, and the trans one was only 99% because Starmer said that was the percentage of women that don’t have a penis wasn’t it? How is that offensive to trans?
The same joke on black people would be had Sir Keir said 99% of black people weren’t really British having earlier said 100% were
The women don't have penises jibe is deeply offensive to trans people. I would have thought that obvious. It's crude and aims to delegitimise who they are and how they think about themselves. I don't think Keir Starmer should have made that comment. Richi Sunak regurgitating it as an unfunny joke to score points is worse again .
Stating facts isn't a 'jibe'.
Not a joke either, is it?
It was a joke about Keir Starmer's u-turns, which included a reference to a fact.
Ah, so it was a joke then. Glad it has been explained to me.
It was a bleeding obvious joke to anyone who watched it. If you're determined to join in with some manufactured outrage based on a partial quote, that's on you.
Sunak is normally a really great guy and Starmer isn't. That said, Sunak was bang out of order here
Sunak didn’t make a joke at the expense of trans people, it was at the expense of Sir Keir.
It was a joke about Keir Starmer, at the expense of trans people.
Imagine if the debate were about whether you can be British but black. And he stood up and said “Starmer can’t even define a real Brit”. We’d all be in no doubt he was making a joke at the expense of black people.
Seemed to me he was mocking Sir Keir’s u-turns, and the trans one was only 99% because Starmer said that was the percentage of women that don’t have a penis wasn’t it? How is that offensive to trans?
The same joke on black people would be had Sir Keir said 99% of black people weren’t really British having earlier said 100% were
The women don't have penises jibe is deeply offensive to trans people. I would have thought that obvious. It's crude and aims to delegitimise who they are and how they think about themselves. I don't think Keir Starmer should have made that comment. Richi Sunak regurgitating it as an unfunny joke to score points is worse again .
Stating facts isn't a 'jibe'.
Not a joke either, is it?
It was a joke about Keir Starmer's u-turns, which included a reference to a fact.
Ah, so it was a joke then. Glad it has been explained to me.
It was a bleeding obvious joke to anyone who watched it. If you're determined to join in with some manufactured outrage based on a partial quote, that's on you.
I wasn't outraged. I didn't understand it. Now I understand it, I'm still not outraged. Perhaps if it had been funny, I would be, but it was all a bit too contrived and weak.
Isam thought it wasn't meant to be funny, but I'm with you. I think it was meant to be funny, although it failed.
Drunkest person I have ever seen was at Twickenham in 2002, against the Saffers, we won 53-3.
He went to the urinals, unzipped his fly, and took out his shirt corner, not his John Thomas, and proceeded to piss himself oblivious to the fact he was pissing in his trousers.
Frustrated spectators are demanding ticket refunds from England’s win over Wales after arriving at their seats to discover they would be part of an alcohol-free trial at Twickenham.
Telegraph Sport has learned of chaotic scenes said to have “ruined” the experience, with fans having to choose between throwing away beverages and consuming them quickly in order to watch the game.
One source has described a man “downing” four pints consecutively from a cardboard holder after being informed by a steward that the drinks could not be brought within view of the pitch in his area of the stadium. Guinness is sold for £7.50 a pint at matches.
It is thought that many were blindsided by the revelation that they would be sitting in a designated, alcohol-free zone. A source, who spent £117 on a ticket and a further £14.70 for two drinks prior to kick-off, before a steward explained the regulations in place, has claimed that they were at no stage told of the trial.
The only visible signage was at the steps towards the seats and then at the seats themselves. Spectators had already bought drinks upon seeing those signs. No details of the trial, which imposed regulations on 627 seats, were outlined on the ticketing app, leading spectators to feel misled and frustrated
I was at that match (no, it wasn’t me…). Did see the greatest magic trick ever. About 10,000 SA fans, everywhere shouting the odds before the kickoff, nowhere to be seen after the game… A great day out!
It was a great day, I remember England being 50 -3 up at one point and we did a knock on/misplaced past and there was a bloke near us who acted we had lost the match over that one error.
For years that match really pissed me off, I was like, why did we have to concede that penalty, just imagine how great it would have been if we had nilled South Africa and won 53 nil.
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shrove Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Sunak didn’t make a joke at the expense of trans people, it was at the expense of Sir Keir.
It was a joke about Keir Starmer, at the expense of trans people.
Imagine if the debate were about whether you can be British but black. And he stood up and said “Starmer can’t even define a real Brit”. We’d all be in no doubt he was making a joke at the expense of black people.
Seemed to me he was mocking Sir Keir’s u-turns, and the trans one was only 99% because Starmer said that was the percentage of women that don’t have a penis wasn’t it? How is that offensive to trans?
The same joke on black people would be had Sir Keir said 99% of black people weren’t really British having earlier said 100% were
The women don't have penises jibe is deeply offensive to trans people. I would have thought that obvious. It's crude and aims to delegitimise who they are and how they think about themselves. I don't think Keir Starmer should have made that comment. Richi Sunak regurgitating it as an unfunny joke to score points is worse again .
Stating facts isn't a 'jibe'.
Not a joke either, is it?
It was a joke about Keir Starmer's u-turns, which included a reference to a fact.
Ah, so it was a joke then. Glad it has been explained to me.
It was a bleeding obvious joke to anyone who watched it. If you're determined to join in with some manufactured outrage based on a partial quote, that's on you.
I wasn't outraged. I didn't understand it. Now I understand it, I'm still not outraged. Perhaps if it had been funny, I would be, but it was all a bit too contrived and weak.
Isam thought it wasn't meant to be funny, but I'm with you. I think it was meant to be funny, although it failed.
Maybe it's the way he tells them.
I didn’t say it wasn’t meant to be funny
Sorry, Sam. When you wrote 'Who said it was funny?' I thought you were implying it wasn't meant to be a joke.
So it *was* meant to be a joke, but it wasn't a funny one.
Sunak didn’t make a joke at the expense of trans people, it was at the expense of Sir Keir.
It was a joke about Keir Starmer, at the expense of trans people.
Imagine if the debate were about whether you can be British but black. And he stood up and said “Starmer can’t even define a real Brit”. We’d all be in no doubt he was making a joke at the expense of black people.
Seemed to me he was mocking Sir Keir’s u-turns, and the trans one was only 99% because Starmer said that was the percentage of women that don’t have a penis wasn’t it? How is that offensive to trans?
The same joke on black people would be had Sir Keir said 99% of black people weren’t really British having earlier said 100% were
The women don't have penises jibe is deeply offensive to trans people. I would have thought that obvious. It's crude and aims to delegitimise who they are and how they think about themselves. I don't think Keir Starmer should have made that comment. Richi Sunak regurgitating it as an unfunny joke to score points is worse again .
And yet I suspect many people in the U.K. don’t think that women do have penises. That’s basic biology (basic as in lacking the nuance of biological sex where nothing is 100% absolute). Just as PB is probably skewed to well educated, well off, I suspect it is not truly reflective of the man on the Clapham omnibus.
It’s a bit like Brexit. One professorial colleague of mine kept going on about how no one he knew had voted for Brexit. He didn’t seem to consider that this was because almost everyone he knew worked at university.
I find it hard to accept that a trans woman is the same as someone born female. Many of you will think I am wrong in this. I’d only ask that dissenting views are allowed.
In order to purify your soul, the penalty for your beliefs is premature cremation. It's the humane thing to do - if that noted Humanist Sir Thomas Moore is to be believed.
Sunak didn’t make a joke at the expense of trans people, it was at the expense of Sir Keir.
It was a joke about Keir Starmer, at the expense of trans people.
Imagine if the debate were about whether you can be British but black. And he stood up and said “Starmer can’t even define a real Brit”. We’d all be in no doubt he was making a joke at the expense of black people.
Seemed to me he was mocking Sir Keir’s u-turns, and the trans one was only 99% because Starmer said that was the percentage of women that don’t have a penis wasn’t it? How is that offensive to trans?
The same joke on black people would be had Sir Keir said 99% of black people weren’t really British having earlier said 100% were
The women don't have penises jibe is deeply offensive to trans people. I would have thought that obvious. It's crude and aims to delegitimise who they are and how they think about themselves. I don't think Keir Starmer should have made that comment. Richi Sunak regurgitating it as an unfunny joke to score points is worse again .
Stating facts isn't a 'jibe'.
Not a joke either, is it?
It was a joke about Keir Starmer's u-turns, which included a reference to a fact.
Ah, so it was a joke then. Glad it has been explained to me.
It was a bleeding obvious joke to anyone who watched it. If you're determined to join in with some manufactured outrage based on a partial quote, that's on you.
I wasn't outraged. I didn't understand it. Now I understand it, I'm still not outraged. Perhaps if it had been funny, I would be, but it was all a bit too contrived and weak.
Isam thought it wasn't meant to be funny, but I'm with you. I think it was meant to be funny, although it failed.
Maybe it's the way he tells them.
I didn’t say it wasn’t meant to be funny
Sorry, Sam. When you wrote 'Who said it was funny?' I thought you were implying it wasn't meant to be a joke.
So it *was* meant to be a joke, but it wasn't a funny one.
Have I got this right now?
It was obviously intended as a joke, but it wasn’t that funny really.
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shrove Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
New poll data shows France's far-right National Rally party miles ahead of the centrist Ensemble! coalition — which includes President Emmanuel Macron’s Renaissance party — in the upcoming European Parliament election.
Drunkest person I have ever seen was at Twickenham in 2002, against the Saffers, we won 53-3.
He went to the urinals, unzipped his fly, and took out his shirt corner, not his John Thomas, and proceeded to piss himself oblivious to the fact he was pissing in his trousers.
Frustrated spectators are demanding ticket refunds from England’s win over Wales after arriving at their seats to discover they would be part of an alcohol-free trial at Twickenham.
Telegraph Sport has learned of chaotic scenes said to have “ruined” the experience, with fans having to choose between throwing away beverages and consuming them quickly in order to watch the game.
One source has described a man “downing” four pints consecutively from a cardboard holder after being informed by a steward that the drinks could not be brought within view of the pitch in his area of the stadium. Guinness is sold for £7.50 a pint at matches.
It is thought that many were blindsided by the revelation that they would be sitting in a designated, alcohol-free zone. A source, who spent £117 on a ticket and a further £14.70 for two drinks prior to kick-off, before a steward explained the regulations in place, has claimed that they were at no stage told of the trial.
The only visible signage was at the steps towards the seats and then at the seats themselves. Spectators had already bought drinks upon seeing those signs. No details of the trial, which imposed regulations on 627 seats, were outlined on the ticketing app, leading spectators to feel misled and frustrated
Drunkest man I ever saw was in a curry house in Ramsgate. Arrived by taxi, the driver of which brought him in and paid in advance for said chaps food. When his meal arrived he started to eat and ended up with trying to consume the tablecloth…
Did he have it with noodles or egg fried rice?
Napkin…
Rather like Tracy-Ann Obermans other half at a Michelin star restaurant.
We might end up with certain seats where only an unacceptable candidate can get elected, and the major parties will have to effectively disown the electorate.
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shrove Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
How about a Scotch Egg?
No, I think he quite likes his guests.
Then why is he serving toad in the hole? Gotta be roast beef.
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shrove Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
How about a Scotch Egg?
No, I think he quite likes his guests.
I quite like Scotch eggs! You can even make black pudding scotch eggs. How more British could you get?
Interesting. From what I can tell, most of the media have ignored this so fair play for Starmer doing the right thing rather than only acting after it's blown up.
Although, sending colleagues out to defend him won't have gone done well with them.
Interesting. From what I can tell, most of the media have ignored this so fair play for Starmer doing the right thing rather than only acting after it's blown up.
Hearing there are going to be some new revelations to break tonight/overnight in this story.
Sunak didn’t make a joke at the expense of trans people, it was at the expense of Sir Keir.
It was a joke about Keir Starmer, at the expense of trans people.
Imagine if the debate were about whether you can be British but black. And he stood up and said “Starmer can’t even define a real Brit”. We’d all be in no doubt he was making a joke at the expense of black people.
Seemed to me he was mocking Sir Keir’s u-turns, and the trans one was only 99% because Starmer said that was the percentage of women that don’t have a penis wasn’t it? How is that offensive to trans?
The same joke on black people would be had Sir Keir said 99% of black people weren’t really British having earlier said 100% were
The women don't have penises jibe is deeply offensive to trans people. I would have thought that obvious. It's crude and aims to delegitimise who they are and how they think about themselves. I don't think Keir Starmer should have made that comment. Richi Sunak regurgitating it as an unfunny joke to score points is worse again .
Stating facts isn't a 'jibe'.
Not a joke either, is it?
It was a joke about Keir Starmer's u-turns, which included a reference to a fact.
Ah, so it was a joke then. Glad it has been explained to me.
It was a bleeding obvious joke to anyone who watched it. If you're determined to join in with some manufactured outrage based on a partial quote, that's on you.
I wasn't outraged. I didn't understand it. Now I understand it, I'm still not outraged. Perhaps if it had been funny, I would be, but it was all a bit too contrived and weak.
Isam thought it wasn't meant to be funny, but I'm with you. I think it was meant to be funny, although it failed.
Maybe it's the way he tells them.
I didn’t say it wasn’t meant to be funny
Sorry, Sam. When you wrote 'Who said it was funny?' I thought you were implying it wasn't meant to be a joke.
So it *was* meant to be a joke, but it wasn't a funny one.
Have I got this right now?
It was obviously intended as a joke, but it wasn’t that funny really.
We're on the same page at last!
The main fault lies, I think, with the teenage scribblers who prepare his lines for PMQs. It wasn't the greatest of cracks under any circumstances, but a nimbler performer might well have figured it was inappropriate bearing in mind who was in the crowd and given it a miss.
Even so, it was a mistake rather than deliberately derogatory.
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shrove Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
How about a Scotch Egg?
Considered but thought too much sausage meat and egg given were toading it for main course.
Conclusion chez S family is Cullen Skink if smoked haddock can be sourced, otherwise pea and ham soup.
Interesting. From what I can tell, most of the media have ignored this so fair play for Starmer doing the right thing rather than only acting after it's blown up.
Hearing there are going to be some new revelations to break tonight/overnight in this story.
Initially they were saying that the local CLP was unaware of the candidate's comments, but it would be more surprising if none of them shared his views.
Sunak didn’t make a joke at the expense of trans people, it was at the expense of Sir Keir.
It was a joke about Keir Starmer, at the expense of trans people.
Imagine if the debate were about whether you can be British but black. And he stood up and said “Starmer can’t even define a real Brit”. We’d all be in no doubt he was making a joke at the expense of black people.
You can be British but black though, everyone but a racist says that.
If you have a penis, your sex is male.
That's not a trans-issue. If you want to transition to get your penis surgically removed and become female, then that's a choice you can have, but if you have a penis you are a man.
However you can be a man who calls yourself a female name and uses a female pronoun, that's a choice too, but it doesn't change biological reality.
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shrove Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
Liver pâté. Or smoked salmon with lemon. Quails eggs and celery salt
Sunak didn’t make a joke at the expense of trans people, it was at the expense of Sir Keir.
It was a joke about Keir Starmer, at the expense of trans people.
Imagine if the debate were about whether you can be British but black. And he stood up and said “Starmer can’t even define a real Brit”. We’d all be in no doubt he was making a joke at the expense of black people.
You can be British but black though, everyone but a racist says that.
If you have a penis, your sex is male.
That's not a trans-issue. If you want to transition to get your penis surgically removed and become female, then that's a choice you can have, but if you have a penis you are a man.
However you can be a man who calls yourself a female name and uses a female pronoun, that's a choice too, but it doesn't change biological reality.
You must agree that Sunak’s judgment is horrendous though.
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shrove Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
How about a Scotch Egg?
No, I think he quite likes his guests.
I quite like Scotch eggs! You can even make black pudding scotch eggs. How more British could you get?
Never seen one but sounds alright if you leave out the egg.
Better late than never. This is an essential move.
Labour has learned that doubling down, Cummings style, is not always the right answer.
Now begins the hunt for a replacement. But better a by-election lost there than a lingering smell over the party. Lib Dems should push in Rochdale. Evoke the glory days of, ahem, Cyril Smith.
I do think the hard core Islamic vote’s going to be pretty soft for Labour in the GE. But about time they weaned themselves off Islamist votes, that way does nobody any good. It’s the Labour equivalent of the Tories’ flirtation with fash vibes.
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shrove Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
How about a Scotch Egg?
No, I think he quite likes his guests.
Then why is he serving toad in the hole? Gotta be roast beef.
My son doesn’t eat beef (for fart related climate crisis reasons) which makes such dinners a faff.
I hope all other theatres and venues cancel his bookings. That sort of hate filled behaviour has no place. It isn't free speech to attack individuals like that.
Sunak didn’t make a joke at the expense of trans people, it was at the expense of Sir Keir.
It was a joke about Keir Starmer, at the expense of trans people.
Imagine if the debate were about whether you can be British but black. And he stood up and said “Starmer can’t even define a real Brit”. We’d all be in no doubt he was making a joke at the expense of black people.
Seemed to me he was mocking Sir Keir’s u-turns, and the trans one was only 99% because Starmer said that was the percentage of women that don’t have a penis wasn’t it? How is that offensive to trans?
The same joke on black people would be had Sir Keir said 99% of black people weren’t really British having earlier said 100% were
The women don't have penises jibe is deeply offensive to trans people. I would have thought that obvious. It's crude and aims to delegitimise who they are and how they think about themselves. I don't think Keir Starmer should have made that comment. Richi Sunak regurgitating it as an unfunny joke to score points is worse again .
It is not offensive to transsexuals who've completed their transition and had gender reassignment surgery, because they don't have penises.
This is a key dividing line. If someone cannot live as their original gender, and are given some relief by a physical transformation, that is fine and it is cruel and ill-bred to remind them of their original gender constantly. However, a 'trans woman' who owns and enjoys the use of their male genitalia does not fit into that category, and there is a panoply of physical, psychological, safeguarding, sporting, and other reasons why their assumption of the female gender should not automatically have the weight of the law behind it.
Why should a woman have part of her body cut off to satisfy you?
It seems like such a deeply weird and creepy thing for people to say. What next? Hem length inspections? Mandatory makeup? Looking people indoors for being insufficiently elegant?
The real question is surely why should all of our legal, sporting, penal, education systems etc. be upended because someone with a working cock and balls who enjoys penetrative sex is claiming to be a woman?
The point that reassignment has been completed is the point where there should be a legal recognition of gender having been changed. That's a very logical and fair proposition, and one that eliminates a great many of the controversial debates we're seeing play out currently.
The more extreme and noisy factions in these kinds of arguments aren't interested in fairness or logic though. They're out for total victory and nothing less will suffice.
New poll data shows France's far-right National Rally party miles ahead of the centrist Ensemble! coalition — which includes President Emmanuel Macron’s Renaissance party — in the upcoming European Parliament election.
Doesn’t surprise me. Half the country is furious with Macron for being borderline fascist (including most of my neighbours), the other half is outraged at him for being a woke lefty who’s sold the farmers down the river.
I quite like him, but dare not say so in polite company during my French sojourns.
Sunak didn’t make a joke at the expense of trans people, it was at the expense of Sir Keir.
It was a joke about Keir Starmer, at the expense of trans people.
Imagine if the debate were about whether you can be British but black. And he stood up and said “Starmer can’t even define a real Brit”. We’d all be in no doubt he was making a joke at the expense of black people.
You can be British but black though, everyone but a racist says that.
If you have a penis, your sex is male.
That's not a trans-issue. If you want to transition to get your penis surgically removed and become female, then that's a choice you can have, but if you have a penis you are a man.
However you can be a man who calls yourself a female name and uses a female pronoun, that's a choice too, but it doesn't change biological reality.
You must agree that Sunak’s judgment is horrendous though.
Does the Pope shit in the woods?
His judgment has been horrendous for years. As are Tory MPs judgment in having him as their leader.
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shrove Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
You’ve gone astray already by not serving up Chicken Tikka Masala.
But you could try a classic soup - leek and potato, or pea and ham - or black pudding fritters, or classic sausage rolls, or mini filled Yorkshire puddings (not before toad, perhaps), or bacon-wrapped dates (a very old British starter, look it up), or bacon-wrapped oysters, or Welsh rarebit. Or that great British classic of onion bhaji, of course.
As you won’t be able to beat the French with the cheese course, why not serve devils on horseback instead?
Not beat the French with the cheese???
Offer:
Good ripe Colston Bassett blue Stilton
Black Bomber cheddar
Dorstone goat cheese
As good as anything French. Probably better
My French copains will kill for Black Bomber.
Edit: Made in Wales, I believe?
Gallybagger mature.
Isle of Wight blue (award-winning btw)
Sounds wonderful.
Do you eat or inject it?
Don't you just pop one before bed on Saturday?
Please excuse my ignorance. I've never been to the Isle of Wight.
On Rochdale; the Labour folks there could have had an excellent candidate in Paul Waugh - a person who would be good for the House of Commons and a generally good thing, and chose an absurdity instead - which some of the members must have known. This suggests that local Labour people can be as ridiculous as Tory members. Not a good sign.
Total koranian clusterfuck for Labour in Rochdale. However they will get away with it because: Tories, huge poll leads
However I think this toxic combo of Wokeism, anti-Semitism, pro-migration, mad trans attitudes, crypto-islamism and on and on - is going to completely destroy them in office, and very quickly. They won’t have an answer because the party itself is fiendishly split and infested with vile nonsense
It won’t be great for Britain but at least it will be fun for right wingers, after 14 years of effete not-very-right, disappointing Tory governments
On Rochdale; the Labour folks there could have had an excellent candidate in Paul Waugh - a person who would be good for the House of Commons and a generally good thing, and chose an absurdity instead - which some of the members must have known. This suggests that local Labour people can be as ridiculous as Tory members. Not a good sign.
I've said for ages the worst thing to happen in politics in this country was to let party members vote on the leader.
When I joined the Tory vote I didn't have or want a vote to choose the Tory leader.
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shrove Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
How about a Scotch Egg?
Considered but thought too much sausage meat and egg given were toading it for main course.
Conclusion chez S family is Cullen Skink if smoked haddock can be sourced, otherwise pea and ham soup.
That's going to be quite a stodgy meal. Pea and ham soup is a lunch, not a starter. Find a Cullen skink recipe without any potato in it
As is said in the comments on that, this is too little, too late.
Disowning your candidate after shadow teams members have been defending him all day is just bad party management
It was clear he had done more than enough to be disowned as soon as it happened.
No idea how this plays out, but it is just another example of how easy some people find it to try to find ways to overlook anti-Semitic behaviour
BBC have just done it with an Apprentice candidate
And the incident at the Soho Theatre at the weekend
Just two very recent examples
They’re saying they’ve discovered more unsavoury comments from him. Must have done else they’d not have sent Lisa Nandy out with him yesterday
Has this ever happened before? A major party, fav to win the seat, effectively sacking their candidate
Galloway is 4/6f now
Yes, the SNP with Neale Hanvey.
Hanvey still won. I suspect there will be enough voters in Rochdale that agree with Ali for him to still win. Remember, most PB contributors won’t have a vote in the by-election.
On Rochdale; the Labour folks there could have had an excellent candidate in Paul Waugh - a person who would be good for the House of Commons and a generally good thing, and chose an absurdity instead - which some of the members must have known. This suggests that local Labour people can be as ridiculous as Tory members. Not a good sign.
I've said for ages the worst thing to happen in politics in this country was to let party members vote on the leader.
When I joined the Tory vote I didn't have or want a vote to choose the Tory leader.
A rare sign of agreement between you and I. Labour should abandon party membership voting for the leader 100%.
On Rochdale; the Labour folks there could have had an excellent candidate in Paul Waugh - a person who would be good for the House of Commons and a generally good thing, and chose an absurdity instead - which some of the members must have known. This suggests that local Labour people can be as ridiculous as Tory members. Not a good sign.
I've said for ages the worst thing to happen in politics in this country was to let party members vote on the leader.
When I joined the Tory vote I didn't have or want a vote to choose the Tory leader.
This fellow was one of their councillors for years and he got an OBE. He’s stood for them in parliamentary elections before. How did they not know he was a wrongun?
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shrove Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
How about a Scotch Egg?
Considered but thought too much sausage meat and egg given were toading it for main course.
Conclusion chez S family is Cullen Skink if smoked haddock can be sourced, otherwise pea and ham soup.
That's going to be quite a stodgy meal. Pea and ham soup is a lunch, not a starter. Find a Cullen skink recipe without any potato in it
Yes. Toad in the hole is a fucking stupid choice anyway
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shrove Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
How about a Scotch Egg?
Considered but thought too much sausage meat and egg given were toading it for main course.
Conclusion chez S family is Cullen Skink if smoked haddock can be sourced, otherwise pea and ham soup.
That's going to be quite a stodgy meal. Pea and ham soup is a lunch, not a starter. Find a Cullen skink recipe without any potato in it
Yes. Toad in the hole is a fucking stupid choice anyway
Although for a less stodgy nursery pudding, queen of puddings is a good one
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 9m Replying to @KevinASchofield The "new information" line makes it worse: it implies Ali's antisemitic conspiracy theory was acceptable
This fellow was one of their councillors for years and he got an OBE. He’s stood for them in parliamentary elections before. How did they not know he was a wrongun?
Everyone knew Johnson was a wrongun. Why did you vote for him?
Fortunately for the Conservatives, Rochdale isn't the most rural seat imaginable.
Presumably, as he was nominated as the Labour Party Candidate, Ali will appear on the ballot paper as the Labour Party candidate. It will be an interesting test to see if name recognition means anything or whether we all vote for parties.
There's the question of local campaigning - Ali has been disowned as a candidate but there's no alternative official Labour Party candidate so local Labour activists who wish to campaign for him are breaking no rules. There's a parallel of sorts with Zac Goldsmith when he resigned his Richmond Park seat and ran as an Independent and the dozens of Conservative MPs who came out to campaign for him.
Most Party membership rules state as long as you aren't campaigning against your party's official candidate, supporting an Independent candidate is fine.
This fellow was one of their councillors for years and he got an OBE. He’s stood for them in parliamentary elections before. How did they not know he was a wrongun?
Everyone knew Johnson was a wrongun. Why did you vote for him?
Because it was the only way to get MPs to honour the referendum result
Total koranian clusterfuck for Labour in Rochdale. However they will get away with it because: Tories, huge poll leads
However I think this toxic combo of Wokeism, anti-Semitism, pro-migration, mad trans attitudes, crypto-islamism and on and on - is going to completely destroy them in office, and very quickly. They won’t have an answer because the party itself is fiendishly split and infested with vile nonsense
It won’t be great for Britain but at least it will be fun for right wingers, after 14 years of effete not-very-right, disappointing Tory governments
"toxic combo of Wokeism, anti-Semitism, pro-migration, mad trans attitudes, crypto-islamism and on and on"
Still, makes a change from the boring old 'tax bombshell' doesn't it?
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shrove Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
How about a Scotch Egg?
Considered but thought too much sausage meat and egg given were toading it for main course.
Conclusion chez S family is Cullen Skink if smoked haddock can be sourced, otherwise pea and ham soup.
That's going to be quite a stodgy meal. Pea and ham soup is a lunch, not a starter. Find a Cullen skink recipe without any potato in it
Yes. Toad in the hole is a fucking stupid choice anyway
Not so. It’s something my beloved neighbours will never have come across before.
When properly risen, and served with proper strong onion gravy, it’s a completely new experience for someone brought up on Gallic cooking. They don’t do Yorkshire puddings, the closest they have is choux pastry which really isn’t the same, and they certainly don’t embed sausages within choux.
Few British dishes evoke a “wow” when removed from the oven. The effect is almost soufflé-like. Perhaps only Christmas pudding, haggis and beef wellington do that (but Wellington would be rubbing it in geopolitically, besides my son objects to cow flatulence).
Yes toad for main course does somewhat limit my starters but it’s happening.
Those are pretty standard benefits not generous benefits.
In that sector maybe but for much of the country pretty standard benefits are 28 days holiday (including bank and public holidays), legal pension contribution and no insurance.
On Sunak, although his PMQs trans jibe attracted much comment, his interview with Piers Morgan received little coverage but revealed more about Sunak's potential to be unpleasant, as well as his propensity to misjudge the views of the non-far-right electorate. I'm surprised it didn't get more coverage.
I'm referring to his allegation, by direct implication, that Starmer was a 'terrorist sympathiser' because in his lawyer days he'd acted for Hizb ut-Tahrir. It's really scraping the barrel, but it's also gratuitously poor politics because, whatever one's views of Starmer, you'd have to be pretty unhinged to think he was a terrorist sympathiser.
Interesting. From what I can tell, most of the media have ignored this so fair play for Starmer doing the right thing rather than only acting after it's blown up.
Hearing there are going to be some new revelations to break tonight/overnight in this story.
This fellow was one of their councillors for years and he got an OBE. He’s stood for them in parliamentary elections before. How did they not know he was a wrongun?
Everyone knew Johnson was a wrongun. Why did you vote for him?
Because it was the only way to get MPs to honour the referendum result
Interesting. From what I can tell, most of the media have ignored this so fair play for Starmer doing the right thing rather than only acting after it's blown up.
Hearing there are going to be some new revelations to break tonight/overnight in this story.
Gorgeous could cause Starmer no end of trouble and deliver a magnificent Con GE victory.
Rishi is a lucky General.
Nah, Galloway is a fringe figure with no purchase beyond the nastier adherents of one minority religion.
What'll deliver the next Con victory - in the GE after next - will be the complete mess that Labour makes when they get their hands on power and strive to do as little as possible with it.
If you're going to have Tories in power you might as well have the real deal, not a pale pink tribute band, which is what we have coming next.
Interesting. From what I can tell, most of the media have ignored this so fair play for Starmer doing the right thing rather than only acting after it's blown up.
Hearing there are going to be some new revelations to break tonight/overnight in this story.
Interesting. From what I can tell, most of the media have ignored this so fair play for Starmer doing the right thing rather than only acting after it's blown up.
Hearing there are going to be some new revelations to break tonight/overnight in this story.
On Sunak, although his PMQs trans jibe attracted much comment, his interview with Piers Morgan received little coverage but revealed more about Sunak's potential to be unpleasant, as well as his propensity to misjudge the views of the non-far-right electorate. I'm surprised it didn't get more coverage.
I'm referring to his allegation, by direct implication, that Starmer was a 'terrorist sympathiser' because in his lawyer days he'd acted for Hizb ut-Tahrir. It's really scraping the barrel, but it's also gratuitously poor politics because, whatever one's views of Starmer, you'd have to be pretty unhinged to think he was a terrorist sympathiser.
Had he resigned from Corbyn's cabinet I'd have more faith that he wasn't.
Instead my view of Starmer is he has no sympathies or principles and will do whatever and say whatever to further his own career.
If that means saying Corbyn should be PM, then he'll do that to set himself up for the future. If that means kicking Corbyn to the curb when he has a chance, he'll do that too.
Interesting. From what I can tell, most of the media have ignored this so fair play for Starmer doing the right thing rather than only acting after it's blown up.
Hearing there are going to be some new revelations to break tonight/overnight in this story.
Ali is a Hamas member?
Worse, he puts pineapple on his pizzas.
Python coding quant. No unit tests.
Say what you like about Arkan, but he never advocated a language that used indenting for flow control.
Interesting. From what I can tell, most of the media have ignored this so fair play for Starmer doing the right thing rather than only acting after it's blown up.
Hearing there are going to be some new revelations to break tonight/overnight in this story.
Ali is a Hamas member?
That would positively bugger up Gorgeous's "friend of Sadam" ISP.
This fellow was one of their councillors for years and he got an OBE. He’s stood for them in parliamentary elections before. How did they not know he was a wrongun?
Everyone knew Johnson was a wrongun. Why did you vote for him?
Because it was the only way to get MPs to honour the referendum result
On Sunak, although his PMQs trans jibe attracted much comment, his interview with Piers Morgan received little coverage but revealed more about Sunak's potential to be unpleasant, as well as his propensity to misjudge the views of the non-far-right electorate. I'm surprised it didn't get more coverage.
I'm referring to his allegation, by direct implication, that Starmer was a 'terrorist sympathiser' because in his lawyer days he'd acted for Hizb ut-Tahrir. It's really scraping the barrel, but it's also gratuitously poor politics because, whatever one's views of Starmer, you'd have to be pretty unhinged to think he was a terrorist sympathiser.
Isn't there a er.... somewhat lefty position that Starmer is supporting the Terrorist State of... Israel?
On Sunak, although his PMQs trans jibe attracted much comment, his interview with Piers Morgan received little coverage but revealed more about Sunak's potential to be unpleasant, as well as his propensity to misjudge the views of the non-far-right electorate. I'm surprised it didn't get more coverage.
I'm referring to his allegation, by direct implication, that Starmer was a 'terrorist sympathiser' because in his lawyer days he'd acted for Hizb ut-Tahrir. It's really scraping the barrel, but it's also gratuitously poor politics because, whatever one's views of Starmer, you'd have to be pretty unhinged to think he was a terrorist sympathiser.
Isn't there a er.... somewhat lefty position that Starmer is supporting the Terrorist State of... Israel?
This fellow was one of their councillors for years and he got an OBE. He’s stood for them in parliamentary elections before. How did they not know he was a wrongun?
Everyone knew Johnson was a wrongun. Why did you vote for him?
Because being a wrongun isn't the end of the world.
Starmer has the same levels of integrity as Johnson but he'll probably win the next election too.
This fellow was one of their councillors for years and he got an OBE. He’s stood for them in parliamentary elections before. How did they not know he was a wrongun?
Everyone knew Johnson was a wrongun. Why did you vote for him?
Because it was the only way to get MPs to honour the referendum result
A very poor excuse indeed.
No, that’s the main reason I voted Tory too, and the awfulness of Corbyn.
On Sunak, although his PMQs trans jibe attracted much comment, his interview with Piers Morgan received little coverage but revealed more about Sunak's potential to be unpleasant, as well as his propensity to misjudge the views of the non-far-right electorate. I'm surprised it didn't get more coverage.
I'm referring to his allegation, by direct implication, that Starmer was a 'terrorist sympathiser' because in his lawyer days he'd acted for Hizb ut-Tahrir. It's really scraping the barrel, but it's also gratuitously poor politics because, whatever one's views of Starmer, you'd have to be pretty unhinged to think he was a terrorist sympathiser.
It was on the Piers Morgan show on Talk TV. Of course it didn't get much coverage.
Talking of which, anyone bothering to watch the RIshi Sunak Hour on GB News? (Me neither.)
Even if you buy into the "get the RefUK defectors back and the polls are only as bad as they were in 1997" theory, this can't be a good use of Prime Ministerial time. He'd get more audience going on Mike and Snoo (your Morning Crew) on Radio Countyshire.
Comments
It’s a bit like Brexit. One professorial colleague of mine kept going on about how no one he knew had voted for Brexit. He didn’t seem to consider that this was because almost everyone he knew worked at university.
I find it hard to accept that a trans woman is the same as someone born female. Many of you will think I am wrong in this. I’d only ask that dissenting views are allowed.
I think TSE and I were both among those who pointed out that 'letting Rishi be Rishi' might not be the genius political move the numbskulls at No 10 thought it was
Isam thought it wasn't meant to be funny, but I'm with you. I think it was meant to be funny, although it failed.
Maybe it's the way he tells them.
He said many people left the queue for the vegan food stall when they realised it was vegan-only.
A great day out!
The point that reassignment has been completed is the point where there should be a legal recognition of gender having been changed. That's a very logical and fair proposition, and one that eliminates a great many of the controversial debates we're seeing play out currently.
For years that match really pissed me off, I was like, why did we have to concede that penalty, just imagine how great it would have been if we had nilled South Africa and won 53 nil.
So it *was* meant to be a joke, but it wasn't a funny one.
Have I got this right now?
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1757127641977524676?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
What are the new comments?
https://twitter.com/POLITICOEurope/status/1757093730270515608
Although he was not bladdered at the time.
https://www.finedininglovers.com/article/actress-slams-pretentious-three-star-restaurant-after-husband-eats-napkin
Gotta be roast beef.
Disowning your candidate after shadow teams members have been defending him all day is just bad party management
It was clear he had done more than enough to be disowned as soon as it happened.
No idea how this plays out, but it is just another example of how easy some people find it to try to find ways to overlook anti-Semitic behaviour
BBC have just done it with an Apprentice candidate
And the incident at the Soho Theatre at the weekend
Just two very recent examples
You can even make black pudding scotch eggs. How more British could you get?
Although, sending colleagues out to defend him won't have gone done well with them.
Natasha Clark
@NatashaC
·
4m
·
Breaking: Labour withdraw support for Ali in Rochdale
Azhar Ali is understood to be suspended from the Labour party pending investigation.
Clearly fake Tory offence, as claimed on here.
https://x.com/afneil/status/1757129534837493904?s=61
The main fault lies, I think, with the teenage scribblers who prepare his lines for PMQs. It wasn't the greatest of cracks under any circumstances, but a nimbler performer might well have figured it was inappropriate bearing in mind who was in the crowd and given it a miss.
Even so, it was a mistake rather than deliberately derogatory.
I don't like faux outrage either.
Conclusion chez S family is Cullen Skink if smoked haddock can be sourced, otherwise pea and ham soup.
I bet everyone who stuck up for him feels like they’ve been mugged off. Deservedly so.
Has this ever happened before? A major party, fav to win the seat, effectively sacking their
candidate
Galloway is 4/6f now
If you have a penis, your sex is male.
That's not a trans-issue. If you want to transition to get your penis surgically removed and become female, then that's a choice you can have, but if you have a penis you are a man.
However you can be a man who calls yourself a female name and uses a female pronoun, that's a choice too, but it doesn't change biological reality.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/feb/12/soho-theatre-apologises-after-comedian-abused-jewish-audience-member
Now begins the hunt for a replacement. But better a by-election lost there than a lingering smell over the party. Lib Dems should push in Rochdale. Evoke the glory days of, ahem, Cyril Smith.
I do think the hard core Islamic vote’s going to be pretty soft for Labour in the GE. But about time they weaned themselves off Islamist votes, that way does nobody any good. It’s the Labour equivalent of the Tories’ flirtation with fash vibes.
Not sure how mind.
Wasn't this a Liberal seat back in the day??
LP: Did you say this?
AA: Yes.
LP: Piss off.
I hope all other theatres and venues cancel his bookings. That sort of hate filled behaviour has no place. It isn't free speech to attack individuals like that.
Liberals yo yoing in Rochdle on BF.
3.5 and then 17 and then 2.5 and now 5.8
Small market noise I guess??
Have your kimonos at the ready...
https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1757037551473266772/photo/1
I quite like him, but dare not say so in polite company during my French sojourns.
His judgment has been horrendous for years. As are Tory MPs judgment in having him as their leader.
Please excuse my ignorance. I've never been to the Isle of Wight.
However I think this toxic combo of Wokeism, anti-Semitism, pro-migration, mad trans attitudes, crypto-islamism and on and on - is going to completely destroy them in office, and very quickly. They won’t have an answer because the party itself is fiendishly split and infested with vile nonsense
It won’t be great for Britain but at least it will be fun for right wingers, after 14 years of effete not-very-right, disappointing Tory governments
When I joined the Tory vote I didn't have or want a vote to choose the Tory leader.
Louise Ellmann came out to defend him, this isn’t like the days of Corbyn unless you think she’s had a brain transplant.
They’re right to remove him of course.
https://x.com/newhamindparty/status/1757080069808312397?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
This fellow was one of their councillors for years and he got an OBE. He’s stood for them in parliamentary elections before. How did they not know he was a wrongun?
@JohnRentoul
·
9m
Replying to
@KevinASchofield
The "new information" line makes it worse: it implies Ali's antisemitic conspiracy theory was acceptable
Gorgeous could cause Starmer no end of trouble and deliver a magnificent Con GE victory.
Rishi is a lucky General.
Presumably, as he was nominated as the Labour Party Candidate, Ali will appear on the ballot paper as the Labour Party candidate. It will be an interesting test to see if name recognition means anything or whether we all vote for parties.
There's the question of local campaigning - Ali has been disowned as a candidate but there's no alternative official Labour Party candidate so local Labour activists who wish to campaign for him are breaking no rules. There's a parallel of sorts with Zac Goldsmith when he resigned his Richmond Park seat and ran as an Independent and the dozens of Conservative MPs who came out to campaign for him.
Most Party membership rules state as long as you aren't campaigning against your party's official candidate, supporting an Independent candidate is fine.
Still, makes a change from the boring old 'tax bombshell' doesn't it?
'Don't you just pop one before bed on Saturday?'
Depends who you are sleeping with.
When properly risen, and served with proper strong onion gravy, it’s a completely new experience for someone brought up on Gallic cooking. They don’t do Yorkshire puddings, the closest they have is choux pastry which really isn’t the same, and they certainly don’t embed sausages within choux.
Few British dishes evoke a “wow” when removed from the oven. The effect is almost soufflé-like. Perhaps only Christmas pudding, haggis and beef wellington do that (but Wellington would be rubbing it in geopolitically, besides my son objects to cow flatulence).
Yes toad for main course does somewhat limit
my starters but it’s happening.
Or maybe I do toad for starter…
I'm referring to his allegation, by direct implication, that Starmer was a 'terrorist sympathiser' because in his lawyer days he'd acted for Hizb ut-Tahrir. It's really scraping the barrel, but it's also gratuitously poor politics because, whatever one's views of Starmer, you'd have to be pretty unhinged to think he was a terrorist sympathiser.
What'll deliver the next Con victory - in the GE after next - will be the complete mess that Labour makes when they get their hands on power and strive to do as little as possible with it.
If you're going to have Tories in power you might as well have the real deal, not a pale pink tribute band, which is what we have coming next.
Instead my view of Starmer is he has no sympathies or principles and will do whatever and say whatever to further his own career.
If that means saying Corbyn should be PM, then he'll do that to set himself up for the future. If that means kicking Corbyn to the curb when he has a chance, he'll do that too.
Still better than Sunak though.
Say what you like about Arkan, but he never advocated a language that used indenting for flow control.
Starmer has the same levels of integrity as Johnson but he'll probably win the next election too.
Talking of which, anyone bothering to watch the RIshi Sunak Hour on GB News? (Me neither.)
Even if you buy into the "get the RefUK defectors back and the polls are only as bad as they were in 1997" theory, this can't be a good use of Prime Ministerial time. He'd get more audience going on Mike and Snoo (your Morning Crew) on Radio Countyshire.