Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Following Hoylegate – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 12 in General
Following Hoylegate – politicalbetting.com

How closely did Britons follow news around the Lindsay Hoyle / Gaza ceasefire Commons vote?Very/fairly closely: 31%Not very closely: 26%Aware, but not following: 25%Not aware: 18%https://t.co/Kf55GLGUHl pic.twitter.com/cqA6Uujgbv

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,212
    edited February 24
    Blogging will be very light this weekend again, sorry.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084

    Blogging will be very light this weekend again, sorry.

    We'll have to talk cricket instead.

    England getting buggered by this annoying Jaiswal feller, again.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,924

    Blogging will be very light this weekend again, sorry.

    What's the worry? Later this year it's going to be hectic, have a rest while you can, we can entertain ourselves..
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,960
    Good morning, everyone.

    In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68388579
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084

    Good morning, everyone.

    In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68388579

    Will Liz Truss have to be disappointed?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,924

    Good morning, everyone.

    In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68388579

    Hardly surprising - replace the word Muslim with Jew and you are in to loop conspiracy theory categories...
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,606
    eek said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68388579

    Hardly surprising - replace the word Muslim with Jew and you are in to loop conspiracy theory categories...
    A line in the sand for the Tories. Will they go full Islamaphobic for 2024 or is it better to wait til 2027?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556

    Pleasant looking morning today; hope it lasts. I’m due to attend an online memorial service for an old acquaintance this afternoon. First time I’ve been to something like that. Hope it all works!

    Presumably you mean since your accident ... but very much agree.

    Crisp frosty sunny morning here.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,924
    Carnyx said:

    Pleasant looking morning today; hope it lasts. I’m due to attend an online memorial service for an old acquaintance this afternoon. First time I’ve been to something like that. Hope it all works!

    Presumably you mean since your accident ... but very much agree.

    Crisp frosty sunny morning here.
    I took it that the it was a first online memorial service not the first memorial service he had attended.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556
    O/T but interesting report. Unexpected side effect of Conservative policy (but also other things) - huge increase in will disputes.

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/feb/24/record-number-inheritance-disputes-england-and-wales-wills

    "The growth is being driven by the passing of the property-rich baby boomer generation, which has increased the financial stakes for descendants; increases in second marriages leading to stepchildren being disinherited; and a rise in dementia leading to more claims that wills were not properly drawn up. [...]

    The execution of wills by video link during the Covid pandemic could also be leading to greater challenges, lawyers said. They also cited the cost of living crisis as driving children to risk challenges simply because they need the money."

    I hadn't realised how eye-watering some of the legal costs can be. But equally the importance of writing the blasted thing properly in the first place. And having a lawyer do it who can attest if need be that one is capax/compos mentis.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,229
    Those seem like massive numbers.

    No-one I knew mentioned it and even I didn't care.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    edited February 24

    eek said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68388579

    Hardly surprising - replace the word Muslim with Jew and you are in to loop conspiracy theory categories...
    A line in the sand for the Tories. Will they go full Islamaphobic for 2024 or is it better to wait til 2027?
    They’ve been supportive of Lee Anderson so far so I think the answer is at least part Islamophobic.

    Here’s the line https://x.com/kevinaschofield/status/1761115423846641989?s=46

    They really are a bunch of arses
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,898
    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pleasant looking morning today; hope it lasts. I’m due to attend an online memorial service for an old acquaintance this afternoon. First time I’ve been to something like that. Hope it all works!

    Presumably you mean since your accident ... but very much agree.

    Crisp frosty sunny morning here.
    I took it that the it was a first online memorial service not the first memorial service he had attended.
    Yes, first online memorial service. When you get into your 80s, funerals seem to come around quite regularly!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,960
    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,606
    TimS said:

    eek said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68388579

    Hardly surprising - replace the word Muslim with Jew and you are in to loop conspiracy theory categories...
    A line in the sand for the Tories. Will they go full Islamaphobic for 2024 or is it better to wait til 2027?
    They’ve been supportive of Lee Anderson so far so I think the answer is at least part Islamophobic.
    If nothing else it is surely a bit insulting to Rishi to say that the Islamists are in charge now rather than the PM. (On pb we all know of course that it is Starmer who is really in charge and responsible for the ills of the world).
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,489
    edited February 24

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    edited February 24

    Those seem like massive numbers.

    No-one I knew mentioned it and even I didn't care.

    My experience too. Odd
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,962
    FF43 said:

    <
    Like car MOTs you want dentists to find and fix what's necessary but not more than necessary.

    However you get the impression the amount they fix is only slightly related to the state of your teeth.

    Over-treating is relatively rare according to Mrs DA. Frankly, most practices don't need to and they would rather do more simple procedures on different patients than more procedures on a single patient where there is a greater chance of complications.

    The usual bent car business fiddle is charging for work that was NEVER done, not charging for unnecessary work. Put a dab of paint on your sump plug the next time your car goes for a service see how often dealers actually change the oil compared to how often they charge for it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    Remember Chris Hitchens on “Islamophobia”

    https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristopherHitchens/s/ZIJKHatKs8

    Absolutely and chillingly prescient. What he foresaw has come to pass
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,043

    Good morning, everyone.

    In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68388579

    Labour expelled their Rochdale candidate for saying far milder stuff than this. If the Tories don't kick Anderson out for this it will be a very worrying sign of the kind of blatantly racist and Islamophobic campaign we can expect from them come the general election.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,606

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    Of course such criticism should be legally protected in a free society. As someone who dislikes organised religions generally I concur with some of it.

    However, criticism of the the criticism is also equally legally protected and reasonable.

    When Anderson talks about the Islamists being in charge, having control of Starmer and London belonging to Sadiq and his mates, it is just simple Islamaphobia, not reasonable criticism of a religion.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,043

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    Quite, but Anderson's comments - attacking Khan simply because he is a Muslim - are very much in the former category.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited February 24

    Good morning, everyone.

    In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68388579

    If being Islamaphobic and racist was a sackable offence we'd lose the leader of the opposition. if we carried it on to PB.Com we'd lose some of our most prominent posters.

    It struck me yesterday that denying Ms Begum the right to return because she chose to join a crackpot army on an immoral mission in a foreign land sounded quite wise if we could legally get away with it.

    But what about those British adventurers who have joined the IDF? On their return do they lose their citizenship and if not why not? Suppose Israel are found guilty of genocide. Will that tip the balance?

    We live in a very partial country at the moment and it's one of the reasons so many are so pissed off with the way things are.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,128
    Small violin time folks.

    Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.


    "In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.
    Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,606

    Small violin time folks.

    Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.


    "In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you

    At what rate would she be willing to clean the homes of other people and travel to get there?

    For me I'd start to get interested at around £100 per hour. I doubt she would be less.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,960
    Mr. Boy, indeed, I'm not in any way approving of Anderson's nonsense.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    Quite, but Anderson's comments - attacking Khan simply because he is a Muslim - are very much in the former category.
    Khan as a lawyer defended some really dodgy Muslim causes. He has admitted it


    “Among those he has defended were Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, when he tried unsuccessfully to visit the UK.

    He also campaigned to prevent the extradition to the US of Babar Ahmed who later pleaded guilty to terrorist offences.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-i-represented-unsavoury-individuals-when-i-was-a-human-rights-lawyer-a3183266.html

    Why did he choose those cases? And not others? These are legitimate questions
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,962

    Small violin time folks.

    Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.


    "In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you

    At least she won't have that problem if Tice But Dim wins Hartlegrad in the GE. She'll be able to get her entire house cleaned from top to bottom for two B&H sellotaped to an Aero.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,489

    Small violin time folks.

    Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.


    "In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you

    At what rate would she be willing to clean the homes of other people and travel to get there?

    For me I'd start to get interested at around £100 per hour. I doubt she would be less.
    I don’t think I’d do it for less than £300 p.h.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Anyone been enjoying Truss’ adventures in the US. When will the right get serious and stop her? Her ego trip and grievance is not helping them. A shrewd right wing would put her out to pasture.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,841
    Roger said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68388579

    If being Islamaphobic and racist was a sackable offence we'd lose the leader of the opposition. if we carried it on to PB.Com we'd lose some of our most prominent posters.

    It struck me yesterday that denying Ms Begum the right to return because she chose to join a crackpot army on an immoral mission in a foreign land sounded quite wise if we could legally get away with it.

    But what about those British adventurers who have joined the IDF? On their return do they lose their citizenship and if not why not? Suppose Israel are found guilty of genocide. Will that tip the balance?

    We live in a very partial country at the moment and it's one of the reasons so many are so pissed off with the way things are.
    How is Starmer Islamophobic and racist?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029
    ...

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    The flip side to that notion can be applied to the Labour Party who conflate Benjamin Netanyahu's policy in Gaza with Luciana Berger.

    I believe any terms of reference for "disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea such as Islam" (or indeed Judaism or Christianity- and the various flavours thereof) should be carefully considered. Anyway, why would you want to "disrespect" anyone's faith? You may have already tied yourself up in knots there Morris.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    TimS said:

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.
    Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.
    Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended Islamists

    And he has family links to extremist Muslims

    “The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
    Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html

    Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes

    Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,710
    The Tories shrinking base will like Anderson’s comments and I expect will also appeal to Reform.

    Of course if this had been a Labour MP saying a mayor had been taken over by the Jewish lobby there would have been outrage and the right wing media would have gone into overdrive .

    If you call out anti-Semitism but don’t call out Anderson’s comments then clearly the rules apply differently .

  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662

    Leon said:

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    Quite, but Anderson's comments - attacking Khan simply because he is a Muslim - are very much in the former category.
    Khan as a lawyer defended some really dodgy Muslim causes. He has admitted it


    “Among those he has defended were Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, when he tried unsuccessfully to visit the UK.

    He also campaigned to prevent the extradition to the US of Babar Ahmed who later pleaded guilty to terrorist offences.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-i-represented-unsavoury-individuals-when-i-was-a-human-rights-lawyer-a3183266.html

    Why did he choose those cases? And not others? These are legitimate questions
    He was a human rights lawyer and these were human rights cases and everyone, good and bad, needs legal representation. Come on Leon, you're a smart guy, you're better than this. Nobody who isn't a racist or a deeply partisan hack can imagine that Khan is an Islamist. Just substitute the word Jew for Muslim in Anderson's comments. He has crossed a line and needs to be sacked.
    No, it’s bollocks

    You are doing exactly what Chris Hitchens predicted in that video. Trying to shut down any criticism of Islam or Muslims by using the blanket term “Islamophobia” because it sounds like “racist” and no one wants to be thought of as a racist
  • Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.
    Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.
    Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended Islamists

    And he has family links to extremist Muslims

    “The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
    Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html

    Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes

    Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?
    Have you ever been able to choose your brother-in-law?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    ydoethur said:

    Blogging will be very light this weekend again, sorry.

    We'll have to talk cricket instead.

    England getting buggered by this annoying Jaiswal feller, again.
    Well played, sir.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,960
    Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.

    I said that doing so should be legally protected.

    Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029

    Small violin time folks.

    Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.


    "In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you

    The going rate for a s*** columnist and shock-jock hack is at least ten times that, and at the end of her hour the laundry still hasn't been done
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,810
    Carnyx said:

    Pleasant looking morning today; hope it lasts. I’m due to attend an online memorial service for an old acquaintance this afternoon. First time I’ve been to something like that. Hope it all works!

    Presumably you mean since your accident ... but very much agree.

    Crisp frosty sunny morning here.
    Morning Carnyx, was a bit grey to start with here but crisp and getting sunny now on west coast as well.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,710
    edited February 24
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.
    Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.
    Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended Islamists

    And he has family links to extremist Muslims

    “The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
    Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html

    Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes

    Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?
    Lawyers defend bad people shocker ! Who knew ! And now we’re onto someone who used to be married to Khan’s sister upto 2011.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    That's interesting. I heard Louise Ellman saying yesterday that being anti Zionist is anti semitic. Obviously not everyone agrees but just the fact of her having said it means you will now be deemed an anti semite and not welcome in the Labour Party if you say it or have said it. A good parallel to not supporting the tenets of Islam
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,489

    Leon said:

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    Quite, but Anderson's comments - attacking Khan simply because he is a Muslim - are very much in the former category.
    Khan as a lawyer defended some really dodgy Muslim causes. He has admitted it


    “Among those he has defended were Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, when he tried unsuccessfully to visit the UK.

    He also campaigned to prevent the extradition to the US of Babar Ahmed who later pleaded guilty to terrorist offences.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-i-represented-unsavoury-individuals-when-i-was-a-human-rights-lawyer-a3183266.html

    Why did he choose those cases? And not others? These are legitimate questions
    He was a human rights lawyer and these were human rights cases and everyone, good and bad, needs legal representation. Come on Leon, you're a smart guy, you're better than this. Nobody who isn't a racist or a deeply partisan hack can imagine that Khan is an Islamist. Just substitute the word Jew for Muslim in Anderson's comments. He has crossed a line and needs to be sacked.
    Nobody who isn’t a racist can imagine that… but you have to remember that some people are racists. Even some people who claim to be smart are racists.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.
    Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.
    Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended Islamists

    And he has family links to extremist Muslims

    “The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
    Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html

    Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes

    Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?
    Other than your guilt by association, do you gave any evidence that he's "controlled by his Islamist mates" ?

    "Worth noting" is fairly contemptible parsing of Anderson's bigotry.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,826
    Both Liz and Lee are chasing the batshit crazy vote, and both are fully at home and welcome in the modern Tory party.
  • Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.
    Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.
    Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended Islamists

    And he has family links to extremist Muslims

    “The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
    Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html

    Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes

    Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?
    Million dollar, cut the crap question is pretty simple though.

    Are Anderson's comments-in particular the ones about Khan being controlled by Islamists- compatible with his continuing to be Conservative deputy chairman, or even a Conservative MP?

  • Up to 1992 the Tories had an MP whose brother was hanged for being a Nazi supporter.

    Said Tory MP was a minister and also Harold MacMillan's son-in-law.

    Obviously the Tories, SuperMac, and Thatcher were Nazis in Leon's head.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Scott_xP said:

    Both Liz and Lee are chasing the batshit crazy vote, and both are fully at home and welcome in the modern Tory party.

    They’re not going to make progress until they ditch these egotists conspiracy theorists.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.
    Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.
    Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended Islamists

    And he has family links to extremist Muslims

    “The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
    Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html

    I magine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes

    Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?
    Lawyers defend bad people shocker ! Who knew ! And now we’re onto someone who used to be married to Khan’s sister upto 2011.
    Answer my point

    “Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes”

    How would you react to that? Honestly?

    Would you leap to the defence of the Tory mayor and say it is just coincidence, the cab rank rule, no one can choose their family members, or would you actually say Hold on, let’s look at this more closely

    I submit it would be the second and I am correct

    For the purposes of clarity it may well be that Khan is entirely free of any sympathies to Islamist causes, I am willing to be persuaded on that - I am close to people that know him and they are fairly favourable. However, he does not get a free pass, no more than a Tory would with similar associations on “the right”
  • eekeek Posts: 24,924
    edited February 24

    Small violin time folks.

    Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.


    "In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you

    The going rate for a s*** columnist and shock-jock hack is at least ten times that, and at the end of her hour the laundry still hasn't been done
    £20 an hour - given that the new minimum wage means from April 1st it costs £15 an hour to employ someone - I would expect £25 to be the going rate for a self employed cleaner down south for anyone not utterly useless..

    Got to say I looked at that article yesterday and the stupidity of it drove me away within 10 seconds...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029
    edited February 24

    Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.

    I said that doing so should be legally protected.

    Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?

    Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?

    I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,128

    Small violin time folks.

    Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.


    "In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you

    Nanotechnology hasn't advanced far enough to produce a violin of the required size.
    Perhaps a few more migrants in the Cotswolds would alleviate these dreadful costs?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.
    Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.
    Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended Islamists

    And he has family links to extremist Muslims

    “The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
    Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html

    Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes

    Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?
    Other than your guilt by association, do you gave any evidence that he's "controlled by his Islamist mates" ?

    "Worth noting" is fairly contemptible parsing of Anderson's bigotry.
    I haven’t mentioned Lee Anderson, nor referenced his remarks. Go check
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,810

    ...

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    The flip side to that notion can be applied to the Labour Party who conflate Benjamin Netanyahu's policy in Gaza with Luciana Berger.

    I believe any terms of reference for "disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea such as Islam" (or indeed Judaism or Christianity- and the various flavours thereof) should be carefully considered. Anyway, why would you want to "disrespect" anyone's faith? You may have already tied yourself up in knots there Morris.
    People should be allowed to have their own opinion , but they should not be allowed to push it on other people or threaten them in the streets , stop people going about their business or commit real crimes about it. In this country it seems you can abuse anything except Islam and Islamists who can do and say what they like with impunity. Police standby scared to say boo and they are allowed to blockade any street, business, school etc they like. Unless that is just a media apparition it does seem a bit off, best not to be a Jew or Christian in Britain any longer. People can interpret that how they like.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,099
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Blogging will be very light this weekend again, sorry.

    We'll have to talk cricket instead.

    England getting buggered by this annoying Jaiswal feller, again.
    Well played, sir.
    Jaiswal is still there though. He is currently averaging a somewhat obscene 76 after 8 matches. If England get him they may well go into the second innings less than 100 behind for the first time on this tour.
  • .
    nico679 said:

    The Tories shrinking base will like Anderson’s comments and I expect will also appeal to Reform.

    Of course if this had been a Labour MP saying a mayor had been taken over by the Jewish lobby there would have been outrage and the right wing media would have gone into overdrive .

    If you call out anti-Semitism but don’t call out Anderson’s comments then clearly the rules apply differently .

    Rules? From the Tories?
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,710
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    Quite, but Anderson's comments - attacking Khan simply because he is a Muslim - are very much in the former category.
    Khan as a lawyer defended some really dodgy Muslim causes. He has admitted it


    “Among those he has defended were Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, when he tried unsuccessfully to visit the UK.

    He also campaigned to prevent the extradition to the US of Babar Ahmed who later pleaded guilty to terrorist offences.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-i-represented-unsavoury-individuals-when-i-was-a-human-rights-lawyer-a3183266.html

    Why did he choose those cases? And not others? These are legitimate questions
    He was a human rights lawyer and these were human rights cases and everyone, good and bad, needs legal representation. Come on Leon, you're a smart guy, you're better than this. Nobody who isn't a racist or a deeply partisan hack can imagine that Khan is an Islamist. Just substitute the word Jew for Muslim in Anderson's comments. He has crossed a line and needs to be sacked.
    No, it’s bollocks

    You are doing exactly what Chris Hitchens predicted in that video. Trying to shut down any criticism of Islam or Muslims by using the blanket term “Islamophobia” because it sounds like “racist” and no one wants to be thought of as a racist
    I’m anti religion in general. You’re moaning over an issue which also seems to be evident in the anti -Semitism debate .
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,878
    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.
    Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.
    Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended Islamists

    And he has family links to extremist Muslims

    “The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
    Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html

    I magine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes

    Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?
    Lawyers defend bad people shocker ! Who knew ! And now we’re onto someone who used to be married to Khan’s sister upto 2011.
    Answer my point

    “Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes”

    How would you react to that? Honestly?

    Would you leap to the defence of the Tory mayor and say it is just coincidence, the cab rank rule, no one can choose their family members, or would you actually say Hold on, let’s look at this more closely

    I submit it would be the second and I am correct

    For the purposes of clarity it may well be that Khan is entirely free of any sympathies to Islamist causes, I am willing to be persuaded on that - I am close to people that know him and they are fairly favourable. However, he does not get a free pass, no more than a Tory would with similar associations on “the right”
    Have you seen the damage done by the far-right ULEZ bombers to this van?

    Could have killed someone, and all because they don't like Khan for some reason:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12836717/Mystery-ULEZ-camera-EXPLODES-street-cut-vigilantes-police-launch-probe.html
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,960
    Mr. Pete, the example you cite is property damage and already illegal.

    I'd also repeat to you my questions from before, given you're still foursquare behind the notion of making disrespecting a religion contrary to the law.

    Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,043
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    Quite, but Anderson's comments - attacking Khan simply because he is a Muslim - are very much in the former category.
    Khan as a lawyer defended some really dodgy Muslim causes. He has admitted it


    “Among those he has defended were Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, when he tried unsuccessfully to visit the UK.

    He also campaigned to prevent the extradition to the US of Babar Ahmed who later pleaded guilty to terrorist offences.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-i-represented-unsavoury-individuals-when-i-was-a-human-rights-lawyer-a3183266.html

    Why did he choose those cases? And not others? These are legitimate questions
    He was a human rights lawyer and these were human rights cases and everyone, good and bad, needs legal representation. Come on Leon, you're a smart guy, you're better than this. Nobody who isn't a racist or a deeply partisan hack can imagine that Khan is an Islamist. Just substitute the word Jew for Muslim in Anderson's comments. He has crossed a line and needs to be sacked.
    No, it’s bollocks

    You are doing exactly what Chris Hitchens predicted in that video. Trying to shut down any criticism of Islam or Muslims by using the blanket term “Islamophobia” because it sounds like “racist” and no one wants to be thought of as a racist
    Okay maybe you are neither a smart guy nor better than this, good to know.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,841
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.
    Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.
    Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended Islamists

    And he has family links to extremist Muslims

    “The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
    Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html

    I magine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes

    Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?
    Lawyers defend bad people shocker ! Who knew ! And now we’re onto someone who used to be married to Khan’s sister upto 2011.
    Answer my point

    “Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes”

    How would you react to that? Honestly?

    Would you leap to the defence of the Tory mayor and say it is just coincidence, the cab rank rule, no one can choose their family members, or would you actually say Hold on, let’s look at this more closely

    I submit it would be the second and I am correct

    For the purposes of clarity it may well be that Khan is entirely free of any sympathies to Islamist causes, I am willing to be persuaded on that - I am close to people that know him and they are fairly favourable. However, he does not get a free pass, no more than a Tory would with similar associations on “the right”
    Have you seen the damage done by the far-right ULEZ bombers to this van?

    Could have killed someone, and all because they don't like Khan for some reason:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12836717/Mystery-ULEZ-camera-EXPLODES-street-cut-vigilantes-police-launch-probe.html
    That's horrible, and I hope they catch the gits who did it.

    However, I just cannot resist...

    You Were Only Supposed To Blow The Bloody Doors Off!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_PX1cVuaVA
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029

    Up to 1992 the Tories had an MP whose brother was hanged for being a Nazi supporter.

    Said Tory MP was a minister and also Harold MacMillan's son-in-law.

    Obviously the Tories, SuperMac, and Thatcher were Nazis in Leon's head.

    Neither has Leon got this notion of the cab rank system for defence lawyers. His assumption is thus; if a Lawyer defends Lucy Letby they must approve of infanticide.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662

    Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.

    I said that doing so should be legally protected.

    Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?

    Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?

    I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.
    One of the main achievements of the Enlightenment was the rolling back of all blasphemy laws, allowing us not just to quietly dislike or disavow religious faith, but to mock it and scoff at it - ie to disrespect it

    I believe the very last blasphemy laws were only repealed in the late 20th century, so this took CENTURIES of brave humans willing to stand up to religious nutters and risk the wrath of the church (as it was)

    Now in a few short years we have gone right back to the 16th century and this time it is Islam which demands respect if not slavish submission, and there is a teacher from Baltey who is in hiding to prove this

    It’s shameful and craven. We are a defeated, cowardly culture, as we saw in the Commons last week
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,826

    And she really isn't doing the Conservatives any good.

    She isn't trying to do the Conservatives any good.

    It's a grift.

    She learned from BoZo.
  • Does anyone still do YouGov surveys ?

    By my rough calculation its now paying way below minimum wage.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Small violin time folks.

    Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.


    "In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you

    The going rate for a s*** columnist and shock-jock hack is at least ten times that, and at the end of her hour the laundry still hasn't been done
    As John Junor might have said when writing for The Telegraph's soulmate.....

    ...........'Pass-the sick-bag Alice'
  • TresTres Posts: 2,204
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    No-one appears to have suggested Lee Anderson be arrested! Just that maybe lying and inflaming tensions means he should lose the whip.
    Saying Khan is controlled by Islamists “who are his mates” based on zero, nothing, other than his faith, is Islamophobia. Khan is dull. He’s not an Islamist.
    Except as a lawyer he strenuously defended Islamists

    And he has family links to extremist Muslims

    “The links of mayoral hopeful Sadiq Khan’s former brother-in-law to one of the UK’s most notorious extremist organisations are revealed today.
    Top London lawyer Makbool Javaid was married to the Labour Party candidate’s sister Farhat Khan until 2011.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exposed-sadiq-khans-family-links-to-extremist-organisation-a3179066.html

    Imagine if a Tory London mayor was an ex lawyer known for defending the human rights of Nazis in court. Imagine if it was then revealed that his brother in law is a Nazi involved in far right causes

    Would you just laugh that off? Accuse people of being racist for mentioning it? Or would you say Hmmm, these things are worth noting?
    do you still hiss at woman in burkhas?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556

    Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.

    I said that doing so should be legally protected.

    Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?

    Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?

    I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.
    Hang on - 'daub' does mean ' to paint'. *confused*
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029
    Leon said:

    Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.

    I said that doing so should be legally protected.

    Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?

    Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?

    I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.
    One of the main achievements of the Enlightenment was the rolling back of all blasphemy laws, allowing us not just to quietly dislike or disavow religious faith, but to mock it and scoff at it - ie to disrespect it

    I believe the very last blasphemy laws were only repealed in the late 20th century, so this took CENTURIES of brave humans willing to stand up to religious nutters and risk the wrath of the church (as it was)

    Now in a few short years we have gone right back to the 16th century and this time it is Islam which demands respect if not slavish submission, and there is a teacher from Baltey who is in hiding to prove this

    It’s shameful and craven. We are a defeated, cowardly culture, as we saw in the Commons last week
    Dave Allen taking the piss out of the Pope does not strike me as disrespectful. Likewise everyone on here attributed Johnson's letter boxes commentary as satire and not disrespect. Nailing a bacon sandwich to the Chief Rabbi's front door is disrespectful.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,099

    Does anyone still do YouGov surveys ?

    By my rough calculation its now paying way below minimum wage.

    My wife earns at least £50 a year doing them. What are you moaning about?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029
    edited February 24
    Carnyx said:

    Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.

    I said that doing so should be legally protected.

    Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?

    Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?

    I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.
    Hang on - 'daub' does mean ' to paint'. *confused*
    I realised late on the criminal damage defence which is why I added the blutacked note point.

    See Morris's rebuttal down thread.
  • Scott_xP said:

    And she really isn't doing the Conservatives any good.

    She isn't trying to do the Conservatives any good.

    It's a grift.

    She learned from BoZo.
    Well if they're grifting from idiot Americans then that's money which wont be going to the Trump family.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    edited February 24
    DavidL said:

    Does anyone still do YouGov surveys ?

    By my rough calculation its now paying way below minimum wage.

    My wife earns at least £50 a year doing them. What are you moaning about?
    I would happily do surveys for free if they were just of political matters without having to wade through pages of guff asking what I think of different dishwasher brands*. I gave up YouGov years ago for that reason.

    (*Yes I appreciate that’s the whole point of polling companies’ business model).
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662

    Leon said:

    Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.

    I said that doing so should be legally protected.

    Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?

    Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?

    I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.
    One of the main achievements of the Enlightenment was the rolling back of all blasphemy laws, allowing us not just to quietly dislike or disavow religious faith, but to mock it and scoff at it - ie to disrespect it

    I believe the very last blasphemy laws were only repealed in the late 20th century, so this took CENTURIES of brave humans willing to stand up to religious nutters and risk the wrath of the church (as it was)

    Now in a few short years we have gone right back to the 16th century and this time it is Islam which demands respect if not slavish submission, and there is a teacher from Baltey who is in hiding to prove this

    It’s shameful and craven. We are a defeated, cowardly culture, as we saw in the Commons last week
    Dave Allen taking the piss out of the Pope does not strike me as disrespectful. Likewise everyone on here attributed Johnson's letter boxes commentary as satire and not disrespect. Nailing a bacon sandwich to the Chief Rabbi's front door is disrespectful.
    What about a cartoon of the Prophet making him look like a bomb? Should that be allowed?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,810
    DavidL said:

    Does anyone still do YouGov surveys ?

    By my rough calculation its now paying way below minimum wage.

    My wife earns at least £50 a year doing them. What are you moaning about?
    Too much time on her hands David, get her polishing those candlesticks
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084
    Ok, PB, quick question, linked to issues with British Gas:

    Is there a legal term for issuing a false bill, knowing it is a false bill, with the intention of getting payment for goods not delivered as a result?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,099
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Does anyone still do YouGov surveys ?

    By my rough calculation its now paying way below minimum wage.

    My wife earns at least £50 a year doing them. What are you moaning about?
    Too much time on her hands David, get her polishing those candlesticks
    Mony a mickle mak's a muckle Malcolm. Us Scots should appreciate that.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406

    Scott_xP said:

    And she really isn't doing the Conservatives any good.

    She isn't trying to do the Conservatives any good.

    It's a grift.

    She learned from BoZo.
    Well if they're grifting from idiot Americans then that's money which wont be going to the Trump family.
    There does seem to be a “circuit”, and leaving aside the zany politics it strikes me as a pretty decent career choice.

    There’s not the same on the far left - well there’s a circuit, but little or no money to go round unless you’re a journalist.

    The other ideological circuits that pay the bills are what could roughly be described as the “globalist Davos geopolitics” one epitomised by Blair, Eurasia group etc, the adjacent global markets one of El Erian, Carney et al, the more right wing cryptocurrency libertarian lot, and of course the big religious speaker circuits.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084

    Small violin time folks.

    Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.


    "In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you

    At what rate would she be willing to clean the homes of other people and travel to get there?

    For me I'd start to get interested at around £100 per hour. I doubt she would be less.
    I wouldn't pay Oakeshott to clean my house.

    Given she spews toxic shit everywhere, it would end up much dirtier.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.

    I said that doing so should be legally protected.

    Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?

    Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?

    I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.
    One of the main achievements of the Enlightenment was the rolling back of all blasphemy laws, allowing us not just to quietly dislike or disavow religious faith, but to mock it and scoff at it - ie to disrespect it

    I believe the very last blasphemy laws were only repealed in the late 20th century, so this took CENTURIES of brave humans willing to stand up to religious nutters and risk the wrath of the church (as it was)

    Now in a few short years we have gone right back to the 16th century and this time it is Islam which demands respect if not slavish submission, and there is a teacher from Baltey who is in hiding to prove this

    It’s shameful and craven. We are a defeated, cowardly culture, as we saw in the Commons last week
    Dave Allen taking the piss out of the Pope does not strike me as disrespectful. Likewise everyone on here attributed Johnson's letter boxes commentary as satire and not disrespect. Nailing a bacon sandwich to the Chief Rabbi's front door is disrespectful.
    What about a cartoon of the Prophet making him look like a bomb? Should that be allowed?
    Of course it should.

    Is it respectful? No, but that’s a different question.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,166

    Small violin time folks.

    Oakeshott on the difficulties of getting the help out in the sticks.


    "In my part of the Cotswolds, there is such a mismatch of supply and demand for domestic work that the going rate for a cleaner is at least £20 an hour."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/23/youd-be-a-fool-to-hire-anyone-to-work-for-you-in-britain/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you

    Nanotechnology hasn't advanced far enough to produce a violin of the required size.
    Perhaps the cleaners have a stupid desire to afford a place to live? In the Cotswolds, house prices have soared to hilarious levels, due to hardcore NIMBY/“Green” no-development pushes.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,478
    Dura_Ace said:

    FF43 said:

    <
    Like car MOTs you want dentists to find and fix what's necessary but not more than necessary.

    However you get the impression the amount they fix is only slightly related to the state of your teeth.

    Over-treating is relatively rare according to Mrs DA. Frankly, most practices don't need to and they would rather do more simple procedures on different patients than more procedures on a single patient where there is a greater chance of complications.

    The usual bent car business fiddle is charging for work that was NEVER done, not charging for unnecessary work. Put a dab of paint on your sump plug the next time your car goes for a service see how often dealers actually change the oil compared to how often they charge for it.
    Fee by procedure does up intervention rates in medicine even if not in dentistry. Whether this is good or bad is perhaps uncertain.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,029
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.

    I said that doing so should be legally protected.

    Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?

    Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?

    I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.
    One of the main achievements of the Enlightenment was the rolling back of all blasphemy laws, allowing us not just to quietly dislike or disavow religious faith, but to mock it and scoff at it - ie to disrespect it

    I believe the very last blasphemy laws were only repealed in the late 20th century, so this took CENTURIES of brave humans willing to stand up to religious nutters and risk the wrath of the church (as it was)

    Now in a few short years we have gone right back to the 16th century and this time it is Islam which demands respect if not slavish submission, and there is a teacher from Baltey who is in hiding to prove this

    It’s shameful and craven. We are a defeated, cowardly culture, as we saw in the Commons last week
    Dave Allen taking the piss out of the Pope does not strike me as disrespectful. Likewise everyone on here attributed Johnson's letter boxes commentary as satire and not disrespect. Nailing a bacon sandwich to the Chief Rabbi's front door is disrespectful.
    What about a cartoon of the Prophet making him look like a bomb? Should that be allowed?
    It all depends on whether the cartoon was designed for satirical purposes or to inflame tensions

    How do you feel about Orangemen marching through the Bogside? They would say they have every right to march wherever they want. Guidance now suggests otherwise.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,236
    edited February 24
    Good morning

    Scottish polling will be interesting post last week and it was also interesting just how well the conservatives did in Jedburgh taking a seat off the SNP

    However, catching up on this and the last thread, the increasingly divisive nature of our politics is very troubling and is being influenced by the middle east conflict

    Both antisemitism and islamaphobia are wrong but the activities in and outside Westminster this week have shamed everyone and I really do fear that the next election may well be dominated by this division with untold consequences

    The genie seems to be out of the bottle and there seems no way to put him back

    Very worrying and troubling days
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084
    edited February 24
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ok, PB, quick question, linked to issues with British Gas:

    Is there a legal term for issuing a false bill, knowing it is a false bill, with the intention of getting payment for goods not delivered as a result?

    If it is done with criminal intent then it is uttering a false document, which is a category of fraud. But if it is just complete incompetence then there is no criminal intent and being British Gas may give them a fairly unimpeachable defence in that respect.
    They've now done it six times across four different accounts.

    Every single time I try to close an account, they put the wrong figure on the final bill.

    And not trivially, either. The errors if I had not challenged them total many thousands (as in, over three). They still haven't admitted one of them while doubling down on it. (Edit - and they know full well that bill is false.)

    I am no longer willing to accept incompetence as a defence. If they are this incompetent as far as I am concerned they are still guilty of fraud.

    Thanks for the tip.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,043
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Does anyone still do YouGov surveys ?

    By my rough calculation its now paying way below minimum wage.

    My wife earns at least £50 a year doing them. What are you moaning about?
    Too much time on her hands David, get her polishing those candlesticks
    Is that a euphemism?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Pete, I didn't say I wanted to disrespect someone's faith.

    I said that doing so should be legally protected.

    Why should a faith be legally protected from disrespect? Who determines what counts as disrespect? How could such a law be formulated that doesn't become a de facto blasphemy law?

    Because daubing someone's front door with offensive and disrespectful commentary shouldn't be protected by law. Is it criminal damage if a disrespectful note is carefully blutacked onto the door rather than a comment sprayed using a rattle can?

    I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.
    One of the main achievements of the Enlightenment was the rolling back of all blasphemy laws, allowing us not just to quietly dislike or disavow religious faith, but to mock it and scoff at it - ie to disrespect it

    I believe the very last blasphemy laws were only repealed in the late 20th century, so this took CENTURIES of brave humans willing to stand up to religious nutters and risk the wrath of the church (as it was)

    Now in a few short years we have gone right back to the 16th century and this time it is Islam which demands respect if not slavish submission, and there is a teacher from Baltey who is in hiding to prove this

    It’s shameful and craven. We are a defeated, cowardly culture, as we saw in the Commons last week
    Dave Allen taking the piss out of the Pope does not strike me as disrespectful. Likewise everyone on here attributed Johnson's letter boxes commentary as satire and not disrespect. Nailing a bacon sandwich to the Chief Rabbi's front door is disrespectful.
    What about a cartoon of the Prophet making him look like a bomb? Should that be allowed?
    It all depends on whether the cartoon was designed for satirical purposes or to inflame tensions

    How do you feel about Orangemen marching through the Bogside? They would say they have every right to march wherever they want. Guidance now suggests otherwise.
    Like i said, craven cowardice
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556

    Good morning

    Scottish polling will be interesting post last week and it was also interesting just how well the conservatives did in Jedburgh taking a seat off the SNP

    However, catching up on this and the last thread, the increasingly divisive nature of our politics is very troubling and is being influenced by the middle east conflict

    Both antisemitism and islamaphobia are wrong but the activities in and outside Westminster this week have shamed everyone and I really do fear that the next election may well be dominated by this division with untold consequences

    The genie seems to be out of the bottle and there seems no way to put him back

    Very worrying and troubling days

    Didn't really take it off the SNP - you're implicitly comparing an IIRC third on the slate seat with a first on the slate, so seats alone isn't enough. We needf to drill down deeper, but Ballot Box Scotland hasn't yet reported - I've just looked.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 2,194
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Islamophobia remains a stupid term.

    Being bigoted against someone because they're Muslim is wretched. Disliking, questioning, or disrespecting an idea, such as Islam, is something that should be legally protected in a free society.

    Quite, but Anderson's comments - attacking Khan simply because he is a Muslim - are very much in the former category.
    Khan as a lawyer defended some really dodgy Muslim causes. He has admitted it


    “Among those he has defended were Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, when he tried unsuccessfully to visit the UK.

    He also campaigned to prevent the extradition to the US of Babar Ahmed who later pleaded guilty to terrorist offences.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-i-represented-unsavoury-individuals-when-i-was-a-human-rights-lawyer-a3183266.html

    Why did he choose those cases? And not others? These are legitimate questions
    He was a human rights lawyer and these were human rights cases and everyone, good and bad, needs legal representation. Come on Leon, you're a smart guy, you're better than this. Nobody who isn't a racist or a deeply partisan hack can imagine that Khan is an Islamist. Just substitute the word Jew for Muslim in Anderson's comments. He has crossed a line and needs to be sacked.
    No, it’s bollocks

    You are doing exactly what Chris Hitchens predicted in that video. Trying to shut down any criticism of Islam or Muslims by using the blanket term “Islamophobia” because it sounds like “racist” and no one wants to be thought of as a racist
    Christopher Hitchins might be your hero, but actually you are revealing yourself as being even more reactionary than his bovine brother, Peter. Also Hitchins, C would have engaged with the argument, which you are signally failing to do with this chaotic morass of disjointed whataboutism.

    Even by your standards you are being a intellectually disorganised blowhard this morning. Go and have a lie down.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,143
    Worth noting a few things about Lee Anderson's comments:-

    1. The suggestion that Khan is an Islamist or somehow in league with those organising the demos in London is absurd. There is no evidence of this. Anderson's basis for doing this is simply that Khan is a Muslim which is simple bigotry.

    2. Worth noting that if you were to substitute the word "Jew" for "Muslim" in what he has been saying you'd get pretty close to some of the things that have been said online, in public by some of the attendees at the marches and on posters at the marches - the same suggestions of Jewish conspiracies/ control / being Nazis / even on one occasion a poster of a Jewish baby drinking Palestinian blood. This is pretty offensive, untrue and hateful. If we condemn one, we should be condemning the other. It is not either/or. Some people do however have difficulty doing this. They feel it necessary to turn a blind eye to what "their" side says.

    3. The recent ET case involving a former lecturer at Bristol University, David Miller, said that his anti-Zionist views were protected as a "belief" under the Equality Act. What he says is pretty unpleasant but free speech is freedom to say unpleasant and offensive things. That does not simply apply to anti-Zionists. You could have a belief that tribal nationalism (eg being in favour of a Palestinian state) is as appalling as having a Jewish state and that too would, using the same legal arguments, be protected.

    4. The better criticism should be aimed at the Met. There is a lot of talk about "hate" crimes, public order, not wanting to put vulnerable and marginalised communities in fear and, yet, it is indisputable that there has been a very significant rise in attacks on Jews and that many have found the endless marches frightening. But there has been little regard for this. For Jews to feel unsafe in the capital city of their home country in 2024 is pretty shocking. It does not reflect well on us as a country.

    5. The cab rank rule does not apply to solicitors but only to the Bar. But attacking defence lawyers for doing their job is wrong. Doing their job does not mean they share the views of their clients.

    7. Finally this from today's Times - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/big-ben-palestinian-projection-protest-london-parliament-mps-phps73nld - is worth reading. There is, to my mind, an echo of the sort of intimidation by numbers we have seen in the US. The disregard for its effects on others, the possibility that scaring others - not simply MPs - is part of the point is very worrying.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,084
    Jasiwal still there. While he's there, India still favourites for a first innings lead.
This discussion has been closed.