Categories
Following Hoylegate – politicalbetting.com
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
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
England getting buggered by this annoying Jaiswal feller, again.
In response to FPT comment, Labour calling for Anderson to lose the whip:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68388579
Crisp frosty sunny morning here.
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.
No-one I knew mentioned it and even I didn't care.
Here’s the line https://x.com/kevinaschofield/status/1761115423846641989?s=46
They really are a bunch of arses
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 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.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristopherHitchens/s/ZIJKHatKs8
Absolutely and chillingly prescient. What he foresaw has come to pass
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.
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.
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
For me I'd start to get interested at around £100 per hour. I doubt she would be less.
“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
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.
For somebody who bangs about his intelligence and knowledge, you are remarkably lacking in so many areas.
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?
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 .
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 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?
This recent meme of attacking defence lawyers is really, really disturbing.
"Worth noting" is fairly contemptible parsing of Anderson's bigotry.
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?
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.
" Mr X is represented by my learned friend Mr Y and that is an essential part of our process. The evidence that the Crown brings to the court requires to be tested and challenged. It is not in the public interest that innocent people be found guilty but it is in the public interest that those whose guilt is properly proven beyond a reasonable doubt should be convicted and punished for their crimes."
Honestly, it sounds better when I am saying it out loud. 😉
“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”
Got to say I looked at that article yesterday and the stupidity of it drove me away within 10 seconds...
I'll give you "dislike" and I'll certainly give you "question", but "disrespect"? No.
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
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?
However, I just cannot resist...
You Were Only Supposed To Blow The Bloody Doors Off!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_PX1cVuaVA
And she really isn't doing the Conservatives any good.
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
It's a grift.
She learned from BoZo.
By my rough calculation its now paying way below minimum wage.
...........'Pass-the sick-bag Alice'
See Morris's rebuttal down thread.
(*Yes I appreciate that’s the whole point of polling companies’ business model).
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?
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.
Given she spews toxic shit everywhere, it would end up much dirtier.
Is it respectful? No, but that’s a different question.
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.
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
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.
Even by your standards you are being a intellectually disorganised blowhard this morning. Go and have a lie down.
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.