Long Covid seems to be really shit and potentially has a bigger impact on the young because of the way it "ages" the body? So it could just be, for instance, that 20 somethings are starting to get problems more associated with 40 and 50 somethings - which seems more significant in a younger person then those who are "expected" to have those issues. Whereas 40 year olds having issues more similar to people in their 50s is probably not as significant a jump? Although IANAE, so would defer to the medical professionals in the group.
We discussed this. You posted data that wasn't actually from the paper and with a nonsense idea like 'ageing' the body via covid.
I think it more likely we are seeing lots more mental health issues (partly related to covid, partly because the young are convinced that there has never been a worse time to be a youngster*)
* They have some cause for complaint re housing costs etc, but most other things are far better now than they ever have been. Heinkel 111's are not cruising over London dropping bombs, we are not facing a novel disease with a kill rate of around 50%, there is an NHS (albeit stretched).
Is there any evidence that Long Covid is a different animal to PVS (Post-Viral Syndrome), which is connected with influenza and other viruses?
Genuine question: I don't know. I remember lots of 'news' about Long Covid during the pandemic, but much of that appears, at least, to have dissipated.
I suspect not. I think a lot of what we have seen is more aligned with CFS/FND (Functional Neuronal Disorders). I read a brilliant article a while back with a range of long covid patients. One claimed not to have had covid (at least knowingly) but has long covid (?!). He used all the phrases that FND sufferers tend to use "I know that If I do too much one day, I will be really unwell the next..." and so on. FND is serious and can be debilitating, and is just as worthy of medical treatment as any other condition, just that the underlying nature is not a physical cause.
Clearly a group of those with long covid have been physically injured (lung scarring is an obvious one) but the hysteria about it has not helped, and I think government messaging, plus loud campaigns about long covid have actively made the situation worse.
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
Can we institute a petition to stop @Scott_xP doing his "Richi" thing which is fucking irritating and provokes the same response in thinking people as it does towards those using "Bliar", "Liebour" et al.
I rather miss David Chameleon, a classic of the genre.
Useless is a classic of the genre, and still hilarious every time the usual suspects use it.
I must have missed that one: care to share?
P.S. Liz Trump is a new one, that I think has some potential.
Yousaf = Useless
Ah, yes it is coming back to me now.
I think @Big_G_NorthWales is a proponent of Mark Greatford, aka The Drake, aka The King.
Drakeford has plummeted in the polls and the Welsh Farmers demonstrating about the idiotic green rules in Llandudno this weekend were addressed by Sunak and he was well received
Indeed the Welsh minister responsible for the dispute has said she will review their policy
'He appeared alongside farmer Gareth Wyn Jones and stood next to placards emblazoned with the logo for the campaign “No Farmers No Food”.
[...]
The No Farmers No Food campaign is anti net-zero and has shared conspiracy theories about climate change action, while Melville has questioned the effects of climate breakdown as well as sharing conspiracy theories about net zero.
Its manifesto accuses the UK government of having an “obsession with net zero” and calls for it to end climate measures.
The Twitter/X account for the group shared a conspiracy theory that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is going to force people to eat bugs to reach net zero, [...]'
Of course, being on the same podium doesn't incriminate someone. Unless it is the argument of a Tory propagandist attacking Labour politicians ...? [edited]
Gareth Wyn Jones has received death threats and a Labour msp has called the farmers 'cranks' this morning to their fury
I was caught up with the Farmers tractor prossesion on Saturday and it was very well attended
Furthermore, as I reported earlier farmers from across Europe are demonstrating at the the EU headquarters over green issues with water cannon deployed
Let's hope those who regularly blather on about the disruption caused by climate extremists remain consistent in the face of Tractor Boy violence.
Yeah, but Prevent doesn't work in any particularly useful way - lots of people who really shouldn't get referred to Prevent, and there is not good enough support to even engage with those who are referred and make sure that they aren't succumbing to radicalisation. Also the constant calls from Home Secretaries bemoaning that the far-right referrals are too high (despite attacks on MPs coming from that group too, as well as general acts of violence if not literal bombings) makes many people who have to deal with Prevent feel that the government only want to use this to target Muslims.
I think you are completely wrong. Prevent and the anti-terrorism policing is very effective, there are far more people stopped before committing crimes, and caught early when they commit criminal acts than there are terrorist attacks. Compared to what happened in Northern Ireland it's night and day,a lot less draconian and much more effective.
I mean, my position isn't that we need a more draconian system to "work" - my position is that treating the underlying issues that cause radicalisation (which are typically issues of economic precarity for young men who get radicalised via people who leverage grievances at them in a way that is not equitable to the IRA who were an organised group of militants with a specific political goal). Most of the worst acts of terrorism now are "lone wolves" who are radicalised not by joining an organisation or such, but have a media (typically online media) diet that is increasingly extreme and then go out and decide to take action. That is often due to a sense that there is nothing to lose, that life won't be better anyway, so why not.
I don't need to get into the specifics of the Prevent system here - I'll just say as someone who works at a university and has dealt with people discussing if x student should be referred and even referring students; I have never seen a situation where the mechanisms of Prevent have helped that student. We can't run an experiment to check if they would go on to become a terrorist without Prevent, but I doubt they would have.
Long Covid seems to be really shit and potentially has a bigger impact on the young because of the way it "ages" the body? So it could just be, for instance, that 20 somethings are starting to get problems more associated with 40 and 50 somethings - which seems more significant in a younger person then those who are "expected" to have those issues. Whereas 40 year olds having issues more similar to people in their 50s is probably not as significant a jump? Although IANAE, so would defer to the medical professionals in the group.
We discussed this. You posted data that wasn't actually from the paper and with a nonsense idea like 'ageing' the body via covid.
I think it more likely we are seeing lots more mental health issues (partly related to covid, partly because the young are convinced that there has never been a worse time to be a youngster*)
* They have some cause for complaint re housing costs etc, but most other things are far better now than they ever have been. Heinkel 111's are not cruising over London dropping bombs, we are not facing a novel disease with a kill rate of around 50%, there is an NHS (albeit stretched).
My language was clumsy, yes, I did indeed accept that as not a medical professional. And you're correct, I couldn't link the table with the cited work. But there are lots of papers looking at a contrast in effects in young and old, where the younger people who survived covid seem to have worse after effects, and the older people who survived covid seemed to typically have less severe after effects.
I would also agree that the economic conditions are dire - although more than you suggest as we experienced a decade of wage stagnation worse than other peacetime since the Napoleonic wars. And, arguably, people in other periods (like after the Blitz) had an outlet for hope - a new Labour party offering a changing world and social services for the poor that they previously hadn't had (my great nan still remembered well into her 100th year that she owed a doctor some money for some medical care her child had received prior to the institution of the NHS). I would personally suggest that young people today do not have that hope, given the shortening of the political horizon, the ideological hegemony that exists and the impending climate catastrophe unfolding in front of our eyes (which includes both the fact lots of flowers and trees are flowering right now despite we are still not out of February, as well as increasingly worrying reports of the Gulf Stream collapsing in the next decade - just to mention two things that we can see and will impact us here in the UK).
Increasingly I sit at my job with the cognitive dissonance that the world seems to be crumbling around us and that I'm still doing my 9-5 because I have to. And, whilst I am more pessimistic and politically active than most in my office, other people say the same (unprompted). Every person my age who says "the weather we're having is really nice" follows it up by saying "isn't climate change so obvious, we're all so fucked".
There are possible reasons for a younger person to have a significantly more serious result with covid - it was a novel virus and the reaction of the body depends on lots of factors. Typically a younger person will have a 'fitter' immune system - this can cause problems if it 'gets carried away', to use some cheap layman's term's. I don't have the time to get the literature up on this.
In general the risk of severe covid increases with age, is worse for men. However everyone is unique.
Can we institute a petition to stop @Scott_xP doing his "Richi" thing which is fucking irritating and provokes the same response in thinking people as it does towards those using "Bliar", "Liebour" et al.
I rather miss David Chameleon, a classic of the genre.
Useless is a classic of the genre, and still hilarious every time the usual suspects use it.
I must have missed that one: care to share?
P.S. Liz Trump is a new one, that I think has some potential.
Yousaf = Useless
Ah, yes it is coming back to me now.
I think @Big_G_NorthWales is a proponent of Mark Greatford, aka The Drake, aka The King.
Drakeford has plummeted in the polls and the Welsh Farmers demonstrating about the idiotic green rules in Llandudno this weekend were addressed by Sunak and he was well received
Indeed the Welsh minister responsible for the dispute has said she will review their policy
The Drake is the messiah.
Arguably the greatest man ever to born to Wales; a visionary beyond compare.
All speak his name in hushed tones: some call him 'sir'; others 'king'; but those that know him just call him 'friend'.
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
Johnson has the greased piglet skills to escape the obvious contradiction, history suggests Truss does not. I'm still favouring the stupid option.
Can we institute a petition to stop @Scott_xP doing his "Richi" thing which is fucking irritating and provokes the same response in thinking people as it does towards those using "Bliar", "Liebour" et al.
I rather miss David Chameleon, a classic of the genre.
Useless is a classic of the genre, and still hilarious every time the usual suspects use it.
I must have missed that one: care to share?
P.S. Liz Trump is a new one, that I think has some potential.
Yousaf = Useless
Ah, yes it is coming back to me now.
I think @Big_G_NorthWales is a proponent of Mark Greatford, aka The Drake, aka The King.
Drakeford has plummeted in the polls and the Welsh Farmers demonstrating about the idiotic green rules in Llandudno this weekend were addressed by Sunak and he was well received
Indeed the Welsh minister responsible for the dispute has said she will review their policy
'He appeared alongside farmer Gareth Wyn Jones and stood next to placards emblazoned with the logo for the campaign “No Farmers No Food”.
[...]
The No Farmers No Food campaign is anti net-zero and has shared conspiracy theories about climate change action, while Melville has questioned the effects of climate breakdown as well as sharing conspiracy theories about net zero.
Its manifesto accuses the UK government of having an “obsession with net zero” and calls for it to end climate measures.
The Twitter/X account for the group shared a conspiracy theory that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is going to force people to eat bugs to reach net zero, [...]'
Of course, being on the same podium doesn't incriminate someone. Unless it is the argument of a Tory propagandist attacking Labour politicians ...? [edited]
Gareth Wyn Jones has received death threats and a Labour msp has called the farmers 'cranks' this morning to their fury
I was caught up with the Farmers tractor prossesion on Saturday and it was very well attended
Furthermore, as I reported earlier farmers from across Europe are demonstrating at the the EU headquarters over green issues with water cannon deployed
PBer who complains about 20mph speed limit applauds farmers blocking the roads by chugging along at 5mph.
Can we institute a petition to stop @Scott_xP doing his "Richi" thing which is fucking irritating and provokes the same response in thinking people as it does towards those using "Bliar", "Liebour" et al.
I rather miss David Chameleon, a classic of the genre.
Useless is a classic of the genre, and still hilarious every time the usual suspects use it.
I must have missed that one: care to share?
P.S. Liz Trump is a new one, that I think has some potential.
Yousaf = Useless
Ah, yes it is coming back to me now.
I think @Big_G_NorthWales is a proponent of Mark Greatford, aka The Drake, aka The King.
Drakeford has plummeted in the polls and the Welsh Farmers demonstrating about the idiotic green rules in Llandudno this weekend were addressed by Sunak and he was well received
Indeed the Welsh minister responsible for the dispute has said she will review their policy
'He appeared alongside farmer Gareth Wyn Jones and stood next to placards emblazoned with the logo for the campaign “No Farmers No Food”.
[...]
The No Farmers No Food campaign is anti net-zero and has shared conspiracy theories about climate change action, while Melville has questioned the effects of climate breakdown as well as sharing conspiracy theories about net zero.
Its manifesto accuses the UK government of having an “obsession with net zero” and calls for it to end climate measures.
The Twitter/X account for the group shared a conspiracy theory that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is going to force people to eat bugs to reach net zero, [...]'
Of course, being on the same podium doesn't incriminate someone. Unless it is the argument of a Tory propagandist attacking Labour politicians ...? [edited]
Gareth Wyn Jones has received death threats and a Labour msp has called the farmers 'cranks' this morning to their fury
I was caught up with the Farmers tractor prossesion on Saturday and it was very well attended
Furthermore, as I reported earlier farmers from across Europe are demonstrating at the the EU headquarters over green issues with water cannon deployed
Let's hope those who regularly blather on about the disruption caused by climate extremists remain consistent in the face of Tractor Boy violence.
Can we institute a petition to stop @Scott_xP doing his "Richi" thing which is fucking irritating and provokes the same response in thinking people as it does towards those using "Bliar", "Liebour" et al.
I rather miss David Chameleon, a classic of the genre.
Useless is a classic of the genre, and still hilarious every time the usual suspects use it.
I must have missed that one: care to share?
P.S. Liz Trump is a new one, that I think has some potential.
Yousaf = Useless
Ah, yes it is coming back to me now.
I think @Big_G_NorthWales is a proponent of Mark Greatford, aka The Drake, aka The King.
Drakeford has plummeted in the polls and the Welsh Farmers demonstrating about the idiotic green rules in Llandudno this weekend were addressed by Sunak and he was well received
Indeed the Welsh minister responsible for the dispute has said she will review their policy
'He appeared alongside farmer Gareth Wyn Jones and stood next to placards emblazoned with the logo for the campaign “No Farmers No Food”.
[...]
The No Farmers No Food campaign is anti net-zero and has shared conspiracy theories about climate change action, while Melville has questioned the effects of climate breakdown as well as sharing conspiracy theories about net zero.
Its manifesto accuses the UK government of having an “obsession with net zero” and calls for it to end climate measures.
The Twitter/X account for the group shared a conspiracy theory that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is going to force people to eat bugs to reach net zero, [...]'
Of course, being on the same podium doesn't incriminate someone. Unless it is the argument of a Tory propagandist attacking Labour politicians ...? [edited]
Gareth Wyn Jones has received death threats and a Labour msp has called the farmers 'cranks' this morning to their fury
I was caught up with the Farmers tractor prossesion on Saturday and it was very well attended
Furthermore, as I reported earlier farmers from across Europe are demonstrating at the the EU headquarters over green issues with water cannon deployed
Let's hope those who regularly blather on about the disruption caused by climate extremists remain consistent in the face of Tractor Boy violence.
I mean he's right on this issue - and I can even see the logic as part of his overarching belief system (Britishness means a specific thing, no matter who it covers). He's wrong about basically everything else - and I don't think this is enough to "redeem" him in my eyes.
Nah, he's wrong on this one too.
Where people have dual nationality and do something particularly unpleasant and illegal, particularly if it involves some form of allegiance to a foreign state or equivalent, I don't see the big deal in revoking their British citizenship.
The issues in the Begum case is that she wasn't a dual national - she merely had the right to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship (which it understandably said it'd deny her), and the foreign entity she showed allegiance to was an internationally unrecognised and now defunct statelet. Plus, she was a child at the time, which has to be a factor in whether the state can or should impose lifetime changes on someone.
Much as I don't have much sympathy for her, if Syria chose to deport her to Britain, I think we ought to be bound to take her back.
That was broadly my view, so I was surprised when the Courts took the view that a potential citizenship was as good as an actual citizenship, and ruled that it was lawful to strip her of her British citizenship. It would seem that Bangladesh are now obliged to grant her citizenship to avoid her being stateless.
That seems absurd, but it's no less absurd than the situation where a Franco-German dual national, say, if reasonably suspected to have been committing terrorist acts on behalf of IS in Syria, could be stripped of either their French or German citizenship, but not both, and with the country who was slowest to act the one then lumped with them. It's still very arbitrary.
I think if you want to be able to strip people of citizenship then you really need to negotiate an agreed framework for deciding how to handle stateless people, or which country has to assume responsibility for someone no-one wants to give citizenship to that is a bit more sophisticated than simply slowest loses.
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
How did Boris get to be the high-paid mega-columnist? His writing could be occasionally amusing, as I recall, but he's notoriously unreliable and has a history of journalistic fraud. What was the big appeal?
Contacts. He went to Eton, remember!
Because he is genuinely funny. I know some people loathe him so much that they cannot credit him with any positive qualities whatsoever, but there are very few writers (or indeed speakers) who are genuinely funny, and he is one.
There are plenty of people just as funny and funnier, and better writers, who have not had columns and novels published because they don't have the right background or networks.
Boris is a competent writer who has an appeal to some people (he's in my blind spot I'm afraid - I've never found his schtick amusing) - so certainly I wouldn't say he has no talent. I just doubt that if he'd been born in a council terrace in Scunthorpe he'd be in the same position.
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
I suspect you are right and a bit of playing to her audience in the US.
I cannot believe many people in the UK, even on the right, agree with this position. A Trump presidency is a clear and real threat to NATO. Can only conclude she is positioning herself for a future career in the US as a right wing talking head on TV and Youtube and doing the lecture circuit.
Can we institute a petition to stop @Scott_xP doing his "Richi" thing which is fucking irritating and provokes the same response in thinking people as it does towards those using "Bliar", "Liebour" et al.
I rather miss David Chameleon, a classic of the genre.
Useless is a classic of the genre, and still hilarious every time the usual suspects use it.
I must have missed that one: care to share?
P.S. Liz Trump is a new one, that I think has some potential.
Yousaf = Useless
Ah, yes it is coming back to me now.
I think @Big_G_NorthWales is a proponent of Mark Greatford, aka The Drake, aka The King.
Drakeford has plummeted in the polls and the Welsh Farmers demonstrating about the idiotic green rules in Llandudno this weekend were addressed by Sunak and he was well received
Indeed the Welsh minister responsible for the dispute has said she will review their policy
'He appeared alongside farmer Gareth Wyn Jones and stood next to placards emblazoned with the logo for the campaign “No Farmers No Food”.
[...]
The No Farmers No Food campaign is anti net-zero and has shared conspiracy theories about climate change action, while Melville has questioned the effects of climate breakdown as well as sharing conspiracy theories about net zero.
Its manifesto accuses the UK government of having an “obsession with net zero” and calls for it to end climate measures.
The Twitter/X account for the group shared a conspiracy theory that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is going to force people to eat bugs to reach net zero, [...]'
Of course, being on the same podium doesn't incriminate someone. Unless it is the argument of a Tory propagandist attacking Labour politicians ...? [edited]
Gareth Wyn Jones has received death threats and a Labour msp has called the farmers 'cranks' this morning to their fury
I was caught up with the Farmers tractor prossesion on Saturday and it was very well attended
Furthermore, as I reported earlier farmers from across Europe are demonstrating at the the EU headquarters over green issues with water cannon deployed
PBer who complains about 20mph speed limit applauds farmers blocking the roads by chugging along at 5mph.
Point of order
I do not complain about 20mph zones just that they have been inadequately implemented which is accepted by most everyone in Wales including the Welsh government
The farmers held me up for about 5 minutes in their vehicle convoy, the anomalies in the 20 mph zones are lasting a lot longer though to be fair they will change hopefully so everyone is satisfied the policy is working sensibly
Long Covid seems to be really shit and potentially has a bigger impact on the young because of the way it "ages" the body? So it could just be, for instance, that 20 somethings are starting to get problems more associated with 40 and 50 somethings - which seems more significant in a younger person then those who are "expected" to have those issues. Whereas 40 year olds having issues more similar to people in their 50s is probably not as significant a jump? Although IANAE, so would defer to the medical professionals in the group.
We discussed this. You posted data that wasn't actually from the paper and with a nonsense idea like 'ageing' the body via covid.
I think it more likely we are seeing lots more mental health issues (partly related to covid, partly because the young are convinced that there has never been a worse time to be a youngster*)
* They have some cause for complaint re housing costs etc, but most other things are far better now than they ever have been. Heinkel 111's are not cruising over London dropping bombs, we are not facing a novel disease with a kill rate of around 50%, there is an NHS (albeit stretched).
Is there any evidence that Long Covid is a different animal to PVS (Post-Viral Syndrome), which is connected with influenza and other viruses?
Genuine question: I don't know. I remember lots of 'news' about Long Covid during the pandemic, but much of that appears, at least, to have dissipated.
My impression is that there are two different things going on. You have a post-viral syndrome effect, and then there's an effect from Covid causing damage to the heart and other organs, which increases the odds of people suffering heart attacks, etc, later on.
F1: backed Perez each way to win (with boost) in Bahrain at 14, third the odds top 2. Red Bull looks fastest again. He also tends to do well at Bahrain.
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
Can we institute a petition to stop @Scott_xP doing his "Richi" thing which is fucking irritating and provokes the same response in thinking people as it does towards those using "Bliar", "Liebour" et al.
I rather miss David Chameleon, a classic of the genre.
Useless is a classic of the genre, and still hilarious every time the usual suspects use it.
I must have missed that one: care to share?
P.S. Liz Trump is a new one, that I think has some potential.
Yousaf = Useless
Ah, yes it is coming back to me now.
I think @Big_G_NorthWales is a proponent of Mark Greatford, aka The Drake, aka The King.
Drakeford has plummeted in the polls and the Welsh Farmers demonstrating about the idiotic green rules in Llandudno this weekend were addressed by Sunak and he was well received
Indeed the Welsh minister responsible for the dispute has said she will review their policy
'He appeared alongside farmer Gareth Wyn Jones and stood next to placards emblazoned with the logo for the campaign “No Farmers No Food”.
[...]
The No Farmers No Food campaign is anti net-zero and has shared conspiracy theories about climate change action, while Melville has questioned the effects of climate breakdown as well as sharing conspiracy theories about net zero.
Its manifesto accuses the UK government of having an “obsession with net zero” and calls for it to end climate measures.
The Twitter/X account for the group shared a conspiracy theory that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is going to force people to eat bugs to reach net zero, [...]'
Of course, being on the same podium doesn't incriminate someone. Unless it is the argument of a Tory propagandist attacking Labour politicians ...? [edited]
Gareth Wyn Jones has received death threats and a Labour msp has called the farmers 'cranks' this morning to their fury
I was caught up with the Farmers tractor prossesion on Saturday and it was very well attended
Furthermore, as I reported earlier farmers from across Europe are demonstrating at the the EU headquarters over green issues with water cannon deployed
Let's hope those who regularly blather on about the disruption caused by climate extremists remain consistent in the face of Tractor Boy violence.
But I thought we’ve been told that violent protest is ok, ‘cause unless protest inconveniences people nothing will change?
Surely only a blithering idiot would conflate violent protest with inconveniencing protests?
{checks the battery farm}
Sorry guv, all we’ve got’s is the Spotted Blithering Idiots. That’s all peoples wants theses days. ‘Ave you tried that @JosiasJessop up ‘road? ‘Ear he keeps all kinds of posh Idiots, free range, organic…
FPT - I can't recall who posted it but whatever you think of Matthew Goodwin that exchange between him and Portillo on GB News was excellent.
A must watch.
Oh goodness, you've not succumbed to Fox News GBeebies?
Have you seen the clip?
Try it. Sometimes even I think Channel4 and The Guardian has a point.
I thought it was very disappointing. I'm quite a fan of Portillo and though he added very little I at least expected him to conduct a debate that might bring something insightful from Goodwin.
Goodwins argument was quite simply that the David Amess killing and the Arena bombing were both carried out by islamists so call it as it is; have an immediate halt on immigration and declare war on Islam.
Where this falls down Is that Amess was killed by a man born and brought up in southwalk who apparently had very little religion in his upbringing and the Arena bombing by someone born and brought up in Rushome
Anyone know how you apply for a professorship these days?
Except as a teenager he was referred to Prevent and considered himself an affiliate of Islamic State.
The Left really do need to develop an answer to this, rather than ignoring it and fingerpointing anyone who raises concerns about it as a closet racist, or you will find yourselves superseded in office by those who propose far more radical solutions - think forced deportations.
What is the solution? A good scheme to counter radicalisation (Prevent could be improved); good policing of radical groups (police funding has been cut); good mental health services (NHS is underfunded); good security for MPs; building a welcoming society that doesn't view all Muslims as dangerous (removing the whip from Islamophobic politicians is a good start).
Taylor & Soni (2017), in a review of Prevent in schools, suggest: "Radicalisation refers to views and not acts. Radicalised views are not acts of terrorism and are not in themselves a threat. The focus on identifying and intervening adopted by the CTSA and Prevent leads to problematic culture of surveillance which inhibits the creation of safe spaces in which to debate radical views. In fact, the lived experiences of Prevent in schools by the participants of these studies suggest it deters important critical discussion through fear and further alienates and villainises groups who may already feel alienated and villainised, threatening their sense of belonging and exacerbating the likelihood of creating intergroup conflict in our society. Instead, a focus on identifying areas of ‘overlapping consensus’ (Panjwani, Citation2016, p. 330) between the variety of viewpoints held by pupils in the UK and modern, liberal values could help reduce perceived tensions and create a greater sense of unity within our educational settings. Furthermore, programmes such as Tapestry can genuinely engage pupils with the issue of radicalisation and should be considered a priority for future government funding."
Jerome & Elwick (2017) write: "School responses to the Prevent agenda have tended to focus primarily on ‘safeguarding’ approaches, which essentially perceive some young people as being ‘at risk’ and potentially as presenting a risk to others. In this article, we consider evidence from secondary school students who experienced a curriculum project on terrorism, extremism and radicalisation. We argue that a curriculum response which addresses the acquisition of knowledge can build students’ critical capacity for engagement with radicalisation through enhanced political literacy and media literacy. We further argue this represents a genuinely educational response to Prevent, as opposed to a more restrictive securitised approach."
That all said, some of the people who raise concerns, over and over again while ignoring other threats of political violence or ills in society, who make up lies about immigration and crime, are racists (and often without a closet). Fingerpointing at racists is appropriate and part of how we combat radicalisation.
While the sentiments above are nice - “let’s be welcoming to everyone” - what do you do with people advocating racial/religious supremacism, violent homophobia etc.
For example some of the people I went to university with were quite clear that gay people “from their community” were, in their minds, needing punishment. There were a number of assaults on gay students from ethnic minorities - nearly certainly from this world view.
Should we engage them in a balanced, socially conscious debate? Or do as one student union security guard did and throw a large industrial dustbin at them? (He disturbed a group assault on an individual)
You should engage with them *at a younger age* in a balanced, socially conscious debate with “a focus on identifying areas of ‘overlapping consensus’ (Panjwani, 2016, p. 330) between the variety of viewpoints held by pupils in the UK and modern, liberal values”.
You don’t presume that the problems of homophobia are confined to any one community, recognising, for example, the pernicious influence of Andrew Tate. You tackle big tech to do something about the damages that can be done my social media.
Can we institute a petition to stop @Scott_xP doing his "Richi" thing which is fucking irritating and provokes the same response in thinking people as it does towards those using "Bliar", "Liebour" et al.
I rather miss David Chameleon, a classic of the genre.
Useless is a classic of the genre, and still hilarious every time the usual suspects use it.
I must have missed that one: care to share?
P.S. Liz Trump is a new one, that I think has some potential.
Yousaf = Useless
Ah, yes it is coming back to me now.
I think @Big_G_NorthWales is a proponent of Mark Greatford, aka The Drake, aka The King.
Drakeford has plummeted in the polls and the Welsh Farmers demonstrating about the idiotic green rules in Llandudno this weekend were addressed by Sunak and he was well received
Indeed the Welsh minister responsible for the dispute has said she will review their policy
The Drake is the messiah.
Arguably the greatest man ever to born to Wales; a visionary beyond compare.
All speak his name in hushed tones: some call him 'sir'; others 'king'; but those that know him just call him 'friend'.
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
How did Boris get to be the high-paid mega-columnist? His writing could be occasionally amusing, as I recall, but he's notoriously unreliable and has a history of journalistic fraud. What was the big appeal?
Contacts. He went to Eton, remember!
Because he is genuinely funny. I know some people loathe him so much that they cannot credit him with any positive qualities whatsoever, but there are very few writers (or indeed speakers) who are genuinely funny, and he is one.
There are plenty of people just as funny and funnier, and better writers, who have not had columns and novels published because they don't have the right background or networks.
Boris is a competent writer who has an appeal to some people (he's in my blind spot I'm afraid - I've never found his schtick amusing) - so certainly I wouldn't say he has no talent. I just doubt that if he'd been born in a council terrace in Scunthorpe he'd be in the same position.
To pursue soap opera stereotypes, he'd have been the feckless chancer in a string vest lying his way out of trouble, fathering countless bairns and putting the c*nt into Scunthorpe.
As a PB leftie can I point out that I am fairly comfortable with the treatment of Bangladeshi citizen Shamina Begum for one main reason. It has been found, by a legal system finds in favour of individuals in immigration cases on a daily basis, to be in order. Something that is pretty illiberal and hard such that it discomforts many PB Tories is in order.
Perhaps, rather than complaining about lefty lawyers all the time, the Home Office and the Tory right should reflect on how serious, determined politicians like Javid and May (in the case of Qatada) managed to do pretty illiberal things to protect the UK within the law, where as bloviating hardliners, who didn't see the need to work with rather than against the law, failed.
Can we institute a petition to stop @Scott_xP doing his "Richi" thing which is fucking irritating and provokes the same response in thinking people as it does towards those using "Bliar", "Liebour" et al.
I rather miss David Chameleon, a classic of the genre.
Useless is a classic of the genre, and still hilarious every time the usual suspects use it.
I must have missed that one: care to share?
P.S. Liz Trump is a new one, that I think has some potential.
Yousaf = Useless
Ah, yes it is coming back to me now.
I think @Big_G_NorthWales is a proponent of Mark Greatford, aka The Drake, aka The King.
Drakeford has plummeted in the polls and the Welsh Farmers demonstrating about the idiotic green rules in Llandudno this weekend were addressed by Sunak and he was well received
Indeed the Welsh minister responsible for the dispute has said she will review their policy
The Drake is the messiah.
Arguably the greatest man ever to born to Wales; a visionary beyond compare.
All speak his name in hushed tones: some call him 'sir'; others 'king'; but those that know him just call him 'friend'.
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
How did Boris get to be the high-paid mega-columnist? His writing could be occasionally amusing, as I recall, but he's notoriously unreliable and has a history of journalistic fraud. What was the big appeal?
Contacts. He went to Eton, remember!
Because he is genuinely funny. I know some people loathe him so much that they cannot credit him with any positive qualities whatsoever, but there are very few writers (or indeed speakers) who are genuinely funny, and he is one.
There are plenty of people just as funny and funnier, and better writers, who have not had columns and novels published because they don't have the right background or networks.
Boris is a competent writer who has an appeal to some people (he's in my blind spot I'm afraid - I've never found his schtick amusing) - so certainly I wouldn't say he has no talent. I just doubt that if he'd been born in a council terrace in Scunthorpe he'd be in the same position.
To pursue soap opera stereotypes, he'd have been the feckless chancer in a string vest lying his way out of trouble, fathering countless bairns and putting the c*nt into Scunthorpe.
Ironic you chose a character from a sitcom who was written, not a stereotype, but as a rounded character and he and his wife, Daisy, were far better people than Mr and Mrs Bucket.
Onslow had little of the characteristics in the stereotype.
Can we institute a petition to stop @Scott_xP doing his "Richi" thing which is fucking irritating and provokes the same response in thinking people as it does towards those using "Bliar", "Liebour" et al.
I rather miss David Chameleon, a classic of the genre.
Useless is a classic of the genre, and still hilarious every time the usual suspects use it.
I must have missed that one: care to share?
P.S. Liz Trump is a new one, that I think has some potential.
Yousaf = Useless
Ah, yes it is coming back to me now.
I think @Big_G_NorthWales is a proponent of Mark Greatford, aka The Drake, aka The King.
Drakeford has plummeted in the polls and the Welsh Farmers demonstrating about the idiotic green rules in Llandudno this weekend were addressed by Sunak and he was well received
Indeed the Welsh minister responsible for the dispute has said she will review their policy
The Drake is the messiah.
Arguably the greatest man ever to born to Wales; a visionary beyond compare.
All speak his name in hushed tones: some call him 'sir'; others 'king'; but those that know him just call him 'friend'.
Can we institute a petition to stop @Scott_xP doing his "Richi" thing which is fucking irritating and provokes the same response in thinking people as it does towards those using "Bliar", "Liebour" et al.
I rather miss David Chameleon, a classic of the genre.
Useless is a classic of the genre, and still hilarious every time the usual suspects use it.
I must have missed that one: care to share?
P.S. Liz Trump is a new one, that I think has some potential.
Yousaf = Useless
Ah, yes it is coming back to me now.
I think @Big_G_NorthWales is a proponent of Mark Greatford, aka The Drake, aka The King.
Drakeford has plummeted in the polls and the Welsh Farmers demonstrating about the idiotic green rules in Llandudno this weekend were addressed by Sunak and he was well received
Indeed the Welsh minister responsible for the dispute has said she will review their policy
The Drake is the messiah.
Arguably the greatest man ever to born to Wales; a visionary beyond compare.
All speak his name in hushed tones: some call him 'sir'; others 'king'; but those that know him just call him 'friend'.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
You might be right, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibilty that Truss is a bloody idiot.
She isn't. She is a superb undercover agent. She will be awarded the coverted order of the bar chart once she finishes her work.
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
Johnson has the greased piglet skills to escape the obvious contradiction, history suggests Truss does not. I'm still favouring the stupid option.
She lives in her own bubble, I think, and in there presents to herself and fellow occupants as a deep and radical thinker resolutely battling the stale consensus. It's nice work if you can get it.
Can we institute a petition to stop @Scott_xP doing his "Richi" thing which is fucking irritating and provokes the same response in thinking people as it does towards those using "Bliar", "Liebour" et al.
I rather miss David Chameleon, a classic of the genre.
Useless is a classic of the genre, and still hilarious every time the usual suspects use it.
I must have missed that one: care to share?
P.S. Liz Trump is a new one, that I think has some potential.
Yousaf = Useless
Ah, yes it is coming back to me now.
I think @Big_G_NorthWales is a proponent of Mark Greatford, aka The Drake, aka The King.
Drakeford has plummeted in the polls and the Welsh Farmers demonstrating about the idiotic green rules in Llandudno this weekend were addressed by Sunak and he was well received
Indeed the Welsh minister responsible for the dispute has said she will review their policy
The Drake is the messiah.
Arguably the greatest man ever to born to Wales; a visionary beyond compare.
All speak his name in hushed tones: some call him 'sir'; others 'king'; but those that know him just call him 'friend'.
Respect has to be earned and greatest man ever born in Wales - dear me just sycophantic nonsense
I agree. Historians acknowledge that the greatest Welshman was St David, just pipping Dylan Thomas, with the Drake a close third.
No need to exaggerate his position, and if I know the Drake like I think I do, he'd humbly accept that others in the history of the Principality have made a reasonable contribution.
An interesting contribution to the debate. But, to most right-thinking people, The Drake surpasses Dylan Thomas, although it is less clear how he compares with St David.
Interestingly, many now assume that The Drake will himself be sainted, and the national day be renamed St Drake’s Day, and celebrated, with the traditional wearing of daffodils, on 1 March.
Can we institute a petition to stop @Scott_xP doing his "Richi" thing which is fucking irritating and provokes the same response in thinking people as it does towards those using "Bliar", "Liebour" et al.
I rather miss David Chameleon, a classic of the genre.
Useless is a classic of the genre, and still hilarious every time the usual suspects use it.
I must have missed that one: care to share?
P.S. Liz Trump is a new one, that I think has some potential.
Yousaf = Useless
Ah, yes it is coming back to me now.
I think @Big_G_NorthWales is a proponent of Mark Greatford, aka The Drake, aka The King.
Drakeford has plummeted in the polls and the Welsh Farmers demonstrating about the idiotic green rules in Llandudno this weekend were addressed by Sunak and he was well received
Indeed the Welsh minister responsible for the dispute has said she will review their policy
The Drake is the messiah.
Arguably the greatest man ever to born to Wales; a visionary beyond compare.
All speak his name in hushed tones: some call him 'sir'; others 'king'; but those that know him just call him 'friend'.
Respect has to be earned and greatest man ever born in Wales - dear me just sycophantic nonsense
I agree. Historians acknowledge that the greatest Welshman was St David, just pipping Dylan Thomas, with the Drake a close third.
No need to exaggerate his position, and if I know the Drake like I think I do, he'd humbly accept that others in the history of the Principality have made a reasonable contribution.
An interesting contribution to the debate. But, to most right-thinking people, The Drake surpasses Dylan Thomas, although it is less clear how he compares with St David.
Interestingly, many now assume that The Drake will himself be sainted, and the national day be renamed St Drake’s Day, and celebrated, with the traditional wearing of daffodils, on 1 March.
I think its pretty clear that both the main parties have some that are out and out racists. That shouldn't be controversial to say. Our FPTP system leads to large coalition parties, as opposed to having PR systems that tend to produce coalitions of smaller parties after the election. As a result Labour and the Tories are broad churches, and both have some very unsavoury elements.
The more unedifying aspect is each party revelling in the discomfort of the other when one of the idiots speaks up.
A ghastly article by a ghastly writer in a ghastly magazine.
Good word, ghastly, isn't it. It sounds like its meaning and its meaning is very particular. We need a word for ghastly and you couldn't come up with a better one than 'ghastly'.
Another word I think is a bit of a superstar in this respect is 'gossip'. Unimprovable.
As a PB leftie can I point out that I am fairly comfortable with the treatment of Bangladeshi citizen Shamina Begum for one main reason. It has been found, by a legal system finds in favour of individuals in immigration cases on a daily basis, to be in order. Something that is pretty illiberal and hard such that it discomforts many PB Tories is in order.
Perhaps, rather than complaining about lefty lawyers all the time, the Home Office and the Tory right should reflect on how serious, determined politicians like Javid and May (in the case of Qatada) managed to do pretty illiberal things to protect the UK within the law, where as bloviating hardliners, who didn't see the need to work with rather than against the law, failed.
I’ve actually asked the question of people involved in the Hook Hand case what they think of the result. They, of course, deny any responsibility.
Yet it is the same old game of action and reaction. Ultimately, the government will not sit there saying “oh dear, you have us now” -they will simply invent a new way to slap a band aid on the problem. And lo, it makes things worse.
To me, a real Human Rights advocate would have been all about getting Begum into a duly appointed court. After all, she worked quite hard to violate the rights of others - what about them?
Not the bulletin I am watching. It was covered but so was racist car insurance, Royal mail delays, flights becoming expensive and leashold reform as well as an odd woman who blended a cat and killed a man.
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
As a PB leftie can I point out that I am fairly comfortable with the treatment of Bangladeshi citizen Shamina Begum for one main reason. It has been found, by a legal system finds in favour of individuals in immigration cases on a daily basis, to be in order. Something that is pretty illiberal and hard such that it discomforts many PB Tories is in order.
Perhaps, rather than complaining about lefty lawyers all the time, the Home Office and the Tory right should reflect on how serious, determined politicians like Javid and May (in the case of Qatada) managed to do pretty illiberal things to protect the UK within the law, where as bloviating hardliners, who didn't see the need to work with rather than against the law, failed.
My problem is that it is a remarkable power for an elected official who has public pressure to take into account to have. Both May and Javid are serious people but we have frankly had less serious people as Home Secretary, not least both Patel and Braverman and I do not trust them to have that kind of power when they make silly, partisan and borderline racist comments all too regularly.
The view taken by the courts, and this is very much a characteristic of the Reed Supreme Court, is have the laws been complied with? If they have they have no role to play on the merits of the decision. The Appeal Court said that some might think the decision was harsh and others might think she had brought it on herself but neither of them were for them. They simply had to look and see if the boxes had been ticked.
I don't like that. I think that the courts should have a role in reviewing the merits of the case. I accept that the decision of the Home Secretary should be given due deference, especially on the question of national security, but that is different from this being the beginning and end of the matter.
On this case a rather silly young girl got swept along with Jihadi nonsense when she was 15. She went out to Iraq and was sexually abused for 4 years during which she had several children that all died. She was interviewed and spouted some of the Jihadi nonsense which had no doubt been ground into her. And she was deemed a risk to our national security as a result with the consequence that she had her nationality removed from her because she had a theoretical right to citizenship somewhere else, something she no longer has.
I think "harsh" is a somewhat tepid word for that.
I think its pretty clear that both the main parties have some that are out and out racists. That shouldn't be controversial to say. Our FPTP system leads to large coalition parties, as opposed to having PR systems that tend to produce coalitions of smaller parties after the election. As a result Labour and the Tories are broad churches, and both have some very unsavoury elements.
The more unedifying aspect is each party revelling in the discomfort of the other when one of the idiots speaks up.
That’s politics. All very unseemly but par for the course .
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
Johnson has the greased piglet skills to escape the obvious contradiction, history suggests Truss does not. I'm still favouring the stupid option.
She lives in her own bubble, I think, and in there presents to herself and fellow occupants as a deep and radical thinker resolutely battling the stale consensus. It's nice work if you can get it.
I wonder how her Norfolk constituents view some of her shenanigans!
FPT - I can't recall who posted it but whatever you think of Matthew Goodwin that exchange between him and Portillo on GB News was excellent.
A must watch.
Oh goodness, you've not succumbed to Fox News GBeebies?
Have you seen the clip?
Try it. Sometimes even I think Channel4 and The Guardian has a point.
I thought it was very disappointing. I'm quite a fan of Portillo and though he added very little I at least expected him to conduct a debate that might bring something insightful from Goodwin.
Goodwins argument was quite simply that the David Amess killing and the Arena bombing were both carried out by islamists so call it as it is; have an immediate halt on immigration and declare war on Islam.
Where this falls down Is that Amess was killed by a man born and brought up in southwalk who apparently had very little religion in his upbringing and the Arena bombing by someone born and brought up in Rushome
Anyone know how you apply for a professorship these days?
Except as a teenager he was referred to Prevent and considered himself an affiliate of Islamic State.
The Left really do need to develop an answer to this, rather than ignoring it and fingerpointing anyone who raises concerns about it as a closet racist, or you will find yourselves superseded in office by those who propose far more radical solutions - think forced deportations.
What is the solution? A good scheme to counter radicalisation (Prevent could be improved); good policing of radical groups (police funding has been cut); good mental health services (NHS is underfunded); good security for MPs; building a welcoming society that doesn't view all Muslims as dangerous (removing the whip from Islamophobic politicians is a good start).
Taylor & Soni (2017), in a review of Prevent in schools, suggest: "Radicalisation refers to views and not acts. Radicalised views are not acts of terrorism and are not in themselves a threat. The focus on identifying and intervening adopted by the CTSA and Prevent leads to problematic culture of surveillance which inhibits the creation of safe spaces in which to debate radical views. In fact, the lived experiences of Prevent in schools by the participants of these studies suggest it deters important critical discussion through fear and further alienates and villainises groups who may already feel alienated and villainised, threatening their sense of belonging and exacerbating the likelihood of creating intergroup conflict in our society. Instead, a focus on identifying areas of ‘overlapping consensus’ (Panjwani, Citation2016, p. 330) between the variety of viewpoints held by pupils in the UK and modern, liberal values could help reduce perceived tensions and create a greater sense of unity within our educational settings. Furthermore, programmes such as Tapestry can genuinely engage pupils with the issue of radicalisation and should be considered a priority for future government funding."
Jerome & Elwick (2017) write: "School responses to the Prevent agenda have tended to focus primarily on ‘safeguarding’ approaches, which essentially perceive some young people as being ‘at risk’ and potentially as presenting a risk to others. In this article, we consider evidence from secondary school students who experienced a curriculum project on terrorism, extremism and radicalisation. We argue that a curriculum response which addresses the acquisition of knowledge can build students’ critical capacity for engagement with radicalisation through enhanced political literacy and media literacy. We further argue this represents a genuinely educational response to Prevent, as opposed to a more restrictive securitised approach."
That all said, some of the people who raise concerns, over and over again while ignoring other threats of political violence or ills in society, who make up lies about immigration and crime, are racists (and often without a closet). Fingerpointing at racists is appropriate and part of how we combat radicalisation.
While the sentiments above are nice - “let’s be welcoming to everyone” - what do you do with people advocating racial/religious supremacism, violent homophobia etc.
For example some of the people I went to university with were quite clear that gay people “from their community” were, in their minds, needing punishment. There were a number of assaults on gay students from ethnic minorities - nearly certainly from this world view.
Should we engage them in a balanced, socially conscious debate? Or do as one student union security guard did and throw a large industrial dustbin at them? (He disturbed a group assault on an individual)
You should engage with them *at a younger age* in a balanced, socially conscious debate with “a focus on identifying areas of ‘overlapping consensus’ (Panjwani, 2016, p. 330) between the variety of viewpoints held by pupils in the UK and modern, liberal values”.
You don’t presume that the problems of homophobia are confined to any one community, recognising, for example, the pernicious influence of Andrew Tate. You tackle big tech to do something about the damages that can be done my social media.
And, as a last resort, you throw dustbins at them.
Age groups are an interesting thing here. I would not even know who Andrew Tate was had it not been for the BBC News wittering on about him.
I do wonder if in trying to warn people about him, whatever his influence or schtick it, they are just helping raise awareness of him.
Andrew Tate was around for bloody ages before becoming famous. He was a minor league Z-lister (kicked off celebrity big brother) with a small following on Twitter and the like, who peddled "courses" (£1200ish for a few private youtube videos) explaining how to pick up girls to a bunch of deeply misogynistic incels.
What changed things for him was the way TikTok propels certain content into everyone's feeds (and Instagram does the same now, following TikTok). Tate got good at posing with fast cars and being provocative, getting into online spats and saying controversial things that gamed the algorithms. Once he reached critical mass, there was a snowball effect. More or less meaning if you were a youth heavily engaged on TikTok or similar, he was everywhere, all the time.
Yet another example of how algorithms and social media have made the world a worse place. But made famous by the BBC news website he was not - the youth don't consume that kind of media.
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
He wouldn't, for that would mean a criticising Trump.
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
How did Boris get to be the high-paid mega-columnist? His writing could be occasionally amusing, as I recall, but he's notoriously unreliable and has a history of journalistic fraud. What was the big appeal?
Contacts. He went to Eton, remember!
Because he is genuinely funny. I know some people loathe him so much that they cannot credit him with any positive qualities whatsoever, but there are very few writers (or indeed speakers) who are genuinely funny, and he is one.
He is genuinely funny in a the same way that people found Benny Hill humourous.
Johnson's comedy is slapstick. It is very unsophisticated. I would find that tiresome, but whatever floats your boat.
As a PB leftie can I point out that I am fairly comfortable with the treatment of Bangladeshi citizen Shamina Begum for one main reason. It has been found, by a legal system finds in favour of individuals in immigration cases on a daily basis, to be in order. Something that is pretty illiberal and hard such that it discomforts many PB Tories is in order.
Perhaps, rather than complaining about lefty lawyers all the time, the Home Office and the Tory right should reflect on how serious, determined politicians like Javid and May (in the case of Qatada) managed to do pretty illiberal things to protect the UK within the law, where as bloviating hardliners, who didn't see the need to work with rather than against the law, failed.
My problem is that it is a remarkable power for an elected official who has public pressure to take into account to have. Both May and Javid are serious people but we have frankly had less serious people as Home Secretary, not least both Patel and Braverman and I do not trust them to have that kind of power when they make silly, partisan and borderline racist comments all too regularly.
The view taken by the courts, and this is very much a characteristic of the Reed Supreme Court, is have the laws been complied with. If they have they have no role to play on the merits of the decision. The Appeal Court said that some might think the decision was harsh and others might think she had brought it on herself but neither of them were for them. They simply had to look and see if the boxes had been ticked.
I don't like that. I think that the courts should have a role in reviewing the merits of the case. I accept that the decision of the Home Secretary should be given due deference, especially on the question of national security, but that is different from this being the beginning and end of the matter.
On this case a rather silly young girl got swept along with Jihadi nonsense when she was 15. She went out to Iraq and was sexually abused for 4 years during which she had several children that all died. She was interviewed and spouted some of the Jihadi nonsense which had no doubt been ground into her. And she was deemed a risk to our national security as a result with the consequence that she had her nationality removed from her because she had a theoretical right to citizenship somewhere else, something she no longer has.
I think "harsh" is a somewhat tepid word for that.
She, in her own account, participated in enslaving Yazidi women and punishing them for have the temerity to disobey their ISIS masters.
The Kurds didn’t try her, out of diplomatic regard for the U.K.
Because, IIRC, under their laws, she was liable for the death penalty.
I think its pretty clear that both the main parties have some that are out and out racists. That shouldn't be controversial to say. Our FPTP system leads to large coalition parties, as opposed to having PR systems that tend to produce coalitions of smaller parties after the election. As a result Labour and the Tories are broad churches, and both have some very unsavoury elements.
The more unedifying aspect is each party revelling in the discomfort of the other when one of the idiots speaks up.
That’s politics. All very unseemly but par for the course .
As a PB leftie can I point out that I am fairly comfortable with the treatment of Bangladeshi citizen Shamina Begum for one main reason. It has been found, by a legal system finds in favour of individuals in immigration cases on a daily basis, to be in order. Something that is pretty illiberal and hard such that it discomforts many PB Tories is in order.
Perhaps, rather than complaining about lefty lawyers all the time, the Home Office and the Tory right should reflect on how serious, determined politicians like Javid and May (in the case of Qatada) managed to do pretty illiberal things to protect the UK within the law, where as bloviating hardliners, who didn't see the need to work with rather than against the law, failed.
My problem is that it is a remarkable power for an elected official who has public pressure to take into account to have. Both May and Javid are serious people but we have frankly had less serious people as Home Secretary, not least both Patel and Braverman and I do not trust them to have that kind of power when they make silly, partisan and borderline racist comments all too regularly.
The view taken by the courts, and this is very much a characteristic of the Reed Supreme Court, is have the laws been complied with? If they have they have no role to play on the merits of the decision. The Appeal Court said that some might think the decision was harsh and others might think she had brought it on herself but neither of them were for them. They simply had to look and see if the boxes had been ticked.
I don't like that. I think that the courts should have a role in reviewing the merits of the case. I accept that the decision of the Home Secretary should be given due deference, especially on the question of national security, but that is different from this being the beginning and end of the matter.
On this case a rather silly young girl got swept along with Jihadi nonsense when she was 15. She went out to Iraq and was sexually abused for 4 years during which she had several children that all died. She was interviewed and spouted some of the Jihadi nonsense which had no doubt been ground into her. And she was deemed a risk to our national security as a result with the consequence that she had her nationality removed from her because she had a theoretical right to citizenship somewhere else, something she no longer has.
I think "harsh" is a somewhat tepid word for that.
Yes; the difference between ‘the law’ and ‘justice’. I don’t think that the girl has been ‘justly’ treated.
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
He wouldn't, for that would mean a criticising Trump.
Let's give @williamglenn a chance to say what he means - and disprove Nigelb's suggestion that he is maybe 'dishonest'
FPT - I can't recall who posted it but whatever you think of Matthew Goodwin that exchange between him and Portillo on GB News was excellent.
A must watch.
Oh goodness, you've not succumbed to Fox News GBeebies?
Have you seen the clip?
Try it. Sometimes even I think Channel4 and The Guardian has a point.
I thought it was very disappointing. I'm quite a fan of Portillo and though he added very little I at least expected him to conduct a debate that might bring something insightful from Goodwin.
Goodwins argument was quite simply that the David Amess killing and the Arena bombing were both carried out by islamists so call it as it is; have an immediate halt on immigration and declare war on Islam.
Where this falls down Is that Amess was killed by a man born and brought up in southwalk who apparently had very little religion in his upbringing and the Arena bombing by someone born and brought up in Rushome
Anyone know how you apply for a professorship these days?
Except as a teenager he was referred to Prevent and considered himself an affiliate of Islamic State.
The Left really do need to develop an answer to this, rather than ignoring it and fingerpointing anyone who raises concerns about it as a closet racist, or you will find yourselves superseded in office by those who propose far more radical solutions - think forced deportations.
What is the solution? A good scheme to counter radicalisation (Prevent could be improved); good policing of radical groups (police funding has been cut); good mental health services (NHS is underfunded); good security for MPs; building a welcoming society that doesn't view all Muslims as dangerous (removing the whip from Islamophobic politicians is a good start).
Taylor & Soni (2017), in a review of Prevent in schools, suggest: "Radicalisation refers to views and not acts. Radicalised views are not acts of terrorism and are not in themselves a threat. The focus on identifying and intervening adopted by the CTSA and Prevent leads to problematic culture of surveillance which inhibits the creation of safe spaces in which to debate radical views. In fact, the lived experiences of Prevent in schools by the participants of these studies suggest it deters important critical discussion through fear and further alienates and villainises groups who may already feel alienated and villainised, threatening their sense of belonging and exacerbating the likelihood of creating intergroup conflict in our society. Instead, a focus on identifying areas of ‘overlapping consensus’ (Panjwani, Citation2016, p. 330) between the variety of viewpoints held by pupils in the UK and modern, liberal values could help reduce perceived tensions and create a greater sense of unity within our educational settings. Furthermore, programmes such as Tapestry can genuinely engage pupils with the issue of radicalisation and should be considered a priority for future government funding."
Jerome & Elwick (2017) write: "School responses to the Prevent agenda have tended to focus primarily on ‘safeguarding’ approaches, which essentially perceive some young people as being ‘at risk’ and potentially as presenting a risk to others. In this article, we consider evidence from secondary school students who experienced a curriculum project on terrorism, extremism and radicalisation. We argue that a curriculum response which addresses the acquisition of knowledge can build students’ critical capacity for engagement with radicalisation through enhanced political literacy and media literacy. We further argue this represents a genuinely educational response to Prevent, as opposed to a more restrictive securitised approach."
That all said, some of the people who raise concerns, over and over again while ignoring other threats of political violence or ills in society, who make up lies about immigration and crime, are racists (and often without a closet). Fingerpointing at racists is appropriate and part of how we combat radicalisation.
While the sentiments above are nice - “let’s be welcoming to everyone” - what do you do with people advocating racial/religious supremacism, violent homophobia etc.
For example some of the people I went to university with were quite clear that gay people “from their community” were, in their minds, needing punishment. There were a number of assaults on gay students from ethnic minorities - nearly certainly from this world view.
Should we engage them in a balanced, socially conscious debate? Or do as one student union security guard did and throw a large industrial dustbin at them? (He disturbed a group assault on an individual)
You should engage with them *at a younger age* in a balanced, socially conscious debate with “a focus on identifying areas of ‘overlapping consensus’ (Panjwani, 2016, p. 330) between the variety of viewpoints held by pupils in the UK and modern, liberal values”.
You don’t presume that the problems of homophobia are confined to any one community, recognising, for example, the pernicious influence of Andrew Tate. You tackle big tech to do something about the damages that can be done my social media.
And, as a last resort, you throw dustbins at them.
Age groups are an interesting thing here. I would not even know who Andrew Tate was had it not been for the BBC News wittering on about him.
I do wonder if in trying to warn people about him, whatever his influence or schtick it, they are just helping raise awareness of him.
Andrew Tate was around for bloody ages before becoming famous. He was a minor league Z-lister (kicked off celebrity big brother) with a small following on Twitter and the like, who peddled "courses" (£1200ish for a few private youtube videos) explaining how to pick up girls to a bunch of deeply misogynistic incels.
What changed things for him was the way TikTok propels certain content into everyone's feeds (and Instagram does the same now, following TikTok). Tate got good at posing with fast cars and being provocative, getting into online spats and saying controversial things that gamed the algorithms. Once he reached critical mass, there was a snowball effect. More or less meaning if you were a youth heavily engaged on TikTok or similar, he was everywhere, all the time.
Yet another example of how algorithms and social media have made the world a worse place. But made famous by the BBC news website he was not - the youth don't consume that kind of media.
Thanks for that. Interesting really how social media seems to work. I do not use TikTok.
He sounds a rather unpleasant fellow. Not really a role model. I wonder why he appeals to the people he appeals to.
As a PB leftie can I point out that I am fairly comfortable with the treatment of Bangladeshi citizen Shamina Begum for one main reason. It has been found, by a legal system finds in favour of individuals in immigration cases on a daily basis, to be in order. Something that is pretty illiberal and hard such that it discomforts many PB Tories is in order.
Perhaps, rather than complaining about lefty lawyers all the time, the Home Office and the Tory right should reflect on how serious, determined politicians like Javid and May (in the case of Qatada) managed to do pretty illiberal things to protect the UK within the law, where as bloviating hardliners, who didn't see the need to work with rather than against the law, failed.
My problem is that it is a remarkable power for an elected official who has public pressure to take into account to have. Both May and Javid are serious people but we have frankly had less serious people as Home Secretary, not least both Patel and Braverman and I do not trust them to have that kind of power when they make silly, partisan and borderline racist comments all too regularly.
The view taken by the courts, and this is very much a characteristic of the Reed Supreme Court, is have the laws been complied with? If they have they have no role to play on the merits of the decision. The Appeal Court said that some might think the decision was harsh and others might think she had brought it on herself but neither of them were for them. They simply had to look and see if the boxes had been ticked.
I don't like that. I think that the courts should have a role in reviewing the merits of the case. I accept that the decision of the Home Secretary should be given due deference, especially on the question of national security, but that is different from this being the beginning and end of the matter.
On this case a rather silly young girl got swept along with Jihadi nonsense when she was 15. She went out to Iraq and was sexually abused for 4 years during which she had several children that all died. She was interviewed and spouted some of the Jihadi nonsense which had no doubt been ground into her. And she was deemed a risk to our national security as a result with the consequence that she had her nationality removed from her because she had a theoretical right to citizenship somewhere else, something she no longer has.
I think "harsh" is a somewhat tepid word for that.
Yes; the difference between ‘the law’ and ‘justice’. I don’t think that the girl has been ‘justly’ treated.
Taking a step back the reason that we ended up with such draconian laws was the the Hale Supreme Court was something of a loose cannon which interfered with and second guessed politicians to a ridiculous extent with the consequence that it became difficult to make any decision at all. The result was a determined effort to exclude the role of the courts (we have seen similar thinking on the Rwanda nonsense). Add that restriction to the approach of the Reed court and you end up with no review at all. We have gone from one unacceptable extreme to the other.
As a PB leftie can I point out that I am fairly comfortable with the treatment of Bangladeshi citizen Shamina Begum for one main reason. It has been found, by a legal system finds in favour of individuals in immigration cases on a daily basis, to be in order. Something that is pretty illiberal and hard such that it discomforts many PB Tories is in order.
Perhaps, rather than complaining about lefty lawyers all the time, the Home Office and the Tory right should reflect on how serious, determined politicians like Javid and May (in the case of Qatada) managed to do pretty illiberal things to protect the UK within the law, where as bloviating hardliners, who didn't see the need to work with rather than against the law, failed.
My problem is that it is a remarkable power for an elected official who has public pressure to take into account to have. Both May and Javid are serious people but we have frankly had less serious people as Home Secretary, not least both Patel and Braverman and I do not trust them to have that kind of power when they make silly, partisan and borderline racist comments all too regularly.
The view taken by the courts, and this is very much a characteristic of the Reed Supreme Court, is have the laws been complied with. If they have they have no role to play on the merits of the decision. The Appeal Court said that some might think the decision was harsh and others might think she had brought it on herself but neither of them were for them. They simply had to look and see if the boxes had been ticked.
I don't like that. I think that the courts should have a role in reviewing the merits of the case. I accept that the decision of the Home Secretary should be given due deference, especially on the question of national security, but that is different from this being the beginning and end of the matter.
On this case a rather silly young girl got swept along with Jihadi nonsense when she was 15. She went out to Iraq and was sexually abused for 4 years during which she had several children that all died. She was interviewed and spouted some of the Jihadi nonsense which had no doubt been ground into her. And she was deemed a risk to our national security as a result with the consequence that she had her nationality removed from her because she had a theoretical right to citizenship somewhere else, something she no longer has.
I think "harsh" is a somewhat tepid word for that.
She, in her own account, participated in enslaving Yazidi women and punishing them for have the temerity to disobey their ISIS masters.
The Kurds didn’t try her, out of diplomatic regard for the U.K.
Because, IIRC, under their laws, she was liable for the death penalty.
I have no doubt that many will say that she was groomed, every bit as much as girl groomed in Rochdale with booze, fags and attention. And I have some sympathy for this view. However at 15 she should have been able to tell right from wrong - burning people to death, beheading them, stoning them, enslaving women for the sexual gratification of others are all pretty obviously wrong.
When she was first interviewed she claimed she was 'ok with it' or something along those lines, when asked about the crimes of ISIS. After a bit more media training she now expresses remorse, but you wonder whether this is just crocodile tears, or tears for the situation she finds herself in.
I believe she bore and has lost three children, which must be awful.
Many want her to face trial in the UK. Perhaps that would be the best way to proceed, but I worry about the evidence that there is against here.
I also think its fair to wonder that if Begum can be deprived of British citizenship on a whim, then what could happen to any of us?
But at the end of the day, she choose the path of horrific terrorism. She might claim that she was told it was not as portrayed by the Western media, but I would call bullshit on that. Presumably the beheading videos were all of very good actors? Can't blame AI back then...
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
How did Boris get to be the high-paid mega-columnist? His writing could be occasionally amusing, as I recall, but he's notoriously unreliable and has a history of journalistic fraud. What was the big appeal?
Contacts. He went to Eton, remember!
Because he is genuinely funny. I know some people loathe him so much that they cannot credit him with any positive qualities whatsoever, but there are very few writers (or indeed speakers) who are genuinely funny, and he is one.
He is genuinely funny in a the same way that people found Benny Hill humourous.
Johnson's comedy is slapstick. It is very unsophisticated. I would find that tiresome, but whatever floats your boat.
Nowt wrong with being funny. Or in being paid shedloads to be funny. But it's a terrible preparation for high office.
In a parallel universe, he's a somewhat more rougish Gyles Brandreth of his generation. Floats around highish society for no particular reason, maybe was a backbench MP for a bit, does a turn on Have I Got News For You every series. Some of his columns cause a spot of bother for the Tories, but that's part of the fun and no real harm is done.
Probably content enough, and the country is probably in a better place than it is now. But every now and then, someone comes up to him after he does a speech at a constituency dinner and says "you should have been Prime Minister", and there's a little pang of sadness.
I think its pretty clear that both the main parties have some that are out and out racists. That shouldn't be controversial to say. Our FPTP system leads to large coalition parties, as opposed to having PR systems that tend to produce coalitions of smaller parties after the election. As a result Labour and the Tories are broad churches, and both have some very unsavoury elements.
The more unedifying aspect is each party revelling in the discomfort of the other when one of the idiots speaks up.
That’s politics. All very unseemly but par for the course .
The MP who replaced David Amess describes her experience of visiting a local mosque
Okay - that seems like something to respond to, not hand wave as unacceptable and run away from. I mean if our response to Ukraine was the same as our position on Gaza, and it was Ukrainian or other people from Eastern Europe living in the UK reacting this way I don't think people would question them as much. For all we know this woman could have lost friends or family - that isn't expanded upon. I don't see a problem with confrontational questioning of your MP nor then doing a protest.
Says a coward hiding behind internet anonymity.
Happy to have a chat in person with people - as I said when someone did the equivalent of asking if I wanted to take chat here outside where we can deal with it one on one.
But also, getting people who are confrontational at surgeries or PR do's is normal - we keep seeing that when other politicians do walk arounds and get confronted by passers by - there was a pretty viral one where Johnson was approached after partygate came out, if I remember correctly. Again, it seems that this kind of stuff is fine if it is the "legitimate concerns" of white people, where those "legitimate concerns" are typically whipped up by the right wing press and then is considered the view of the "white working class", but when it's Muslim people in this country making their views known they are dismissed as being too angry and too much of a risk.
As a PB leftie can I point out that I am fairly comfortable with the treatment of Bangladeshi citizen Shamina Begum for one main reason. It has been found, by a legal system finds in favour of individuals in immigration cases on a daily basis, to be in order. Something that is pretty illiberal and hard such that it discomforts many PB Tories is in order.
Perhaps, rather than complaining about lefty lawyers all the time, the Home Office and the Tory right should reflect on how serious, determined politicians like Javid and May (in the case of Qatada) managed to do pretty illiberal things to protect the UK within the law, where as bloviating hardliners, who didn't see the need to work with rather than against the law, failed.
My problem is that it is a remarkable power for an elected official who has public pressure to take into account to have. Both May and Javid are serious people but we have frankly had less serious people as Home Secretary, not least both Patel and Braverman and I do not trust them to have that kind of power when they make silly, partisan and borderline racist comments all too regularly.
The view taken by the courts, and this is very much a characteristic of the Reed Supreme Court, is have the laws been complied with. If they have they have no role to play on the merits of the decision. The Appeal Court said that some might think the decision was harsh and others might think she had brought it on herself but neither of them were for them. They simply had to look and see if the boxes had been ticked.
I don't like that. I think that the courts should have a role in reviewing the merits of the case. I accept that the decision of the Home Secretary should be given due deference, especially on the question of national security, but that is different from this being the beginning and end of the matter.
On this case a rather silly young girl got swept along with Jihadi nonsense when she was 15. She went out to Iraq and was sexually abused for 4 years during which she had several children that all died. She was interviewed and spouted some of the Jihadi nonsense which had no doubt been ground into her. And she was deemed a risk to our national security as a result with the consequence that she had her nationality removed from her because she had a theoretical right to citizenship somewhere else, something she no longer has.
I think "harsh" is a somewhat tepid word for that.
She, in her own account, participated in enslaving Yazidi women and punishing them for have the temerity to disobey their ISIS masters.
The Kurds didn’t try her, out of diplomatic regard for the U.K.
Because, IIRC, under their laws, she was liable for the death penalty.
If she has committed crimes then she should be tried and punished for those crimes. I am not saying she should be let off. What I am saying is that this is not a good basis to leave someone stateless, which is what in fact has occurred.
As a PB leftie can I point out that I am fairly comfortable with the treatment of Bangladeshi citizen Shamina Begum for one main reason. It has been found, by a legal system finds in favour of individuals in immigration cases on a daily basis, to be in order. Something that is pretty illiberal and hard such that it discomforts many PB Tories is in order.
Perhaps, rather than complaining about lefty lawyers all the time, the Home Office and the Tory right should reflect on how serious, determined politicians like Javid and May (in the case of Qatada) managed to do pretty illiberal things to protect the UK within the law, where as bloviating hardliners, who didn't see the need to work with rather than against the law, failed.
My problem is that it is a remarkable power for an elected official who has public pressure to take into account to have. Both May and Javid are serious people but we have frankly had less serious people as Home Secretary, not least both Patel and Braverman and I do not trust them to have that kind of power when they make silly, partisan and borderline racist comments all too regularly.
The view taken by the courts, and this is very much a characteristic of the Reed Supreme Court, is have the laws been complied with. If they have they have no role to play on the merits of the decision. The Appeal Court said that some might think the decision was harsh and others might think she had brought it on herself but neither of them were for them. They simply had to look and see if the boxes had been ticked.
I don't like that. I think that the courts should have a role in reviewing the merits of the case. I accept that the decision of the Home Secretary should be given due deference, especially on the question of national security, but that is different from this being the beginning and end of the matter.
On this case a rather silly young girl got swept along with Jihadi nonsense when she was 15. She went out to Iraq and was sexually abused for 4 years during which she had several children that all died. She was interviewed and spouted some of the Jihadi nonsense which had no doubt been ground into her. And she was deemed a risk to our national security as a result with the consequence that she had her nationality removed from her because she had a theoretical right to citizenship somewhere else, something she no longer has.
I think "harsh" is a somewhat tepid word for that.
She, in her own account, participated in enslaving Yazidi women and punishing them for have the temerity to disobey their ISIS masters.
The Kurds didn’t try her, out of diplomatic regard for the U.K.
Because, IIRC, under their laws, she was liable for the death penalty.
If she has committed crimes then she should be tried and punished for those crimes. I am not saying she should be let off. What I am saying is that this is not a good basis to leave someone stateless, which is what in fact has occurred.
That’s actually my position.
But there seems to be a thing about not trying people for treason and war crimes.
In any case arbitrary punishment is a bad idea - poor old Magna Carta (she gets so much stick) and all that.
As a PB leftie can I point out that I am fairly comfortable with the treatment of Bangladeshi citizen Shamina Begum for one main reason. It has been found, by a legal system finds in favour of individuals in immigration cases on a daily basis, to be in order. Something that is pretty illiberal and hard such that it discomforts many PB Tories is in order.
Perhaps, rather than complaining about lefty lawyers all the time, the Home Office and the Tory right should reflect on how serious, determined politicians like Javid and May (in the case of Qatada) managed to do pretty illiberal things to protect the UK within the law, where as bloviating hardliners, who didn't see the need to work with rather than against the law, failed.
My problem is that it is a remarkable power for an elected official who has public pressure to take into account to have. Both May and Javid are serious people but we have frankly had less serious people as Home Secretary, not least both Patel and Braverman and I do not trust them to have that kind of power when they make silly, partisan and borderline racist comments all too regularly.
The view taken by the courts, and this is very much a characteristic of the Reed Supreme Court, is have the laws been complied with. If they have they have no role to play on the merits of the decision. The Appeal Court said that some might think the decision was harsh and others might think she had brought it on herself but neither of them were for them. They simply had to look and see if the boxes had been ticked.
I don't like that. I think that the courts should have a role in reviewing the merits of the case. I accept that the decision of the Home Secretary should be given due deference, especially on the question of national security, but that is different from this being the beginning and end of the matter.
On this case a rather silly young girl got swept along with Jihadi nonsense when she was 15. She went out to Iraq and was sexually abused for 4 years during which she had several children that all died. She was interviewed and spouted some of the Jihadi nonsense which had no doubt been ground into her. And she was deemed a risk to our national security as a result with the consequence that she had her nationality removed from her because she had a theoretical right to citizenship somewhere else, something she no longer has.
I think "harsh" is a somewhat tepid word for that.
She, in her own account, participated in enslaving Yazidi women and punishing them for have the temerity to disobey their ISIS masters.
The Kurds didn’t try her, out of diplomatic regard for the U.K.
Because, IIRC, under their laws, she was liable for the death penalty.
If she has committed crimes then she should be tried and punished for those crimes. I am not saying she should be let off. What I am saying is that this is not a good basis to leave someone stateless, which is what in fact has occurred.
Exactly. She appears to have done some very nasty things indeed, but she’s still British and she be dealt with according to our laws.
I think its pretty clear that both the main parties have some that are out and out racists. That shouldn't be controversial to say. Our FPTP system leads to large coalition parties, as opposed to having PR systems that tend to produce coalitions of smaller parties after the election. As a result Labour and the Tories are broad churches, and both have some very unsavoury elements.
The more unedifying aspect is each party revelling in the discomfort of the other when one of the idiots speaks up.
That’s politics. All very unseemly but par for the course .
Is it wrong to hope for better?
No of course not . But the point scoring is likely to be much worse in an election year . Labour were cracking open the champagne when the Anderson story broke.
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Well, because historically most non-white people have entered the UK without assets and/or to do the most menial jobs, and are therefore concentrated in the poorest areas.
I think its pretty clear that both the main parties have some that are out and out racists. That shouldn't be controversial to say. Our FPTP system leads to large coalition parties, as opposed to having PR systems that tend to produce coalitions of smaller parties after the election. As a result Labour and the Tories are broad churches, and both have some very unsavoury elements.
The more unedifying aspect is each party revelling in the discomfort of the other when one of the idiots speaks up.
That’s politics. All very unseemly but par for the course .
Is it wrong to hope for better?
No of course not . But the point scoring is likely to be much worse in an election year . Labour were cracking open the champagne when the Anderson story broke.
The MP who replaced David Amess describes her experience of visiting a local mosque
Okay - that seems like something to respond to, not hand wave as unacceptable and run away from. I mean if our response to Ukraine was the same as our position on Gaza, and it was Ukrainian or other people from Eastern Europe living in the UK reacting this way I don't think people would question them as much. For all we know this woman could have lost friends or family - that isn't expanded upon. I don't see a problem with confrontational questioning of your MP nor then doing a protest.
Says a coward hiding behind internet anonymity.
Happy to have a chat in person with people - as I said when someone did the equivalent of asking if I wanted to take chat here outside where we can deal with it one on one.
But also, getting people who are confrontational at surgeries or PR do's is normal - we keep seeing that when other politicians do walk arounds and get confronted by passers by - there was a pretty viral one where Johnson was approached after partygate came out, if I remember correctly. Again, it seems that this kind of stuff is fine if it is the "legitimate concerns" of white people, where those "legitimate concerns" are typically whipped up by the right wing press and then is considered the view of the "white working class", but when it's Muslim people in this country making their views known they are dismissed as being too angry and too much of a risk.
I've never seen any occasion when MPs have been mobbed by angry white people subsequently brushed off as 'legitimate concerns'?
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Well, because historically most non-white people have entered the UK without assets and/or to do the most menial jobs, and are therefore concentrated in the poorest areas.
The coverage I saw suggested there was a pattern even when adjusted to compare areas with comparable rates of car accidents and theft.
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
How did Boris get to be the high-paid mega-columnist? His writing could be occasionally amusing, as I recall, but he's notoriously unreliable and has a history of journalistic fraud. What was the big appeal?
Contacts. He went to Eton, remember!
Because he is genuinely funny. I know some people loathe him so much that they cannot credit him with any positive qualities whatsoever, but there are very few writers (or indeed speakers) who are genuinely funny, and he is one.
He is genuinely funny in a the same way that people found Benny Hill humourous.
Johnson's comedy is slapstick. It is very unsophisticated. I would find that tiresome, but whatever floats your boat.
Regardless of whether you find him funny or not, you and Cookie seem to have reached a consensus that Johnson is a stand-up comedian.
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Probably cheaper and those from the minorities tend to be less well off?
Do you think that perpetuates a cycle of race based disadvantage? So if historically non-white people were paid less, they had to live in cheaper places, these places have high levels of crime (in part because these people are over policed in part because crime is typically a reaction to poor economic conditions) and that these then feed into each other? So that even if you can see a link that is more geographically based, that geography and race are deeply intertwined in our society in part due to racism.
FPT - I can't recall who posted it but whatever you think of Matthew Goodwin that exchange between him and Portillo on GB News was excellent.
A must watch.
Oh goodness, you've not succumbed to Fox News GBeebies?
Have you seen the clip?
Try it. Sometimes even I think Channel4 and The Guardian has a point.
I thought it was very disappointing. I'm quite a fan of Portillo and though he added very little I at least expected him to conduct a debate that might bring something insightful from Goodwin.
Goodwins argument was quite simply that the David Amess killing and the Arena bombing were both carried out by islamists so call it as it is; have an immediate halt on immigration and declare war on Islam.
Where this falls down Is that Amess was killed by a man born and brought up in southwalk who apparently had very little religion in his upbringing and the Arena bombing by someone born and brought up in Rushome
Anyone know how you apply for a professorship these days?
Except as a teenager he was referred to Prevent and considered himself an affiliate of Islamic State.
The Left really do need to develop an answer to this, rather than ignoring it and fingerpointing anyone who raises concerns about it as a closet racist, or you will find yourselves superseded in office by those who propose far more radical solutions - think forced deportations.
What is the solution? A good scheme to counter radicalisation (Prevent could be improved); good policing of radical groups (police funding has been cut); good mental health services (NHS is underfunded); good security for MPs; building a welcoming society that doesn't view all Muslims as dangerous (removing the whip from Islamophobic politicians is a good start).
Taylor & Soni (2017), in a review of Prevent in schools, suggest: "Radicalisation refers to views and not acts. Radicalised views are not acts of terrorism and are not in themselves a threat. The focus on identifying and intervening adopted by the CTSA and Prevent leads to problematic culture of surveillance which inhibits the creation of safe spaces in which to debate radical views. In fact, the lived experiences of Prevent in schools by the participants of these studies suggest it deters important critical discussion through fear and further alienates and villainises groups who may already feel alienated and villainised, threatening their sense of belonging and exacerbating the likelihood of creating intergroup conflict in our society. Instead, a focus on identifying areas of ‘overlapping consensus’ (Panjwani, Citation2016, p. 330) between the variety of viewpoints held by pupils in the UK and modern, liberal values could help reduce perceived tensions and create a greater sense of unity within our educational settings. Furthermore, programmes such as Tapestry can genuinely engage pupils with the issue of radicalisation and should be considered a priority for future government funding."
Jerome & Elwick (2017) write: "School responses to the Prevent agenda have tended to focus primarily on ‘safeguarding’ approaches, which essentially perceive some young people as being ‘at risk’ and potentially as presenting a risk to others. In this article, we consider evidence from secondary school students who experienced a curriculum project on terrorism, extremism and radicalisation. We argue that a curriculum response which addresses the acquisition of knowledge can build students’ critical capacity for engagement with radicalisation through enhanced political literacy and media literacy. We further argue this represents a genuinely educational response to Prevent, as opposed to a more restrictive securitised approach."
That all said, some of the people who raise concerns, over and over again while ignoring other threats of political violence or ills in society, who make up lies about immigration and crime, are racists (and often without a closet). Fingerpointing at racists is appropriate and part of how we combat radicalisation.
While the sentiments above are nice - “let’s be welcoming to everyone” - what do you do with people advocating racial/religious supremacism, violent homophobia etc.
For example some of the people I went to university with were quite clear that gay people “from their community” were, in their minds, needing punishment. There were a number of assaults on gay students from ethnic minorities - nearly certainly from this world view.
Should we engage them in a balanced, socially conscious debate? Or do as one student union security guard did and throw a large industrial dustbin at them? (He disturbed a group assault on an individual)
You should engage with them *at a younger age* in a balanced, socially conscious debate with “a focus on identifying areas of ‘overlapping consensus’ (Panjwani, 2016, p. 330) between the variety of viewpoints held by pupils in the UK and modern, liberal values”.
You don’t presume that the problems of homophobia are confined to any one community, recognising, for example, the pernicious influence of Andrew Tate. You tackle big tech to do something about the damages that can be done my social media.
And, as a last resort, you throw dustbins at them.
Age groups are an interesting thing here. I would not even know who Andrew Tate was had it not been for the BBC News wittering on about him.
I do wonder if in trying to warn people about him, whatever his influence or schtick it, they are just helping raise awareness of him.
Andrew Tate was around for bloody ages before becoming famous. He was a minor league Z-lister (kicked off celebrity big brother) with a small following on Twitter and the like, who peddled "courses" (£1200ish for a few private youtube videos) explaining how to pick up girls to a bunch of deeply misogynistic incels.
What changed things for him was the way TikTok propels certain content into everyone's feeds (and Instagram does the same now, following TikTok). Tate got good at posing with fast cars and being provocative, getting into online spats and saying controversial things that gamed the algorithms. Once he reached critical mass, there was a snowball effect. More or less meaning if you were a youth heavily engaged on TikTok or similar, he was everywhere, all the time.
Yet another example of how algorithms and social media have made the world a worse place. But made famous by the BBC news website he was not - the youth don't consume that kind of media.
Thanks for that. Interesting really how social media seems to work. I do not use TikTok.
He sounds a rather unpleasant fellow. Not really a role model. I wonder why he appeals to the people he appeals to.
I would guess primarily because he annoys people they dislike. cf. to some extent the success of Donald Trump.
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Well, because historically most non-white people have entered the UK without assets and/or to do the most menial jobs, and are therefore concentrated in the poorest areas.
Not just non-white. Pretty much any kind of furriner. Hence the conveyer belt from the East End of London (near the docks) and out (as people got more affluent).
Had a spot of bother with some of the imports, as well.
A previous Home Sec. demonstrating that pros take cover behind walls, not shop fronts of untempered glass.
The MP who replaced David Amess describes her experience of visiting a local mosque
Okay - that seems like something to respond to, not hand wave as unacceptable and run away from. I mean if our response to Ukraine was the same as our position on Gaza, and it was Ukrainian or other people from Eastern Europe living in the UK reacting this way I don't think people would question them as much. For all we know this woman could have lost friends or family - that isn't expanded upon. I don't see a problem with confrontational questioning of your MP nor then doing a protest.
Says a coward hiding behind internet anonymity.
Happy to have a chat in person with people - as I said when someone did the equivalent of asking if I wanted to take chat here outside where we can deal with it one on one.
But also, getting people who are confrontational at surgeries or PR do's is normal - we keep seeing that when other politicians do walk arounds and get confronted by passers by - there was a pretty viral one where Johnson was approached after partygate came out, if I remember correctly. Again, it seems that this kind of stuff is fine if it is the "legitimate concerns" of white people, where those "legitimate concerns" are typically whipped up by the right wing press and then is considered the view of the "white working class", but when it's Muslim people in this country making their views known they are dismissed as being too angry and too much of a risk.
I've never seen any occasion when MPs have been mobbed by angry white people subsequently brushed off as 'legitimate concerns'?
I remember being at university and going to our local MP to ask him to vote in favour of equal marriage and the next group was a lot of older white people from a local catholic church, many of who literally spat at the queer students who passed them by, and as we left we could hear them shouting at the MP - but that's just an anecdote.
Also - if it isn't considered an issue why would you be aware of it? The whole point of the "legitimate concerns" language is to make it not news when people act in these ways on those topics - it's the "illegitimate concerns" where it's wrong to use these tactics.
FPT - I can't recall who posted it but whatever you think of Matthew Goodwin that exchange between him and Portillo on GB News was excellent.
A must watch.
Oh goodness, you've not succumbed to Fox News GBeebies?
Have you seen the clip?
Try it. Sometimes even I think Channel4 and The Guardian has a point.
I thought it was very disappointing. I'm quite a fan of Portillo and though he added very little I at least expected him to conduct a debate that might bring something insightful from Goodwin.
Goodwins argument was quite simply that the David Amess killing and the Arena bombing were both carried out by islamists so call it as it is; have an immediate halt on immigration and declare war on Islam.
Where this falls down Is that Amess was killed by a man born and brought up in southwalk who apparently had very little religion in his upbringing and the Arena bombing by someone born and brought up in Rushome
Anyone know how you apply for a professorship these days?
Except as a teenager he was referred to Prevent and considered himself an affiliate of Islamic State.
The Left really do need to develop an answer to this, rather than ignoring it and fingerpointing anyone who raises concerns about it as a closet racist, or you will find yourselves superseded in office by those who propose far more radical solutions - think forced deportations.
What is the solution? A good scheme to counter radicalisation (Prevent could be improved); good policing of radical groups (police funding has been cut); good mental health services (NHS is underfunded); good security for MPs; building a welcoming society that doesn't view all Muslims as dangerous (removing the whip from Islamophobic politicians is a good start).
Taylor & Soni (2017), in a review of Prevent in schools, suggest: "Radicalisation refers to views and not acts. Radicalised views are not acts of terrorism and are not in themselves a threat. The focus on identifying and intervening adopted by the CTSA and Prevent leads to problematic culture of surveillance which inhibits the creation of safe spaces in which to debate radical views. In fact, the lived experiences of Prevent in schools by the participants of these studies suggest it deters important critical discussion through fear and further alienates and villainises groups who may already feel alienated and villainised, threatening their sense of belonging and exacerbating the likelihood of creating intergroup conflict in our society. Instead, a focus on identifying areas of ‘overlapping consensus’ (Panjwani, Citation2016, p. 330) between the variety of viewpoints held by pupils in the UK and modern, liberal values could help reduce perceived tensions and create a greater sense of unity within our educational settings. Furthermore, programmes such as Tapestry can genuinely engage pupils with the issue of radicalisation and should be considered a priority for future government funding."
Jerome & Elwick (2017) write: "School responses to the Prevent agenda have tended to focus primarily on ‘safeguarding’ approaches, which essentially perceive some young people as being ‘at risk’ and potentially as presenting a risk to others. In this article, we consider evidence from secondary school students who experienced a curriculum project on terrorism, extremism and radicalisation. We argue that a curriculum response which addresses the acquisition of knowledge can build students’ critical capacity for engagement with radicalisation through enhanced political literacy and media literacy. We further argue this represents a genuinely educational response to Prevent, as opposed to a more restrictive securitised approach."
That all said, some of the people who raise concerns, over and over again while ignoring other threats of political violence or ills in society, who make up lies about immigration and crime, are racists (and often without a closet). Fingerpointing at racists is appropriate and part of how we combat radicalisation.
While the sentiments above are nice - “let’s be welcoming to everyone” - what do you do with people advocating racial/religious supremacism, violent homophobia etc.
For example some of the people I went to university with were quite clear that gay people “from their community” were, in their minds, needing punishment. There were a number of assaults on gay students from ethnic minorities - nearly certainly from this world view.
Should we engage them in a balanced, socially conscious debate? Or do as one student union security guard did and throw a large industrial dustbin at them? (He disturbed a group assault on an individual)
You should engage with them *at a younger age* in a balanced, socially conscious debate with “a focus on identifying areas of ‘overlapping consensus’ (Panjwani, 2016, p. 330) between the variety of viewpoints held by pupils in the UK and modern, liberal values”.
You don’t presume that the problems of homophobia are confined to any one community, recognising, for example, the pernicious influence of Andrew Tate. You tackle big tech to do something about the damages that can be done my social media.
And, as a last resort, you throw dustbins at them.
Age groups are an interesting thing here. I would not even know who Andrew Tate was had it not been for the BBC News wittering on about him.
I do wonder if in trying to warn people about him, whatever his influence or schtick it, they are just helping raise awareness of him.
Andrew Tate was around for bloody ages before becoming famous. He was a minor league Z-lister (kicked off celebrity big brother) with a small following on Twitter and the like, who peddled "courses" (£1200ish for a few private youtube videos) explaining how to pick up girls to a bunch of deeply misogynistic incels.
What changed things for him was the way TikTok propels certain content into everyone's feeds (and Instagram does the same now, following TikTok). Tate got good at posing with fast cars and being provocative, getting into online spats and saying controversial things that gamed the algorithms. Once he reached critical mass, there was a snowball effect. More or less meaning if you were a youth heavily engaged on TikTok or similar, he was everywhere, all the time.
Yet another example of how algorithms and social media have made the world a worse place. But made famous by the BBC news website he was not - the youth don't consume that kind of media.
Thanks for that. Interesting really how social media seems to work. I do not use TikTok.
He sounds a rather unpleasant fellow. Not really a role model. I wonder why he appeals to the people he appeals to.
He appeared on my radar a good couple of years before he became famous, mainly because I got into a twitter spat with one of his (at the time very small, but very devoted) cult members.
The thing about Tate is, he's not dumb, at all. A narcissistic sociopath, probably, but back before he became famous I looked at his chess.com profile and followed a few of his games, and the guy is smart. 1800ish elo on a 5 minute game, making him top 1% of players.
I remember him very deliberately gaming the TikTok algorithm, too. He did it by getting his small but very engaged group of followers/cultists to like, share and repost his stuff, essentially getting him onto the front page of Tiktok, or "trending" on Twitter. Once exposed to a massive audience, he snowballed. But it was a very deliberate and calculated strategy that got him there. He didn't "luck" into his fame. He was also allegedly pretty mobbed up before his rise to meteoric fame, see https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/andrew-tate-partnered-in-casinos-with-alleged-romanian-organized-crime-figures - his stake in those casinos predates his rise to global celebrity.
Tate is cult-leader material. People who buy into him buy into him big, he's smart, charismatic and, as I say, probably a narcissistic sociopath. In the past, he might have garnered a few hundred followers and started a Jonestown-esque cult. Social media algorithms allowed him to game his way to a global audience. He's not just a creepy loser like most of the incel/pickup community lot - he's a very smart, very dangerous guy.
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Probably cheaper and those from the minorities tend to be less well off?
Do you think that perpetuates a cycle of race based disadvantage? So if historically non-white people were paid less, they had to live in cheaper places, these places have high levels of crime (in part because these people are over policed in part because crime is typically a reaction to poor economic conditions) and that these then feed into each other? So that even if you can see a link that is more geographically based, that geography and race are deeply intertwined in our society in part due to racism.
Now you’re on to my idea that the Green Belt is Institutionally Racist….
Edit: if you actually look at what happens on the estates around (say) Shepards Bush and Hammersmith, the idea they are over policed is quite funny. The residents who want out for them and theirs want to go to places with more law and order, not less.
I noticed there was some chatter earlier about a notoriously fake voodoo poll of British Muslims. Just a reminder that a genuine couple of polls carried out by Survation and Savanta do exist. They show that Lab support has dropped sharply but rather more realistically than the self-selected poll cited here by others. However, please note that the Survation recalled vote had Muslims backing Lab at 86% in 2019. That suggests about a quarter of the Muslim vote has gone. The Cons are in a similar situation tho a quarter of their support is a rather smaller number
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Probably cheaper and those from the minorities tend to be less well off?
Do you think that perpetuates a cycle of race based disadvantage? So if historically non-white people were paid less, they had to live in cheaper places, these places have high levels of crime (in part because these people are over policed in part because crime is typically a reaction to poor economic conditions) and that these then feed into each other? So that even if you can see a link that is more geographically based, that geography and race are deeply intertwined in our society in part due to racism.
I think insurance is a risk based game - the insurers are making a bet with you about how likely something is to happen, you are covering yourself if said thing does happen.
Its not up to insurers to eliminate structural racism in the UK. They are there to provide insurance.
A lot of insurance issues may seem unfair - a 17 year old kid who has been driving on private land for years, and is not a hot-headed boy racer will pay the premium that all the boy racers have generated. Likewise living in an area with higher premiums because of the area is tough, but thats how it works.
With so many things time will change matters. We are a vastly less racist country than we were even 30 years ago. We keep getting better and there is a long way to go. But I sense you are skirting towards a 'solution' of state intervention to make the insurance 'fair' for those in the poorer neighbourhoods.
FPT - I can't recall who posted it but whatever you think of Matthew Goodwin that exchange between him and Portillo on GB News was excellent.
A must watch.
Oh goodness, you've not succumbed to Fox News GBeebies?
Have you seen the clip?
Try it. Sometimes even I think Channel4 and The Guardian has a point.
I thought it was very disappointing. I'm quite a fan of Portillo and though he added very little I at least expected him to conduct a debate that might bring something insightful from Goodwin.
Goodwins argument was quite simply that the David Amess killing and the Arena bombing were both carried out by islamists so call it as it is; have an immediate halt on immigration and declare war on Islam.
Where this falls down Is that Amess was killed by a man born and brought up in southwalk who apparently had very little religion in his upbringing and the Arena bombing by someone born and brought up in Rushome
Anyone know how you apply for a professorship these days?
Except as a teenager he was referred to Prevent and considered himself an affiliate of Islamic State.
The Left really do need to develop an answer to this, rather than ignoring it and fingerpointing anyone who raises concerns about it as a closet racist, or you will find yourselves superseded in office by those who propose far more radical solutions - think forced deportations.
What is the solution? A good scheme to counter radicalisation (Prevent could be improved); good policing of radical groups (police funding has been cut); good mental health services (NHS is underfunded); good security for MPs; building a welcoming society that doesn't view all Muslims as dangerous (removing the whip from Islamophobic politicians is a good start).
Taylor & Soni (2017), in a review of Prevent in schools, suggest: "Radicalisation refers to views and not acts. Radicalised views are not acts of terrorism and are not in themselves a threat. The focus on identifying and intervening adopted by the CTSA and Prevent leads to problematic culture of surveillance which inhibits the creation of safe spaces in which to debate radical views. In fact, the lived experiences of Prevent in schools by the participants of these studies suggest it deters important critical discussion through fear and further alienates and villainises groups who may already feel alienated and villainised, threatening their sense of belonging and exacerbating the likelihood of creating intergroup conflict in our society. Instead, a focus on identifying areas of ‘overlapping consensus’ (Panjwani, Citation2016, p. 330) between the variety of viewpoints held by pupils in the UK and modern, liberal values could help reduce perceived tensions and create a greater sense of unity within our educational settings. Furthermore, programmes such as Tapestry can genuinely engage pupils with the issue of radicalisation and should be considered a priority for future government funding."
Jerome & Elwick (2017) write: "School responses to the Prevent agenda have tended to focus primarily on ‘safeguarding’ approaches, which essentially perceive some young people as being ‘at risk’ and potentially as presenting a risk to others. In this article, we consider evidence from secondary school students who experienced a curriculum project on terrorism, extremism and radicalisation. We argue that a curriculum response which addresses the acquisition of knowledge can build students’ critical capacity for engagement with radicalisation through enhanced political literacy and media literacy. We further argue this represents a genuinely educational response to Prevent, as opposed to a more restrictive securitised approach."
That all said, some of the people who raise concerns, over and over again while ignoring other threats of political violence or ills in society, who make up lies about immigration and crime, are racists (and often without a closet). Fingerpointing at racists is appropriate and part of how we combat radicalisation.
While the sentiments above are nice - “let’s be welcoming to everyone” - what do you do with people advocating racial/religious supremacism, violent homophobia etc.
For example some of the people I went to university with were quite clear that gay people “from their community” were, in their minds, needing punishment. There were a number of assaults on gay students from ethnic minorities - nearly certainly from this world view.
Should we engage them in a balanced, socially conscious debate? Or do as one student union security guard did and throw a large industrial dustbin at them? (He disturbed a group assault on an individual)
You should engage with them *at a younger age* in a balanced, socially conscious debate with “a focus on identifying areas of ‘overlapping consensus’ (Panjwani, 2016, p. 330) between the variety of viewpoints held by pupils in the UK and modern, liberal values”.
You don’t presume that the problems of homophobia are confined to any one community, recognising, for example, the pernicious influence of Andrew Tate. You tackle big tech to do something about the damages that can be done my social media.
And, as a last resort, you throw dustbins at them.
Age groups are an interesting thing here. I would not even know who Andrew Tate was had it not been for the BBC News wittering on about him.
I do wonder if in trying to warn people about him, whatever his influence or schtick it, they are just helping raise awareness of him.
This is one of the reasons that I think there is such an age gap in the whole Palestine / Israel issue. Young people can directly see the impact of the war on Palestinians and can see the social media posts of Israeli soldiers - these are shown on X, on instagram, on Tik Tok, etc. If you only watch the BBC / read a broadsheet, etc. you will get none of that.
FPT - I can't recall who posted it but whatever you think of Matthew Goodwin that exchange between him and Portillo on GB News was excellent.
A must watch.
Oh goodness, you've not succumbed to Fox News GBeebies?
Have you seen the clip?
Try it. Sometimes even I think Channel4 and The Guardian has a point.
I thought it was very disappointing. I'm quite a fan of Portillo and though he added very little I at least expected him to conduct a debate that might bring something insightful from Goodwin.
Goodwins argument was quite simply that the David Amess killing and the Arena bombing were both carried out by islamists so call it as it is; have an immediate halt on immigration and declare war on Islam.
Where this falls down Is that Amess was killed by a man born and brought up in southwalk who apparently had very little religion in his upbringing and the Arena bombing by someone born and brought up in Rushome
Anyone know how you apply for a professorship these days?
Except as a teenager he was referred to Prevent and considered himself an affiliate of Islamic State.
The Left really do need to develop an answer to this, rather than ignoring it and fingerpointing anyone who raises concerns about it as a closet racist, or you will find yourselves superseded in office by those who propose far more radical solutions - think forced deportations.
What is the solution? A good scheme to counter radicalisation (Prevent could be improved); good policing of radical groups (police funding has been cut); good mental health services (NHS is underfunded); good security for MPs; building a welcoming society that doesn't view all Muslims as dangerous (removing the whip from Islamophobic politicians is a good start).
Taylor & Soni (2017), in a review of Prevent in schools, suggest: "Radicalisation refers to views and not acts. Radicalised views are not acts of terrorism and are not in themselves a threat. The focus on identifying and intervening adopted by the CTSA and Prevent leads to problematic culture of surveillance which inhibits the creation of safe spaces in which to debate radical views. In fact, the lived experiences of Prevent in schools by the participants of these studies suggest it deters important critical discussion through fear and further alienates and villainises groups who may already feel alienated and villainised, threatening their sense of belonging and exacerbating the likelihood of creating intergroup conflict in our society. Instead, a focus on identifying areas of ‘overlapping consensus’ (Panjwani, Citation2016, p. 330) between the variety of viewpoints held by pupils in the UK and modern, liberal values could help reduce perceived tensions and create a greater sense of unity within our educational settings. Furthermore, programmes such as Tapestry can genuinely engage pupils with the issue of radicalisation and should be considered a priority for future government funding."
Jerome & Elwick (2017) write: "School responses to the Prevent agenda have tended to focus primarily on ‘safeguarding’ approaches, which essentially perceive some young people as being ‘at risk’ and potentially as presenting a risk to others. In this article, we consider evidence from secondary school students who experienced a curriculum project on terrorism, extremism and radicalisation. We argue that a curriculum response which addresses the acquisition of knowledge can build students’ critical capacity for engagement with radicalisation through enhanced political literacy and media literacy. We further argue this represents a genuinely educational response to Prevent, as opposed to a more restrictive securitised approach."
That all said, some of the people who raise concerns, over and over again while ignoring other threats of political violence or ills in society, who make up lies about immigration and crime, are racists (and often without a closet). Fingerpointing at racists is appropriate and part of how we combat radicalisation.
While the sentiments above are nice - “let’s be welcoming to everyone” - what do you do with people advocating racial/religious supremacism, violent homophobia etc.
For example some of the people I went to university with were quite clear that gay people “from their community” were, in their minds, needing punishment. There were a number of assaults on gay students from ethnic minorities - nearly certainly from this world view.
Should we engage them in a balanced, socially conscious debate? Or do as one student union security guard did and throw a large industrial dustbin at them? (He disturbed a group assault on an individual)
You should engage with them *at a younger age* in a balanced, socially conscious debate with “a focus on identifying areas of ‘overlapping consensus’ (Panjwani, 2016, p. 330) between the variety of viewpoints held by pupils in the UK and modern, liberal values”.
You don’t presume that the problems of homophobia are confined to any one community, recognising, for example, the pernicious influence of Andrew Tate. You tackle big tech to do something about the damages that can be done my social media.
And, as a last resort, you throw dustbins at them.
Age groups are an interesting thing here. I would not even know who Andrew Tate was had it not been for the BBC News wittering on about him.
I do wonder if in trying to warn people about him, whatever his influence or schtick it, they are just helping raise awareness of him.
Andrew Tate was around for bloody ages before becoming famous. He was a minor league Z-lister (kicked off celebrity big brother) with a small following on Twitter and the like, who peddled "courses" (£1200ish for a few private youtube videos) explaining how to pick up girls to a bunch of deeply misogynistic incels.
What changed things for him was the way TikTok propels certain content into everyone's feeds (and Instagram does the same now, following TikTok). Tate got good at posing with fast cars and being provocative, getting into online spats and saying controversial things that gamed the algorithms. Once he reached critical mass, there was a snowball effect. More or less meaning if you were a youth heavily engaged on TikTok or similar, he was everywhere, all the time.
Yet another example of how algorithms and social media have made the world a worse place. But made famous by the BBC news website he was not - the youth don't consume that kind of media.
Thanks for that. Interesting really how social media seems to work. I do not use TikTok.
He sounds a rather unpleasant fellow. Not really a role model. I wonder why he appeals to the people he appeals to.
I would guess primarily because he annoys people they dislike. cf. to some extent the success of Donald Trump.
More that he is selling a plausible sounding pitch of
1) You are down trodden 2) You are actually superior 3) These are your oppressors….
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Probably cheaper and those from the minorities tend to be less well off?
Do you think that perpetuates a cycle of race based disadvantage? So if historically non-white people were paid less, they had to live in cheaper places, these places have high levels of crime (in part because these people are over policed in part because crime is typically a reaction to poor economic conditions) and that these then feed into each other? So that even if you can see a link that is more geographically based, that geography and race are deeply intertwined in our society in part due to racism.
It's not due to racism, though, is it? They're not living in poor areas because racism, they're living in poor areas because they're poor. You're just pointing out that things are harder for poor people. Which I don't think anyone disputes. The fact that non-whites are overrepresented among poor people is due to historic reasons.
You might also note that people with Irish surnames are overrepresented among poor people, for the same reason.
And you're also reaching wildly in reasons why poor areas have higher levels of crime. They're over policed because they have more crime. They have higher crime because they have more people of a criminal bent. This isn't because poor people are inherently criminal; it's because people of a criminal bent tend not to do that well in life and therefore be poor.
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Well, because historically most non-white people have entered the UK without assets and/or to do the most menial jobs, and are therefore concentrated in the poorest areas.
I remember many years ago talking to a Jewish friend who was rather frustrated at not being able to get work as a pharmacist, and pointing out that there were several areas in Essex where there were plenty of opportunities. He remarked that he really wanted to work and live somewhere where there was a Jewish community. The pharmacy in the small town where I now live has a very good Moslem pharmacist who travels quite a distance each day because she prefers to live in a place with a significant Moslem community. Which we don’t have. We do have some some non-white residents, but the nearest mosque is some distance away.
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Probably cheaper and those from the minorities tend to be less well off?
Do you think that perpetuates a cycle of race based disadvantage? So if historically non-white people were paid less, they had to live in cheaper places, these places have high levels of crime (in part because these people are over policed in part because crime is typically a reaction to poor economic conditions) and that these then feed into each other? So that even if you can see a link that is more geographically based, that geography and race are deeply intertwined in our society in part due to racism.
Now you’re on to my idea that the Green Belt is Institutionally Racist….
Edit: if you actually look at what happens on the estates around (say) Shepards Bush and Hammersmith, the idea they are over policed is quite funny. The residents who want out for them and theirs want to go to places with more law and order, not less.
I would personally point to the suburbs rather than just the Green Belt, but sure. Another youtuber whose content I like has recently discussed some of this in her most recent video essay:
I mean he's right on this issue - and I can even see the logic as part of his overarching belief system (Britishness means a specific thing, no matter who it covers). He's wrong about basically everything else - and I don't think this is enough to "redeem" him in my eyes.
Nah, he's wrong on this one too.
Where people have dual nationality and do something particularly unpleasant and illegal, particularly if it involves some form of allegiance to a foreign state or equivalent, I don't see the big deal in revoking their British citizenship.
The issues in the Begum case is that she wasn't a dual national - she merely had the right to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship (which it understandably said it'd deny her), and the foreign entity she showed allegiance to was an internationally unrecognised and now defunct statelet. Plus, she was a child at the time, which has to be a factor in whether the state can or should impose lifetime changes on someone.
Much as I don't have much sympathy for her, if Syria chose to deport her to Britain, I think we ought to be bound to take her back.
That was broadly my view, so I was surprised when the Courts took the view that a potential citizenship was as good as an actual citizenship, and ruled that it was lawful to strip her of her British citizenship. It would seem that Bangladesh are now obliged to grant her citizenship to avoid her being stateless.
That seems absurd, but it's no less absurd than the situation where a Franco-German dual national, say, if reasonably suspected to have been committing terrorist acts on behalf of IS in Syria, could be stripped of either their French or German citizenship, but not both, and with the country who was slowest to act the one then lumped with them. It's still very arbitrary.
I think if you want to be able to strip people of citizenship then you really need to negotiate an agreed framework for deciding how to handle stateless people, or which country has to assume responsibility for someone no-one wants to give citizenship to that is a bit more sophisticated than simply slowest loses.
I think it's likely that the SC will allow an appeal on these and other grounds. Thus far the decisions are plainly wrong, in the light of law, reason and morality.
Just ask the question: Ignore Begum for a moment (whose moral ground is of course hopeless) is this a moral or rational way to treat Bangladesh?
But as a civilized country, the way we treat morally bankrupt cases like Begum tells us not about her, but about the rest of us.
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
No, that’s partisan propaganda. Biden was able to bypass Congress to give arms to Israel.
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Well, because historically most non-white people have entered the UK without assets and/or to do the most menial jobs, and are therefore concentrated in the poorest areas.
I remember many years ago talking to a Jewish friend who was rather frustrated at not being able to get work as a pharmacist, and pointing out that there were several areas in Essex where there were plenty of opportunities. He remarked that he really wanted to work and live somewhere where there was a Jewish community. The pharmacy in the small town where I now live has a very good Moslem pharmacist who travels quite a distance each day because she prefers to live in a place with a significant Moslem community. Which we don’t have. We do have some some non-white residents, but the nearest mosque is some distance away.
Way back under Blair, there was an early attempt to distribute asylum seekers and other. Immigrants around the country, rather than house them all in London.
This led to the spectacle of people trying to argue forcing someone to live in Edinburgh was against their human rights. What they were really arguing, of course was for a right to be with others of the same community.
But even then, people were being priced out if their old neighbourhoods in London. If it’s ok to say that an nth generation Canada Water resident has to leave the area because the can’t offers to live there….
"The Downing Street lobby briefing was largely taken up with questions about Lee Anderson."
Guardian blog
Another day lost for Sunak's desperate efforts to stave off a landslide.
Why? Because we can all see the absurdity of taking the whip off 30p and not off Cruella. If he'd taken her out as well we could all have moved on to whatever lie he wants us to dismiss instead.
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Probably cheaper and those from the minorities tend to be less well off?
Do you think that perpetuates a cycle of race based disadvantage? So if historically non-white people were paid less, they had to live in cheaper places, these places have high levels of crime (in part because these people are over policed in part because crime is typically a reaction to poor economic conditions) and that these then feed into each other? So that even if you can see a link that is more geographically based, that geography and race are deeply intertwined in our society in part due to racism.
It's not due to racism, though, is it? They're not living in poor areas because racism, they're living in poor areas because they're poor. You're just pointing out that things are harder for poor people. Which I don't think anyone disputes. The fact that non-whites are overrepresented among poor people is due to historic reasons.
You might also note that people with Irish surnames are overrepresented among poor people, for the same reason.
And you're also reaching wildly in reasons why poor areas have higher levels of crime. They're over policed because they have more crime. They have higher crime because they have more people of a criminal bent. This isn't because poor people are inherently criminal; it's because people of a criminal bent tend not to do that well in life and therefore be poor.
Pointing to the Irish and going "well if it effects them similarly can it really be considered racism" forgets the relatively recent history of "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish" and the long held English racism against Irish people. And in part why they are poor is because they are under paid for their labour due to their race - many workers who came here from other commonwealth countries at the Windrush period, for example, were not given jobs equal to their qualifications from home, nor were they paid on par with white people already here in the country.
WTF is "criminal bent" if not saying "some people are more inherently inclined to commit crimes than others", something which is either a clear nonsense or an argument against our entire concept of the justice system where, because if they are just predisposed to committing crimes, how can they possibly be accountable for their actions? Criminality - especially crimes such as muggings, burglaries, etc - have extremely strong correlations between poverty and times of economic decline - crime rates don't typically move based on police numbers (for example) but do move when poverty increases (in fact a funny piece of data suggested that crime went down in NYC during the period the NYPD were on strike in the 90s and early 00s - not because less crime was reported (as academics already tried to account for non reported crime) - but because the abuses of the NYPD (such as racially motivated aggressive stop and searches) were lowered and people in NYC were less likely to act antisocially if they were not being harassed by the police)
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Probably cheaper and those from the minorities tend to be less well off?
Do you think that perpetuates a cycle of race based disadvantage? So if historically non-white people were paid less, they had to live in cheaper places, these places have high levels of crime (in part because these people are over policed in part because crime is typically a reaction to poor economic conditions) and that these then feed into each other? So that even if you can see a link that is more geographically based, that geography and race are deeply intertwined in our society in part due to racism.
I mean I hear you but is it racism that immigrants come off the boat and are not immediately able to head over to Bolton Gardens to move into their new pad.
Immigrants get richer over time which is a function of their time in the country rather than racism. I mean look at Richi Rishi.
Edit: oh I see @Cookie has also made this extremely obvious point.
Comments
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1762044181604655309?s=20
I don't need to get into the specifics of the Prevent system here - I'll just say as someone who works at a university and has dealt with people discussing if x student should be referred and even referring students; I have never seen a situation where the mechanisms of Prevent have helped that student. We can't run an experiment to check if they would go on to become a terrorist without Prevent, but I doubt they would have.
In general the risk of severe covid increases with age, is worse for men. However everyone is unique.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68383587
That seems absurd, but it's no less absurd than the situation where a Franco-German dual national, say, if reasonably suspected to have been committing terrorist acts on behalf of IS in Syria, could be stripped of either their French or German citizenship, but not both, and with the country who was slowest to act the one then lumped with them. It's still very arbitrary.
I think if you want to be able to strip people of citizenship then you really need to negotiate an agreed framework for deciding how to handle stateless people, or which country has to assume responsibility for someone no-one wants to give citizenship to that is a bit more sophisticated than simply slowest loses.
Boris is a competent writer who has an appeal to some people (he's in my blind spot I'm afraid - I've never found his schtick amusing) - so certainly I wouldn't say he has no talent. I just doubt that if he'd been born in a council terrace in Scunthorpe he'd be in the same position.
I cannot believe many people in the UK, even on the right, agree with this position. A Trump presidency is a clear and real threat to NATO. Can only conclude she is positioning herself for a future career in the US as a right wing talking head on TV and Youtube and doing the lecture circuit.
I do not complain about 20mph zones just that they have been inadequately implemented which is accepted by most everyone in Wales including the Welsh government
The farmers held me up for about 5 minutes in their vehicle convoy, the anomalies in the 20 mph zones are lasting a lot longer though to be fair they will change hopefully so everyone is satisfied the policy is working sensibly
Sorry guv, all we’ve got’s is the Spotted Blithering Idiots. That’s all peoples wants theses days. ‘Ave you tried that @JosiasJessop up ‘road? ‘Ear he keeps all kinds of posh Idiots, free range, organic…
I do wonder if in trying to warn people about him, whatever his influence or schtick it, they are just helping raise awareness of him.
Perhaps, rather than complaining about lefty lawyers all the time, the Home Office and the Tory right should reflect on how serious, determined politicians like Javid and May (in the case of Qatada) managed to do pretty illiberal things to protect the UK within the law, where as bloviating hardliners, who didn't see the need to work with rather than against the law, failed.
The lunchtime news is full of Tory racism!
Onslow had little of the characteristics in the stereotype.
Interestingly, many now assume that The Drake will himself be sainted, and the national day be renamed St Drake’s Day, and celebrated, with the traditional wearing of daffodils, on 1 March.
I do not demur from that view.
The more unedifying aspect is each party revelling in the discomfort of the other when one of the idiots speaks up.
Brought to you by BBCVerify
https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/world/diverse-areas-face-car-insurance-ethnicity-bill/ar-BB1iSmX0
Another word I think is a bit of a superstar in this respect is 'gossip'. Unimprovable.
Yet it is the same old game of action and reaction. Ultimately, the government will not sit there saying “oh dear, you have us now” -they will simply invent a new way to slap a band aid on the problem. And lo, it makes things worse.
To me, a real Human Rights advocate would have been all about getting Begum into a duly appointed court. After all, she worked quite hard to violate the rights of others - what about them?
The view taken by the courts, and this is very much a characteristic of the Reed Supreme Court, is have the laws been complied with? If they have they have no role to play on the merits of the decision. The Appeal Court said that some might think the decision was harsh and others might think she had brought it on herself but neither of them were for them. They simply had to look and see if the boxes had been ticked.
I don't like that. I think that the courts should have a role in reviewing the merits of the case. I accept that the decision of the Home Secretary should be given due deference, especially on the question of national security, but that is different from this being the beginning and end of the matter.
On this case a rather silly young girl got swept along with Jihadi nonsense when she was 15. She went out to Iraq and was sexually abused for 4 years during which she had several children that all died. She was interviewed and spouted some of the Jihadi nonsense which had no doubt been ground into her. And she was deemed a risk to our national security as a result with the consequence that she had her nationality removed from her because she had a theoretical right to citizenship somewhere else, something she no longer has.
I think "harsh" is a somewhat tepid word for that.
What changed things for him was the way TikTok propels certain content into everyone's feeds (and Instagram does the same now, following TikTok). Tate got good at posing with fast cars and being provocative, getting into online spats and saying controversial things that gamed the algorithms. Once he reached critical mass, there was a snowball effect. More or less meaning if you were a youth heavily engaged on TikTok or similar, he was everywhere, all the time.
Yet another example of how algorithms and social media have made the world a worse place. But made famous by the BBC news website he was not - the youth don't consume that kind of media.
Johnson's comedy is slapstick. It is very unsophisticated. I would find that tiresome, but whatever floats your boat.
The Kurds didn’t try her, out of diplomatic regard for the U.K.
Because, IIRC, under their laws, she was liable for the death penalty.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/don-t-let-hate-win-sadiq-khan-and-susan-hall-make-unity-plea-amid-lee-anderson-islamophobia-storm/ar-BB1iUfab?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=2c3defdc73134ae4acd0ba22326e3c88&ei=12
He sounds a rather unpleasant fellow. Not really a role model. I wonder why he appeals to the people he appeals to.
When she was first interviewed she claimed she was 'ok with it' or something along those lines, when asked about the crimes of ISIS. After a bit more media training she now expresses remorse, but you wonder whether this is just crocodile tears, or tears for the situation she finds herself in.
I believe she bore and has lost three children, which must be awful.
Many want her to face trial in the UK. Perhaps that would be the best way to proceed, but I worry about the evidence that there is against here.
I also think its fair to wonder that if Begum can be deprived of British citizenship on a whim, then what could happen to any of us?
But at the end of the day, she choose the path of horrific terrorism. She might claim that she was told it was not as portrayed by the Western media, but I would call bullshit on that. Presumably the beheading videos were all of very good actors? Can't blame AI back then...
In a parallel universe, he's a somewhat more rougish Gyles Brandreth of his generation. Floats around highish society for no particular reason, maybe was a backbench MP for a bit, does a turn on Have I Got News For You every series. Some of his columns cause a spot of bother for the Tories, but that's part of the fun and no real harm is done.
Probably content enough, and the country is probably in a better place than it is now. But every now and then, someone comes up to him after he does a speech at a constituency dinner and says "you should have been Prime Minister", and there's a little pang of sadness.
But also, getting people who are confrontational at surgeries or PR do's is normal - we keep seeing that when other politicians do walk arounds and get confronted by passers by - there was a pretty viral one where Johnson was approached after partygate came out, if I remember correctly. Again, it seems that this kind of stuff is fine if it is the "legitimate concerns" of white people, where those "legitimate concerns" are typically whipped up by the right wing press and then is considered the view of the "white working class", but when it's Muslim people in this country making their views known they are dismissed as being too angry and too much of a risk.
BBC News Lunchtime bulletin.
But there seems to be a thing about not trying people for treason and war crimes.
In any case arbitrary punishment is a bad idea - poor old Magna Carta (she gets so much stick) and all that.
Guardian blog
Another day lost for Sunak's desperate efforts to stave off a landslide.
cf. to some extent the success of Donald Trump.
Had a spot of bother with some of the imports, as well.
A previous Home Sec. demonstrating that pros take cover behind walls, not shop fronts of untempered glass.
Also - if it isn't considered an issue why would you be aware of it? The whole point of the "legitimate concerns" language is to make it not news when people act in these ways on those topics - it's the "illegitimate concerns" where it's wrong to use these tactics.
The thing about Tate is, he's not dumb, at all. A narcissistic sociopath, probably, but back before he became famous I looked at his chess.com profile and followed a few of his games, and the guy is smart. 1800ish elo on a 5 minute game, making him top 1% of players.
I remember him very deliberately gaming the TikTok algorithm, too. He did it by getting his small but very engaged group of followers/cultists to like, share and repost his stuff, essentially getting him onto the front page of Tiktok, or "trending" on Twitter. Once exposed to a massive audience, he snowballed. But it was a very deliberate and calculated strategy that got him there. He didn't "luck" into his fame. He was also allegedly pretty mobbed up before his rise to meteoric fame, see https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/andrew-tate-partnered-in-casinos-with-alleged-romanian-organized-crime-figures - his stake in those casinos predates his rise to global celebrity.
Tate is cult-leader material. People who buy into him buy into him big, he's smart, charismatic and, as I say, probably a narcissistic sociopath. In the past, he might have garnered a few hundred followers and started a Jonestown-esque cult. Social media algorithms allowed him to game his way to a global audience. He's not just a creepy loser like most of the incel/pickup community lot - he's a very smart, very dangerous guy.
Edit: if you actually look at what happens on the estates around (say) Shepards Bush and Hammersmith, the idea they are over policed is quite funny. The residents who want out for them and theirs want to go to places with more law and order, not less.
Its not up to insurers to eliminate structural racism in the UK. They are there to provide insurance.
A lot of insurance issues may seem unfair - a 17 year old kid who has been driving on private land for years, and is not a hot-headed boy racer will pay the premium that all the boy racers have generated. Likewise living in an area with higher premiums because of the area is tough, but thats how it works.
With so many things time will change matters. We are a vastly less racist country than we were even 30 years ago. We keep getting better and there is a long way to go. But I sense you are skirting towards a 'solution' of state intervention to make the insurance 'fair' for those in the poorer neighbourhoods.
1) You are down trodden
2) You are actually superior
3) These are your oppressors….
Same shit, different asshole.
You might also note that people with Irish surnames are overrepresented among poor people, for the same reason.
And you're also reaching wildly in reasons why poor areas have higher levels of crime. They're over policed because they have more crime. They have higher crime because they have more people of a criminal bent. This isn't because poor people are inherently criminal; it's because people of a criminal bent tend not to do that well in life and therefore be poor.
The pharmacy in the small town where I now live has a very good Moslem pharmacist who travels quite a distance each day because she prefers to live in a place with a significant Moslem community. Which we don’t have. We do have some some non-white residents, but the nearest mosque is some distance away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lHNkUjR9nM
Also discussing the relationship between our housing failures and conspiracism.
Just ask the question: Ignore Begum for a moment (whose moral ground is of course hopeless) is this a moral or rational way to treat Bangladesh?
But as a civilized country, the way we treat morally bankrupt cases like Begum tells us not about her, but about the rest of us.
This led to the spectacle of people trying to argue forcing someone to live in Edinburgh was against their human rights. What they were really arguing, of course was for a right to be with others of the same community.
But even then, people were being priced out if their old neighbourhoods in London. If it’s ok to say that an nth generation Canada Water resident has to leave the area because the can’t offers to live there….
WTF is "criminal bent" if not saying "some people are more inherently inclined to commit crimes than others", something which is either a clear nonsense or an argument against our entire concept of the justice system where, because if they are just predisposed to committing crimes, how can they possibly be accountable for their actions? Criminality - especially crimes such as muggings, burglaries, etc - have extremely strong correlations between poverty and times of economic decline - crime rates don't typically move based on police numbers (for example) but do move when poverty increases (in fact a funny piece of data suggested that crime went down in NYC during the period the NYPD were on strike in the 90s and early 00s - not because less crime was reported (as academics already tried to account for non reported crime) - but because the abuses of the NYPD (such as racially motivated aggressive stop and searches) were lowered and people in NYC were less likely to act antisocially if they were not being harassed by the police)
Immigrants get richer over time which is a function of their time in the country rather than racism. I mean look at
RichiRishi.Edit: oh I see @Cookie has also made this extremely obvious point.