Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
For the avoidance of doubt, I think that the state should not recognise religious marriages. There should be one standard, civil partnership, which should be open to all couples.
There should also be no ceremony required. I do not recognise the right of the state to marry me. A couple should be able to do so by self-declaration, all the state needs to do is record it.
Tory MP Miriam Cates has called for smartphones and social media to be banned for under-16s.
Nanny state!
I propose we should ban banning things.
All together now...
"Modern British politics consists in not building anything, banning stuff, telling people off, and calling anyone you disagree with evil/a racist/unworthy of holding an opinion." - Aaron Bastani, Jun 12, 2023, see https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1668370528044761088
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived in Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
For the avoidance of doubt, I think that the state should not recognise religious marriages. There should be one standard, civil partnership, which should be open to all couples.
There should also be no ceremony required. I do not recognise the right of the state to marry me. A couple should be able to do so by self-declaration, all the state needs to do is record it.
I guess they would also need to reverse out any state-related benefits associated with being married.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE
It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this
And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of
I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
In what way has she been hypocritical?
I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.
Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.
I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
In what sense has she been hypocritical?
I ask again – simple question.
I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."
If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.
The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.
I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?
N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.
Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.
(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.
I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.
Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?
If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.
Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.
Where and when has she been hypocritical?
Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.
But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.
And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.
Where's a mural painter when you need one.
You appear to accidentally be misrepresenting Labour policy. From that article: "The shadow housing minister does not believe that banning right to buy completely is the answer, but he is clear that it needs to be reformed."
It is clear from the article that every sinew of his body is against it but he has evidently been told by Lab pragmatists that it ain't werf it.
If we presume your sinew analysis is accurate, then, OK, if he benefitted from RTB, then maybe you might have a case that he was a hypocrite.
But we're talking about Angela Rayner, who doesn't oppose RTB and who is in a party whose policy is not to oppose RTB. Ergo, no hypocrisy.
This isn't complicated. Angela Rayner took advantage of a discount, the likes of which she has accepted is iniquitous, to buy her council house and then flipped it afterwards for a profit.
Exactly the sort of behaviour that good Lab types should indulge in. I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason they support the policy is to shore up her flank as she knew she was otherwise exposed.
Profit? Doesn't meet the smell test without knowing a lot more. Inflation accounts for a good chunk. The question is how much was spent on doing it up = improving the nation's housing stock. The sums in question are such that there might be no actual profit in real terms, maybe even a loss.
Yeah I'm sure she (and her partner? Did I read that?) sold it at a loss. Absolutely no doubt that she's been all over the airwaves defending her altruistic decision to sell her house at a loss to a more deserving person.
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
But they have. They're called civil marriages.
So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.
Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
There's still no civil marriage available in Israel. (Couples sometimes pop to Cyprus. Civil marriages in other countries are recognised.)
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Yes I'd much rather hear from people who don't live there and never visit, I am sure they are far better informed.
I’ve been there, many times. Parts of it are, indeed, an intimidating Islamist shit-hole
But they are not a no go zone for me - as a late middle aged white man, but for a young white woman or gay couple: yes definitely not nice, and I have heard this personally from such people (whatever @TheScreamingEagles bleats on about)
But it is only parts of the borough and it is only for certain people. This is where these stupid Tory MPs go wrong. They should be more specific, perhaps it is just cowardice, or stupidity, that prevents them making this refinement to their point
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
I lived in Tower Hamlets for a while. Bethnal Green. It was nice. Felt safer than a few bits of Camden I can think of.
What was it about those bits of Camden that made you feel unsafe?
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
I lived in Tower Hamlets for a while. Bethnal Green. It was nice. Felt safer than a few bits of Camden I can think of.
Like most of London, the safe nice bits are right next to the.... interesting bits.
I lived on Cartwright Street, near the Tower. Used to be very quiet around there, apart from car stereos being stolen every single night. A few hundred yards East, there were bits where you would be well advised to be careful about.
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
But they have. They're called civil marriages.
So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.
Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
There's still no civil marriage available in Israel. (Couples sometimes pop to Cyprus. Civil marriages in other countries are recognised.)
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
I lived in Tower Hamlets for a while. Bethnal Green. It was nice. Felt safer than a few bits of Camden I can think of.
You will need to be specific here, as i live in Camden
Which bits of Camden made you feel less safe? Largely white Primrose Hill or Regents Park/Delancey, or black Somalian Queens Crescent/Gospel Oak?
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
I lived in Tower Hamlets for a while. Bethnal Green. It was nice. Felt safer than a few bits of Camden I can think of.
There are very few places in London (the Boltons, Phillimores, Campden Hill, Chelsea Square, Well Walk, perhaps) where you are not a hundred yards or so from likely death at the wrong time.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
Sure, as it would if the entire country were like Swanage, Llanelli or Wolverhampton or anywhere else.
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
For the avoidance of doubt, I think that the state should not recognise religious marriages. There should be one standard, civil partnership, which should be open to all couples.
There should also be no ceremony required. I do not recognise the right of the state to marry me. A couple should be able to do so by self-declaration, all the state needs to do is record it.
I guess they would also need to reverse out any state-related benefits associated with being married.
Civil partnerships are recognised as marriage within the benefit system (as is, generally, just living together)
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
I lived in Tower Hamlets for a while. Bethnal Green. It was nice. Felt safer than a few bits of Camden I can think of.
There are very few places in London (the Boltons, Phillimores, Campden Hill, Chelsea Square, Well Walk, perhaps) where you are not a hundred yards or so from likely death at the wrong time.
Well, yes, because as a pedestrian you might get mown down on pretty much any road.
After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE
It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this
And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of
I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
In what way has she been hypocritical?
I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.
Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.
I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
In what sense has she been hypocritical?
I ask again – simple question.
I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."
If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.
The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.
I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?
N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.
Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.
(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.
I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.
Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?
If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.
Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.
Where and when has she been hypocritical?
Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.
But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.
And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.
Where's a mural painter when you need one.
Someone who isn't Angela Rayner said something about reforming RTB 12 years ago?
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
In the old days it was easy. You looked for the job ads and checked out which dairies had requirements for mid-upper turret gunners. Not so easy now, for the obvious reason, no milk floats. Maybe the reason for the confusion we see on PB today.
That's nonsense.
You looked to see if the rear turret on the milk float was a Rose turret or the Frazer Nash crap.
Complete with Village Inn fire control (rather inappropriate name imv).
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
If the entire country were as undiverse Cumbria, would it threaten the British way of life?
Britain is, happily, a mix of many things. Tower Hamlets has been an area of high immigration for over 2 centuries. It's diversity is more traditional than universal suffrage, or fish and chips, or Wimbledon, or many other things.
Feels like a No. Defection almost always ends in political oblivion and he must be in with a shot at tory leader if the GE result tends toward the bloodbath end of the spectrum.
I would come to the same conclusion from the other way. Most politicians defect because they can longer stand being part of their original party. As Reform and the Conservatives are ideologically the same party, why defect?
I think his refusal to rule out defection plus his clear statement that he WILL be a candidate makes defection likely. It's hard to see the Tories putting him up again, and he's surely not going to just be an independent.
On Rochdale, the journalists' reports seem unanimous that Galloway is walking it and nobody else is even trying. Perhaps there's a journo bias there in that it makes a more interesting story, but an easy win on a very low poll looks likely to me.
I wonder if Labour will impose Paul Waugh for the GE? Seems logical, and he's a very credible candidate.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
That's a disingenuous answer.
If Tower Hamlets is "extremely diverse", why is it not a suitable model for the rest of the country? Do you think it's important that there be other areas that are not so diverse?
After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE
It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this
And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of
I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
In what way has she been hypocritical?
I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.
Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.
I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
In what sense has she been hypocritical?
I ask again – simple question.
I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."
If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.
The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.
I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?
N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.
Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.
(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.
I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.
Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?
If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.
Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.
Where and when has she been hypocritical?
Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.
But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.
And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.
Where's a mural painter when you need one.
Someone who isn't Angela Rayner said something about reforming RTB 12 years ago?
Weak! Weak! Weak!
I love it when lefties like her and Arthur Scargill take advantage of one of Mrs Thatcher’s signature policies.
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
For the avoidance of doubt, I think that the state should not recognise religious marriages. There should be one standard, civil partnership, which should be open to all couples.
There should also be no ceremony required. I do not recognise the right of the state to marry me. A couple should be able to do so by self-declaration, all the state needs to do is record it.
Agree. Not quite as radical as what I want (see below), but then what I want is impossible to all intents and purposes.
So if the State has to recognise a marriage/partnership there is just one to choose from and they register it.
It is then up to the couple what they then do eg Nothing, have a great big party, have a religious wedding, say vows to one another, whatever.
Personally we got married in a registry office (neither of us are religious) and had a do after. The rest was traditional (piper, antique car, meal, honeymoon). We are actually not sure we are officially married as at the time you didn't get a choice of venue and we pretended we lived in a friends house to get a nicer registry office. Bit of a panic when they asked us for the address and we forgot. Got a certificate though.
After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE
It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this
And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of
I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
In what way has she been hypocritical?
I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.
Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.
I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
In what sense has she been hypocritical?
I ask again – simple question.
I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."
If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.
The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.
I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?
N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.
Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.
(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.
I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.
Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?
If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.
Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.
Where and when has she been hypocritical?
Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.
But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.
And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.
Where's a mural painter when you need one.
You appear to accidentally be misrepresenting Labour policy. From that article: "The shadow housing minister does not believe that banning right to buy completely is the answer, but he is clear that it needs to be reformed."
It is clear from the article that every sinew of his body is against it but he has evidently been told by Lab pragmatists that it ain't werf it.
If we presume your sinew analysis is accurate, then, OK, if he benefitted from RTB, then maybe you might have a case that he was a hypocrite.
But we're talking about Angela Rayner, who doesn't oppose RTB and who is in a party whose policy is not to oppose RTB. Ergo, no hypocrisy.
This isn't complicated. Angela Rayner took advantage of a discount, the likes of which she has accepted is iniquitous, to buy her council house and then flipped it afterwards for a profit.
Exactly the sort of behaviour that good Lab types should indulge in. I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason they support the policy is to shore up her flank as she knew she was otherwise exposed.
Profit? Doesn't meet the smell test without knowing a lot more. Inflation accounts for a good chunk. The question is how much was spent on doing it up = improving the nation's housing stock. The sums in question are such that there might be no actual profit in real terms, maybe even a loss.
Yeah I'm sure she (and her partner? Did I read that?) sold it at a loss. Absolutely no doubt that she's been all over the airwaves defending her altruistic decision to sell her house at a loss to a more deserving person.
You were the one who based your denunciation on the profit motive. Yet it's not at all clear she did make a significant profit.
BTW I see I forgot stamp duty, too. And tbf not having to pay rent, depending on whether one counts that as validi n the argument.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
For the avoidance of doubt, I think that the state should not recognise religious marriages. There should be one standard, civil partnership, which should be open to all couples.
There should also be no ceremony required. I do not recognise the right of the state to marry me. A couple should be able to do so by self-declaration, all the state needs to do is record it.
Agree. Not quite as radical as what I want (see below), but then what I want is impossible to all intents and purposes.
So if the State has to recognise a marriage/partnership there is just one to choose from and they register it.
It is then up to the couple what they then do eg Nothing, have a great big party, have a religious wedding, say vows to one another, whatever.
Personally we got married in a registry office (neither of us are religious) and had a do after. The rest was traditional (piper, antique car, meal, honeymoon). We are actually not sure we are officially married as at the time you didn't get a choice of venue and we pretended we lived in a friends house to get a nicer registry office. Bit of a panic when they asked us for the address and we forgot. Got a certificate though.
Dunno if it's an English thing. But in Scotland you can choose a different and nicer registry office from the one you live in (so to speak). It is a very substantial freedom given the closure of registry offices in some towns and how manky others can be.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
I lived in Tower Hamlets for a while. Bethnal Green. It was nice. Felt safer than a few bits of Camden I can think of.
What was it about those bits of Camden that made you feel unsafe?
High rates of crime coupled with poor street lighting.
As we've previously established, immigration is associated with the same or lower levels of crime. I'm reminded of a friend who was living in Clapton who said she felt so much safer once lots of Poles moved to the area.
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
A wedding at a registry office, or in Scotland anywhere conducted by a registrar, is a civil wedding. Not the same as a humanist wedding. My son's wedding was a civil wedding, in a hotel. Scotland has the sensible rule that a wedding can take place anywhere, so long as the person conducting the wedding is authorised, whether a registrar, a humanist celebrant or a religious person.
My younger son and his wife had a civil wedding ceremony in Hong Kong, then what I was assured was a religious ceremony in her home village in Thailand and finally a reception in UK. They’ve been together nearly 20 years now so something must have worked!
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
For the avoidance of doubt, I think that the state should not recognise religious marriages. There should be one standard, civil partnership, which should be open to all couples.
There should also be no ceremony required. I do not recognise the right of the state to marry me. A couple should be able to do so by self-declaration, all the state needs to do is record it.
Agree. Not quite as radical as what I want (see below), but then what I want is impossible to all intents and purposes.
So if the State has to recognise a marriage/partnership there is just one to choose from and they register it.
It is then up to the couple what they then do eg Nothing, have a great big party, have a religious wedding, say vows to one another, whatever.
Personally we got married in a registry office (neither of us are religious) and had a do after. The rest was traditional (piper, antique car, meal, honeymoon). We are actually not sure we are officially married as at the time you didn't get a choice of venue and we pretended we lived in a friends house to get a nicer registry office. Bit of a panic when they asked us for the address and we forgot. Got a certificate though.
Dunno if it's an English thing. But in Scotland you can choose a different and nicer registry office from the one you live in (so to speak). It is a very substantial freedom given the closure of registry offices in some towns and how manky others can be.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
As long as its not 52/48, I really don't want to go through that again.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
I lived in Tower Hamlets for a while. Bethnal Green. It was nice. Felt safer than a few bits of Camden I can think of.
There are very few places in London (the Boltons, Phillimores, Campden Hill, Chelsea Square, Well Walk, perhaps) where you are not a hundred yards or so from likely death at the wrong time.
I think you exaggerate somewhat! We're at about 1.5 homicides per 100,000 people, which is lower than Manchester, Birmingham, Amsterdam, Montreal, Brussels, Zurich, Glasgow or nearly any city in the US.
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
For the avoidance of doubt, I think that the state should not recognise religious marriages. There should be one standard, civil partnership, which should be open to all couples.
There should also be no ceremony required. I do not recognise the right of the state to marry me. A couple should be able to do so by self-declaration, all the state needs to do is record it.
Agree. Not quite as radical as what I want (see below), but then what I want is impossible to all intents and purposes.
So if the State has to recognise a marriage/partnership there is just one to choose from and they register it.
It is then up to the couple what they then do eg Nothing, have a great big party, have a religious wedding, say vows to one another, whatever.
Personally we got married in a registry office (neither of us are religious) and had a do after. The rest was traditional (piper, antique car, meal, honeymoon). We are actually not sure we are officially married as at the time you didn't get a choice of venue and we pretended we lived in a friends house to get a nicer registry office. Bit of a panic when they asked us for the address and we forgot. Got a certificate though.
Dunno if it's an English thing. But in Scotland you can choose a different and nicer registry office from the one you live in (so to speak). It is a very substantial freedom given the closure of registry offices in some towns and how manky others can be.
It was pre the freeing up of venues.
Quite, but if you didn't want to mess around with getting married in Poshington Hall or the local bouncy castle but a plain RO ...
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
That's a disingenuous answer.
If Tower Hamlets is "extremely diverse", why is it not a suitable model for the rest of the country? Do you think it's important that there be other areas that are not so diverse?
I think it's important that we have diversity in terms of how diverse places are.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
That's a disingenuous answer.
If Tower Hamlets is "extremely diverse", why is it not a suitable model for the rest of the country? Do you think it's important that there be other areas that are not so diverse?
I think it's important that we have diversity in terms of how diverse places are.
So you oppose initiatives to spread diversity everywhere?
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
I lived in Tower Hamlets for a while. Bethnal Green. It was nice. Felt safer than a few bits of Camden I can think of.
There are very few places in London (the Boltons, Phillimores, Campden Hill, Chelsea Square, Well Walk, perhaps) where you are not a hundred yards or so from likely death at the wrong time.
I think you exaggerate somewhat! We're at about 1.5 homicides per 100,000 people, which is lower than Manchester, Birmingham, Amsterdam, Montreal, Brussels, Zurich, Glasgow or nearly any city in the US.
Yes death is an exaggeration. But all kinds of nastiness is not. Why I saw an electric bike-borne young ruffian swipe the mobile phone out of the hands of a Japanese tourist not three weeks ago outside the Royal Academy.
Actually Brianna Ghey's Mother is campaigning for it
Indeed my son who is in education and has 3 children supports the concept
As the father of a 13 month old son I am acutely conscious of how much my wife and I use devices in front of him. I try not to do it, but its hard to break the habits.
The stats on mental health for the younger generation are terrifying. Now us older folk (i'm 51) might mock them a bit and think 'toughen up', but there is a real problem for society. I don't think its all social media, but a lot seems to be.
However I am not sure banning is the right answer.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
I lived in Tower Hamlets for a while. Bethnal Green. It was nice. Felt safer than a few bits of Camden I can think of.
What was it about those bits of Camden that made you feel unsafe?
High rates of crime coupled with poor street lighting.
As we've previously established, immigration is associated with the same or lower levels of crime. I'm reminded of a friend who was living in Clapton who said she felt so much safer once lots of Poles moved to the area.
Why was it necessary to specify that they were Poles? Would other immigrants not have made her feel safer?
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
Well yes, but if you go back and look at the history it was pretty brutal for the occupants.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
Given most Muslims don't drink alcohol as it is forbidden in the Koran I doubt that would be an issue, it might even be banned
After watching PMQs nobody is doing anything to enhance the reputation of the HOC and it is clear that this can only change, though I would not hold my breath, by an early GE
It seems the SNP led vonc on the Speaker, notwithstanding Plaid endorsing it, is fizzing out and time to move on on this
And on Angela Rayner I fail to understand what she is accused of
I think she is accused of being a raving hypocrite is she not? One could also accuse her of being a lightweight who would struggle to get a job in lower middle management in the real world, which would also be true, but the reality is that she is a left wing Labour politician so both are neither surprising or particularly unusual for her ilk.
In what way has she been hypocritical?
I am sure there are plenty of examples, but the most obvious is buying her council house and selling at a profit alongside her partner doing the same whilst criticising the policy that she did not need to take advantage of. Sounds rank hypocrisy to me that is pretty difficult to top.
Do people who want to vote in a load of hypocrites and lightweights care? Probably not.
She supports RTB and has said so on several occasions. Where is the hypocrisy exactly?
I guess she is annoyed that she and her partner/husband didn't get the 60% discount on their two council homes that they profiteered from. She has done a good spinning job since she was found out I must say. She is a hypocrite, but you don't want to see it I guess.
I have a bridge to sell, by the way, and I'll give you a discount similar to Ms. Lightweight got for her houses.
In what sense has she been hypocritical?
I ask again – simple question.
I answered it, but you don't want to see it. It is quite sad the tribalism of our politics when hypocrisy is something that is only ever done by "the other side."
If you don't think that when a senior (lol) Labour politician profits immensely from not one but two council house sales, a policy that they have routinely attacked for many years, is being a fecking big hypocrite then I am not surprised that you clearly have a great deal of difficulty understanding what hypocrisy is.
The closest similarity would be a Brexiteer Tory taking up Irish nationality to get round the stupidity of Brexit.
I am sure you would see the hypocrisy of that position.
Can you show me where she has attacked the RTB as a policy?
N.B. The policy – not the 60% discount – which she didn't benefit from in any case. She got it at the old discount of 25%.
Again, I ask you: where has she been hypocritical? A simple citation of her hypocrisy will do.
(Put up or shut up, to use the vernacular)
Sorry, I don't have the time or ability to persuade you because you clearly are a tribalist simpleton who wouldn't call her out if she was found out secretly sent her children to Eton and was caught jumping up and down shouting "fuck you lot of plebs, I am going to be deputy Prime minister".
No. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but you are clearly struggling.
I'm not talking about her attitudes towards private schooling but to her attitudes towards RTB.
Can you show me where she has attacked RTB as a policy?
If you cannot, I will assume that you are talking utter garbage.
I think as a Lab politician it ain't great optics to be buying and selling your council house when you as a party bemoan the availability of affordable, council housing. It is profiteering, whatever her official view on RTB as a policy is and I thought that Lab was against profiteering.
Next you'll be saying that post-damascene investment bankers who keep all their hard-earned cash but preach redistribution are good socialists.
Eh? SHE SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO BUY. ALWAYS HAS.
Where and when has she been hypocritical?
Because supporting right to buy has always been something that Lab has traditionally opposed. As recently as Oct 2022.
But now it supports and is profiteering from it. The houses were built using public funds as social housing. Tenants have been offered a discount to buy those houses, effectively receiving a transfer from the public purse. The Left excoriated Fatcha when she introduced it.
And now Rayner is making a few quid off the poorest in society from it.
Where's a mural painter when you need one.
The problem with the policy was never the sales.
It was the absurd central government rules preventing council reinvesting the proceeds in new housing stock. Part of the forty year hollowing out of local government. A far better critique if Labour is that when in power they never did anything significant to reverse that.
Silly gotchas like the attack on Rayner just infantilise the debate. Put that on your mural.
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
For the avoidance of doubt, I think that the state should not recognise religious marriages. There should be one standard, civil partnership, which should be open to all couples.
There should also be no ceremony required. I do not recognise the right of the state to marry me. A couple should be able to do so by self-declaration, all the state needs to do is record it.
Agree. Not quite as radical as what I want (see below), but then what I want is impossible to all intents and purposes.
So if the State has to recognise a marriage/partnership there is just one to choose from and they register it.
It is then up to the couple what they then do eg Nothing, have a great big party, have a religious wedding, say vows to one another, whatever.
Personally we got married in a registry office (neither of us are religious) and had a do after. The rest was traditional (piper, antique car, meal, honeymoon). We are actually not sure we are officially married as at the time you didn't get a choice of venue and we pretended we lived in a friends house to get a nicer registry office. Bit of a panic when they asked us for the address and we forgot. Got a certificate though.
Dunno if it's an English thing. But in Scotland you can choose a different and nicer registry office from the one you live in (so to speak). It is a very substantial freedom given the closure of registry offices in some towns and how manky others can be.
It was pre the freeing up of venues.
Quite, but if you didn't want to mess around with getting married in Poshington Hall or the local bouncy castle but a plain RO ...
I think in those days it was churches (I don't know about other religious places) and the registry office of the borough you lived in and that was it and the one we lived in had a concrete block as a registry office whereas the next borough had a nice Victorian house with lawns and we knew people in the Borough. We had to invite them to the wedding of course (only joking they were already invited), but they did better than that, they also made our cake.
Meanwhile I was visiting a friend some years ago in Oak Park, Illinois and I said, one fine sunny morning, wouldn't it be nice for us to walk to Michigan Avenue (about 10 miles due east) from there and my friend said we would without any doubt whatsoever be killed before we reached it.
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
But they have. They're called civil marriages.
So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.
Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
Marriage still is a religious institution, it was created by religions after all and for most it is limited only to one man and woman for life.
Civil unions would have been fine for the non religious and those who did not meet the above criteria
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
Are you ever intelligent? I have this weird prior of you being quite smart? But - in recent recollection - all I read from you is “edgy commentary” that befits a 12 year old
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Yes I'd much rather hear from people who don't live there and never visit, I am sure they are far better informed.
I’ve been there, many times. Parts of it are, indeed, an intimidating Islamist shit-hole
But they are not a no go zone for me - as a late middle aged white man, but for a young white woman or gay couple: yes definitely not nice, and I have heard this personally from such people (whatever @TheScreamingEagles bleats on about)
But it is only parts of the borough and it is only for certain people. This is where these stupid Tory MPs go wrong. They should be more specific, perhaps it is just cowardice, or stupidity, that prevents them making this refinement to their point
I lived in one of the shit hole bits of it with my wife for a year, on the commercial road in a flat above a clothes wholesaler, opposite the Lahore kebab house. It is an area with significant poverty, overcrowding, a lot of recent immigrants, drugs problems, a young population, the list goes on. As the area has been for centuries, eg in the early 20th century when the fascists made very similar comments about the Jewish population, leading to the Battle of Cable street that happened not far from where we were living. Our experience there was mostly quite good, our main complaint was traffic noise as we lived on the A13. Decent food and shops, not too expensive and close to central London and to clubs and bars, quite safe to walk home at night. Once or twice we experienced some issues as a mixed race couple, my wife isn't Bengali but looks similar enough that some old Bengali geezers would give us what felt like dirty looks. One time my wife shouted at them to the effect that she didn't know what they were saying because they were saying stuff to her in Bengali. That was an isolated incident, but it's probably the most overt harassment we ever experienced as a couple (apart from in Jamaica one time) and who knows what they were actually saying, it might have been nothing. So yeah, not perfect, but okay, we had a nice year there.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
That's a disingenuous answer.
If Tower Hamlets is "extremely diverse", why is it not a suitable model for the rest of the country? Do you think it's important that there be other areas that are not so diverse?
I think it's important that we have diversity in terms of how diverse places are.
So you oppose initiatives to spread diversity everywhere?
What initiatives; what sort of diversity? I opposed Somerville College going mixed gender in 1994. (They did anyway. I then went to Somerville in 1995, benefitting from this in an act of hypocrisy almost as terrible as Angela Rayner's.)
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
I lived in Tower Hamlets for a while. Bethnal Green. It was nice. Felt safer than a few bits of Camden I can think of.
What was it about those bits of Camden that made you feel unsafe?
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
Are you ever intelligent? I have this weird prior of you being quite smart? But - in recent recollection - all I read from you is “edgy commentary” that befits a 12 year old
Obviously the Margaux was irresistible. The UK has always changed and you can't be a cnut by trying to prevent it. Or rather you should be a cnut and show that you can't prevent it. Which is just as well because you do resemble a cnut in many ways.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
I lived in Tower Hamlets for a while. Bethnal Green. It was nice. Felt safer than a few bits of Camden I can think of.
What was it about those bits of Camden that made you feel unsafe?
High rates of crime coupled with poor street lighting.
As we've previously established, immigration is associated with the same or lower levels of crime. I'm reminded of a friend who was living in Clapton who said she felt so much safer once lots of Poles moved to the area.
During the London riots, I was in a communal workshop on Cremer Street, one evening. From the walkway outside (2nd floor), we could see into the back yard area of the shops and restaurants of Kingsland Road.
The restaurants were largely Vietnamese, and a number of the shops were very Polish corner shops/off licenses.
The Poles and Vietnamese guys were sitting out back, sharing smokes and beers - lovely hot evening. They were chatting away and checking out their weapons. Baseball bats for the Poles, machetes for the Vietnamese kitchen staff.
Cultural mingling in front of us. My Australian mate joked that the really old Vietnamese guy was telling stories from The War....
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Yes I'd much rather hear from people who don't live there and never visit, I am sure they are far better informed.
I’ve been there, many times. Parts of it are, indeed, an intimidating Islamist shit-hole
But they are not a no go zone for me - as a late middle aged white man, but for a young white woman or gay couple: yes definitely not nice, and I have heard this personally from such people (whatever @TheScreamingEagles bleats on about)
But it is only parts of the borough and it is only for certain people. This is where these stupid Tory MPs go wrong. They should be more specific, perhaps it is just cowardice, or stupidity, that prevents them making this refinement to their point
I lived in one of the shit hole bits of it with my wife for a year, on the commercial road in a flat above a clothes wholesaler, opposite the Lahore kebab house. It is an area with significant poverty, overcrowding, a lot of recent immigrants, drugs problems, a young population, the list goes on. As the area has been for centuries, eg in the early 20th century when the fascists made very similar comments about the Jewish population, leading to the Battle of Cable street that happened not far from where we were living. Our experience there was mostly quite good, our main complaint was traffic noise as we lived on the A13. Decent food and shops, not too expensive and close to central London and to clubs and bars, quite safe to walk home at night. Once or twice we experienced some issues as a mixed race couple, my wife isn't Bengali but looks similar enough that some old Bengali geezers would give us what felt like dirty looks. One time my wife shouted at them to the effect that she didn't know what they were saying because they were saying stuff to her in Bengali. That was an isolated incident, but it's probably the most overt harassment we ever experienced as a couple (apart from in Jamaica one time) and who knows what they were actually saying, it might have been nothing. So yeah, not perfect, but okay, we had a nice year there.
Cable Street = indigenous population protesting against incomers. Brick Lane et environs (sometimes, all the provisos, etc) = incomers protesting against the indigenous population.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
I lived in Tower Hamlets for a while. Bethnal Green. It was nice. Felt safer than a few bits of Camden I can think of.
What was it about those bits of Camden that made you feel unsafe?
High rates of crime coupled with poor street lighting.
As we've previously established, immigration is associated with the same or lower levels of crime. I'm reminded of a friend who was living in Clapton who said she felt so much safer once lots of Poles moved to the area.
During the London riots, I was in a communal workshop on Cremer Street, one evening. From the walkway outside (2nd floor), we could see into the back yard area of the shops and restaurants of Kingsland Road.
The restaurants were largely Vietnamese, and a number of the shops were very Polish corner shops/off licenses.
The Poles and Vietnamese guys were sitting out back, sharing smokes and beers - lovely hot evening. They were chatting away and checking out their weapons. Baseball bats for the Poles, machetes for the Vietnamese kitchen staff.
Cultural mingling in front of us. My Australian mate joked that the really old Vietnamese guy was telling stories from The War....
Perhaps we should put the Poles and Vietnamese in charge of London policing?
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
Are you ever intelligent? I have this weird prior of you being quite smart? But - in recent recollection - all I read from you is “edgy commentary” that befits a 12 year old
Obviously the Margaux was irresistible. The UK has always changed and you can't be a cnut by trying to prevent it. Or rather you should be a cnut and show that you can't prevent it. Which is just as well because you do resemble a cnut in many ways.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
I lived in Tower Hamlets for a while. Bethnal Green. It was nice. Felt safer than a few bits of Camden I can think of.
What was it about those bits of Camden that made you feel unsafe?
High rates of crime coupled with poor street lighting.
As we've previously established, immigration is associated with the same or lower levels of crime. I'm reminded of a friend who was living in Clapton who said she felt so much safer once lots of Poles moved to the area.
Why was it necessary to specify that they were Poles? Would other immigrants not have made her feel safer?
Well, because they were Poles, and it was quicker to types "Poles" than "immigrants". P-o-l-e-s, 5 letters. I-m-m-i-g-r-a-n-t-s, 10 letters.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
Are you making the "Britain is a nation of imigrants argument?" Because the Norman Conquest didn't work out terribly well for the pre-existing English population. (And similarly, the Anglo-Saxon invasions didn't work out particularly well for the pre-existing British population; nor the Roman invasion; nor the Viking invasion.) Arguably the arrival of the Huguenots was a positive.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
Well yes, but if you go back and look at the history it was pretty brutal for the occupants.
I think there is a degree of historical debate about whether the day-to-day life of your average English peasant farmer was particularly affected by the Norman conquest. The boss at the top changing doesn't make much difference perhaps.
That said, there are clearly areas where those pesky Normans had some quite profound changes on society, like banning slavery.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
Are you ever intelligent? I have this weird prior of you being quite smart? But - in recent recollection - all I read from you is “edgy commentary” that befits a 12 year old
Obviously the Margaux was irresistible. The UK has always changed and you can't be a cnut by trying to prevent it. Or rather you should be a cnut and show that you can't prevent it. Which is just as well because you do resemble a cnut in many ways.
That was quite an amusing and clever response. Not often people can match or surpass leon on the word front.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
Are you making the "Britain is a nation of imigrants argument?" Because the Norman Conquest didn't work out terribly well for the pre-existing English population. (And similarly, the Anglo-Saxon invasions didn't work out particularly well for the pre-existing British population; nor the Roman invasion; nor the Viking invasion.) Arguably the arrival of the Huguenots was a positive.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
I lived in Tower Hamlets for a while. Bethnal Green. It was nice. Felt safer than a few bits of Camden I can think of.
What was it about those bits of Camden that made you feel unsafe?
High rates of crime coupled with poor street lighting.
As we've previously established, immigration is associated with the same or lower levels of crime. I'm reminded of a friend who was living in Clapton who said she felt so much safer once lots of Poles moved to the area.
During the London riots, I was in a communal workshop on Cremer Street, one evening. From the walkway outside (2nd floor), we could see into the back yard area of the shops and restaurants of Kingsland Road.
The restaurants were largely Vietnamese, and a number of the shops were very Polish corner shops/off licenses.
The Poles and Vietnamese guys were sitting out back, sharing smokes and beers - lovely hot evening. They were chatting away and checking out their weapons. Baseball bats for the Poles, machetes for the Vietnamese kitchen staff.
Cultural mingling in front of us. My Australian mate joked that the really old Vietnamese guy was telling stories from The War....
Perhaps we should put the Poles and Vietnamese in charge of London policing?
I'm not entirely sure that a cross-cultural Rondas campesinas would work out that well.
To start with, @TSE would get his footwear ruined by walking through the pools of blood.
Mind you, the fox bashing lawyer would have plenty of work.
Just caught up with PMQs after a busy day. This post is more or less on topic. Correct me where wrong, Starmer didn’t mention Lee or Islamophobia? That must have been a conscious decision.
Sunak anticipated Starmer would hence firing off about Anti semitism in Labour, even though it wasn’t answering the questions?
Braverman has said 100% the same thing about Starmer as Lee said against Khan. Starmer could have pointed that out. Labour quite like Braverman keeping the Conservative whip and still in the next Tory leader race? Sunak is not in such weak position he can’t remove the whip from Braverman, Truss and Badenoch too (though more wisely will let the house standards discipline Badenoch for misleading it).
would thinking it May or December change PMQs, we see anything in PMQs about timing of the next election? Also what work the government are bringing forward to keep MPs busy?
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
Are you ever intelligent? I have this weird prior of you being quite smart? But - in recent recollection - all I read from you is “edgy commentary” that befits a 12 year old
Obviously the Margaux was irresistible. The UK has always changed and you can't be a cnut by trying to prevent it. Or rather you should be a cnut and show that you can't prevent it. Which is just as well because you do resemble a cnut in many ways.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
Are you ever intelligent? I have this weird prior of you being quite smart? But - in recent recollection - all I read from you is “edgy commentary” that befits a 12 year old
Obviously the Margaux was irresistible. The UK has always changed and you can't be a cnut by trying to prevent it. Or rather you should be a cnut and show that you can't prevent it. Which is just as well because you do resemble a cnut in many ways.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
Are you ever intelligent? I have this weird prior of you being quite smart? But - in recent recollection - all I read from you is “edgy commentary” that befits a 12 year old
Obviously the Margaux was irresistible. The UK has always changed and you can't be a cnut by trying to prevent it. Or rather you should be a cnut and show that you can't prevent it. Which is just as well because you do resemble a cnut in many ways.
I think @Topping might have made an intentional spelling mistake in his third use of the word (although not in the first two). Not that I agree with him I might add (in the last use of the word that is)
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
But they have. They're called civil marriages.
So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.
Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
Marriage still is a religious institution, it was created by religions after all and for most it is limited only to one man and woman for life.
Civil unions would have been fine for the non religious and those who did not meet the above criteria
Maybe there's a valid distinction between marriage and holy matrimony?
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
Are you ever intelligent? I have this weird prior of you being quite smart? But - in recent recollection - all I read from you is “edgy commentary” that befits a 12 year old
Obviously the Margaux was irresistible. The UK has always changed and you can't be a cnut by trying to prevent it. Or rather you should be a cnut and show that you can't prevent it. Which is just as well because you do resemble a cnut in many ways.
Cnut was an immigrant ...
Like William II, Stephen, Henry II, Richard II, Edward IV, William III, Queen Alexandra, Prince Albert, Queen Adelaide, Queen Caroline and Prince Philip.
This is excellent. I have a 2m geological map of Great Britain in the wall, and I’m almost tempted to turn it into a similar project.
My grandpa who is 85 started making this rock map of Scotland in 1992.He collected rocks during amateur geology trips over 30 years. He says it had to be geologically correct and also aesthetically pleasing.He asked if I could share online as He wants to go viral so please share https://twitter.com/Jefferies_/status/1762227703946608992
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
Are you ever intelligent? I have this weird prior of you being quite smart? But - in recent recollection - all I read from you is “edgy commentary” that befits a 12 year old
Obviously the Margaux was irresistible. The UK has always changed and you can't be a cnut by trying to prevent it. Or rather you should be a cnut and show that you can't prevent it. Which is just as well because you do resemble a cnut in many ways.
Cnut was an immigrant ...
Like William II, Stephen, Henry II, Richard II, Edward IV, William III, Queen Alexandra, Prince Albert, Queen Adelaide, Queen Caroline and Prince Philip.
Indeed. It is apparent from British history, that after a while, the royal family gets a bit too local. This is a Bad Vibe in the Kinging Business.
The only thing to do at that point is Best Shore the job to a suitably qualified immigrant. Freshen up the outfit, reduce costs. Reducing headcount in middle management is an additional option, of course.
Tory MP Miriam Cates has called for smartphones and social media to be banned for under-16s.
Good luck with that. It would be as effective as the bans on canoodling, smoking etc.
When did they ban canoodling? Haven't done it in such a long time I missed it being banned.
Under 16s are not supposed to smoke, canoodle (in the legal sense) with one another. This does not appear to have stopped it happening.
In my school of 200+ I cannot recall an incident of smoking by one of the pupils in the past two years. Vaping, yes. But surprisingly rare. It has almost entirely died out.
Tory MP Miriam Cates has called for smartphones and social media to be banned for under-16s.
Good luck with that. It would be as effective as the bans on canoodling, smoking etc.
When did they ban canoodling? Haven't done it in such a long time I missed it being banned.
Under 16s are not supposed to smoke, canoodle (in the legal sense) with one another. This does not appear to have stopped it happening.
Canoodling has obviously changed since I did it.
We're talking about this, I take it...?
Canadian Noodles
A great one pot supper that uses the simple trick of adding vegetables to the boiling pasta water, this dish combines the everyday and the unusual for great taste and color.
INGREDIENTS 3/4 lb rotini pasta 1/2 tsp salt 2 zucchini 1 yellow pepper 1 cup frozen peas 1 cup milk 2 tbsp all purpose flour 1/2 cup garlic and herb cream cheese spread 1/2 lb thick sliced canadian bacon 1/4 tsp pepper 1/2 cup grated parmesan cheese DETAILS Preparation time 10mins Cooking time 22mins
PREPARATION STEP 1 1. Bring large pot of hot tap water to boil; add salt, meanwhile, quarter zucchini lengthwise and slice crosswise. coarsely chop bell pepper. Cook pasta according ot package directions, adding the zucchini, bell pepper and peas during last 3 mins of cooking. 2. in small saucepan, whisk together milk and flour until blended. Bring to simmer, stirring occasionally. Add cream cheese and whisk until blended. 3. Remove and reserve 1 cup pasta water in glass measure; drain pasta and vegetables and return to pot. Cut bacon into 1/4 inch strips. Stir in cream cheese mixture, bacon, pepper, parmesan and 1/2 cup pasta water. Add additoinal pasta water if needed for creamier consistency. Transfer to serving dish.
Tory MP Miriam Cates has called for smartphones and social media to be banned for under-16s.
Good luck with that. It would be as effective as the bans on canoodling, smoking etc.
When did they ban canoodling? Haven't done it in such a long time I missed it being banned.
Under 16s are not supposed to smoke, canoodle (in the legal sense) with one another. This does not appear to have stopped it happening.
Canoodling has obviously changed since I did it.
We're talking about this, I take it...?
Canadian Noodles
A great one pot supper that uses the simple trick of adding vegetables to the boiling pasta water, this dish combines the everyday and the unusual for great taste and color.
INGREDIENTS 3/4 lb rotini pasta 1/2 tsp salt 2 zucchini 1 yellow pepper 1 cup frozen peas 1 cup milk 2 tbsp all purpose flour 1/2 cup garlic and herb cream cheese spread 1/2 lb thick sliced canadian bacon 1/4 tsp pepper 1/2 cup grated parmesan cheese DETAILS Preparation time 10mins Cooking time 22mins
PREPARATION STEP 1 1. Bring large pot of hot tap water to boil; add salt, meanwhile, quarter zucchini lengthwise and slice crosswise. coarsely chop bell pepper. Cook pasta according ot package directions, adding the zucchini, bell pepper and peas during last 3 mins of cooking. 2. in small saucepan, whisk together milk and flour until blended. Bring to simmer, stirring occasionally. Add cream cheese and whisk until blended. 3. Remove and reserve 1 cup pasta water in glass measure; drain pasta and vegetables and return to pot. Cut bacon into 1/4 inch strips. Stir in cream cheese mixture, bacon, pepper, parmesan and 1/2 cup pasta water. Add additoinal pasta water if needed for creamier consistency. Transfer to serving dish.
Noooo. That sounds awful. Where has the romance gone?
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Yes I'd much rather hear from people who don't live there and never visit, I am sure they are far better informed.
Good for you, have a cookie. Your elevation to the sainthood awaits.
I’d sooner hear from none of them especially when it is dumped in my timeline. Certainly being better informed about sparkhill or tower hamlets is not high up on my list of priorities.
Just caught up with PMQs after a busy day. This post is more or less on topic. Correct me where wrong, Starmer didn’t mention Lee or Islamophobia? That must have been a conscious decision.
Sunak anticipated Starmer would hence firing off about Anti semitism in Labour, even though it wasn’t answering the questions?
Braverman has said 100% the same thing about Starmer as Lee said against Khan. Starmer could have pointed that out. Labour quite like Braverman keeping the Conservative whip and still in the next Tory leader race? Sunak is not in such weak position he can’t remove the whip from Braverman, Truss and Badenoch too (though more wisely will let the house standards discipline Badenoch for misleading it).
would thinking it May or December change PMQs, we see anything in PMQs about timing of the next election? Also what work the government are bringing forward to keep MPs busy?
I thought it was noticeable how many Tories were in full-on electioneering mode - but for the local elections. Lots of "does the Prime Minister agree that my local Tory council are wonderful? (/ Labour council are terrible?)" (delete as appropriate).
If the backbenchers have been told to prepare for a general election in May, they were certainly keeping it quiet...
The other thing that caught my eye was the q about the free childcare policy - Sunak stated fairly unequivocally that it was going ahead as planned. Most observers have been expecting it to be badly hampered by the lack of capacity... but its due to go live in April, so for Sunak to sound so certain about it succeeding perhaps suggests that there might be room for him to surprise us all.
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
But they have. They're called civil marriages.
So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.
Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
Marriage still is a religious institution, it was created by religions after all and for most it is limited only to one man and woman for life.
Civil unions would have been fine for the non religious and those who did not meet the above criteria
Maybe there's a valid distinction between marriage and holy matrimony?
Marriage is neither religious nor non religious. Both sorts of tradition have ways of organising and recognising fundamental relationships, of which very obviously any relationship which can transmit new life, with its long responsibilities is one.
Both religious and non religious traditions make and alter the rules of what is approved and what is not slowly but continuously. In the secular west (eg the UK) secular law trumps all religious convictions (divorce allowed for all), but does not abolish them in the personal sphere.
Tory MP Miriam Cates has called for smartphones and social media to be banned for under-16s.
Good luck with that. It would be as effective as the bans on canoodling, smoking etc.
When did they ban canoodling? Haven't done it in such a long time I missed it being banned.
Under 16s are not supposed to smoke, canoodle (in the legal sense) with one another. This does not appear to have stopped it happening.
Canoodling has obviously changed since I did it.
We're talking about this, I take it...?
Canadian Noodles
A great one pot supper that uses the simple trick of adding vegetables to the boiling pasta water, this dish combines the everyday and the unusual for great taste and color.
INGREDIENTS 3/4 lb rotini pasta 1/2 tsp salt 2 zucchini 1 yellow pepper 1 cup frozen peas 1 cup milk 2 tbsp all purpose flour 1/2 cup garlic and herb cream cheese spread 1/2 lb thick sliced canadian bacon 1/4 tsp pepper 1/2 cup grated parmesan cheese DETAILS Preparation time 10mins Cooking time 22mins
PREPARATION STEP 1 1. Bring large pot of hot tap water to boil; add salt, meanwhile, quarter zucchini lengthwise and slice crosswise. coarsely chop bell pepper. Cook pasta according ot package directions, adding the zucchini, bell pepper and peas during last 3 mins of cooking. 2. in small saucepan, whisk together milk and flour until blended. Bring to simmer, stirring occasionally. Add cream cheese and whisk until blended. 3. Remove and reserve 1 cup pasta water in glass measure; drain pasta and vegetables and return to pot. Cut bacon into 1/4 inch strips. Stir in cream cheese mixture, bacon, pepper, parmesan and 1/2 cup pasta water. Add additoinal pasta water if needed for creamier consistency. Transfer to serving dish.
Boiling peppers and courgette. I’ve never done either. Presumably they hold their shape and taste okay. The courgette doesn’t turn to mush ?
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
To be fair the medieval Angevins were more liberal and progressive than 21st Century Afghans and Somalis. I don't believe Christendom has ever required women to cover their faces.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
To be fair the medieval Angevins were more liberal and progressive than 21st Century Afghans and Somalis. I don't believe Christendom has ever required women to cover their faces.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
Are you making the "Britain is a nation of imigrants argument?" Because the Norman Conquest didn't work out terribly well for the pre-existing English population. (And similarly, the Anglo-Saxon invasions didn't work out particularly well for the pre-existing British population; nor the Roman invasion; nor the Viking invasion.) Arguably the arrival of the Huguenots was a positive.
It worked out well for you and your family.
Well yes. I'm a descendent of the winners. We all are, to some extent. But not for my predecessors in this part of the world who were slaughtered and starved by William I. It's hard to argue that particular immigration, or, indeed almost any others, were of benefit to the population who were on the receiving end.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
To be fair the medieval Angevins were more liberal and progressive than 21st Century Afghans and Somalis. I don't believe Christendom has ever required women to cover their faces.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
I wouldn't want to live in a country made up of extremely religious people who want to force their religious views on other people, of any description. I don't want to live in Afghanistan, I don't want to live in Alabama. I also don't want to live in a supposedly liberal country that persecutes members of religious minorities by allowing them fewer rights than other people. That would also constitute a major change in our way of life, changing something fundamental about Britain. Fwiw I believe that anti Muslim bigots right now pose a greater threat to our way of life than Muslims do - there are more of them, and they have way more political power. You may feel differently, but we ourselves have different ways of life so that's not surprising. White British people have diverse sets of values, Muslims have diverse sets of values.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Yes I'd much rather hear from people who don't live there and never visit, I am sure they are far better informed.
Good for you, have a cookie. Your elevation to the sainthood awaits.
I’d sooner hear from none of them especially when it is dumped in my timeline. Certainly being better informed about sparkhill or tower hamlets is not high up on my list of priorities.
Presumably it got dumped on your timeliness because an algorithm monitored your digital activity and thought you would engage with it. It's the same algorithm that monitors my conversations with Leon and puts posts from poorly concealed far right front organisations on my FB feed. And you wonder why the world is going mad.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
To be fair the medieval Angevins were more liberal and progressive than 21st Century Afghans and Somalis. I don't believe Christendom has ever required women to cover their faces.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
To be fair the medieval Angevins were more liberal and progressive than 21st Century Afghans and Somalis. I don't believe Christendom has ever required women to cover their faces.
Tops of heads rather than faces, but 1 Corinthians 11:4 was long enforced.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
I wouldn't want to live in a country made up of extremely religious people who want to force their religious views on other people, of any description. I don't want to live in Afghanistan, I don't want to live in Alabama. I also don't want to live in a supposedly liberal country that persecutes members of religious minorities by allowing them fewer rights than other people. That would also constitute a major change in our way of life, changing something fundamental about Britain. Fwiw I believe that anti Muslim bigots right now pose a greater threat to our way of life than Muslims do - there are more of them, and they have way more political power. You may feel differently, but we ourselves have different ways of life so that's not surprising. White British people have diverse sets of values, Muslims have diverse sets of values.
So, at some point, you would say: that’s enough Muslims
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
Are you ever intelligent? I have this weird prior of you being quite smart? But - in recent recollection - all I read from you is “edgy commentary” that befits a 12 year old
Obviously the Margaux was irresistible. The UK has always changed and you can't be a cnut by trying to prevent it. Or rather you should be a cnut and show that you can't prevent it. Which is just as well because you do resemble a cnut in many ways.
Cnut was an immigrant ...
He was a pretty smart cnut.
Although in some ways his impact was limited. He didn't try to make waves later in his career.
I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.
I really would like to think that he is a spent force these days. But somebody's got to win it. My guess is that the Labour candidate will win without party backing.
I think you can get 2/1 on him which would be good value but without even a 'Labour' on the ballot paper I can't see it.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
I wouldn't want to live in a country made up of extremely religious people who want to force their religious views on other people, of any description. I don't want to live in Afghanistan, I don't want to live in Alabama. I also don't want to live in a supposedly liberal country that persecutes members of religious minorities by allowing them fewer rights than other people. That would also constitute a major change in our way of life, changing something fundamental about Britain. Fwiw I believe that anti Muslim bigots right now pose a greater threat to our way of life than Muslims do - there are more of them, and they have way more political power. You may feel differently, but we ourselves have different ways of life so that's not surprising. White British people have diverse sets of values, Muslims have diverse sets of values.
So, at some point, you would say: that’s enough Muslims
When is that? 10%? 25%? 45%?
I'd never say it, because setting quotas for people by religious affiliation would take this country to a far worse place than a 45% Muslim population could manage. You do realise that this line of thinking leads to Srebrenica and Auschwitz, right?
I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.
I really would like to think that he is a spent force these days. But somebody's got to win it. My guess is that the Labour candidate will win without party backing.
I think you can get 2/1 on him which would be good value but without even a 'Labour' on the ballot paper I can't see it.
The ballot paper says Azhar Ali - Labour.
The proof will be if they let him run at the GE
The central party won't let him, the only doubt in my mind is how upset the local party will be about that.
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
I wouldn't want to live in a country made up of extremely religious people who want to force their religious views on other people, of any description. I don't want to live in Afghanistan, I don't want to live in Alabama. I also don't want to live in a supposedly liberal country that persecutes members of religious minorities by allowing them fewer rights than other people. That would also constitute a major change in our way of life, changing something fundamental about Britain. Fwiw I believe that anti Muslim bigots right now pose a greater threat to our way of life than Muslims do - there are more of them, and they have way more political power. You may feel differently, but we ourselves have different ways of life so that's not surprising. White British people have diverse sets of values, Muslims have diverse sets of values.
So, at some point, you would say: that’s enough Muslims
When is that? 10%? 25%? 45%?
I'd never say it, because setting quotas for people by religious affiliation would take this country to a far worse place than a 45% Muslim population could manage. You do realise that this line of thinking leads to Srebrenica and Auschwitz, right?
You’re just an imbecile. A coward and an imbecile
I’ve been to majority evangelical Alabama and majority Muslim areas of Egypt, kuwait, Syria etc
It is utterly obvious which are the preferable places to live - ESPECIALLY as a woman. But you are too scared and idiotic to admit it
The head of the armed forces will remain in post for another year after he emerged as a key player in helping Ukraine with its battle plans against Russia, it can be revealed.
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, 58, was due to retire in November this year after serving three years as chief of the defence staff. However, he has been asked to stay on until autumn 2025 by the prime minister. It is understood that Rishi Sunak’s decision has been approved by the King.
Sources close to Radakin pointed to his “shuttle diplomacy” last summer between Washington and Kyiv, in which he held key meetings in person with Ukrainian military chiefs amid White House anxiety about the US appearing to be too closely involved in the war.
They said he was able to grasp the tactical detail of the land war in Ukraine while also able to link this to the bigger strategic picture and the need to align the military response with the wider economic and diplomatic effort.
He travelled without any British ministers to Kyiv to meet President Zelensky to discuss Ukraine’s strategy and how the West could help. A Ukrainian military source said he was liked for his “wise strategic thinking” and had been helping the country with its battle plans, without going into detail for security reasons.
"...Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced on the Senate floor that he would be stepping down as Senate Republican leader at the end of the term..." - MSNBC, 28 Feb 2024, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmMBXA-3rPs
The worst thing, bar none, about the no go areas comment is all these bawbags coming out and penning articles or commentary to the effect of how wonderful these areas really are.
Rentoul doesn't actually say anything about how wonderful it is or isn't, does he?
But, yes, Tower Hamlets has some of the most desirable areas to live in the country. Still not seeing much evidence for them - or any other part of the borough - being no-go areas.
Having actually lived in Tower Hamlets, some bits are quite nice. Other bits, like Watney Street, off Shadwell DLR station, were not so much. For some reason, you could get a free stabbing with your chicken and chips there, quite easily, on a Friday night.
Yeah, I've lived Globe Town and Bow - both of which are a fairly even mix of desirable and scummy, but in very different ways.
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
If the entire country were diverse in a similar way to Tower Hamlets, would it threaten the British way of life?
The beauty of the British way of life lies in its diversity (in all respects) and creativity. If someone were to try to make the whole country just like one single part of it, be that Tower Hamlets or a Cotswolds village, it would threaten the British way of life.
How would you feel if Britain became 20/30 or even 40% or 50% Muslim? With a mosque in every Cotswold village? Rather than a church?
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
You mean like if a bunch of French, Norman, Angevin people came over here and started to shag our women and drink our beer (actually decent fizz these days)? That kind of fundamental change of Britain?
To be fair the medieval Angevins were more liberal and progressive than 21st Century Afghans and Somalis. I don't believe Christendom has ever required women to cover their faces.
Comments
There should also be no ceremony required. I do not recognise the right of the state to marry me. A couple should be able to do so by self-declaration, all the state needs to do is record it.
"Modern British politics consists in not building anything, banning stuff, telling people off, and calling anyone you disagree with evil/a racist/unworthy of holding an opinion." - Aaron Bastani, Jun 12, 2023, see https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1668370528044761088
Next verse. Same as the first...
That's the point though... it's an extremely diverse borough, in every sense of the word. Anyone making generalisations about it is going to make themselves look silly.
But they are not a no go zone for me - as a late middle aged white man, but for a young white woman or gay couple: yes definitely not nice, and I have heard this personally from such people (whatever @TheScreamingEagles bleats on about)
But it is only parts of the borough and it is only for certain people. This is where these stupid Tory MPs go wrong. They should be more specific, perhaps it is just cowardice, or stupidity, that prevents them making this refinement to their point
I lived on Cartwright Street, near the Tower. Used to be very quiet around there, apart from car stereos being stolen every single night. A few hundred yards East, there were bits where you would be well advised to be careful about.
Which bits of Camden made you feel less safe? Largely white Primrose Hill or Regents Park/Delancey, or black Somalian Queens Crescent/Gospel Oak?
https://visionzerolondon.wordpress.com/latest-pedestrians-and-cyclists-deaths-in-london/
Weak! Weak! Weak!
Britain is, happily, a mix of many things. Tower Hamlets has been an area of high immigration for over 2 centuries. It's diversity is more traditional than universal suffrage, or fish and chips, or Wimbledon, or many other things.
On Rochdale, the journalists' reports seem unanimous that Galloway is walking it and nobody else is even trying. Perhaps there's a journo bias there in that it makes a more interesting story, but an easy win on a very low poll looks likely to me.
I wonder if Labour will impose Paul Waugh for the GE? Seems logical, and he's a very credible candidate.
If Tower Hamlets is "extremely diverse", why is it not a suitable model for the rest of the country? Do you think it's important that there be other areas that are not so diverse?
Rejoice!
So if the State has to recognise a marriage/partnership there is just one to choose from and they register it.
It is then up to the couple what they then do eg Nothing, have a great big party, have a religious wedding, say vows to one another, whatever.
Personally we got married in a registry office (neither of us are religious) and had a do after. The rest was traditional (piper, antique car, meal, honeymoon). We are actually not sure we are officially married as at the time you didn't get a choice of venue and we pretended we lived in a friends house to get a nicer registry office. Bit of a panic when they asked us for the address and we forgot. Got a certificate though.
BTW I see I forgot stamp duty, too. And tbf not having to pay rent, depending on whether one counts that as validi n the argument.
Would that change your mind about diversity? Or would it change something fundamental about Britain?
As we've previously established, immigration is associated with the same or lower levels of crime. I'm reminded of a friend who was living in Clapton who said she felt so much safer once lots of Poles moved to the area.
The stats on mental health for the younger generation are terrifying. Now us older folk (i'm 51) might mock them a bit and think 'toughen up', but there is a real problem for society. I don't think its all social media, but a lot seems to be.
However I am not sure banning is the right answer.
It was the absurd central government rules preventing council reinvesting the proceeds in new housing stock. Part of the forty year hollowing out of local government. A far better critique if Labour is that when in power they never did anything significant to reverse that.
Silly gotchas like the attack on Rayner just infantilise the debate.
Put that on your mural.
Civil unions would have been fine for the non religious and those who did not meet the above criteria
Our experience there was mostly quite good, our main complaint was traffic noise as we lived on the A13. Decent food and shops, not too expensive and close to central London and to clubs and bars, quite safe to walk home at night.
Once or twice we experienced some issues as a mixed race couple, my wife isn't Bengali but looks similar enough that some old Bengali geezers would give us what felt like dirty looks. One time my wife shouted at them to the effect that she didn't know what they were saying because they were saying stuff to her in Bengali. That was an isolated incident, but it's probably the most overt harassment we ever experienced as a couple (apart from in Jamaica one time) and who knows what they were actually saying, it might have been nothing. So yeah, not perfect, but okay, we had a nice year there.
Glad to hear Ait France hasn’t killed you, btw.
The restaurants were largely Vietnamese, and a number of the shops were very Polish corner shops/off licenses.
The Poles and Vietnamese guys were sitting out back, sharing smokes and beers - lovely hot evening. They were chatting away and checking out their weapons. Baseball bats for the Poles, machetes for the Vietnamese kitchen staff.
Cultural mingling in front of us. My Australian mate joked that the really old Vietnamese guy was telling stories from The War....
Brick Lane et environs (sometimes, all the provisos, etc) = incomers protesting against the indigenous population.
To start with, Cnut wasn't very anti-immigrant.
Because the Norman Conquest didn't work out terribly well for the pre-existing English population.
(And similarly, the Anglo-Saxon invasions didn't work out particularly well for the pre-existing British population; nor the Roman invasion; nor the Viking invasion.)
Arguably the arrival of the Huguenots was a positive.
That said, there are clearly areas where those pesky Normans had some quite profound changes on society, like banning slavery.
https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2024/02/27/091989c9/army-white-paper-army-force-structure-transformation.pdf
Cavalry squadrons out; drones and more long range fires in.
To start with, @TSE would get his footwear ruined by walking through the pools of blood.
Mind you, the fox bashing lawyer would have plenty of work.
Sunak anticipated Starmer would hence firing off about Anti semitism in Labour, even though it wasn’t answering the questions?
Braverman has said 100% the same thing about Starmer as Lee said against Khan. Starmer could have pointed that out. Labour quite like Braverman keeping the Conservative whip and still in the next Tory leader race? Sunak is not in such weak position he can’t remove the whip from Braverman, Truss and Badenoch too (though more wisely will let the house standards discipline Badenoch for misleading it).
would thinking it May or December change PMQs, we see anything in PMQs about timing of the next election? Also what work the government are bringing forward to keep MPs busy?
I have a 2m geological map of Great Britain in the wall, and I’m almost tempted to turn it into a similar project.
My grandpa who is 85 started making this rock map of Scotland in 1992.He collected rocks during amateur geology trips over 30 years. He says it had to be geologically correct and also aesthetically pleasing.He asked if I could share online as He wants to go viral so please share
https://twitter.com/Jefferies_/status/1762227703946608992
The only thing to do at that point is Best Shore the job to a suitably qualified immigrant. Freshen up the outfit, reduce costs. Reducing headcount in middle management is an additional option, of course.
It has almost entirely died out.
Canadian Noodles
A great one pot supper that uses the simple trick of adding vegetables to the boiling pasta water, this dish combines the everyday and the unusual for great taste and color.
INGREDIENTS
3/4 lb rotini pasta
1/2 tsp salt
2 zucchini
1 yellow pepper
1 cup frozen peas
1 cup milk
2 tbsp all purpose flour
1/2 cup garlic and herb cream cheese spread
1/2 lb thick sliced canadian bacon
1/4 tsp pepper
1/2 cup grated parmesan cheese
DETAILS
Preparation time 10mins
Cooking time 22mins
PREPARATION
STEP 1
1. Bring large pot of hot tap water to boil; add salt, meanwhile, quarter zucchini lengthwise and slice crosswise. coarsely chop bell pepper. Cook pasta according ot package directions, adding the zucchini, bell pepper and peas during last 3 mins of cooking.
2. in small saucepan, whisk together milk and flour until blended. Bring to simmer, stirring occasionally. Add cream cheese and whisk until blended.
3. Remove and reserve 1 cup pasta water in glass measure; drain pasta and vegetables and return to pot. Cut bacon into 1/4 inch strips. Stir in cream cheese mixture, bacon, pepper, parmesan and 1/2 cup pasta water. Add additoinal pasta water if needed for creamier consistency. Transfer to serving dish.
I’d sooner hear from none of them especially when it is dumped in my timeline. Certainly being better informed about sparkhill or tower hamlets is not high up on my list of priorities.
If the backbenchers have been told to prepare for a general election in May, they were certainly keeping it quiet...
The other thing that caught my eye was the q about the free childcare policy - Sunak stated fairly unequivocally that it was going ahead as planned. Most observers have been expecting it to be badly hampered by the lack of capacity... but its due to go live in April, so for Sunak to sound so certain about it succeeding perhaps suggests that there might be room for him to surprise us all.
Both religious and non religious traditions make and alter the rules of what is approved and what is not slowly but continuously. In the secular west (eg the UK) secular law trumps all religious convictions (divorce allowed for all), but does not abolish them in the personal sphere.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68408825
Looks like the practice pre dated Islam.
Fwiw I believe that anti Muslim bigots right now pose a greater threat to our way of life than Muslims do - there are more of them, and they have way more political power. You may feel differently, but we ourselves have different ways of life so that's not surprising. White British people have diverse sets of values, Muslims have diverse sets of values.
Which raises an obvious question: does WillG actually know any Afghans or Somalis, or is he perhaps speaking from a position of total ignorance?
When is that? 10%? 25%? 45%?
You’re just an imbecile. A coward and an imbecile
I’ve been to majority evangelical Alabama and majority Muslim areas of Egypt, kuwait, Syria etc
It is utterly obvious which are the preferable places to live - ESPECIALLY as a woman. But you are too scared and idiotic to admit it
The head of the armed forces will remain in post for another year after he emerged as a key player in helping Ukraine with its battle plans against Russia, it can be revealed.
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, 58, was due to retire in November this year after serving three years as chief of the defence staff. However, he has been asked to stay on until autumn 2025 by the prime minister. It is understood that Rishi Sunak’s decision has been approved by the King.
Sources close to Radakin pointed to his “shuttle diplomacy” last summer between Washington and Kyiv, in which he held key meetings in person with Ukrainian military chiefs amid White House anxiety about the US appearing to be too closely involved in the war.
They said he was able to grasp the tactical detail of the land war in Ukraine while also able to link this to the bigger strategic picture and the need to align the military response with the wider economic and diplomatic effort.
He travelled without any British ministers to Kyiv to meet President Zelensky to discuss Ukraine’s strategy and how the West could help. A Ukrainian military source said he was liked for his “wise strategic thinking” and had been helping the country with its battle plans, without going into detail for security reasons.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-head-of-the-armed-forces-is-secretly-helping-ukraine-with-battle-plans-6tcmw67hs