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.
Although when accused of witchcraft* we gave plenty of them a warm send-off.
"...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
At 82, only a year older than Biden and 5 years older than Trump
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
Here you go again with the absurd ad hominems. Grow up.
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?
Which is the C of E argument with only the latter applying to a man and woman ideally for 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.
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?
Do you think that modern Denmark is heading towards another Srebrenica or Auschwitz?
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
That may be the case. But *neither* are very nice compared to many other countries or states.
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.
I think that photo sums up the issue. We British have been very accommodating as to the Islamic communities in the UK. Admittedly striking perhaps the wrong tone. The Muslim community has been a little stand-offish.
Clearly I'm generalising here. The Bangladeshi immigrants of the 70s are completely the opposite. They're only now thinking of their roots.
(Quite why we, all of us, don't forever cast religion aside escapes me)
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?
Which is the C of E argument with only the latter applying to a man and woman ideally for life
How is that a Christian argument and not just bigotry
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?
Do you think that modern Denmark is heading towards another Srebrenica or Auschwitz?
I think there are tendencies in that direction right across Europe. You'd have to be very ignorant of 20th European history not to see the parallels.
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?
We had several pb'ers the other day advocating for an Islamist political party, which was interesting.
Numbers are crucial. You can tolerate all sorts of radical, outlandish or extreme views in communities, provided they are small.
Once the population is extensive and you have democratic mass (and that doesn't need to be a majority) then you have a problem *unless* the views and values moderate into the mainstream at the same time, so the population is politically fungible.
Oh - I had a look in the South Normanton Holiday Inn today.
Gone somewhat downhill (iirc back in the day it was a Queens Moat), but it still has a spa.
And the laundry delivery lorry parked across all the disabled spaces this morning.
I always associate South Normanton with the junction of the A38 and M1...
There used to be a really great place just south of there, Ripley Surplus Supplies or somesuch, which had loads of ex-military stuff for sale. A great place to explore when I was a kid. They had old computers out of warships, and missiles (hopefully without propellent and warhead, but who knows...)
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?
Do you think that modern Denmark is heading towards another Srebrenica or Auschwitz?
I think there are tendencies in that direction right across Europe. You'd have to be very ignorant of 20th European history not to see the parallels.
Yes. And it’s Muslims and their leftist allies persecuting Jews
Nice cheese selection in the lounge at CDG terminal E. Also good bread and decent pickles and a nice cold Chablis
Rubbish spirits selection - but twas ever thus in France
I mention this mainly as a memo to self as I will be back here in about 3 days
Fantastic beer selection in the Victoria Tap in Manchester's Victoria station, along with some tasty bar snacks. Hopefully not here long enough to come to any view on the spirit selection!
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.
Like he surprised us by growing the economy, shrinking national debt and reducing NHS waiting lists last year?
I will be doing ayahuasca with - arguably - the most famous ayahuasquero in the world - early next week. In the Amazonian jungle. With a team of imperial college scientists
Beat that, PB
When I die (which could be quite soon) please chisel on my gravestone: man, that guy had a fucking BLAST
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 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 upsetthe local party will be about that.
I wonder whether they do anyway.
Does he still get his full payout for loss of office?
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.
What about canoodling?
I don't know enough to have a view on whether smoking is worse than vaping.
But at least vapers don't carelessly discard the litter from their habit.
That said, vape shops are uniformly eyesores. Whereas tobacco advertising used to be quite handsome.
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?
Do you think that modern Denmark is heading towards another Srebrenica or Auschwitz?
I think there are tendencies in that direction right across Europe. You'd have to be very ignorant of 20th European history not to see the parallels.
Yes. And it’s Muslims and their leftist allies persecuting Jews
I am so old I remember that roaster Sean Thomas defended Trump for saying people chanting Jews will not replace us were very fine people.
I see your antisemitism meter only works in one direction.
Oh - I had a look in the South Normanton Holiday Inn today.
Gone somewhat downhill (iirc back in the day it was a Queens Moat), but it still has a spa.
And the laundry delivery lorry parked across all the disabled spaces this morning.
I always associate South Normanton with the junction of the A38 and M1...
There used to be a really great place just south of there, Ripley Surplus Supplies or somesuch, which had loads of ex-military stuff for sale. A great place to explore when I was a kid. They had old computers out of warships, and missiles (hopefully without propellent and warhead, but who knows...)
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.
What about canoodling?
I don't know enough to have a view on whether smoking is worse than vaping.
But at least vapers don't carelessly discard the litter from their habit.
That said, vape shops are uniformly eyesores. Whereas tobacco advertising used to be quite handsome.
er ... at least traditional fags go out and stay out. Many vapes do the opposite.
In the local WhatsApp group by my vineyard Antony Beevor, military historian and author of Stalingrad, is asking what number to call to complain to the highways agency about a blocked drain. “It is outrageous”, he says.
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.
He did draw a line in the sand
If he'd been really smart, he'd have sat his throne at the high-water mark and commanded the tide to stop 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.
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?
Do you think that modern Denmark is heading towards another Srebrenica or Auschwitz?
I think there are tendencies in that direction right across Europe. You'd have to be very ignorant of 20th European history not to see the parallels.
Yes. And it’s Muslims and their leftist allies persecuting Jews
I am so old I remember that roaster Sean Thomas defended Trump for saying people chanting Jews will not replace us were very fine people.
I see your antisemitism meter only works in one direction.
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?
Do you think that modern Denmark is heading towards another Srebrenica or Auschwitz?
I think there are tendencies in that direction right across Europe. You'd have to be very ignorant of 20th European history not to see the parallels.
Yes. And it’s Muslims and their leftist allies persecuting Jews
I am so old I remember that roaster Sean Thomas defended Trump for saying people chanting Jews will not replace us were very fine people.
I see your antisemitism meter only works in one direction.
Don't forget that the Great Replacement Theory is a classic anti-semitic conspiracy theory.
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?
Do you think that modern Denmark is heading towards another Srebrenica or Auschwitz?
I think there are tendencies in that direction right across Europe. You'd have to be very ignorant of 20th European history not to see the parallels.
Yes. And it’s Muslims and their leftist allies persecuting Jews
There is too much Antisemitism for sure, but personally I think Muslims are at far greater risk if there were a repeat of the holocaust in Europe. Anti Muslim sentiment is far more prevalent in society, anti Muslim rhetoric is far more part of the political mainstream, and Muslims/Islamism are viewed as an existential threat to European civilisation just as Jews/Bolshevism were. We've already seen an attempted genocide in Bosnia. We already have widespread persecution and hate crimes across Europe. All it takes is for decent people to do nothing.
In the local WhatsApp group by my vineyard Antony Beevor, military historian and author of Stalingrad, is asking what number to call to complain to the highways agency about a blocked drain. “It is outrageous”, he says.
Don't know what he's moaning about. He should know all about the solution to that, being a military historian and all.
I believe 15% represents the proportion of the current population considering themselves Muslim. In Newham it's more like 35% so is East Ham the front line of the "Islamification of London"?
The betting shops, the pubs and the butchers which does the excellent pork chops would all disagree. Yes, we have Halal butchers but we also have South Indian restaurants and shops and Romanian grocers and hairdressers.
Are we seeing the "Hinduisation" of East Ham or the "Romanisation" of East London?
I'd also mention the dominant religious building isn't the mosque or the Hindu temple or the Protestant church but the Sikh Gurdwara which is a magnificent building standing on the site of a former pub.
In the local WhatsApp group by my vineyard Antony Beevor, military historian and author of Stalingrad, is asking what number to call to complain to the highways agency about a blocked drain. “It is outrageous”, he says.
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.
James VI and Charles I for that matter, certainly in contemporary terms.
I will be doing ayahuasca with - arguably - the most famous ayahuasquero in the world - early next week. In the Amazonian jungle. With a team of imperial college scientists
Beat that, PB
When I die (which could be quite soon) please chisel on my gravestone: man, that guy had a fucking BLAST
That’s the pb comments section ruined in the latter half of next week, then, as you spam us all about it.
(You may call this post out as petty jealousy that you get to do this. And you’d be 100% right.)
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.
What about canoodling?
I don't know enough to have a view on whether smoking is worse than vaping.
But at least vapers don't carelessly discard the litter from their habit.
That said, vape shops are uniformly eyesores. Whereas tobacco advertising used to be quite handsome.
I’m very happy I’ve switched to vaping. Not had a fag since the beginning of January and not missed smoking* at all despite being out on a few big sessions and I’ve associated smoking with drinking for nearly 30 years.
I don’t miss smelling of smoke and I feel healthier and love not having the issue where there is no ashtray outside a bar or pub.
* the only time I miss smoking is sometimes when watching films or tv when someone lights up.
In the local WhatsApp group by my vineyard Antony Beevor, military historian and author of Stalingrad, is asking what number to call to complain to the highways agency about a blocked drain. “It is outrageous”, he says.
Don't know what he's moaning about. He should know all about the solution to that, being a military historian and all.
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?
Do you think that modern Denmark is heading towards another Srebrenica or Auschwitz?
I think there are tendencies in that direction right across Europe. You'd have to be very ignorant of 20th European history not to see the parallels.
Yes. And it’s Muslims and their leftist allies persecuting Jews
There is too much Antisemitism for sure, but personally I think Muslims are at far greater risk if there were a repeat of the holocaust in Europe. Anti Muslim sentiment is far more prevalent in society, anti Muslim rhetoric is far more part of the political mainstream, and Muslims/Islamism are viewed as an existential threat to European civilisation just as Jews/Bolshevism were. We've already seen an attempted genocide in Bosnia. We already have widespread persecution and hate crimes across Europe. All it takes is for decent people to do nothing.
Islam IS an existential threat to the freedoms of liberal democracy and the Enlightenment in a way Judaism has never been. Islam is, simply, much more aggressive and Muslims are more numerous
And within historical memory Islam nearly conquered Christian Europe - see Poitiers and vienna. By contrast Christendom actively tried to wipe out the Jews as they were so minor and weak. A shame which every white European must never forget
You are either an idiot or a coward; as I have said. My main conclusion is that you are both
In the local WhatsApp group by my vineyard Antony Beevor, military historian and author of Stalingrad, is asking what number to call to complain to the highways agency about a blocked drain. “It is outrageous”, he says.
I will be doing ayahuasca with - arguably - the most famous ayahuasquero in the world - early next week. In the Amazonian jungle. With a team of imperial college scientists
Beat that, PB
When I die (which could be quite soon) please chisel on my gravestone: man, that guy had a fucking BLAST
That’s the pb comments section ruined in the latter half of next week, then, as you spam us all about it.
(You may call this post out as petty jealousy that you get to do this. And you’d be 100% right.)
It’s sweet that Leon is so excited about hanging out with folks from Imperial. He’s clearly not had much contact the people from a proper college.
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?
Do you think that modern Denmark is heading towards another Srebrenica or Auschwitz?
I think there are tendencies in that direction right across Europe. You'd have to be very ignorant of 20th European history not to see the parallels.
Yes. And it’s Muslims and their leftist allies persecuting Jews
There is too much Antisemitism for sure, but personally I think Muslims are at far greater risk if there were a repeat of the holocaust in Europe. Anti Muslim sentiment is far more prevalent in society, anti Muslim rhetoric is far more part of the political mainstream, and Muslims/Islamism are viewed as an existential threat to European civilisation just as Jews/Bolshevism were. We've already seen an attempted genocide in Bosnia. We already have widespread persecution and hate crimes across Europe. All it takes is for decent people to do nothing.
I doubt it; because there are far too many to be the big enemy. There are many tens of millions of Muslims in Europe (perhaps 5% of the population); too many for them to be seen as 'controlling', or 'to blame'; the types of language that has been used against Jews for centuries.
In contrast, under ten million Jews lived in Europe before WW2, under 2% of the population. A true minority, and one seen as influential because of their own success.
To more relevant political matters and the Savanta/More In Common polls which show in the Lab/LD/Green vs Con/Reform contest 58-36 and 59-37 respectively.
Both these pollsters tend to have higher ratings for the Conservatives - More In Common's 28% is the highest of the current crop of polls but both also have improved Labour ratings and therefore the leads are in the mid teens with More in Common and Opinium having the smallest leads at 15 points.
It remains to be seen whether events in Rochdale tomorrow will impact the weekend polls.
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.
What about canoodling?
I don't know enough to have a view on whether smoking is worse than vaping.
But at least vapers don't carelessly discard the litter from their habit.
That said, vape shops are uniformly eyesores. Whereas tobacco advertising used to be quite handsome.
er ... at least traditional fags go out and stay out. Many vapes do the opposite.
Just had a read of that article. Tbh, I had no idea vapes were disposable.
But, good grief, the branding. I despair. With cigarettes, the point was to appear adult. If the tobacco companies wanted to appeal to kids, it did so by implying that smoking = being an adult. Whereas vaping appears to be aimed at the BBC3 demographic. What's the point in smoking if you doesn't confer an unmerited patina of maturity?
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.
He did draw a line in the sand
If he'd been really smart, he'd have sat his throne at the high-water mark and commanded the tide to stop there.
That would have completely undermined his argument…
Cnut wanted to prove that the King wasn’t all powerful
I will be doing ayahuasca with - arguably - the most famous ayahuasquero in the world - early next week. In the Amazonian jungle. With a team of imperial college scientists
Beat that, PB
When I die (which could be quite soon) please chisel on my gravestone: man, that guy had a fucking BLAST
That’s the pb comments section ruined in the latter half of next week, then, as you spam us all about it.
(You may call this post out as petty jealousy that you get to do this. And you’d be 100% right.)
Thanks. I’m actually a bit scared now
I did the sacred vine two years ago with this same billionaire, as part of an ongoing experiment
Now I am doing it with him and the boffins in the proper jungle. Eeeeeek
I will be doing ayahuasca with - arguably - the most famous ayahuasquero in the world - early next week. In the Amazonian jungle. With a team of imperial college scientists
Beat that, PB
When I die (which could be quite soon) please chisel on my gravestone: man, that guy had a fucking BLAST
That’s the pb comments section ruined in the latter half of next week, then, as you spam us all about it.
(You may call this post out as petty jealousy that you get to do this. And you’d be 100% right.)
Thanks. I’m actually a bit scared now
I did the sacred vine two years ago with this same billionaire, as part of an ongoing experiment
Now I am doing it with him and the boffins in the proper jungle. Eeeeeek
Labour in power faces dire economic inheritance, says Rachel Reeves
Sketching out Labour’s critique of the government’s economic record since 2010, Reeves said public debt as a share of national output was at the highest level since the 1960s; debt interest payments were at the highest level since the second world war; taxes as a share of national output were the highest since 1949; the economy was smaller than when Rishi Sunak became prime minister in October 2022; and the current parliament was on track to be the first in which living standards – as measured by real household disposable incomes – fell.
“George Osborne promised to fix the nation’s roof. But the Conservatives have broken the windows, kicked the door in and now they’re burning the house down.”
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.
What about canoodling?
I don't know enough to have a view on whether smoking is worse than vaping.
But at least vapers don't carelessly discard the litter from their habit.
That said, vape shops are uniformly eyesores. Whereas tobacco advertising used to be quite handsome.
er ... at least traditional fags go out and stay out. Many vapes do the opposite.
Just had a read of that article. Tbh, I had no idea vapes were disposable.
But, good grief, the branding. I despair. With cigarettes, the point was to appear adult. If the tobacco companies wanted to appeal to kids, it did so by implying that smoking = being an adult. Whereas vaping appears to be aimed at the BBC3 demographic. What's the point in smoking if you doesn't confer an unmerited patina of maturity?
Basically look and taste like sweeties, presumably.
I remember reading a detective novel which featured a paedophile with a cuddly dog. Great bait.
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.
I think that photo sums up the issue. We British have been very accommodating as to the Islamic communities in the UK. Admittedly striking perhaps the wrong tone. The Muslim community has been a little stand-offish.
Clearly I'm generalising here. The Bangladeshi immigrants of the 70s are completely the opposite. They're only now thinking of their roots.
(Quite why we, all of us, don't forever cast religion aside escapes me)
I think this is about right, which is why the question of an appropriate percentage of Muslims in the country is so wrong headed. What percentage of radical islamists do I think we should tolerate? 0%. What percentage of those who aren’t prepared to compromise on their religious and cultural beliefs (such as veiling their faces, learning about sex in schools etc) should we accept? Very low single digit percentages.
But what percentage of Muslims in general? I really don’t mind. A mosque next to the church in every Cotswold village? I’m positively in favour - what a beautiful message of tolerance and togetherness.
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.
We see the most bizarre political and state news releases these days. I don't remember in the 1990s people flapping their gums to the press about the amazing achievements of state employees who've been asked to delay retirement for a year. It is vulgar and undignified.
In the local WhatsApp group by my vineyard Antony Beevor, military historian and author of Stalingrad, is asking what number to call to complain to the highways agency about a blocked drain. “It is outrageous”, he says.
An artifice for Beevor to plug his new video, published today:-
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.
What about canoodling?
I don't know enough to have a view on whether smoking is worse than vaping.
But at least vapers don't carelessly discard the litter from their habit.
That said, vape shops are uniformly eyesores. Whereas tobacco advertising used to be quite handsome.
er ... at least traditional fags go out and stay out. Many vapes do the opposite.
Just had a read of that article. Tbh, I had no idea vapes were disposable.
But, good grief, the branding. I despair. With cigarettes, the point was to appear adult. If the tobacco companies wanted to appeal to kids, it did so by implying that smoking = being an adult. Whereas vaping appears to be aimed at the BBC3 demographic. What's the point in smoking if you doesn't confer an unmerited patina of maturity?
There seem to be two distinct markets in vaping, the disposables with weird flavours and silly names aimed at the kids and the relatively expensive vapes with replaceable parts that are more grown up where you choose the strength and flavour of the liquid you use aimed at adults.
I just use a flavourless liquid with the second lowest nicotine level as it’s purely a way to stop me smoking not a new pastime where I can sit outside a pub with a bright orange plastic stick in my mouth puffing huge clouds of cherry smoke.
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.
I think that photo sums up the issue. We British have been very accommodating as to the Islamic communities in the UK. Admittedly striking perhaps the wrong tone. The Muslim community has been a little stand-offish.
Clearly I'm generalising here. The Bangladeshi immigrants of the 70s are completely the opposite. They're only now thinking of their roots.
(Quite why we, all of us, don't forever cast religion aside escapes me)
I think this is about right, which is why the question of an appropriate percentage of Muslims in the country is so wrong headed. What percentage of radical islamists do I think we should tolerate? 0%. What percentage of those who aren’t prepared to compromise on their religious and cultural beliefs (such as veiling their faces, learning about sex in schools etc) should we accept? Very low single digit percentages.
But what percentage of Muslims in general? I really don’t mind. A mosque next to the church in every Cotswold village? I’m positively in favour - what a beautiful message of tolerance and togetherness.
Your conclusion amounts to saying, "I'm positively in favour as long as it serves my purpose and not theirs," which unfortunately makes it very wishful thinking.
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.
He did draw a line in the sand
If he'd been really smart, he'd have sat his throne at the high-water mark and commanded the tide to stop there.
That would have completely undermined his argument…
Cnut wanted to prove that the King wasn’t all powerful
Or... like William falling over at Pevensey he managed to spin a setback into a positive.
Sad that the no go areas comment was made in reference to certain wards and boroughs. It really applies to central London, which on a weekend now appears to be a no go area for many Jews. For the heart of our national life (I say this as a born and bread provincial) to no longer be deemed safe by a minority group of our population is a stain on all of us. Worse than that is the refusal of almost everyone to even mention the fact it is happening. It also means that the idea of London as the golden child of diversity is over.
A couple of responses to this argument on X/Twitter:
1) But how can you say it isn't safe when unless a Jewish person is wearing a signifier of their identity no-one would know they are Jewish?
Answer: So it's okay for them to be there so long as they hide their identity.
2) There are plenty of Jewish people on the marches
Answer: There is no threat to Jews so long as they agree with the marchers.
The mental gymnastics that various people on here are going through to try and avoid this are frankly embarrassing.
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?
Which is the C of E argument with only the latter applying to a man and woman ideally for life
How is that a Christian argument and not just bigotry
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.
I think that photo sums up the issue. We British have been very accommodating as to the Islamic communities in the UK. Admittedly striking perhaps the wrong tone. The Muslim community has been a little stand-offish.
Clearly I'm generalising here. The Bangladeshi immigrants of the 70s are completely the opposite. They're only now thinking of their roots.
(Quite why we, all of us, don't forever cast religion aside escapes me)
I think this is about right, which is why the question of an appropriate percentage of Muslims in the country is so wrong headed. What percentage of radical islamists do I think we should tolerate? 0%. What percentage of those who aren’t prepared to compromise on their religious and cultural beliefs (such as veiling their faces, learning about sex in schools etc) should we accept? Very low single digit percentages.
But what percentage of Muslims in general? I really don’t mind. A mosque next to the church in every Cotswold village? I’m positively in favour - what a beautiful message of tolerance and togetherness.
Indeed but get to 51%+ Muslim UK population and clearly there would be pressure for Sharia law across the UK from some of them
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.
I think that photo sums up the issue. We British have been very accommodating as to the Islamic communities in the UK. Admittedly striking perhaps the wrong tone. The Muslim community has been a little stand-offish.
Clearly I'm generalising here. The Bangladeshi immigrants of the 70s are completely the opposite. They're only now thinking of their roots.
(Quite why we, all of us, don't forever cast religion aside escapes me)
I think this is about right, which is why the question of an appropriate percentage of Muslims in the country is so wrong headed. What percentage of radical islamists do I think we should tolerate? 0%. What percentage of those who aren’t prepared to compromise on their religious and cultural beliefs (such as veiling their faces, learning about sex in schools etc) should we accept? Very low single digit percentages.
But what percentage of Muslims in general? I really don’t mind. A mosque next to the church in every Cotswold village? I’m positively in favour - what a beautiful message of tolerance and togetherness.
I don't want or need to engage with radical Islam. I think it's an ugly thing in the same way I think radical Christianity is. I do want radicals of whatever stripe to be able to do their radical thing here. When radical thought becomes stupid-bollocks action - as it does with Hamas et al - then it's a firm no.
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.
He did draw a line in the sand
If he'd been really smart, he'd have sat his throne at the high-water mark and commanded the tide to stop there.
That would have completely undermined his argument…
Cnut wanted to prove that the King wasn’t all powerful
Or... like William falling over at Pevensey he managed to spin a setback into a positive.
What on earth is wrong with people? What does a council have to do with Gaza?
Well the ceasefire motion in the Commons was clearly ignored, so it must be taken to the next level.
Handforth Town Council next.
Imagine what will happen if Gorgeous wins tomorrow? Rochdale will be twinned with Rafah. The newly refurbished gothic masterpiece town hall turned into a Gaza refugee centre. A Zionist tax applied to evil Jews who own businesses in the town.
Just to add that the idea of a set percentage Muslim population being manageable is totally wrongheaded. The issue isn't the number of people who identify as muslim, it is the number who are intolerant of our 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.
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?
Do you think that modern Denmark is heading towards another Srebrenica or Auschwitz?
I think there are tendencies in that direction right across Europe. You'd have to be very ignorant of 20th European history not to see the parallels.
Yes. And it’s Muslims and their leftist allies persecuting Jews
I am so old I remember that roaster Sean Thomas defended Trump for saying people chanting Jews will not replace us were very fine people.
I see your antisemitism meter only works in one direction.
Yeah, that never happened
How would you know? You weren't even around in the days of SeanT.
What on earth is wrong with people? What does a council have to do with Gaza?
Well the ceasefire motion in the Commons was clearly ignored, so it must be taken to the next level.
Handforth Town Council next.
Imagine what will happen if Gorgeous wins tomorrow? Rochdale will be twinned with Rafah. The newly refurbished gothic masterpiece town hall turned into a Gaza refugee centre. A Zionist tax applied to evil Jews who own businesses in the town.
shudder
He may do and in our winner takes all system that is what matters. But also look at the vote percentages and turnout figures to get a sense of what Rochdalers(?) really think.
Just charge the whole cost of the channel to Tory election expenses….
Fine, if we can charge everybody's license fee to Labour election expenses ;-)
I appreciate you are in jest but at the risk of a po-faced response: has the BBC been the subject of 14 investigations into its compliance with Ofcom's due impartiality rules since mid-2021?
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.
I think that photo sums up the issue. We British have been very accommodating as to the Islamic communities in the UK. Admittedly striking perhaps the wrong tone. The Muslim community has been a little stand-offish.
Clearly I'm generalising here. The Bangladeshi immigrants of the 70s are completely the opposite. They're only now thinking of their roots.
(Quite why we, all of us, don't forever cast religion aside escapes me)
I think this is about right, which is why the question of an appropriate percentage of Muslims in the country is so wrong headed. What percentage of radical islamists do I think we should tolerate? 0%. What percentage of those who aren’t prepared to compromise on their religious and cultural beliefs (such as veiling their faces, learning about sex in schools etc) should we accept? Very low single digit percentages.
But what percentage of Muslims in general? I really don’t mind. A mosque next to the church in every Cotswold village? I’m positively in favour - what a beautiful message of tolerance and togetherness.
Your conclusion amounts to saying, "I'm positively in favour as long as it serves my purpose and not theirs," which unfortunately makes it very wishful thinking.
Perhaps.
But your response reads as ‘Muslims do not and will not share our values’ which is Islamophobic nonsense. Why can it not be my purpose and theirs (whoever ‘theyr’ are)?
What on earth is wrong with people? What does a council have to do with Gaza?
Councillors are political people and if all they ever did was talk about what was relevant to their local idea, it would be an even more soul destroying role than it is now with no money and no power to speak of.
Having a political debate isn't a bad thing - arguably there should be more of it as it breaks people out of their echo chamber.
When I was politically active, I spent all my time being "active" and rarely discussed politics. I know there were people who saw Party membership as an opportunity to have a political debate about key issues (and PR). For me, it was all about getting people elected on to the Council so they could have a political debate and let me get on with the task of getting more activists elected.
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.
I think that photo sums up the issue. We British have been very accommodating as to the Islamic communities in the UK. Admittedly striking perhaps the wrong tone. The Muslim community has been a little stand-offish.
Clearly I'm generalising here. The Bangladeshi immigrants of the 70s are completely the opposite. They're only now thinking of their roots.
(Quite why we, all of us, don't forever cast religion aside escapes me)
I think this is about right, which is why the question of an appropriate percentage of Muslims in the country is so wrong headed. What percentage of radical islamists do I think we should tolerate? 0%. What percentage of those who aren’t prepared to compromise on their religious and cultural beliefs (such as veiling their faces, learning about sex in schools etc) should we accept? Very low single digit percentages.
But what percentage of Muslims in general? I really don’t mind. A mosque next to the church in every Cotswold village? I’m positively in favour - what a beautiful message of tolerance and togetherness.
Your conclusion amounts to saying, "I'm positively in favour as long as it serves my purpose and not theirs," which unfortunately makes it very wishful thinking.
Perhaps.
But your response reads as ‘Muslims do not and will not share our values’ which is Islamophobic nonsense. Why can it not be my purpose and theirs (whoever ‘theyr’ are)?
Which values are you willing to compromise on in order to achieve unity with some form of Islam, or is it rather Islam that you expect to compromise with you?
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?
Which is the C of E argument with only the latter applying to a man and woman ideally for life
How is that a Christian argument and not just bigotry
Read Christ's definition of marriage in the Bible
You are like so many obsessives who hold weekly prayer meetings and dissect every word and syllable and miss the true meaning of Christianity
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.
I think that photo sums up the issue. We British have been very accommodating as to the Islamic communities in the UK. Admittedly striking perhaps the wrong tone. The Muslim community has been a little stand-offish.
Clearly I'm generalising here. The Bangladeshi immigrants of the 70s are completely the opposite. They're only now thinking of their roots.
(Quite why we, all of us, don't forever cast religion aside escapes me)
I think this is about right, which is why the question of an appropriate percentage of Muslims in the country is so wrong headed. What percentage of radical islamists do I think we should tolerate? 0%. What percentage of those who aren’t prepared to compromise on their religious and cultural beliefs (such as veiling their faces, learning about sex in schools etc) should we accept? Very low single digit percentages.
But what percentage of Muslims in general? I really don’t mind. A mosque next to the church in every Cotswold village? I’m positively in favour - what a beautiful message of tolerance and togetherness.
Indeed but get to 51%+ Muslim UK population and clearly there would be pressure for Sharia law across the UK from some of them
Agreed, but would that gain any more traction than eg recriminalising homosexuality? We are a nominally Christian country after all and some Christians would like to make homosexuality illegal again I’m sure.
Thankfully we are no longer a country that tolerates any religion making our laws.
What on earth is wrong with people? What does a council have to do with Gaza?
Councillors are political people and if all they ever did was talk about what was relevant to their local idea, it would be an even more soul destroying role than it is now with no money and no power to speak of.
Having a political debate isn't a bad thing - arguably there should be more of it as it breaks people out of their echo chamber.
When I was politically active, I spent all my time being "active" and rarely discussed politics. I know there were people who saw Party membership as an opportunity to have a political debate about key issues (and PR). For me, it was all about getting people elected on to the Council so they could have a political debate and let me get on with the task of getting more activists elected.
Most people want their councillors to deal with political issues that affect them locally. This kind of stuff is only going to benefit the populist right.
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?
Which is the C of E argument with only the latter applying to a man and woman ideally for life
How is that a Christian argument and not just bigotry
Read Christ's definition of marriage in the Bible
This whole debate is marred by a confusion of words and things. It is entirely rational to want to give the same word - name - (marriage) to a permanent and public monogamous same sex union, because you think it's the same thing; and entirely rational not to want to, because you think it is a different thing. There are perfectly adequate arguments for both views.
In many ways religion is marginal to the discussion. Both Jesus and Paul took the (minority Jewish) view that marriage was indissoluble and that remarriage was adultery. Most Christians and most churches don't take that view. (The RCs use special pleading to get around it but it's a fiction). Religions change their views when they want to. But that doesn't mean that the answers are all obvious.
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.
I think that photo sums up the issue. We British have been very accommodating as to the Islamic communities in the UK. Admittedly striking perhaps the wrong tone. The Muslim community has been a little stand-offish.
Clearly I'm generalising here. The Bangladeshi immigrants of the 70s are completely the opposite. They're only now thinking of their roots.
(Quite why we, all of us, don't forever cast religion aside escapes me)
I think this is about right, which is why the question of an appropriate percentage of Muslims in the country is so wrong headed. What percentage of radical islamists do I think we should tolerate? 0%. What percentage of those who aren’t prepared to compromise on their religious and cultural beliefs (such as veiling their faces, learning about sex in schools etc) should we accept? Very low single digit percentages.
But what percentage of Muslims in general? I really don’t mind. A mosque next to the church in every Cotswold village? I’m positively in favour - what a beautiful message of tolerance and togetherness.
Your conclusion amounts to saying, "I'm positively in favour as long as it serves my purpose and not theirs," which unfortunately makes it very wishful thinking.
Perhaps.
But your response reads as ‘Muslims do not and will not share our values’ which is Islamophobic nonsense. Why can it not be my purpose and theirs (whoever ‘theyr’ are)?
I think believing otherwise is hopelessly naive. Muslims live by the word of the Koran and that simply has loads of values in it opposed to western values.
Just to add that the idea of a set percentage Muslim population being manageable is totally wrongheaded. The issue isn't the number of people who identify as muslim, it is the number who are intolerant of our way of life.
IMV the problem is not religion as such, but culture. Many people are Christian in this country, without perfectly obeying the most extreme precepts of the religion, or forcing others to obey them. Groups such as the Plymouth Brethren or Jehovah's Witnesses are few and far between.
It is perfectly possible to see yourself as Christian and not force others to live as Christians, or accept those who do not. Likewise there are many Muslims (Mrs J, and I think TSE as examples) who are technically Muslim, but are exceptionally relaxed about their religion. Just as most Christians are here in the UK. (*)
But religion always comes with culture and control. AIUI nothing in Islam calls for FGM; it is a cultural practice (which is why some African Christian groups practice it), yet adherents use religion as a reason it should be allowed. Even if others reading the religious texts see no basis for them.
And IMV many of the arguments, and even wars, between different sects of religions - such as Protestant versus Catholic, or Sunni versus Shia), are often more to do with cultural practices tangential to religion, rather than religion itself. Which is one reason why appealing to religion does little good.
And those are the people who will often be intolerant of our way of life.
This is the first explanation of the Rayner controversy I have heard by Kate McCann and apparently Starmer has felt the need to express full confidence in Rayner tonight
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.
I think that photo sums up the issue. We British have been very accommodating as to the Islamic communities in the UK. Admittedly striking perhaps the wrong tone. The Muslim community has been a little stand-offish.
Clearly I'm generalising here. The Bangladeshi immigrants of the 70s are completely the opposite. They're only now thinking of their roots.
(Quite why we, all of us, don't forever cast religion aside escapes me)
I think this is about right, which is why the question of an appropriate percentage of Muslims in the country is so wrong headed. What percentage of radical islamists do I think we should tolerate? 0%. What percentage of those who aren’t prepared to compromise on their religious and cultural beliefs (such as veiling their faces, learning about sex in schools etc) should we accept? Very low single digit percentages.
But what percentage of Muslims in general? I really don’t mind. A mosque next to the church in every Cotswold village? I’m positively in favour - what a beautiful message of tolerance and togetherness.
Your conclusion amounts to saying, "I'm positively in favour as long as it serves my purpose and not theirs," which unfortunately makes it very wishful thinking.
Perhaps.
But your response reads as ‘Muslims do not and will not share our values’ which is Islamophobic nonsense. Why can it not be my purpose and theirs (whoever ‘theyr’ are)?
Which values are you willing to compromise on in order to achieve unity with some form of Islam, or is it rather Islam that you expect to compromise with you?
My own values are deeply compromised every day I step out of my door. I think that is almost inevitable for any thinking person operating in any society to constantly compromise on their values.
I have no doubt every practicing Muslim in this country is compromising daily on their values.
What on earth is wrong with people? What does a council have to do with Gaza?
Councillors are political people and if all they ever did was talk about what was relevant to their local idea, it would be an even more soul destroying role than it is now with no money and no power to speak of.
Having a political debate isn't a bad thing - arguably there should be more of it as it breaks people out of their echo chamber.
When I was politically active, I spent all my time being "active" and rarely discussed politics. I know there were people who saw Party membership as an opportunity to have a political debate about key issues (and PR). For me, it was all about getting people elected on to the Council so they could have a political debate and let me get on with the task of getting more activists elected.
Most people want their councillors to deal with political issues that affect them locally. This kind of stuff is only going to benefit the populist right.
I've seen many raucous Council meetings where a local issue has inflamed emotions and it's got very heated - it's usually Planning related in some form.
Giving people an opportunity to vent their anger and frustration is no bad thing - having public debate is no bad thing. In lieu of a public meeting or forum, the local council offers people an opportunity to exercise their right in a democracy to have their say.
It's analogous to Councils debating whether they should be nuclear-free zones in the 1980s - it's harmless and shouldn't be discouraged.
Just to add that the idea of a set percentage Muslim population being manageable is totally wrongheaded. The issue isn't the number of people who identify as muslim, it is the number who are intolerant of our way of life.
IMV the problem is not religion as such, but culture. Many people are Christian in this country, without perfectly obeying the most extreme precepts of the religion, or forcing others to obey them. Groups such as the Plymouth Brethren or Jehovah's Witnesses are few and far between.
It is perfectly possible to see yourself as Christian and not force others to live as Christians, or accept those who do not. Likewise there are many Muslims (Mrs J, and I think TSE as examples) who are technically Muslim, but are exceptionally relaxed about their religion. Just as most Christians are here in the UK. (*)
But religion always comes with culture and control. AIUI nothing in Islam calls for FGM; it is a cultural practice (which is why some African Christian groups practice it), yet adherents use religion as a reason it should be allowed. Even if others reading the religious texts see no basis for them.
And IMV many of the arguments, and even wars, between different sects of religions - such as Protestant versus Catholic, or Sunni versus Shia), are often more to do with cultural practices tangential to religion, rather than religion itself. Which is one reason why appealing to religion does little good.
And those are the people who will often be intolerant of our way of life.
I take your point about culture, the only thing I would add is that if you are trying to get people to change bad cultural practices it's very difficult to convince them if they believe such practice is divinely mandated.
Was catching up with some of the Playstation people who were let go this afternoon since we're all doing nothing at the moment. It looks like at least for my ex-studio there will be a successor that will likely partner with their old employer but as a third party.
The other general thing that came through was that the gaming industry has been looking at the Twitter experience since Elon took over and big companies are looking to cut jobs now because they don't think it will adversely effect them and some companies think that cutting 20-30% of employees will help them release faster by getting rid of a lot of blockers and hugely increase the ROI but cutting the cost base by 15-20%.
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.
I think that photo sums up the issue. We British have been very accommodating as to the Islamic communities in the UK. Admittedly striking perhaps the wrong tone. The Muslim community has been a little stand-offish.
Clearly I'm generalising here. The Bangladeshi immigrants of the 70s are completely the opposite. They're only now thinking of their roots.
(Quite why we, all of us, don't forever cast religion aside escapes me)
I think this is about right, which is why the question of an appropriate percentage of Muslims in the country is so wrong headed. What percentage of radical islamists do I think we should tolerate? 0%. What percentage of those who aren’t prepared to compromise on their religious and cultural beliefs (such as veiling their faces, learning about sex in schools etc) should we accept? Very low single digit percentages.
But what percentage of Muslims in general? I really don’t mind. A mosque next to the church in every Cotswold village? I’m positively in favour - what a beautiful message of tolerance and togetherness.
Your conclusion amounts to saying, "I'm positively in favour as long as it serves my purpose and not theirs," which unfortunately makes it very wishful thinking.
Perhaps.
But your response reads as ‘Muslims do not and will not share our values’ which is Islamophobic nonsense. Why can it not be my purpose and theirs (whoever ‘theyr’ are)?
I think believing otherwise is hopelessly naive. Muslims live by the word of the Koran and that simply has loads of values in it opposed to western values.
Of course some Muslims do. Just as some Christians live by the word of the Bible and thus oppose eg gay marriage (I’m not claiming full equivalence here, I don’t know enough about the overall teachings of the Koran to evaluate the claim that Islam is somehow inherently stricter or less tolerant than Christianity).
But in my experience the vast majority of Muslims balance their understanding of what is right from their religion with an acceptance that competing ideas of what is right in society also have value. Not to mention many of the values of Islam fit very well with western values, and still others would further improve our overall set of values, were we to incorporate them more wholeheartedly into our society.
I’m not entirely trying to refute the naïveté claim. And no doubt this welcoming approach needs to be balanced by a more vigorous challenge of those who live in UK whilst actively denigrating our values. But our culture has done a great job of assimilating (and moderating) basi values and influences from around the world and I see no reason this should be different.
Just to add that the idea of a set percentage Muslim population being manageable is totally wrongheaded. The issue isn't the number of people who identify as muslim, it is the number who are intolerant of our way of life.
IMV the problem is not religion as such, but culture. Many people are Christian in this country, without perfectly obeying the most extreme precepts of the religion, or forcing others to obey them. Groups such as the Plymouth Brethren or Jehovah's Witnesses are few and far between.
It is perfectly possible to see yourself as Christian and not force others to live as Christians, or accept those who do not. Likewise there are many Muslims (Mrs J, and I think TSE as examples) who are technically Muslim, but are exceptionally relaxed about their religion. Just as most Christians are here in the UK. (*)
But religion always comes with culture and control. AIUI nothing in Islam calls for FGM; it is a cultural practice (which is why some African Christian groups practice it), yet adherents use religion as a reason it should be allowed. Even if others reading the religious texts see no basis for them.
And IMV many of the arguments, and even wars, between different sects of religions - such as Protestant versus Catholic, or Sunni versus Shia), are often more to do with cultural practices tangential to religion, rather than religion itself. Which is one reason why appealing to religion does little good.
And those are the people who will often be intolerant of our way of life.
I take your point about culture, the only thing I would add is that if you are trying to get people to change bad cultural practices it's very difficult to convince them if they believe such practice is divinely mandated.
I will be doing ayahuasca with - arguably - the most famous ayahuasquero in the world - early next week. In the Amazonian jungle. With a team of imperial college scientists
Beat that, PB
When I die (which could be quite soon) please chisel on my gravestone: man, that guy had a fucking BLAST
That's something I actually am jealous of. Grrrrr.
Just to add that the idea of a set percentage Muslim population being manageable is totally wrongheaded. The issue isn't the number of people who identify as muslim, it is the number who are intolerant of our way of life.
IMV the problem is not religion as such, but culture. Many people are Christian in this country, without perfectly obeying the most extreme precepts of the religion, or forcing others to obey them. Groups such as the Plymouth Brethren or Jehovah's Witnesses are few and far between.
It is perfectly possible to see yourself as Christian and not force others to live as Christians, or accept those who do not. Likewise there are many Muslims (Mrs J, and I think TSE as examples) who are technically Muslim, but are exceptionally relaxed about their religion. Just as most Christians are here in the UK. (*)
But religion always comes with culture and control. AIUI nothing in Islam calls for FGM; it is a cultural practice (which is why some African Christian groups practice it), yet adherents use religion as a reason it should be allowed. Even if others reading the religious texts see no basis for them.
And IMV many of the arguments, and even wars, between different sects of religions - such as Protestant versus Catholic, or Sunni versus Shia), are often more to do with cultural practices tangential to religion, rather than religion itself. Which is one reason why appealing to religion does little good.
And those are the people who will often be intolerant of our way of life.
That last bit is certainly true of the conflict I'm most familiar with, in Northern Ireland.
Hence the old '...yes, but are you a protestant Jew or a catholic Jew?' joke, which rests on the very real truth that it's culture and community that matters, not anything to do with religion.
(My little sister is getting married in a couple of weeks to a Pole who has lived in East Belfast since she was a teenager - she could probably be considered a 'protestant catholic'...)
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.
The figures I saw show an increase in smoking prevalence amongst young legal age adults. It doesn't look like vaping is an effective smoking cessation method overall, although I'm sure it does work for some people. I suspect people are mixing and matching vaping and smoking, so the percentage smoking stays broadly constant, even if they consuming less tobacco on average.
I will be doing ayahuasca with - arguably - the most famous ayahuasquero in the world - early next week. In the Amazonian jungle. With a team of imperial college scientists
Beat that, PB
When I die (which could be quite soon) please chisel on my gravestone: man, that guy had a fucking BLAST
That's something I actually am jealous of. Grrrrr.
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?
Do you think that modern Denmark is heading towards another Srebrenica or Auschwitz?
I think there are tendencies in that direction right across Europe. You'd have to be very ignorant of 20th European history not to see the parallels.
Yes. And it’s Muslims and their leftist allies persecuting Jews
There is too much Antisemitism for sure, but personally I think Muslims are at far greater risk if there were a repeat of the holocaust in Europe. Anti Muslim sentiment is far more prevalent in society, anti Muslim rhetoric is far more part of the political mainstream, and Muslims/Islamism are viewed as an existential threat to European civilisation just as Jews/Bolshevism were. We've already seen an attempted genocide in Bosnia. We already have widespread persecution and hate crimes across Europe. All it takes is for decent people to do nothing.
I’m trying to remember the name of the Jewish lawyer who did lots of Pro Bono for the NAACP back in Jim Crow times. Someone asked why he spent so much of his valuable time defending people for free.
“Self interest. Anything done to coloured folk at breakfast, will be done to me and mine by lunchtime.”
Just to add that the idea of a set percentage Muslim population being manageable is totally wrongheaded. The issue isn't the number of people who identify as muslim, it is the number who are intolerant of our way of life.
IMV the problem is not religion as such, but culture. Many people are Christian in this country, without perfectly obeying the most extreme precepts of the religion, or forcing others to obey them. Groups such as the Plymouth Brethren or Jehovah's Witnesses are few and far between.
It is perfectly possible to see yourself as Christian and not force others to live as Christians, or accept those who do not. Likewise there are many Muslims (Mrs J, and I think TSE as examples) who are technically Muslim, but are exceptionally relaxed about their religion. Just as most Christians are here in the UK. (*)
But religion always comes with culture and control. AIUI nothing in Islam calls for FGM; it is a cultural practice (which is why some African Christian groups practice it), yet adherents use religion as a reason it should be allowed. Even if others reading the religious texts see no basis for them.
And IMV many of the arguments, and even wars, between different sects of religions - such as Protestant versus Catholic, or Sunni versus Shia), are often more to do with cultural practices tangential to religion, rather than religion itself. Which is one reason why appealing to religion does little good.
And those are the people who will often be intolerant of our 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.
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?
Do you think that modern Denmark is heading towards another Srebrenica or Auschwitz?
I think there are tendencies in that direction right across Europe. You'd have to be very ignorant of 20th European history not to see the parallels.
Yes. And it’s Muslims and their leftist allies persecuting Jews
There is too much Antisemitism for sure, but personally I think Muslims are at far greater risk if there were a repeat of the holocaust in Europe. Anti Muslim sentiment is far more prevalent in society, anti Muslim rhetoric is far more part of the political mainstream, and Muslims/Islamism are viewed as an existential threat to European civilisation just as Jews/Bolshevism were. We've already seen an attempted genocide in Bosnia. We already have widespread persecution and hate crimes across Europe. All it takes is for decent people to do nothing.
I’m trying to remember the name of the Jewish lawyer who did lots of Pro Bono for the NAACP back in Jim Crow times. Someone asked why he spent so much of his valuable time defending people for free.
“Self interest. Anything done to coloured folk at breakfast, will be done to me and mine by lunchtime.”
If he said that nowadays in social media he’d be slaughtered for using the term ‘coloured’.
Comments
Rubbish spirits selection - but twas ever thus in France
I mention this mainly as a memo to self as I will be back here in about 3 days
https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1762906260322562233/photo/1
(*Also heresy, hight treason or petty treason.)
Why go from "possibly will lose" to "very likely to lose".
Gone somewhat downhill (iirc back in the day it was a Queens Moat), but it still has a spa.
And the laundry delivery lorry parked across all the disabled spaces this morning.
As for calling others 'coward'. Pot, meet kettle.
Clearly I'm generalising here. The Bangladeshi immigrants of the 70s are completely the opposite. They're only now thinking of their roots.
(Quite why we, all of us, don't forever cast religion aside escapes me)
Numbers are crucial. You can tolerate all sorts of radical, outlandish or extreme views in communities, provided they are small.
Once the population is extensive and you have democratic mass (and that doesn't need to be a majority) then you have a problem *unless* the views and values moderate into the mainstream at the same time, so the population is politically fungible.
But you can't have it both ways.
There used to be a really great place just south of there, Ripley Surplus Supplies or somesuch, which had loads of ex-military stuff for sale. A great place to explore when I was a kid. They had old computers out of warships, and missiles (hopefully without propellent and warhead, but who knows...)
Edit: and they're still going! woohoo!
https://twitter.com/anchorsupplies/status/1756694501492457642
https://x.com/niffhurley/status/1762619974189810043?s=61
I will be doing ayahuasca with - arguably - the most famous ayahuasquero in the world - early next week. In the Amazonian jungle. With a team of imperial college scientists
Beat that, PB
When I die (which could be quite soon) please chisel on my gravestone: man, that guy had a fucking BLAST
Does he still get his full payout for loss of office?
I don't know enough to have a view on whether smoking is worse than vaping.
But at least vapers don't carelessly discard the litter from their habit.
That said, vape shops are uniformly eyesores. Whereas tobacco advertising used to be quite handsome.
I see your antisemitism meter only works in one direction.
*seriously tempted*
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/18/disposable-vapes-cause-fires-and-cost-taxpayer-english-and-welsh-councils-say
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Schwimmwagen
Great stuff.
I believe 15% represents the proportion of the current population considering themselves Muslim. In Newham it's more like 35% so is East Ham the front line of the "Islamification of London"?
The betting shops, the pubs and the butchers which does the excellent pork chops would all disagree. Yes, we have Halal butchers but we also have South Indian restaurants and shops and Romanian grocers and hairdressers.
Are we seeing the "Hinduisation" of East Ham or the "Romanisation" of East London?
I'd also mention the dominant religious building isn't the mosque or the Hindu temple or the Protestant church but the Sikh Gurdwara which is a magnificent building standing on the site of a former pub.
(You may call this post out as petty jealousy that you get to do this. And you’d be 100% right.)
I don’t miss smelling of smoke and I feel healthier and love not having the issue where there is no ashtray outside a bar or pub.
* the only time I miss smoking is sometimes when watching films or tv when someone lights up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaster_Bates
And within historical memory Islam nearly conquered Christian Europe - see Poitiers and vienna. By contrast Christendom actively tried to wipe out the Jews as they were so minor and weak. A shame which every white European must never forget
You are either an idiot or a coward; as I have said. My main conclusion is that you are both
Chelsea/Leeds v Leicester
City v Newcastle
Wolves/Brighton v Coventry
Forest/United v Liverpool/Southampton.
Labour MPs received just £1,100 from channel in same period, as concern mounts over its impact
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/28/payments-tory-mps-by-gb-news-since-its-launch
In contrast, under ten million Jews lived in Europe before WW2, under 2% of the population. A true minority, and one seen as influential because of their own success.
Both these pollsters tend to have higher ratings for the Conservatives - More In Common's 28% is the highest of the current crop of polls but both also have improved Labour ratings and therefore the leads are in the mid teens with More in Common and Opinium having the smallest leads at 15 points.
It remains to be seen whether events in Rochdale tomorrow will impact the weekend polls.
But, good grief, the branding. I despair. With cigarettes, the point was to appear adult. If the tobacco companies wanted to appeal to kids, it did so by implying that smoking = being an adult. Whereas vaping appears to be aimed at the BBC3 demographic. What's the point in smoking if you doesn't confer an unmerited patina of maturity?
Cnut wanted to prove that the King wasn’t all powerful
I did the sacred vine two years ago with this same billionaire, as part of an ongoing experiment
Now I am doing it with him and the boffins in the proper jungle. Eeeeeek
Labour in power faces dire economic inheritance, says Rachel Reeves
Sketching out Labour’s critique of the government’s economic record since 2010, Reeves said public debt as a share of national output was at the highest level since the 1960s; debt interest payments were at the highest level since the second world war; taxes as a share of national output were the highest since 1949; the economy was smaller than when Rishi Sunak became prime minister in October 2022; and the current parliament was on track to be the first in which living standards – as measured by real household disposable incomes – fell.
“George Osborne promised to fix the nation’s roof. But the Conservatives have broken the windows, kicked the door in and now they’re burning the house down.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/28/labour-dire-economic-inheritance-rachel-reeves-budget
I remember reading a detective novel which featured a paedophile with a cuddly dog. Great bait.
But what percentage of Muslims in general? I really don’t mind. A mosque next to the church in every Cotswold village? I’m positively in favour - what a beautiful message of tolerance and togetherness.
Antony Beevor on Putin’s Stalin-like blunders, Lenin and Hitler | interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFW5V4IB_PA
I just use a flavourless liquid with the second lowest nicotine level as it’s purely a way to stop me smoking not a new pastime where I can sit outside a pub with a bright orange plastic stick in my mouth puffing huge clouds of cherry smoke.
A couple of responses to this argument on X/Twitter:
1) But how can you say it isn't safe when unless a Jewish person is wearing a signifier of their identity no-one would know they are Jewish?
Answer: So it's okay for them to be there so long as they hide their identity.
2) There are plenty of Jewish people on the marches
Answer: There is no threat to Jews so long as they agree with the marchers.
The mental gymnastics that various people on here are going through to try and avoid this are frankly embarrassing.
Imagine what will happen if Gorgeous wins tomorrow? Rochdale will be twinned with Rafah. The newly refurbished gothic masterpiece town hall turned into a Gaza refugee centre. A Zionist tax applied to evil Jews who own businesses in the town.
shudder
But your response reads as ‘Muslims do not and will not share our values’ which is Islamophobic nonsense. Why can it not be my purpose and theirs (whoever ‘theyr’ are)?
Having a political debate isn't a bad thing - arguably there should be more of it as it breaks people out of their echo chamber.
When I was politically active, I spent all my time being "active" and rarely discussed politics. I know there were people who saw Party membership as an opportunity to have a political debate about key issues (and PR). For me, it was all about getting people elected on to the Council so they could have a political debate and let me get on with the task of getting more activists elected.
Thankfully we are no longer a country that tolerates any religion making our laws.
In many ways religion is marginal to the discussion. Both Jesus and Paul took the (minority Jewish) view that marriage was indissoluble and that remarriage was adultery. Most Christians and most churches don't take that view. (The RCs use special pleading to get around it but it's a fiction). Religions change their views when they want to. But that doesn't mean that the answers are all obvious.
It is perfectly possible to see yourself as Christian and not force others to live as Christians, or accept those who do not. Likewise there are many Muslims (Mrs J, and I think TSE as examples) who are technically Muslim, but are exceptionally relaxed about their religion. Just as most Christians are here in the UK. (*)
But religion always comes with culture and control. AIUI nothing in Islam calls for FGM; it is a cultural practice (which is why some African Christian groups practice it), yet adherents use religion as a reason it should be allowed. Even if others reading the religious texts see no basis for them.
And IMV many of the arguments, and even wars, between different sects of religions - such as Protestant versus Catholic, or Sunni versus Shia), are often more to do with cultural practices tangential to religion, rather than religion itself. Which is one reason why appealing to religion does little good.
And those are the people who will often be intolerant of our way of life.
(*) I hope I haven't talked out of turn here, @TheScreamingEagles ).
https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1762917528513237173?t=8RLrR1bEwFvkN2pFlSynLA&s=19
I have no doubt every practicing Muslim in this country is compromising daily on their values.
So I’m not quite sure what you’re asking.
Giving people an opportunity to vent their anger and frustration is no bad thing - having public debate is no bad thing. In lieu of a public meeting or forum, the local council offers people an opportunity to exercise their right in a democracy to have their say.
It's analogous to Councils debating whether they should be nuclear-free zones in the 1980s - it's harmless and shouldn't be discouraged.
The other general thing that came through was that the gaming industry has been looking at the Twitter experience since Elon took over and big companies are looking to cut jobs now because they don't think it will adversely effect them and some companies think that cutting 20-30% of employees will help them release faster by getting rid of a lot of blockers and hugely increase the ROI but cutting the cost base by 15-20%.
But in my experience the vast majority of Muslims balance their understanding of what is right from their religion with an acceptance that competing ideas of what is right in society also have value. Not to mention many of the values of Islam fit very well with western values, and still others would further improve our overall set of values, were we to incorporate them more wholeheartedly into our society.
I’m not entirely trying to refute the naïveté claim. And no doubt this welcoming approach needs to be balanced by a more vigorous challenge of those who live in UK whilst actively denigrating our values. But our culture has done a great job of assimilating (and moderating) basi values and influences from around the world and I see no reason this should be different.
Hence the old '...yes, but are you a protestant Jew or a catholic Jew?' joke, which rests on the very real truth that it's culture and community that matters, not anything to do with religion.
(My little sister is getting married in a couple of weeks to a Pole who has lived in East Belfast since she was a teenager - she could probably be considered a 'protestant catholic'...)
“Self interest. Anything done to coloured folk at breakfast, will be done to me and mine by lunchtime.”
The reality is that the only time I pray to Allah is when one of my sporting teams is losing.
There's no atheists in
fox holesprofessional sport.