I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Jeremy Hunt considering further public spending total cuts to boost tax giveaway
National Insurance could be cut by 2p again in the budget if the chancellor succeeds in finding the right mix of revenue raising measures and spending cuts.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Jeremy Hunt considering further public spending total cuts to boost tax giveaway
National Insurance could be cut by 2p again in the budget if the chancellor succeeds in finding the right mix of revenue raising measures and spending cuts.
So I suspect we will see that kept the way it is but Labour will be reversing it by putting 2-3p on Income Tax..
Spending cuts, yes please. 'Revenue raising measures' - nobody is going to be impressed by giving with one hand and grabbing with the other. The overall level of taxation needs to be going in the right direction.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.
Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.
If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.
The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.
(And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.
Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Hamas chose to attack Israel.
I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.
No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
Russia is illegally occupying eastern Ukraine (and bits of Georgia, Moldova and some Japanese islands). Israel is illegally occupying Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan.
Russia occupied eastern Ukraine after it attacked Ukraine unprovoked.
Israel is only occupying land it won in defensive wars initiated by their neighbours seeking to destroy them.
The two are completely different.
If the Ukraine war ends with Ukraine occupying Belgorod and Voronezh then that would be comparable.
They are NOT completely different. Illegal occupation in both cases.
They are completely different.
One was an unprovoked war of aggression, the other was self-defence.
The two are entirely different.
Since Egypt and Jordan don't want the land back anymore, Israel is stuck with an occupation it can't end either, since the aggressor they seized the land from in self-defence no longer wants it back.
Israel undertook a land-grab in 1967 pure and simple.
BTW Egypt and Jordan formally ceded the territory to the State of Palestine in 1988, in case you forget.
Egypt and Jordan tried to wipe out the state of Israel. Again.
If Israel had wanted to do a land grab they were well equipped to deport everyone from "Greater Israel" and to annex all those lands. If they'd done that, ironically, by now there'd probably be peace too.
Quite rightly they did not.
There's no such thing as "the State of Palestine" in case you forget. There would have been, but Arafat rejected the peace process.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.
Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.
If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.
The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.
(And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.
Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Hamas chose to attack Israel.
I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.
No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
Russia is illegally occupying eastern Ukraine (and bits of Georgia, Moldova and some Japanese islands). Israel is illegally occupying Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan.
Russia occupied eastern Ukraine after it attacked Ukraine unprovoked.
Israel is only occupying land it won in defensive wars initiated by their neighbours seeking to destroy them.
The two are completely different.
If the Ukraine war ends with Ukraine occupying Belgorod and Voronezh then that would be comparable.
They are NOT completely different. Illegal occupation in both cases.
They are completely different.
One was an unprovoked war of aggression, the other was self-defence.
The two are entirely different.
Since Egypt and Jordan don't want the land back anymore, Israel is stuck with an occupation it can't end either, since the aggressor they seized the land from in self-defence no longer wants it back.
Israel undertook a land-grab in 1967 pure and simple.
BTW Egypt and Jordan formally ceded the territory to the State of Palestine in 1988, in case you forget.
Surprised that you give him the time of day. I can't even come on the site when he's around. His knowledge of the region is zero and his contribution embarrassing. Just a grotesque attention seeker at a particularly inappropriate time.
"Richmond crowd reportedly went silent as 77-year-old mixed up the president and ex-president for third time in past six months"
Isn't it a meme that Obama is really the one secretly coordinating the current administration?
I thought that, but I suspect it's probably just a slip of the tongue. Personally I don't think it's a terrible one - he hasn't revived the dead for example. Nor do I think the ghoulish attention on Trump's so called senior moments by Biden's supporters is really helping Biden's case. They really need to focus elsewhere - this is not a winning hand.
Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.
Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.
If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.
The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.
(And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.
Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Hamas chose to attack Israel.
I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.
No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
Russia is illegally occupying eastern Ukraine (and bits of Georgia, Moldova and some Japanese islands). Israel is illegally occupying Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan.
Russia occupied eastern Ukraine after it attacked Ukraine unprovoked.
Israel is only occupying land it won in defensive wars initiated by their neighbours seeking to destroy them.
The two are completely different.
If the Ukraine war ends with Ukraine occupying Belgorod and Voronezh then that would be comparable.
They are NOT completely different. Illegal occupation in both cases.
They are completely different.
One was an unprovoked war of aggression, the other was self-defence.
The two are entirely different.
Since Egypt and Jordan don't want the land back anymore, Israel is stuck with an occupation it can't end either, since the aggressor they seized the land from in self-defence no longer wants it back.
Israel undertook a land-grab in 1967 pure and simple.
BTW Egypt and Jordan formally ceded the territory to the State of Palestine in 1988, in case you forget.
Surprised that you give him the time of day. I can't even come on the site when he's around. His knowledge of the region is zero and his contribution embarrassing. Just a grotesque attention seeker at a particularly inappropriate time.
Says the person who has never had a good word to say about Israel, even after the October attacks. You're the embarrassing one.
I'm being even-handed. Yes I support Israel defeating Hamas, but I also support a Marshal Plan style development of Gaza and support for Palestinians afterwards.
I want to break the cycle of violence and have provided a roadmap on how to at least attempt to do so post-Hamas.
A ceasefire followed by blockade and a return to the same old cycle of violence helps nobody in the long run.
Jeremy Hunt considering further public spending total cuts to boost tax giveaway
National Insurance could be cut by 2p again in the budget if the chancellor succeeds in finding the right mix of revenue raising measures and spending cuts.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Jeremy Hunt considering further public spending total cuts to boost tax giveaway
National Insurance could be cut by 2p again in the budget if the chancellor succeeds in finding the right mix of revenue raising measures and spending cuts.
I think it is time to go and have a nice hot bath and relax in bed with a book, before this forum becomes any more nasty
For me, Mrs C has some mutton stew on the stove, and I am just about to open some Cotes de Rhone and return to a rather interesting book on early nineteenth century evolutionary thought in Edinburgh. Far more constructive.
I found out recently that Pukka Pies make pies you can cook in a microwave. This enormous advancement in humanity has been shamelessly overlooked.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
I think it is time to go and have a nice hot bath and relax in bed with a book, before this forum becomes any more nasty
For me, Mrs C has some mutton stew on the stove, and I am just about to open some Cotes de Rhone and return to a rather interesting book on early nineteenth century evolutionary thought in Edinburgh. Far more constructive.
I found out recently that Pukka Pies make pies you can cook in a microwave. This enormous advancement in humanity has been shamelessly overlooked.
I think it is time to go and have a nice hot bath and relax in bed with a book, before this forum becomes any more nasty
For me, Mrs C has some mutton stew on the stove, and I am just about to open some Cotes de Rhone and return to a rather interesting book on early nineteenth century evolutionary thought in Edinburgh. Far more constructive.
I cooked a lamb tagine earlier with pomegranate seeds and accompanied by couscous, fresh coriander, lemon zest and Greek yogurt. Yum. My daughter loved it.
I also like the bath idea. I will be reading King Charles III by Robert Hardman, which I'm finding very interesting so far.
Ours was much more local - carrots, shallots, parsnips and rosemary from the garden.
Went to see Dune part II yesterday. It was very good, albeit it didn't quite blow me away to the extent that the first part did. A film with a lot of fighting and not much character development or plot other than slightly overblown relationship issues with Chani. Not nearly enough made on the effect of Jessica becoming a Reverend Mother either.
The cinema was surprisingly empty for a big film release this weekend and I couldn't help but notice that most of us were of a certain age, having no doubt read Dune when we were younger. This perhaps added to the lack of atmosphere.
Overall I would strongly recommend it but it was no Oppenheimer.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
Thanks. I had not seen that Dorries one before. That really is surreal.
It made her look silly, vain and ephemeral. She was being spoken of as a future leader at the time - not a hot favourite or anything but it was being mentioned.
Women politicians are very vulnerable to this. They need to be super careful of image control - you can't just put your trust in a photographer and styling team, even if they're supposed to be the best in the business.
I think it is time to go and have a nice hot bath and relax in bed with a book, before this forum becomes any more nasty
For me, Mrs C has some mutton stew on the stove, and I am just about to open some Cotes de Rhone and return to a rather interesting book on early nineteenth century evolutionary thought in Edinburgh. Far more constructive.
I found out recently that Pukka Pies make pies you can cook in a microwave. This enormous advancement in humanity has been shamelessly overlooked.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
Thanks. I had not seen that Dorries one before. That really is surreal.
It made her look silly, vain and ephemeral. She was being spoken of as a future leader at the time - not a hot favourite or anything but it was being mentioned.
Women politicians are very vulnerable to this. They need to be super careful of image control - you can't just put your trust in a photographer and styling team, even if they're supposed to be the best in the business.
She didn't just look silly, vain and ephemeral, she was those traits.
I think it is time to go and have a nice hot bath and relax in bed with a book, before this forum becomes any more nasty
For me, Mrs C has some mutton stew on the stove, and I am just about to open some Cotes de Rhone and return to a rather interesting book on early nineteenth century evolutionary thought in Edinburgh. Far more constructive.
I found out recently that Pukka Pies make pies you can cook in a microwave. This enormous advancement in humanity has been shamelessly overlooked.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
Thanks. I had not seen that Dorries one before. That really is surreal.
It made her look silly, vain and ephemeral. She was being spoken of as a future leader at the time - not a hot favourite or anything but it was being mentioned.
Women politicians are very vulnerable to this. They need to be super careful of image control - you can't just put your trust in a photographer and styling team, even if they're supposed to be the best in the business.
She didn't just look silly, vain and ephemeral, she was those traits.
Be that as it may, she didn't need to be photographed looking like it in Tatler. She could have done herself lots of favours by appearing serious, high minded and powerful.
I think it is time to go and have a nice hot bath and relax in bed with a book, before this forum becomes any more nasty
For me, Mrs C has some mutton stew on the stove, and I am just about to open some Cotes de Rhone and return to a rather interesting book on early nineteenth century evolutionary thought in Edinburgh. Far more constructive.
I found out recently that Pukka Pies make pies you can cook in a microwave. This enormous advancement in humanity has been shamelessly overlooked.
I think it is time to go and have a nice hot bath and relax in bed with a book, before this forum becomes any more nasty
For me, Mrs C has some mutton stew on the stove, and I am just about to open some Cotes de Rhone and return to a rather interesting book on early nineteenth century evolutionary thought in Edinburgh. Far more constructive.
I found out recently that Pukka Pies make pies you can cook in a microwave. This enormous advancement in humanity has been shamelessly overlooked.
There's strange conflict in the table of charges in that article; vehicles emitting 0g/km of CO2 are free in the ZEZ, but vehicles with 'any level of tailpipe emissions' are charged. But the DVLA officially rates modern Euro 5 compliant 50/125cc petrol scooters and bikes as having '0g/km' emissions - but they do, obviously, still have a tailpipe...
I think it is time to go and have a nice hot bath and relax in bed with a book, before this forum becomes any more nasty
For me, Mrs C has some mutton stew on the stove, and I am just about to open some Cotes de Rhone and return to a rather interesting book on early nineteenth century evolutionary thought in Edinburgh. Far more constructive.
I found out recently that Pukka Pies make pies you can cook in a microwave. This enormous advancement in humanity has been shamelessly overlooked.
I think it is time to go and have a nice hot bath and relax in bed with a book, before this forum becomes any more nasty
For me, Mrs C has some mutton stew on the stove, and I am just about to open some Cotes de Rhone and return to a rather interesting book on early nineteenth century evolutionary thought in Edinburgh. Far more constructive.
I found out recently that Pukka Pies make pies you can cook in a microwave. This enormous advancement in humanity has been shamelessly overlooked.
Poll news: average Tory vote share in the last five polls = 23.4%.
When it dropped to that level during the Truss premiership, she resigned the next day.
It's important to remember that she didn't resign simply because her poll ratings were poor. The markets lost confidence in her and her government following that budget. It was clear that there would be dire economic consequences attendant upon her continuing in office.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
Thanks. I had not seen that Dorries one before. That really is surreal.
It made her look silly, vain and ephemeral. She was being spoken of as a future leader at the time - not a hot favourite or anything but it was being mentioned.
Women politicians are very vulnerable to this. They need to be super careful of image control - you can't just put your trust in a photographer and styling team, even if they're supposed to be the best in the business.
She didn't just look silly, vain and ephemeral, she was those traits.
Be that as it may, she didn't need to be photographed looking like it in Tatler. She could have done herself lots of favours by appearing serious, high minded and powerful.
That would require being serious and high minded. Seems unlikely.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
I think it is time to go and have a nice hot bath and relax in bed with a book, before this forum becomes any more nasty
For me, Mrs C has some mutton stew on the stove, and I am just about to open some Cotes de Rhone and return to a rather interesting book on early nineteenth century evolutionary thought in Edinburgh. Far more constructive.
I found out recently that Pukka Pies make pies you can cook in a microwave. This enormous advancement in humanity has been shamelessly overlooked.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
Thanks. I had not seen that Dorries one before. That really is surreal.
It made her look silly, vain and ephemeral. She was being spoken of as a future leader at the time - not a hot favourite or anything but it was being mentioned.
Women politicians are very vulnerable to this. They need to be super careful of image control - you can't just put your trust in a photographer and styling team, even if they're supposed to be the best in the business.
She didn't just look silly, vain and ephemeral, she was those traits.
Be that as it may, she didn't need to be photographed looking like it in Tatler. She could have done herself lots of favours by appearing serious, high minded and powerful.
That would require being serious and high minded. Seems unlikely.
Eh?? Since when has everyone who has appeared to be something in a professionally styled and shot photoshoot actually been that thing?
If the Foreign Sec spoke, it used to be listened to. There hasn't been a decent Foreign Sec for a very long time. Who gives a fuck what Britain says anymore? Any suggestions as to the last effective Foreign Sec?
I think it is time to go and have a nice hot bath and relax in bed with a book, before this forum becomes any more nasty
For me, Mrs C has some mutton stew on the stove, and I am just about to open some Cotes de Rhone and return to a rather interesting book on early nineteenth century evolutionary thought in Edinburgh. Far more constructive.
I found out recently that Pukka Pies make pies you can cook in a microwave. This enormous advancement in humanity has been shamelessly overlooked.
Poll news: average Tory vote share in the last five polls = 23.4%.
When it dropped to that level during the Truss premiership, she resigned the next day.
It's important to remember that she didn't resign simply because her poll ratings were poor. The markets lost confidence in her and her government following that budget. It was clear that there would be dire economic consequences attendant upon her continuing in office.
No it wasn't. Even if we accept your comments as true, she'd already ditched the minibudget and drafted in Hunt. It was about Tory survival. Which Sunak claimed that he could deliver, which now turns out to be based on a disastrous overestimation of his own abilities.
If the Foeign office spoke it used to be listened ti. There hasn't been a good foreign sec for a very long time. Who gives a fuck what Britain says anymore? Any suggestions as to an effective Foreign Sec?
Home?
Support for apartheid South Africa was a blot on his record, but there were achievements to balance it out.
I think it is time to go and have a nice hot bath and relax in bed with a book, before this forum becomes any more nasty
For me, Mrs C has some mutton stew on the stove, and I am just about to open some Cotes de Rhone and return to a rather interesting book on early nineteenth century evolutionary thought in Edinburgh. Far more constructive.
I found out recently that Pukka Pies make pies you can cook in a microwave. This enormous advancement in humanity has been shamelessly overlooked.
Even more so than the Scottish Enlightenment? It must be quite something.
Pukka Pies have a Locke on human progress now.
A new take on Hume cooking. Admittedly one has to Reid the instructions carefully.
I never follow the instructions in Hume cooking. Having experimented I realised the taste would be better if you Bentham a touch.
The pun-Mill just grinds on.
That's a sign though that it's Shelley coming to an end.
(You fucking try to make a pun on Wollstonecraft!)
There are some words you just can't pun. It's a bit like trying to make a 60s office block attractive - no amount of decorative art will do it, nor Wollstonecraft.
If the Foeign Sec spoke, it used to be listened to. There hasn't been a decent Foreign Sec for a very long time. Who gives a fuck what Britain says anymore? Any suggestions as to the last effective Foreign Sec?
If the Foeign Sec spoke, it used to be listened to. There hasn't been a decent Foreign Sec for a very long time. Who gives a fuck what Britain says anymore? Any suggestions as to the last effective Foreign Sec?
I think it is time to go and have a nice hot bath and relax in bed with a book, before this forum becomes any more nasty
For me, Mrs C has some mutton stew on the stove, and I am just about to open some Cotes de Rhone and return to a rather interesting book on early nineteenth century evolutionary thought in Edinburgh. Far more constructive.
I found out recently that Pukka Pies make pies you can cook in a microwave. This enormous advancement in humanity has been shamelessly overlooked.
If the Foeign Sec spoke, it used to be listened to. There hasn't been a decent Foreign Sec for a very long time. Who gives a fuck what Britain says anymore? Any suggestions as to the last effective Foreign Sec?
The last principled one was probably Robin Cook.
Good call. Didn't like him but yes.
The last gasp of the Scottish Enlightenment? Pukka fellow.
If the Foeign Sec spoke, it used to be listened to. There hasn't been a decent Foreign Sec for a very long time. Who gives a fuck what Britain says anymore? Any suggestions as to the last effective Foreign Sec?
The last principled one was probably Robin Cook.
Good call. Didn't like him but yes.
The last gasp of the Scottish Enlightenment? Pukka fellow.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
I think the shot of Theresa May is fine. She sits on the sofa you would expect her to sit on, wearing a dress that suits her, with a pose that seems in character. Degrees more informal than most Vogue shoots.
The question for Rachel Reeves is why is she doing the shoot in a public toilet? Also the light's horribly unflattering. She should get a new photographer.
If the Foreign Sec spoke, it used to be listened to. There hasn't been a decent Foreign Sec for a very long time. Who gives a fuck what Britain says anymore? Any suggestions as to the last effective Foreign Sec?
If the Foreign Sec spoke, it used to be listened to. There hasn't been a decent Foreign Sec for a very long time. Who gives a fuck what Britain says anymore? Any suggestions as to the last effective Foreign Sec?
Ernest Bevin who stood up to the Commies after WW2 and got Marshall Aid from the Americans. Given how dismally weakened we were after the Second World War, he played a bad hand very well, and was the only post-WW2 Foreign Secretary who was neither captured by the diplomats at the FO nor shared their instincts.
It's very rare that I praise a Labour minister. I must go and take a shower.
Before him, you'd have to go back to Lord Salisbury.
If the Foreign Sec spoke, it used to be listened to. There hasn't been a decent Foreign Sec for a very long time. Who gives a fuck what Britain says anymore? Any suggestions as to the last effective Foreign Sec?
Possibly Anthony Eden? It was when he stopped being Foreign Secretary, it all blew up.
Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.
Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.
If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.
The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.
(And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.
Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Hamas chose to attack Israel.
I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.
No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
The last thing Ukraine needs right now is to be likened to Israel.
Russia is not an insurgent terrorist organisation, it’s a vast nation state that fancies having a bit of its neighbours. Ukraine is not a nuclear armed regional hegemon, with settlements encroaching on Russian land and an ultra-nationalist populist leader in power.
Israel has its justifications for retaliating after 7th October but the situation is much less black and white than Ukraine where there is a good guy and a bad guy and very little need for nuance.
Israel is the good guy, it is a free democracy that has been attacked.
Hamas are the bad guys. They are evil, authoritarian terrorists.
The refusal to acknowledge Israel as the good guy here stems from antisemitism in my eyes. Anyone else would absolutely be acknowledged unequivocally as the good guy.
Don't you dare imply that I am being anti-Semitic. You really are in the pits.
If the shoe fits. 🤷♂️
Why else do you deny Israel the right to self-defence and to destroy Hamas wherever they may be?
Every other nation has that right, why don't Israel?
No one is denying Israel the right to diminish Hamas. The point of contention is how the Government of Israel manages that campaign. Check out Max Hastings's analysis of Bibi. Bibi despises Arabs.
You can't accuse people of anti-Semitism just because they call out Netanyahu. If you believe that you are a mirror image of Jeremy Corbyn and just as daft.
Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.
Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.
If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.
The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.
(And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.
Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Hamas chose to attack Israel.
I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.
No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
The last thing Ukraine needs right now is to be likened to Israel.
Russia is not an insurgent terrorist organisation, it’s a vast nation state that fancies having a bit of its neighbours. Ukraine is not a nuclear armed regional hegemon, with settlements encroaching on Russian land and an ultra-nationalist populist leader in power.
Israel has its justifications for retaliating after 7th October but the situation is much less black and white than Ukraine where there is a good guy and a bad guy and very little need for nuance.
Israel is the good guy, it is a free democracy that has been attacked.
Hamas are the bad guys. They are evil, authoritarian terrorists.
The refusal to acknowledge Israel as the good guy here stems from antisemitism in my eyes. Anyone else would absolutely be acknowledged unequivocally as the good guy.
Don't you dare imply that I am being anti-Semitic. You really are in the pits.
If the shoe fits. 🤷♂️
Why else do you deny Israel the right to self-defence and to destroy Hamas wherever they may be?
Every other nation has that right, why don't Israel?
No one is denying Israel the right to diminish Hamas. The point of contention is how the Government of Israel manages that campaign. Check out Max Hastings's analysis of Bibi. Bibi despises Arabs.
You can't accuse people of anti-Semitism just because they call out Netanyahu. If you believe that you are a mirror image of Jeremy Corbyn and just as daft.
Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.
Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.
If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.
The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.
(And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.
Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Hamas chose to attack Israel.
I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.
No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
The last thing Ukraine needs right now is to be likened to Israel.
Russia is not an insurgent terrorist organisation, it’s a vast nation state that fancies having a bit of its neighbours. Ukraine is not a nuclear armed regional hegemon, with settlements encroaching on Russian land and an ultra-nationalist populist leader in power.
Israel has its justifications for retaliating after 7th October but the situation is much less black and white than Ukraine where there is a good guy and a bad guy and very little need for nuance.
Israel is the good guy, it is a free democracy that has been attacked.
Hamas are the bad guys. They are evil, authoritarian terrorists.
The refusal to acknowledge Israel as the good guy here stems from antisemitism in my eyes. Anyone else would absolutely be acknowledged unequivocally as the good guy.
Don't you dare imply that I am being anti-Semitic. You really are in the pits.
If the shoe fits. 🤷♂️
Why else do you deny Israel the right to self-defence and to destroy Hamas wherever they may be?
Every other nation has that right, why don't Israel?
No one is denying Israel the right to diminish Hamas. The point of contention is how the Government of Israel manages that campaign. Check out Max Hastings's analysis of Bibi. Bibi despises Arabs.
You can't accuse people of anti-Semitism just because they call out Netanyahu. If you believe that you are a mirror image of Jeremy Corbyn and just as daft.
For the record, I have no objection to calling out Netanyahu, I do too. I dislike Netanyahu.
Doesn't mean Netanyahu is doing the wrong thing in this campaign, which has cross-party support.
Diminishing Hamas is insufficient, Hamas need to be destroyed.
Destroying Hamas is also insufficient, there then needs to be a positive future for Palestinians, hence my Marshall Plan analogy.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.
Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.
If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.
The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.
(And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.
Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Hamas chose to attack Israel.
I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.
No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
The last thing Ukraine needs right now is to be likened to Israel.
Russia is not an insurgent terrorist organisation, it’s a vast nation state that fancies having a bit of its neighbours. Ukraine is not a nuclear armed regional hegemon, with settlements encroaching on Russian land and an ultra-nationalist populist leader in power.
Israel has its justifications for retaliating after 7th October but the situation is much less black and white than Ukraine where there is a good guy and a bad guy and very little need for nuance.
Israel is the good guy, it is a free democracy that has been attacked.
Hamas are the bad guys. They are evil, authoritarian terrorists.
The refusal to acknowledge Israel as the good guy here stems from antisemitism in my eyes. Anyone else would absolutely be acknowledged unequivocally as the good guy.
Don't you dare imply that I am being anti-Semitic. You really are in the pits.
If the shoe fits. 🤷♂️
Why else do you deny Israel the right to self-defence and to destroy Hamas wherever they may be?
Every other nation has that right, why don't Israel?
No one is denying Israel the right to diminish Hamas. The point of contention is how the Government of Israel manages that campaign. Check out Max Hastings's analysis of Bibi. Bibi despises Arabs.
You can't accuse people of anti-Semitism just because they call out Netanyahu. If you believe that you are a mirror image of Jeremy Corbyn and just as daft.
For the record, I have no objection to calling out Netanyahu, I do too. I dislike Netanyahu.
Doesn't mean Netanyahu is doing the wrong thing in this campaign, which has cross-party support.
Diminishing Hamas is insufficient, Hamas need to be destroyed.
Destroying Hamas is also insufficient, there then needs to be a positive future for Palestinians, hence my Marshall Plan analogy.
Hamas have killed an order of magnitude fewer people than Israel have!
If the Foreign Sec spoke, it used to be listened to. There hasn't been a decent Foreign Sec for a very long time. Who gives a fuck what Britain says anymore? Any suggestions as to the last effective Foreign Sec?
Possibly Anthony Eden? It was when he stopped being Foreign Secretary, it all blew up.
At least Sir Edward Grey had a memorable soundbite that might be wheeled out again in our own lifetimes if we're not careful. It's hard to imagine anything Eden might have said except "Gis a job. I can do that".
Went to see Dune part II yesterday. It was very good, albeit it didn't quite blow me away to the extent that the first part did. A film with a lot of fighting and not much character development or plot other than slightly overblown relationship issues with Chani. Not nearly enough made on the effect of Jessica becoming a Reverend Mother either.
The cinema was surprisingly empty for a big film release this weekend and I couldn't help but notice that most of us were of a certain age, having no doubt read Dune when we were younger. This perhaps added to the lack of atmosphere.
Overall I would strongly recommend it but it was no Oppenheimer.
They missed a big chunk of what made Paul… Paul. Telling a couple of people about their family or what they are thinking like a low grade stage medium?
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.
Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.
If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.
The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.
(And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.
Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Hamas chose to attack Israel.
I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.
No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
The last thing Ukraine needs right now is to be likened to Israel.
Russia is not an insurgent terrorist organisation, it’s a vast nation state that fancies having a bit of its neighbours. Ukraine is not a nuclear armed regional hegemon, with settlements encroaching on Russian land and an ultra-nationalist populist leader in power.
Israel has its justifications for retaliating after 7th October but the situation is much less black and white than Ukraine where there is a good guy and a bad guy and very little need for nuance.
Israel is the good guy, it is a free democracy that has been attacked.
Hamas are the bad guys. They are evil, authoritarian terrorists.
The refusal to acknowledge Israel as the good guy here stems from antisemitism in my eyes. Anyone else would absolutely be acknowledged unequivocally as the good guy.
Don't you dare imply that I am being anti-Semitic. You really are in the pits.
If the shoe fits. 🤷♂️
Why else do you deny Israel the right to self-defence and to destroy Hamas wherever they may be?
Every other nation has that right, why don't Israel?
No one is denying Israel the right to diminish Hamas. The point of contention is how the Government of Israel manages that campaign. Check out Max Hastings's analysis of Bibi. Bibi despises Arabs.
You can't accuse people of anti-Semitism just because they call out Netanyahu. If you believe that you are a mirror image of Jeremy Corbyn and just as daft.
For the record, I have no objection to calling out Netanyahu, I do too. I dislike Netanyahu.
Doesn't mean Netanyahu is doing the wrong thing in this campaign, which has cross-party support.
Diminishing Hamas is insufficient, Hamas need to be destroyed.
Destroying Hamas is also insufficient, there then needs to be a positive future for Palestinians, hence my Marshall Plan analogy.
Hamas have killed an order of magnitude fewer people than Israel have!
So what?
Hamas have deliberately targeted civilians, while Israel have fought a war.
That's the difference.
The UK and our allies have killed far, far more people in wars than the Nazis killed in the Holocaust. But war != murder.
Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.
Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.
If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.
The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.
(And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.
Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Hamas chose to attack Israel.
I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.
No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
The last thing Ukraine needs right now is to be likened to Israel.
Russia is not an insurgent terrorist organisation, it’s a vast nation state that fancies having a bit of its neighbours. Ukraine is not a nuclear armed regional hegemon, with settlements encroaching on Russian land and an ultra-nationalist populist leader in power.
Israel has its justifications for retaliating after 7th October but the situation is much less black and white than Ukraine where there is a good guy and a bad guy and very little need for nuance.
Israel is the good guy, it is a free democracy that has been attacked.
Hamas are the bad guys. They are evil, authoritarian terrorists.
The refusal to acknowledge Israel as the good guy here stems from antisemitism in my eyes. Anyone else would absolutely be acknowledged unequivocally as the good guy.
Don't you dare imply that I am being anti-Semitic. You really are in the pits.
If the shoe fits. 🤷♂️
Why else do you deny Israel the right to self-defence and to destroy Hamas wherever they may be?
Every other nation has that right, why don't Israel?
No one is denying Israel the right to diminish Hamas. The point of contention is how the Government of Israel manages that campaign. Check out Max Hastings's analysis of Bibi. Bibi despises Arabs.
You can't accuse people of anti-Semitism just because they call out Netanyahu. If you believe that you are a mirror image of Jeremy Corbyn and just as daft.
For the record, I have no objection to calling out Netanyahu, I do too. I dislike Netanyahu.
Doesn't mean Netanyahu is doing the wrong thing in this campaign, which has cross-party support.
Diminishing Hamas is insufficient, Hamasneed to be destroyed.
Destroying Hamas is also insufficient, there then needs to be a positive future for Palestinians, hence my Marshall Plan analogy.
With all due respect you are a f*****' idiot. What's the point of a Marshall plan if you have evaporated everyone in Gaza to get rid of Hamas. This is what you are advocating, although I am not sure you understand your own confused narrative.
Cut the head off the Hydra and see what happens. Bibi is the Hamas Recruiting Sergeant by his collective punishment programme. If he was interested in slaying Hamas he would be utilising Mossad to help Hamas Grandees out of Doha condominium penthouse windows. Personally I believe he gets his jollies from dead Palestinian woman and children. Do you?
If the Foeign office spoke it used to be listened ti. There hasn't been a good foreign sec for a very long time. Who gives a fuck what Britain says anymore? Any suggestions as to an effective Foreign Sec?
Home?
Support for apartheid South Africa was a blot on his record, but there were achievements to balance it out.
I would put in a bid in for Geoffrey Howe. He had the boss from hell in Margaret Thatcher but managed to make something of his foreign secretaryship despite being thwarted at every turn.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
I think the shot of Theresa May is fine. She sits on the sofa you would expect her to sit on, wearing a dress that suits her, with a pose that seems in character. Degrees more informal than most Vogue shoots.
The question for Rachel Reeves is why is she doing the shoot in a public toilet? Also the light's horribly unflattering. She should get a new photographer.
It's not fine because Liebowitz is meant to be one of the world's greatest portrait photographers. You don't shoot someone looming over them like that, it looks like a test shot or something.
May looks powerless - like someone dressed up as PM and sat on a brocade sofa with all the gear and no idea. Many would argue that's what she was, and perhaps that's what Liebowitz decided to capture, but it was unfair to May - it seems like an ambush.
I think it is time to go and have a nice hot bath and relax in bed with a book, before this forum becomes any more nasty
For me, Mrs C has some mutton stew on the stove, and I am just about to open some Cotes de Rhone and return to a rather interesting book on early nineteenth century evolutionary thought in Edinburgh. Far more constructive.
I found out recently that Pukka Pies make pies you can cook in a microwave. This enormous advancement in humanity has been shamelessly overlooked.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Taylor Swift sparks war of words between Asian countries as The Philippines and Thailand round on Singapore for 'paying the singer $3M PER SHOW to not perform anywhere else in the region'
Jeremy Hunt considering further public spending total cuts to boost tax giveaway
National Insurance could be cut by 2p again in the budget if the chancellor succeeds in finding the right mix of revenue raising measures and spending cuts.
So I suspect we will see that kept the way it is but Labour will be reversing it by putting 2-3p on Income Tax..
Spending cuts, yes please. 'Revenue raising measures' - nobody is going to be impressed by giving with one hand and grabbing with the other. The overall level of taxation needs to be going in the right direction.
Yep - it's going to go up because you can't manufacture productivity improvements without investing money first and guess what this Government isn't going to do?
Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.
Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.
If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.
The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.
(And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.
Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Hamas chose to attack Israel.
I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.
No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
The last thing Ukraine needs right now is to be likened to Israel.
Russia is not an insurgent terrorist organisation, it’s a vast nation state that fancies having a bit of its neighbours. Ukraine is not a nuclear armed regional hegemon, with settlements encroaching on Russian land and an ultra-nationalist populist leader in power.
Israel has its justifications for retaliating after 7th October but the situation is much less black and white than Ukraine where there is a good guy and a bad guy and very little need for nuance.
Israel is the good guy, it is a free democracy that has been attacked.
Hamas are the bad guys. They are evil, authoritarian terrorists.
The refusal to acknowledge Israel as the good guy here stems from antisemitism in my eyes. Anyone else would absolutely be acknowledged unequivocally as the good guy.
Don't you dare imply that I am being anti-Semitic. You really are in the pits.
If the shoe fits. 🤷♂️
Why else do you deny Israel the right to self-defence and to destroy Hamas wherever they may be?
Every other nation has that right, why don't Israel?
No one is denying Israel the right to diminish Hamas. The point of contention is how the Government of Israel manages that campaign. Check out Max Hastings's analysis of Bibi. Bibi despises Arabs.
You can't accuse people of anti-Semitism just because they call out Netanyahu. If you believe that you are a mirror image of Jeremy Corbyn and just as daft.
For the record, I have no objection to calling out Netanyahu, I do too. I dislike Netanyahu.
Doesn't mean Netanyahu is doing the wrong thing in this campaign, which has cross-party support.
Diminishing Hamas is insufficient, Hamasneed to be destroyed.
Destroying Hamas is also insufficient, there then needs to be a positive future for Palestinians, hence my Marshall Plan analogy.
With all due respect you are a f*****' idiot. What's the point of a Marshall plan if you have evaporated everyone in Gaza to get rid of Hamas. This is what you are advocating, although I am not sure you understand your own confused narrative.
Cut the head off the Hydra and see what happens. Bibi is the Hamas Recruiting Sergeant by his collective punishment programme. If he was interested in slaying Hamas he would be utilising Mossad to help Hamas Grandees out of Doha condominium penthouse windows. Personally I believe he gets his jollies from dead Palestinian woman and children. Do you?
Oh piss off "evaporated everyone in Gaza".
That's millions of people. We're not even at the hundreds of thousands dead stage yet.
For context a quarter of a million died following Britain's invasion of Iraq, which was not remotely as justified as tackling Hamas.
There are in context very, very few Palestinian dead. Which is a good thing.
Israel remain the good guys who try to minimise civilian casualties, as they should. If they were maximising them as you falsely accuse them of, we'd be at the millions dead stage.
Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.
Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.
If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.
The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.
(And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.
Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Hamas chose to attack Israel.
I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.
No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
The last thing Ukraine needs right now is to be likened to Israel.
Russia is not an insurgent terrorist organisation, it’s a vast nation state that fancies having a bit of its neighbours. Ukraine is not a nuclear armed regional hegemon, with settlements encroaching on Russian land and an ultra-nationalist populist leader in power.
Israel has its justifications for retaliating after 7th October but the situation is much less black and white than Ukraine where there is a good guy and a bad guy and very little need for nuance.
Israel is the good guy, it is a free democracy that has been attacked.
Hamas are the bad guys. They are evil, authoritarian terrorists.
The refusal to acknowledge Israel as the good guy here stems from antisemitism in my eyes. Anyone else would absolutely be acknowledged unequivocally as the good guy.
Don't you dare imply that I am being anti-Semitic. You really are in the pits.
If the shoe fits. 🤷♂️
Why else do you deny Israel the right to self-defence and to destroy Hamas wherever they may be?
Every other nation has that right, why don't Israel?
No one is denying Israel the right to diminish Hamas. The point of contention is how the Government of Israel manages that campaign. Check out Max Hastings's analysis of Bibi. Bibi despises Arabs.
You can't accuse people of anti-Semitism just because they call out Netanyahu. If you believe that you are a mirror image of Jeremy Corbyn and just as daft.
For the record, I have no objection to calling out Netanyahu, I do too. I dislike Netanyahu.
Doesn't mean Netanyahu is doing the wrong thing in this campaign, which has cross-party support.
Diminishing Hamas is insufficient, Hamas need to be destroyed.
Destroying Hamas is also insufficient, there then needs to be a positive future for Palestinians, hence my Marshall Plan analogy.
Hamas have killed an order of magnitude fewer people than Israel have!
So what?
Hamas have deliberately targeted civilians, while Israel have fought a war.
That's the difference.
The UK and our allies have killed far, far more people in wars than the Nazis killed in the Holocaust. But war != murder.
Numbers are irrelevant.
You are supporting the government of a country that has murdered 30,000 people inside 5 months, and displaced 1.5 million people, depriving them of food, water, power and comms. Like I said before, Israel has murdered more people in 5 months than Hamas have murdered in FIFTEEN YEARS!
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
I think the shot of Theresa May is fine. She sits on the sofa you would expect her to sit on, wearing a dress that suits her, with a pose that seems in character. Degrees more informal than most Vogue shoots.
The question for Rachel Reeves is why is she doing the shoot in a public toilet? Also the light's horribly unflattering. She should get a new photographer.
It's not fine because Liebowitz is meant to be one of the world's greatest portrait photographers. You don't shoot someone looming over them like that, it looks like a test shot or something.
May looks powerless - like someone dressed up as PM and sat on a brocade sofa with all the gear and no idea. Many would argue that's what she was, and perhaps that's what Liebowitz decided to capture, but it was unfair to May - it seems like an ambush.
It’s interesting how personalities come across in photographs. The setup is ludicrous - a lady dressed in somewhat formal clothes in the commanders position in a tank.
No one laughed.
There’s another photo (can’t find it) of her in an AFV, with a full box of live 7.62 for the machinegun. Wonder what ‘elf and safety would make of that these days.
Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.
Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.
If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.
The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.
(And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.
Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Hamas chose to attack Israel.
I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.
No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
The last thing Ukraine needs right now is to be likened to Israel.
Russia is not an insurgent terrorist organisation, it’s a vast nation state that fancies having a bit of its neighbours. Ukraine is not a nuclear armed regional hegemon, with settlements encroaching on Russian land and an ultra-nationalist populist leader in power.
Israel has its justifications for retaliating after 7th October but the situation is much less black and white than Ukraine where there is a good guy and a bad guy and very little need for nuance.
Israel is the good guy, it is a free democracy that has been attacked.
Hamas are the bad guys. They are evil, authoritarian terrorists.
The refusal to acknowledge Israel as the good guy here stems from antisemitism in my eyes. Anyone else would absolutely be acknowledged unequivocally as the good guy.
Don't you dare imply that I am being anti-Semitic. You really are in the pits.
If the shoe fits. 🤷♂️
Why else do you deny Israel the right to self-defence and to destroy Hamas wherever they may be?
Every other nation has that right, why don't Israel?
No one is denying Israel the right to diminish Hamas. The point of contention is how the Government of Israel manages that campaign. Check out Max Hastings's analysis of Bibi. Bibi despises Arabs.
You can't accuse people of anti-Semitism just because they call out Netanyahu. If you believe that you are a mirror image of Jeremy Corbyn and just as daft.
For the record, I have no objection to calling out Netanyahu, I do too. I dislike Netanyahu.
Doesn't mean Netanyahu is doing the wrong thing in this campaign, which has cross-party support.
Diminishing Hamas is insufficient, Hamas need to be destroyed.
Destroying Hamas is also insufficient, there then needs to be a positive future for Palestinians, hence my Marshall Plan analogy.
Hamas have killed an order of magnitude fewer people than Israel have!
So what?
Hamas have deliberately targeted civilians, while Israel have fought a war.
That's the difference.
The UK and our allies have killed far, far more people in wars than the Nazis killed in the Holocaust. But war != murder.
Numbers are irrelevant.
You are supporting the government of a country that has murdered 30,000 people inside 5 months, and displaced 1.5 million people, depriving them of food, water, power and comms. Like I said before, Israel has murdered more people in 5 months than Hamas have murdered in FIFTEEN YEARS!
Not murdered.
Can you not wrap your head around the difference between murder and war?
Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.
Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.
If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.
The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.
(And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.
Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Hamas chose to attack Israel.
I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.
No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
The last thing Ukraine needs right now is to be likened to Israel.
Russia is not an insurgent terrorist organisation, it’s a vast nation state that fancies having a bit of its neighbours. Ukraine is not a nuclear armed regional hegemon, with settlements encroaching on Russian land and an ultra-nationalist populist leader in power.
Israel has its justifications for retaliating after 7th October but the situation is much less black and white than Ukraine where there is a good guy and a bad guy and very little need for nuance.
Israel is the good guy, it is a free democracy that has been attacked.
Hamas are the bad guys. They are evil, authoritarian terrorists.
The refusal to acknowledge Israel as the good guy here stems from antisemitism in my eyes. Anyone else would absolutely be acknowledged unequivocally as the good guy.
Don't you dare imply that I am being anti-Semitic. You really are in the pits.
If the shoe fits. 🤷♂️
Why else do you deny Israel the right to self-defence and to destroy Hamas wherever they may be?
Every other nation has that right, why don't Israel?
No one is denying Israel the right to diminish Hamas. The point of contention is how the Government of Israel manages that campaign. Check out Max Hastings's analysis of Bibi. Bibi despises Arabs.
You can't accuse people of anti-Semitism just because they call out Netanyahu. If you believe that you are a mirror image of Jeremy Corbyn and just as daft.
For the record, I have no objection to calling out Netanyahu, I do too. I dislike Netanyahu.
Doesn't mean Netanyahu is doing the wrong thing in this campaign, which has cross-party support.
Diminishing Hamas is insufficient, Hamasneed to be destroyed.
Destroying Hamas is also insufficient, there then needs to be a positive future for Palestinians, hence my Marshall Plan analogy.
With all due respect you are a f*****' idiot. What's the point of a Marshall plan if you have evaporated everyone in Gaza to get rid of Hamas. This is what you are advocating, although I am not sure you understand your own confused narrative.
Cut the head off the Hydra and see what happens. Bibi is the Hamas Recruiting Sergeant by his collective punishment programme. If he was interested in slaying Hamas he would be utilising Mossad to help Hamas Grandees out of Doha condominium penthouse windows. Personally I believe he gets his jollies from dead Palestinian woman and children. Do you?
Oh piss off "evaporated everyone in Gaza".
That's millions of people. We're not even at the hundreds of thousands dead stage yet.
For context a quarter of a million died following Britain's invasion of Iraq, which was not remotely as justified as tackling Hamas.
There are in context very, very few Palestinian dead. Which is a good thing.
Israel remain the good guys who try to minimise civilian casualties, as they should. If they were maximising them as you falsely accuse them of, we'd be at the millions dead stage.
If you consider 30,000 dead Palestinians to be "few", no wonder you are economically illiterate.
Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.
Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.
If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.
The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.
(And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.
Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Hamas chose to attack Israel.
I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.
No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
The last thing Ukraine needs right now is to be likened to Israel.
Russia is not an insurgent terrorist organisation, it’s a vast nation state that fancies having a bit of its neighbours. Ukraine is not a nuclear armed regional hegemon, with settlements encroaching on Russian land and an ultra-nationalist populist leader in power.
Israel has its justifications for retaliating after 7th October but the situation is much less black and white than Ukraine where there is a good guy and a bad guy and very little need for nuance.
Israel is the good guy, it is a free democracy that has been attacked.
Hamas are the bad guys. They are evil, authoritarian terrorists.
The refusal to acknowledge Israel as the good guy here stems from antisemitism in my eyes. Anyone else would absolutely be acknowledged unequivocally as the good guy.
Don't you dare imply that I am being anti-Semitic. You really are in the pits.
If the shoe fits. 🤷♂️
Why else do you deny Israel the right to self-defence and to destroy Hamas wherever they may be?
Every other nation has that right, why don't Israel?
No one is denying Israel the right to diminish Hamas. The point of contention is how the Government of Israel manages that campaign. Check out Max Hastings's analysis of Bibi. Bibi despises Arabs.
You can't accuse people of anti-Semitism just because they call out Netanyahu. If you believe that you are a mirror image of Jeremy Corbyn and just as daft.
For the record, I have no objection to calling out Netanyahu, I do too. I dislike Netanyahu.
Doesn't mean Netanyahu is doing the wrong thing in this campaign, which has cross-party support.
Diminishing Hamas is insufficient, Hamasneed to be destroyed.
Destroying Hamas is also insufficient, there then needs to be a positive future for Palestinians, hence my Marshall Plan analogy.
With all due respect you are a f*****' idiot. What's the point of a Marshall plan if you have evaporated everyone in Gaza to get rid of Hamas. This is what you are advocating, although I am not sure you understand your own confused narrative.
Cut the head off the Hydra and see what happens. Bibi is the Hamas Recruiting Sergeant by his collective punishment programme. If he was interested in slaying Hamas he would be utilising Mossad to help Hamas Grandees out of Doha condominium penthouse windows. Personally I believe he gets his jollies from dead Palestinian woman and children. Do you?
Oh piss off "evaporated everyone in Gaza".
That's millions of people. We're not even at the hundreds of thousands dead stage yet.
For context a quarter of a million died following Britain's invasion of Iraq, which was not remotely as justified as tackling Hamas.
There are in context very, very few Palestinian dead. Which is a good thing.
Israel remain the good guys who try to minimise civilian casualties, as they should. If they were maximising them as you falsely accuse them of, we'd be at the millions dead stage.
If you consider 30,000 dead Palestinians to be "few", no wonder you are economically illiterate.
For a war, it is few, yes.
Wars have casualties, anyone pretending they don't is in denial.
Which is less justified in your eyes: 30k for tackling Hamas following last October, or 250k for invading Iraq?
Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.
Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.
If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.
The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.
(And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.
Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Hamas chose to attack Israel.
I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.
No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
The last thing Ukraine needs right now is to be likened to Israel.
Russia is not an insurgent terrorist organisation, it’s a vast nation state that fancies having a bit of its neighbours. Ukraine is not a nuclear armed regional hegemon, with settlements encroaching on Russian land and an ultra-nationalist populist leader in power.
Israel has its justifications for retaliating after 7th October but the situation is much less black and white than Ukraine where there is a good guy and a bad guy and very little need for nuance.
Israel is the good guy, it is a free democracy that has been attacked.
Hamas are the bad guys. They are evil, authoritarian terrorists.
The refusal to acknowledge Israel as the good guy here stems from antisemitism in my eyes. Anyone else would absolutely be acknowledged unequivocally as the good guy.
Don't you dare imply that I am being anti-Semitic. You really are in the pits.
If the shoe fits. 🤷♂️
Why else do you deny Israel the right to self-defence and to destroy Hamas wherever they may be?
Every other nation has that right, why don't Israel?
No one is denying Israel the right to diminish Hamas. The point of contention is how the Government of Israel manages that campaign. Check out Max Hastings's analysis of Bibi. Bibi despises Arabs.
You can't accuse people of anti-Semitism just because they call out Netanyahu. If you believe that you are a mirror image of Jeremy Corbyn and just as daft.
For the record, I have no objection to calling out Netanyahu, I do too. I dislike Netanyahu.
Doesn't mean Netanyahu is doing the wrong thing in this campaign, which has cross-party support.
Diminishing Hamas is insufficient, Hamasneed to be destroyed.
Destroying Hamas is also insufficient, there then needs to be a positive future for Palestinians, hence my Marshall Plan analogy.
With all due respect you are a f*****' idiot. What's the point of a Marshall plan if you have evaporated everyone in Gaza to get rid of Hamas. This is what you are advocating, although I am not sure you understand your own confused narrative.
Cut the head off the Hydra and see what happens. Bibi is the Hamas Recruiting Sergeant by his collective punishment programme. If he was interested in slaying Hamas he would be utilising Mossad to help Hamas Grandees out of Doha condominium penthouse windows. Personally I believe he gets his jollies from dead Palestinian woman and children. Do you?
Oh piss off "evaporated everyone in Gaza".
That's millions of people. We're not even at the hundreds of thousands dead stage yet.
For context a quarter of a million died following Britain's invasion of Iraq, which was not remotely as justified as tackling Hamas.
There are in context very, very few Palestinian dead. Which is a good thing.
Israel remain the good guys who try to minimise civilian casualties, as they should. If they were maximising them as you falsely accuse them of, we'd be at the millions dead stage.
Good guys don't continuously annex land that they are militarily occupying. At best, Israel are the bad guys and the Palestinians are the very bad guys. We should cut ourselves off from these sociopaths and their tribal religious cultures.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
I think the shot of Theresa May is fine. She sits on the sofa you would expect her to sit on, wearing a dress that suits her, with a pose that seems in character. Degrees more informal than most Vogue shoots.
The question for Rachel Reeves is why is she doing the shoot in a public toilet? Also the light's horribly unflattering. She should get a new photographer.
It's not fine because Liebowitz is meant to be one of the world's greatest portrait photographers. You don't shoot someone looming over them like that, it looks like a test shot or something.
May looks powerless - like someone dressed up as PM and sat on a brocade sofa with all the gear and no idea. Many would argue that's what she was, and perhaps that's what Liebowitz decided to capture, but it was unfair to May - it seems like an ambush.
It’s interesting how personalities come across in photographs. The setup is ludicrous - a lady dressed in somewhat formal clothes in the commanders position in a tank.
No one laughed.
There’s another photo (can’t find it) of her in an AFV, with a full box of live 7.62 for the machinegun. Wonder what ‘elf and safety would make of that these days.
This gets my vote for the best picture of Thatcher.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
I think the shot of Theresa May is fine. She sits on the sofa you would expect her to sit on, wearing a dress that suits her, with a pose that seems in character. Degrees more informal than most Vogue shoots.
The question for Rachel Reeves is why is she doing the shoot in a public toilet? Also the light's horribly unflattering. She should get a new photographer.
It's not fine because Liebowitz is meant to be one of the world's greatest portrait photographers. You don't shoot someone looming over them like that, it looks like a test shot or something.
May looks powerless - like someone dressed up as PM and sat on a brocade sofa with all the gear and no idea. Many would argue that's what she was, and perhaps that's what Liebowitz decided to capture, but it was unfair to May - it seems like an ambush.
It’s interesting how personalities come across in photographs. The setup is ludicrous - a lady dressed in somewhat formal clothes in the commanders position in a tank.
No one laughed.
There’s another photo (can’t find it) of her in an AFV, with a full box of live 7.62 for the machinegun. Wonder what ‘elf and safety would make of that these days.
Edit: you know what an Abbot is - but not everyone does. The sort of cheap substitute for a proper tank that so-called tank experiences use. Perfectly good at its intended job.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
I think the shot of Theresa May is fine. She sits on the sofa you would expect her to sit on, wearing a dress that suits her, with a pose that seems in character. Degrees more informal than most Vogue shoots.
The question for Rachel Reeves is why is she doing the shoot in a public toilet? Also the light's horribly unflattering. She should get a new photographer.
It's not fine because Liebowitz is meant to be one of the world's greatest portrait photographers. You don't shoot someone looming over them like that, it looks like a test shot or something.
May looks powerless - like someone dressed up as PM and sat on a brocade sofa with all the gear and no idea. Many would argue that's what she was, and perhaps that's what Liebowitz decided to capture, but it was unfair to May - it seems like an ambush.
It’s interesting how personalities come across in photographs. The setup is ludicrous - a lady dressed in somewhat formal clothes in the commanders position in a tank.
No one laughed.
There’s another photo (can’t find it) of her in an AFV, with a full box of live 7.62 for the machinegun. Wonder what ‘elf and safety would make of that these days.
'No one laughed' but plenty cringed, me among them. Her fans loved it, I get that, but the most of the rest just thought she looked ridiculous.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
I think the shot of Theresa May is fine. She sits on the sofa you would expect her to sit on, wearing a dress that suits her, with a pose that seems in character. Degrees more informal than most Vogue shoots.
The question for Rachel Reeves is why is she doing the shoot in a public toilet? Also the light's horribly unflattering. She should get a new photographer.
It's not fine because Liebowitz is meant to be one of the world's greatest portrait photographers. You don't shoot someone looming over them like that, it looks like a test shot or something.
May looks powerless - like someone dressed up as PM and sat on a brocade sofa with all the gear and no idea. Many would argue that's what she was, and perhaps that's what Liebowitz decided to capture, but it was unfair to May - it seems like an ambush.
It’s interesting how personalities come across in photographs. The setup is ludicrous - a lady dressed in somewhat formal clothes in the commanders position in a tank.
No one laughed.
There’s another photo (can’t find it) of her in an AFV, with a full box of live 7.62 for the machinegun. Wonder what ‘elf and safety would make of that these days.
'No one laughed' but plenty cringed, me among them. Her fans loved it, I get that, but the most of the rest just thought she looked ridiculous.
Wearing uniform clothing is a serious no-no under the UK constitution (1688/1690). Better no uniform than what we have seen in recent years.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
I think the shot of Theresa May is fine. She sits on the sofa you would expect her to sit on, wearing a dress that suits her, with a pose that seems in character. Degrees more informal than most Vogue shoots.
The question for Rachel Reeves is why is she doing the shoot in a public toilet? Also the light's horribly unflattering. She should get a new photographer.
It's not fine because Liebowitz is meant to be one of the world's greatest portrait photographers. You don't shoot someone looming over them like that, it looks like a test shot or something.
May looks powerless - like someone dressed up as PM and sat on a brocade sofa with all the gear and no idea. Many would argue that's what she was, and perhaps that's what Liebowitz decided to capture, but it was unfair to May - it seems like an ambush.
It’s interesting how personalities come across in photographs. The setup is ludicrous - a lady dressed in somewhat formal clothes in the commanders position in a tank.
No one laughed.
There’s another photo (can’t find it) of her in an AFV, with a full box of live 7.62 for the machinegun. Wonder what ‘elf and safety would make of that these days.
'No one laughed' but plenty cringed, me among them. Her fans loved it, I get that, but the most of the rest just thought she looked ridiculous.
I remember at the time thinking it looked quite bad. And now I'm seeing it through HY eyes as 'send in the tank to crush the north'.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
I think the shot of Theresa May is fine. She sits on the sofa you would expect her to sit on, wearing a dress that suits her, with a pose that seems in character. Degrees more informal than most Vogue shoots.
The question for Rachel Reeves is why is she doing the shoot in a public toilet? Also the light's horribly unflattering. She should get a new photographer.
It's not fine because Liebowitz is meant to be one of the world's greatest portrait photographers. You don't shoot someone looming over them like that, it looks like a test shot or something.
May looks powerless - like someone dressed up as PM and sat on a brocade sofa with all the gear and no idea. Many would argue that's what she was, and perhaps that's what Liebowitz decided to capture, but it was unfair to May - it seems like an ambush.
Disagree. Theresa May would look ridiculous if she attempted that Thatcher pose. Thatcher is borderline ridiculous in the photo and she had the personality for it. As I say the one she did take is fine. Whether the photo is more Liebowitz than May is a question I suppose, that goes back to the start of studio photography.
Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.
Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.
If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.
The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.
(And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.
Russia chose to attack Ukraine. Hamas chose to attack Israel.
I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.
No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
The last thing Ukraine needs right now is to be likened to Israel.
Russia is not an insurgent terrorist organisation, it’s a vast nation state that fancies having a bit of its neighbours. Ukraine is not a nuclear armed regional hegemon, with settlements encroaching on Russian land and an ultra-nationalist populist leader in power.
Israel has its justifications for retaliating after 7th October but the situation is much less black and white than Ukraine where there is a good guy and a bad guy and very little need for nuance.
Israel is the good guy, it is a free democracy that has been attacked.
Hamas are the bad guys. They are evil, authoritarian terrorists.
The refusal to acknowledge Israel as the good guy here stems from antisemitism in my eyes. Anyone else would absolutely be acknowledged unequivocally as the good guy.
Don't you dare imply that I am being anti-Semitic. You really are in the pits.
If the shoe fits. 🤷♂️
Why else do you deny Israel the right to self-defence and to destroy Hamas wherever they may be?
Every other nation has that right, why don't Israel?
No one is denying Israel the right to diminish Hamas. The point of contention is how the Government of Israel manages that campaign. Check out Max Hastings's analysis of Bibi. Bibi despises Arabs.
You can't accuse people of anti-Semitism just because they call out Netanyahu. If you believe that you are a mirror image of Jeremy Corbyn and just as daft.
For the record, I have no objection to calling out Netanyahu, I do too. I dislike Netanyahu.
Doesn't mean Netanyahu is doing the wrong thing in this campaign, which has cross-party support.
Diminishing Hamas is insufficient, Hamasneed to be destroyed.
Destroying Hamas is also insufficient, there then needs to be a positive future for Palestinians, hence my Marshall Plan analogy.
With all due respect you are a f*****' idiot. What's the point of a Marshall plan if you have evaporated everyone in Gaza to get rid of Hamas. This is what you are advocating, although I am not sure you understand your own confused narrative.
Cut the head off the Hydra and see what happens. Bibi is the Hamas Recruiting Sergeant by his collective punishment programme. If he was interested in slaying Hamas he would be utilising Mossad to help Hamas Grandees out of Doha condominium penthouse windows. Personally I believe he gets his jollies from dead Palestinian woman and children. Do you?
Oh piss off "evaporated everyone in Gaza".
That's millions of people. We're not even at the hundreds of thousands dead stage yet.
For context a quarter of a million died following Britain's invasion of Iraq, which was not remotely as justified as tackling Hamas.
There are in context very, very few Palestinian dead. Which is a good thing.
Israel remain the good guys who try to minimise civilian casualties, as they should. If they were maximising them as you falsely accuse them of, we'd be at the millions dead stage.
If you consider 30,000 dead Palestinians to be "few", no wonder you are economically illiterate.
For a war, it is few, yes.
Wars have casualties, anyone pretending they don't is in denial.
Which is less justified in your eyes: 30k for tackling Hamas following last October, or 250k for invading Iraq?
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
I think the shot of Theresa May is fine. She sits on the sofa you would expect her to sit on, wearing a dress that suits her, with a pose that seems in character. Degrees more informal than most Vogue shoots.
The question for Rachel Reeves is why is she doing the shoot in a public toilet? Also the light's horribly unflattering. She should get a new photographer.
It's not fine because Liebowitz is meant to be one of the world's greatest portrait photographers. You don't shoot someone looming over them like that, it looks like a test shot or something.
May looks powerless - like someone dressed up as PM and sat on a brocade sofa with all the gear and no idea. Many would argue that's what she was, and perhaps that's what Liebowitz decided to capture, but it was unfair to May - it seems like an ambush.
It’s interesting how personalities come across in photographs. The setup is ludicrous - a lady dressed in somewhat formal clothes in the commanders position in a tank.
No one laughed.
There’s another photo (can’t find it) of her in an AFV, with a full box of live 7.62 for the machinegun. Wonder what ‘elf and safety would make of that these days.
'No one laughed' but plenty cringed, me among them. Her fans loved it, I get that, but the most of the rest just thought she looked ridiculous.
I remember at the time thinking it looked quite bad. And now I'm seeing it through HY eyes as 'send in the tank to crush the north'.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
I think the shot of Theresa May is fine. She sits on the sofa you would expect her to sit on, wearing a dress that suits her, with a pose that seems in character. Degrees more informal than most Vogue shoots.
The question for Rachel Reeves is why is she doing the shoot in a public toilet? Also the light's horribly unflattering. She should get a new photographer.
It's not fine because Liebowitz is meant to be one of the world's greatest portrait photographers. You don't shoot someone looming over them like that, it looks like a test shot or something.
May looks powerless - like someone dressed up as PM and sat on a brocade sofa with all the gear and no idea. Many would argue that's what she was, and perhaps that's what Liebowitz decided to capture, but it was unfair to May - it seems like an ambush.
It’s interesting how personalities come across in photographs. The setup is ludicrous - a lady dressed in somewhat formal clothes in the commanders position in a tank.
No one laughed.
There’s another photo (can’t find it) of her in an AFV, with a full box of live 7.62 for the machinegun. Wonder what ‘elf and safety would make of that these days.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
I think the shot of Theresa May is fine. She sits on the sofa you would expect her to sit on, wearing a dress that suits her, with a pose that seems in character. Degrees more informal than most Vogue shoots.
The question for Rachel Reeves is why is she doing the shoot in a public toilet? Also the light's horribly unflattering. She should get a new photographer.
It's not fine because Liebowitz is meant to be one of the world's greatest portrait photographers. You don't shoot someone looming over them like that, it looks like a test shot or something.
May looks powerless - like someone dressed up as PM and sat on a brocade sofa with all the gear and no idea. Many would argue that's what she was, and perhaps that's what Liebowitz decided to capture, but it was unfair to May - it seems like an ambush.
It’s interesting how personalities come across in photographs. The setup is ludicrous - a lady dressed in somewhat formal clothes in the commanders position in a tank.
No one laughed.
There’s another photo (can’t find it) of her in an AFV, with a full box of live 7.62 for the machinegun. Wonder what ‘elf and safety would make of that these days.
'No one laughed' but plenty cringed, me among them. Her fans loved it, I get that, but the most of the rest just thought she looked ridiculous.
I remember at the time thinking it looked quite bad. And now I'm seeing it through HY eyes as 'send in the tank to crush the north'.
Oddly enough - I was thinking of that the other day while watching Rishi's speech. It had a similar "awww - bless" feel about the faux-seriousness. Just want to give them both a hair-ruffle and put them to bed.
If you consider 30,000 dead Palestinians to be "few", no wonder you are economically illiterate.
Bart considers Israel to be the "good guys". It is quite clear to any observer, not limited to
the UN the US the UK France Germany Ireland Spain Italy Norway Switzerland rest of the EU China (!) Russia (!)
that Israel are not "the good guys". They are less bad than Hamas, fine. Shit on my shoe is better than shit on my face. I'd rather not have either.
The reality is that Bart has lost this debate and has resorted to calling me an anti-Semite for calling out his absolute staggering ability to happily see the death of hundreds of thousands of people. If Israel destroyed the entirety of Palestine he'd be here telling us what a good idea it was.
Israel have the right to destroy Hamas. I have the right to say that they're doing it like morons.
The Israeli Government folks are such idiots that they've managed to get the entire world to unite around a ceasefire. Truly breathtaking skill.
Still waiting to here your intelligent alternative to what they've done that is both more humane and successfully eliminates Hamas?
We need to break the cycle of violence. A ceasefire that leads to Hamas regrouping then the violence resuming once more doesn't do so.
I'm not really prepared to debate with you anymore until you stop calling me anti-Semitic for saying that the Israeli Government is shit. If this is how you plan to get people over to your cause, I am going to tell you you're losing.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
I think the shot of Theresa May is fine. She sits on the sofa you would expect her to sit on, wearing a dress that suits her, with a pose that seems in character. Degrees more informal than most Vogue shoots.
The question for Rachel Reeves is why is she doing the shoot in a public toilet? Also the light's horribly unflattering. She should get a new photographer.
It's not fine because Liebowitz is meant to be one of the world's greatest portrait photographers. You don't shoot someone looming over them like that, it looks like a test shot or something.
May looks powerless - like someone dressed up as PM and sat on a brocade sofa with all the gear and no idea. Many would argue that's what she was, and perhaps that's what Liebowitz decided to capture, but it was unfair to May - it seems like an ambush.
It’s interesting how personalities come across in photographs. The setup is ludicrous - a lady dressed in somewhat formal clothes in the commanders position in a tank.
No one laughed.
There’s another photo (can’t find it) of her in an AFV, with a full box of live 7.62 for the machinegun. Wonder what ‘elf and safety would make of that these days.
This gets my vote for the best picture of Thatcher.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
I think the shot of Theresa May is fine. She sits on the sofa you would expect her to sit on, wearing a dress that suits her, with a pose that seems in character. Degrees more informal than most Vogue shoots.
The question for Rachel Reeves is why is she doing the shoot in a public toilet? Also the light's horribly unflattering. She should get a new photographer.
It's not fine because Liebowitz is meant to be one of the world's greatest portrait photographers. You don't shoot someone looming over them like that, it looks like a test shot or something.
May looks powerless - like someone dressed up as PM and sat on a brocade sofa with all the gear and no idea. Many would argue that's what she was, and perhaps that's what Liebowitz decided to capture, but it was unfair to May - it seems like an ambush.
It’s interesting how personalities come across in photographs. The setup is ludicrous - a lady dressed in somewhat formal clothes in the commanders position in a tank.
No one laughed.
There’s another photo (can’t find it) of her in an AFV, with a full box of live 7.62 for the machinegun. Wonder what ‘elf and safety would make of that these days.
This gets my vote for the best picture of Thatcher.
The Israeli Government folks are such idiots that they've managed to get the entire world to unite around a ceasefire. Truly breathtaking skill.
Still waiting to here your intelligent alternative to what they've done that is both more humane and successfully eliminates Hamas?
We need to break the cycle of violence. A ceasefire that leads to Hamas regrouping then the violence resuming once more doesn't do so.
I'm not really prepared to debate with you anymore until you stop calling me anti-Semitic for saying that the Israeli Government is shit. If this is how you plan to get people over to your cause, I am going to tell you you're losing.
I never said that.
If that's how you took it, then I'm sorry and I withdraw the comment, that is not what I meant at all.
It is perfectly reasonable to say the Israeli Government is shit.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
I think the shot of Theresa May is fine. She sits on the sofa you would expect her to sit on, wearing a dress that suits her, with a pose that seems in character. Degrees more informal than most Vogue shoots.
The question for Rachel Reeves is why is she doing the shoot in a public toilet? Also the light's horribly unflattering. She should get a new photographer.
It's not fine because Liebowitz is meant to be one of the world's greatest portrait photographers. You don't shoot someone looming over them like that, it looks like a test shot or something.
May looks powerless - like someone dressed up as PM and sat on a brocade sofa with all the gear and no idea. Many would argue that's what she was, and perhaps that's what Liebowitz decided to capture, but it was unfair to May - it seems like an ambush.
It’s interesting how personalities come across in photographs. The setup is ludicrous - a lady dressed in somewhat formal clothes in the commanders position in a tank.
No one laughed.
There’s another photo (can’t find it) of her in an AFV, with a full box of live 7.62 for the machinegun. Wonder what ‘elf and safety would make of that these days.
This gets my vote for the best picture of Thatcher.
I must confess to some confusion about this. Unlike the famous pictures of Truss, it's not inherently ridiculous. If this is the worst that can be thrown at Labour, they are home and hosed.
It's definitely comparable with the ludicrous Truss posing like she's on the loo in her trouser suit pictures, not because it's the same, but because it's awful in a different way. This one looks genuinely sinister. The casually crossed legs make it all the worse. You could do a top 5 terrible recent lady politician pics.
Male politicians are lucky that nobody cares how they look or tries to do anything more ambitious than shoot them sitting on the edge of a desk.
I think the shot of Theresa May is fine. She sits on the sofa you would expect her to sit on, wearing a dress that suits her, with a pose that seems in character. Degrees more informal than most Vogue shoots.
The question for Rachel Reeves is why is she doing the shoot in a public toilet? Also the light's horribly unflattering. She should get a new photographer.
It's not fine because Liebowitz is meant to be one of the world's greatest portrait photographers. You don't shoot someone looming over them like that, it looks like a test shot or something.
May looks powerless - like someone dressed up as PM and sat on a brocade sofa with all the gear and no idea. Many would argue that's what she was, and perhaps that's what Liebowitz decided to capture, but it was unfair to May - it seems like an ambush.
It’s interesting how personalities come across in photographs. The setup is ludicrous - a lady dressed in somewhat formal clothes in the commanders position in a tank.
No one laughed.
There’s another photo (can’t find it) of her in an AFV, with a full box of live 7.62 for the machinegun. Wonder what ‘elf and safety would make of that these days.
There's a well-regarded photographer, whom I shan't name for legal reasons, whose trademark is to shoot dozens of photos of an individual in the hope of finding an 'honest' image of them picking their nose or scratching their backside, which will in the fullness of time become the money shot.
Comments
NI is just a tax and all income should be charged the same rate of tax, no matter how its earned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tLDf-SBUmo
I'm being even-handed. Yes I support Israel defeating Hamas, but I also support a Marshal Plan style development of Gaza and support for Palestinians afterwards.
I want to break the cycle of violence and have provided a roadmap on how to at least attempt to do so post-Hamas.
A ceasefire followed by blockade and a return to the same old cycle of violence helps nobody in the long run.
HUNT TELLS BRITAIN: 2P OFF!
headlines, shortly before Britain returns the compliment.
The cinema was surprisingly empty for a big film release this weekend and I couldn't help but notice that most of us were of a certain age, having no doubt read Dune when we were younger. This perhaps added to the lack of atmosphere.
Overall I would strongly recommend it but it was no Oppenheimer.
Women politicians are very vulnerable to this. They need to be super careful of image control - you can't just put your trust in a photographer and styling team, even if they're supposed to be the best in the business.
When it dropped to that level during the Truss premiership, she resigned the next day.
(You fucking try to make a pun on Wollstonecraft!)
Seems unlikely.
Empirically proven.
Of course, if it’s an inductive Hobbes…
Any suggestions as to the last effective Foreign Sec?
Support for apartheid South Africa was a blot on his record, but there were achievements to balance it out.
(My guess is that the fertilizer would be moved to Belarus on a railroad from a Baltic port. But there are other possibilities.)
The question for Rachel Reeves is why is she doing the shoot in a public toilet? Also the light's horribly unflattering. She should get a new photographer.
It's very rare that I praise a Labour minister. I must go and take a shower.
Before him, you'd have to go back to Lord Salisbury.
Check out Max Hastings's analysis of Bibi. Bibi despises Arabs.
You can't accuse people of anti-Semitism just because they call out Netanyahu. If you believe that you are a mirror image of Jeremy Corbyn and just as daft.
Doesn't mean Netanyahu is doing the wrong thing in this campaign, which has cross-party support.
Diminishing Hamas is insufficient, Hamas need to be destroyed.
Destroying Hamas is also insufficient, there then needs to be a positive future for Palestinians, hence my Marshall Plan analogy.
Hamas have deliberately targeted civilians, while Israel have fought a war.
That's the difference.
The UK and our allies have killed far, far more people in wars than the Nazis killed in the Holocaust. But war != murder.
Numbers are irrelevant.
Cut the head off the Hydra and see what happens. Bibi is the Hamas Recruiting Sergeant by his collective punishment programme. If he was interested in slaying Hamas he would be utilising Mossad to help Hamas Grandees out of Doha condominium penthouse windows. Personally I believe he gets his jollies from dead Palestinian woman and children. Do you?
May looks powerless - like someone dressed up as PM and sat on a brocade sofa with all the gear and no idea. Many would argue that's what she was, and perhaps that's what Liebowitz decided to capture, but it was unfair to May - it seems like an ambush.
Compare: https://world.time.com/2013/04/08/margaret-thatcher-portrait-of-the-iron-lady/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13151971/Taylor-Swift-Eras-Tour-Southeast-Asia-Singapore-Thailand.html
Taylor Swift sparks war of words between Asian countries as The Philippines and Thailand round on Singapore for 'paying the singer $3M PER SHOW to not perform anywhere else in the region'
That's millions of people. We're not even at the hundreds of thousands dead stage yet.
For context a quarter of a million died following Britain's invasion of Iraq, which was not remotely as justified as tackling Hamas.
There are in context very, very few Palestinian dead. Which is a good thing.
Israel remain the good guys who try to minimise civilian casualties, as they should. If they were maximising them as you falsely accuse them of, we'd be at the millions dead stage.
It’s interesting how personalities come across in photographs. The setup is ludicrous - a lady dressed in somewhat formal clothes in the commanders position in a tank.
No one laughed.
There’s another photo (can’t find it) of her in an AFV, with a full box of live 7.62 for the machinegun. Wonder what ‘elf and safety would make of that these days.
Can you not wrap your head around the difference between murder and war?
Hamas are the only ones committing murder.
Wars have casualties, anyone pretending they don't is in denial.
Which is less justified in your eyes: 30k for tackling Hamas following last October, or 250k for invading Iraq?
MSNBC
@MSNBC
Vice President Kamala Harris calls for "an immediate ceasefire" in the Israel-Hamas war during a speech in Selma, Alabama.
https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1764398254324682961
https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/baroness-thatcher-kesteven-1983---prime-minister-3425634a
Labelled as Chieftain, which it probably was at that date.
There's also her driving an Abbot (105mm SPG).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1C3QMJZ0hI
This also came up -
https://tanks-alot.co.uk/product/margret-thatchers-armoured-bus/
Edit: you know what an Abbot is - but not everyone does. The sort of cheap substitute for a proper tank that so-called tank experiences use. Perfectly good at its intended job.
What has America done to be cursed by the choice between Biden/Harris and Trump/itdoesntevenmatterhessoawful.
Still has to be Biden but sheesh.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/17/the-photo-op-that-tanked
"Of course you're the best! Now shush."
the UN
the US
the UK
France
Germany
Ireland
Spain
Italy
Norway
Switzerland
rest of the EU
China (!)
Russia (!)
that Israel are not "the good guys". They are less bad than Hamas, fine. Shit on my shoe is better than shit on my face. I'd rather not have either.
The reality is that Bart has lost this debate and has resorted to calling me an anti-Semite for calling out his absolute staggering ability to happily see the death of hundreds of thousands of people. If Israel destroyed the entirety of Palestine he'd be here telling us what a good idea it was.
Israel have the right to destroy Hamas. I have the right to say that they're doing it like morons.
We need to break the cycle of violence. A ceasefire that leads to Hamas regrouping then the violence resuming once more doesn't do so.
If that's how you took it, then I'm sorry and I withdraw the comment, that is not what I meant at all.
It is perfectly reasonable to say the Israeli Government is shit.