I would have thought ‘from’ was shorter version of ‘come from’. I come from the place I was born and spent my formative years. I don’t live there now, but that’s where I am from. Is it really so difficult to say you’re ‘from’ X but now live in Y? If you had more than one place when you were a kid, then you can just say you’re from both, it’s not as though you’re going to lose a prize by giving the wrong answer
In the case of Habibur Masum, is there any need to specify where he is from at all? It doesn’t really add anything to the story to say he’s ‘from Oldham’ anyway.
Spectacularly bad ruling by the European Court of Human Rights here, which is playing right into the hands of those who would want to quit it (not least because its overreach is on a subject where its opponents also tend to hold opposite views).
Obviously a lot of that Courts role is policing the boundaries of legitimate political policy so there's inevitably continual intrusion into the political sphere. Even so, telling democratically-elected and -accountable governments what they can and can't (or worse, as here, must) do is something it should exercise considerable caution on when it comes to current divisive political debate. To do otherwise risks its credibility and turns it into a direct political player - as the US Supreme Court is. Except that whereas the US Court is clearly a contested political playing field, as as such, has some kind of legitimacy (and the US constitution can, in theory, also be amended by politicians), the European court is insulated on both points.
If courts insist on intervening in politics then politicians will inevitably respond by intervening in courts.
Do we have the detail for this part of the story ? ...The court dismissed two other cases brought by six Portuguese young people and a former French mayor. Both argued that European governments had failed to tackle climate change quickly enough, violating their rights.
On procedural grounds. The Court didn't get as far as considering the legal case (or what it considers would pass for one).
We shouldn't have too much to worry about with this ruling, we're a country mile below Switzerland in emissions per capita.
Edit: I err think - though one source is giving me 4.0 Tons CO2 per person from Switzerland, which surely can't be commensurate with this ruling...
We should be worried that the ECtHR is making these kind of rulings at all. That Britain isn't caught within that net (this time) because of the policies it's chosen isn't really the point.
IANAL so I welcome your expertise - has the court not found that Switzerland is failing to keep to commitments it has made? So it's not a blanket ruling that Switzerland is infringing human rights by not dong enough on climate change (ECHR dictating policy) but that it is failing to uphold (legally binding?) commitments it has made (ECHR ruling on a point of law).
The first I see obvious issues with. The second is surely its job? But given my IANALness and relying only on the not very enlightening BBC report I may well be missing something.
There's a PDF summary from the Court at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{"itemid":["003-7919428-11026177"]} that goes into more detail, although it would still help to be a lawyer to understand it! Most of the decision is saying various people don't have standing to bring a case. The ruling is pretty limited. It ultimately says:
"In this case, in the light of the complexity and the nature of the issues involved, the Court found that it could not be detailed or prescriptive as regards any measures to be implemented in order to effectively comply with the present judgment. Given the discretion accorded the State in this area, it considered that the Swiss Confederation, with the assistance of the Committee of Ministers, was better placed to assess the specific measures to be taken. It thus left it to the Committee of Ministers to supervise, on the basis of the information provided by the State, the adoption of measures aimed at ensuring that the national authorities comply with Convention requirements, as clarified in this judgment."
So, they're not instructing the Swiss government to do anything in particular. So what are they saying that's been done wrong?
"the Court found that there had been critical gaps in the process of putting in place the relevant domestic regulatory framework, including a failure by the Swiss authorities to quantify, through a carbon budget or otherwise, national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limitations. Furthermore, the Court noted that Switzerland had previously failed to meet its past GHG emission reduction targets. The Swiss authorities had not acted in time and in an appropriate way to devise and implement the relevant legislation and measures in accordance with their positive obligations pursuant to Article 8 of the Convention, which were of relevance in the context of climate change.
"The Swiss Confederation had therefore exceeded its discretion (“margin of appreciation”) and had failed to comply with its duties in this respect. There had therefore been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention."
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
The person in question appears to have lived in Bangladesh for over twenty years then moved to the UK two or three years ago on a student visa. After he arrived he moved to Oldham, so ‘from Oldham’ doesn’t feel right really. Had your brother lived in the place he was born for 22 years before moving to Britain in 2021, it would be perfectly normal to say he was ‘from’ his birthplace
What's the dividing line between 2-3 years and 22 years. When has someone "made it".
Common sense mainly
If people need a precise figure, the majority of one's childhood is a fair rule of thumb.
So my wife was born abroad but moved to the UK at age 18. She's a British citizen and has lived here now for decades, the majority of her life.
But she'll never be from England in your eyes?
I think this is another question where context matters. I'm convinced by Eabhal's answer. If your wife is talking to people while on holiday in the Mediterranean - then she's from England. If she's on a work training away day in Sheffield - then she's from Warrington. If she's chatting to the staff at Nando's in Warrington - then she's from wherever she was born and grew up.
The ambiguity with the BBC article is that it has multiple audiences, and so the context for the statement "from Oldham" isn't clear.
I wouldn't dream of telling any of the locals around here that I was from the area, but it would be accurate to say I was from where I'm living when I'm travelling away from home.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Everyone is from where they live.
When I go to work, or go to the shops, I go from my home.
I don't go from my birthplace.
In Scotland, there is a distinction between "where are you from?" and "and where do you stay?". I am from Worcestershire but I stay in Renfrewshire.
Where do you stand on the "this week/next week" axis?
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
I think self-identification is entirely normal.
Given Mr Masum has not been found to ask, we should use a more factual form of language than "from".
One thing I don't quite understand in this case is how someone can be in the UK on a student visa for a college in Bedfordshire and yet live in Oldham. Its almost as if the course wasn't the point.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
I would have thought ‘from’ was shorter version of ‘come from’. I come from the place I was born and spent my formative years. I don’t live there now, but that’s where I am from. Is it really so difficult to say you’re ‘from’ X but now live in Y? If you had more than one place when you were a kid, then you can just say you’re from both, it’s not as though you’re going to lose a prize by giving the wrong answer
In the case of Habibur Masum, is there any need to specify where he is from at all? It doesn’t really add anything to the story to say he’s ‘from Oldham’ anyway.
I'd also add that "from" could be an implied "come from today", or "come from this week" - the latter if on holiday, and the former if being greeted at a Royal reception, say.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
I think self-identification is entirely normal.
Given Mr Masum has not been found to ask, we should use a more factual form of language than "from".
One thing I don't quite understand in this case is how someone can be in the UK on a student visa for a college in Bedfordshire and yet live in Oldham. Its almost as if the course wasn't the point.
Distance learning?
Why the hell couldn't he distance learn from Bangladesh then? It's clearly complete abuse of the student immigration system. No wonder the left wants student visas excluded from the figures. Scrutiny here is unwelcome!
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
Can’t believe that every single manager that’s won the Premier League has been from England myself
I look forward to you winning the argument that Sir Alex Ferguson was from England....with Sir Alex.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
Indeed. And I imagine if you're non-white when you get asked the question in this country there's sometimes going to be a nasty taint of racism underlying it.
The taint of racism is when people say "where are you really from" meaning the place of your parents or grandparents. The place you grow up is where you are from. The place you live is... uh... where you live.
And if you grow up in various places for a few years each and then spend 20 years as an adult in a new location, are we then allowed to consider ourselves from that new place? Do we have to give a detailed bio of our childhood instead? Or pretend we are from wherever our parents were from?
It is weird that the people who complain about citizens of nowhere then also get offended when people attach their identity to a place.
The sort of people who retire to somewhere like a quiet village in Dorset and complain about immigrants at the same time as complaining that the locals don't accept them as real locals?
Davey had been minister for 5 minutes. Receives a letter about something he knew nothing about, asked the officials, sent the departmental response.
Tories would love the entire scandal to be his fault and his alone, but wishing won't be enough to save those blue wall seats. Voters are not stupid...
Are you listening to this testimony because it is nothing to do with the conservatives unless you are accusing Alan Bates of being one
We're talking about the initial exchange of letters in 2010 aren't we?
The Tories and their fellow travellers have been desperately trying to deflect the scandal away from them onto anyone else. For understandable reasons when you realise what they have been up to recently.
Sorry but you are just being partisan and my wife who is not political was not only astonished by the correspondence but was angry on how Davey responded to Alan Bates who she knew and was part of the community who shopped at his post office in Craig y don
I'm being partisan in calling out the Tories' partisan attack? The Tory media has been out trying to lump the entire thing on Davey whilst giving Badenoch and all the other Tory ministers an absolute free pass.
Was the Davey letter helpful? Absolutely not - as he has said repeatedly. But where is the contrition from any of the Tories? The only criticism is aimed at Davey and Starmer which is absurd as even you must agree with.
The point is it was todays testimony in the enquiry where all the correspondence between Alan Bates and Ed Davey was read out and discussed, and Davey did not come out of it well
Of course there are many other failings by politicians of all parties but today it was specifically the episode between Bates v Davey
At least Davey’s ‘fessed up. As has Jo Swinson, AIUI.
One of the things to note was that just before lunch Bates attempted to make the point that he blamed the Govt Department and the Civil Servants much more than the politicians - but I'm not sure if they are ever accountable.
Yes I mentioned numerous times here I am involved (supporting the campaign) in a similar scandal to the Post Office, but not as serious (nobody has gone to jail, but there are many parallels) and yes my experience is that it is the civil servants and Government Departments that are to blame. We have done extensive FOI on our scandal and that is very clear. Ministers are swamped with stuff, aren't experts and are not around long enough. They could be accused of not being curious enough but it is tough with so much stuff. From the FOI I was able to read the back up material and draft letter for the ministers prepared by the civil service. The letter has always been word for word to the one sent with little if no queries to the civil servants before sending it. They are usually tosh.
I think this exposes how useless and ineffectual ministers are in running department and I think that is the fault of the system. I also think it shows that civil servants are biased towards shutting stuff down rather than creating more work and scandals. I did have a conversation with an ex-minister, who rarely was appointed for their expertise (a Lords appointment). Their opinion of the competence of fellow ministers without departmental expertise was scathing.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
All hail Queen Sienna!
Lets have Number 5. And Queen Meghan. If we have to pay for this farce we may as well make it funny.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Thank you Frank Carson. It is indeed the way you tell 'em.
It's true though. If you look predictions about Brexit that predate the referendum, it was quite common for people to talk about how long it took for the EU to negotiate a trade deal with Canada and suggest that we would be on WTO terms for about 7 years in the interim. That was the position in the OECD's paper from April 2016.
I doubt anyone voted Brexit because they were in love with the idea of a Canada-style trade agreement with the EU. It was all the other goodies they were keen on - Global Britain, bonfire of red tape, immigration slashed, sovereignty returned so that UK politicians took responsibility etc. - none of which has so far materialized.
Sovereignty has been returned so that is materialised.
If you're not happy with our current government you can elect one which will change the rules.
That wasn't possible under EU rules.
Wait. We couldn't elect a different government of the UK while we were in the EU? Just as well we left.
The UK Government didn't set EU rules, so no we couldn't elect a different UK Government to change the rules set on a European basis.
Now we can.
Sovereignty.
Yes it's a good job we left. Now we just need to decide democratically what we want to do with our sovereignty.
The UK had input into EU rules. We still follow lots of EU rules, but now without having any input.
And most of these rules were and are exceedingly boring things like refrigerator standards.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
I think self-identification is entirely normal.
Given Mr Masum has not been found to ask, we should use a more factual form of language than "from".
One thing I don't quite understand in this case is how someone can be in the UK on a student visa for a college in Bedfordshire and yet live in Oldham. Its almost as if the course wasn't the point.
Distance learning?
It could well be, but in that case, what's the visa for?
An absolutely brilliant article in The Speccie by Gareth Roberts has crystallised everything I feel about the Tory Government.
The Telegraph reported at the weekend that the Conservative party appears to be attempting, in its selection process for parliamentary candidates, to weed out anybody who might just possibly be a conservative. This strategy – with all its ineptitude and wilful blindness – is a perfect capsule of the parliamentary party and its upper echelons...
This won’t be an encomium for Boris Johnson, who was one of the principal architects of the betrayal. He has the remarkable quality of being a totemic figure, a focus for other people’s dreams and nightmares. He was viewed as either a jovial Old King Cole or a callous idiot. But neither of these characterisations are remotely accurate. Take away the trappings and it turned out he was just another mediocre Blairite...
...It soon became apparent that, Brexit aside, the big problem remained. The Tory cabinet and parliamentary party was still stuffed with supposedly ‘sensible’ people who are, in fact, like their Labour and Lib Dem counterparts, the true extremists. But these are extremists with nice ties, shiny shoes and acceptably mad opinions.
Because it is extremist to derail the already moribund economy even further for the bizarre goal of net zero. It is extremist to have millions of people out of work and continue to import hundreds of thousands of extra people every year. It is extremist to tax and spend and quantitively ease like there’s no tomorrow. So yes, the Tories deserve very much to be punished.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
I think self-identification is entirely normal.
Given Mr Masum has not been found to ask, we should use a more factual form of language than "from".
One thing I don't quite understand in this case is how someone can be in the UK on a student visa for a college in Bedfordshire and yet live in Oldham. Its almost as if the course wasn't the point.
Distance learning?
Why the hell couldn't he distance learn from Bangladesh then? It's clearly complete abuse of the student immigration system. No wonder the left wants student visas excluded from the figures. Scrutiny here is unwelcome!
Courses can be mixed. Some elements need attendance, others not so close. Depends on the time of year and course. Even in the 1980s it was common to do that. Open University, professional training, etc. One can't draw conclusions a priori.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
You never know, there could be a King Ralph event
You only have to "lose" about 80 people and we can unite the British and Norwegian thrones. This will produce efficiency savings, albeit with some sharing of sovereignty.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
I think self-identification is entirely normal.
Given Mr Masum has not been found to ask, we should use a more factual form of language than "from".
One thing I don't quite understand in this case is how someone can be in the UK on a student visa for a college in Bedfordshire and yet live in Oldham. Its almost as if the course wasn't the point.
Distance learning?
Why the hell couldn't he distance learn from Bangladesh then? It's clearly complete abuse of the student immigration system. No wonder the left wants student visas excluded from the figures. Scrutiny here is unwelcome!
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
I think self-identification is entirely normal.
Given Mr Masum has not been found to ask, we should use a more factual form of language than "from".
One thing I don't quite understand in this case is how someone can be in the UK on a student visa for a college in Bedfordshire and yet live in Oldham. Its almost as if the course wasn't the point.
Distance learning?
Why the hell couldn't he distance learn from Bangladesh then? It's clearly complete abuse of the student immigration system. No wonder the left wants student visas excluded from the figures. Scrutiny here is unwelcome!
I discovered from chatting to one while being ‘looked after’ that student paramedics in the East of England undertake their professional and technical courses at the University of Cumbria. By distance learning!
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
The last bit sounds odd. You wouldn't include it.
The BBC didn’t say ‘lives’ though, they said ‘is from’
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
I tend to agree. I was born in London. Moved when I was 9 and since then have lived in Surrey, then Sussex and then Surrey again and 3 years in Manchester when at Uni and a few months in Cyprus on work.
If asked where I was from now I would say Surrey because that is where I live and not London where I was born, although I might clarify that. If asked when I was in Manchester or Cyprus I would not have said either of those places because they weren't permanent enough. But generally I am from where I live permanently now.
Yes I think the degree of permanence can play a role.
So is a student status permanent or not? Because I am always told student immigration is not permanent and should be thus excluded from immigration figures.
In the case of this Bangladeshi sicko, it does seem to be permanent. Which is why he used the student immigration system, and the University of Bedfordshire, as a way to move to Oldham.
Hmmm, I wonder where the Uni of Bedfordshire is based? Oh yes, Luton. A town with a self-segregated Bangladeshi community where they were selling Al-Qaeda videos in the street markets after 9/11. I am sure there isn't any concerted effort to bring in friends and relatives through the Uni of Bedfordshire happening at all.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
I think self-identification is entirely normal.
Given Mr Masum has not been found to ask, we should use a more factual form of language than "from".
One thing I don't quite understand in this case is how someone can be in the UK on a student visa for a college in Bedfordshire and yet live in Oldham. Its almost as if the course wasn't the point.
Distance learning?
Why the hell couldn't he distance learn from Bangladesh then? It's clearly complete abuse of the student immigration system. No wonder the left wants student visas excluded from the figures. Scrutiny here is unwelcome!
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
I think self-identification is entirely normal.
Given Mr Masum has not been found to ask, we should use a more factual form of language than "from".
One thing I don't quite understand in this case is how someone can be in the UK on a student visa for a college in Bedfordshire and yet live in Oldham. Its almost as if the course wasn't the point.
Distance learning?
Why the hell couldn't he distance learn from Bangladesh then? It's clearly complete abuse of the student immigration system. No wonder the left wants student visas excluded from the figures. Scrutiny here is unwelcome!
I discovered from chatting to one while being ‘looked after’ that student paramedics in the East of England undertake their professional and technical courses at the University of Cumbria. By distance learning!
It's astonishing. No distance learning course should be eligible for student visas. Grrrrr.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
So Harry is still fifth in line. What would his Dad say.
Surely he should be removed from the line of succession, seeing that he officially renounced his intention to undertake royal duties.
He isn't currently carrying out royal duties. He hasn't said, should 5 people die and he's next in line, that he wouldn't then pick up those duties.
An absolutely brilliant article in The Speccie by Gareth Roberts has crystallised everything I feel about the Tory Government.
The Telegraph reported at the weekend that the Conservative party appears to be attempting, in its selection process for parliamentary candidates, to weed out anybody who might just possibly be a conservative. This strategy – with all its ineptitude and wilful blindness – is a perfect capsule of the parliamentary party and its upper echelons...
This won’t be an encomium for Boris Johnson, who was one of the principal architects of the betrayal. He has the remarkable quality of being a totemic figure, a focus for other people’s dreams and nightmares. He was viewed as either a jovial Old King Cole or a callous idiot. But neither of these characterisations are remotely accurate. Take away the trappings and it turned out he was just another mediocre Blairite...
...It soon became apparent that, Brexit aside, the big problem remained. The Tory cabinet and parliamentary party was still stuffed with supposedly ‘sensible’ people who are, in fact, like their Labour and Lib Dem counterparts, the true extremists. But these are extremists with nice ties, shiny shoes and acceptably mad opinions.
Because it is extremist to derail the already moribund economy even further for the bizarre goal of net zero. It is extremist to have millions of people out of work and continue to import hundreds of thousands of extra people every year. It is extremist to tax and spend and quantitively ease like there’s no tomorrow. So yes, the Tories deserve very much to be punished.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
I think self-identification is entirely normal.
Given Mr Masum has not been found to ask, we should use a more factual form of language than "from".
One thing I don't quite understand in this case is how someone can be in the UK on a student visa for a college in Bedfordshire and yet live in Oldham. Its almost as if the course wasn't the point.
Distance learning?
Why the hell couldn't he distance learn from Bangladesh then? It's clearly complete abuse of the student immigration system. No wonder the left wants student visas excluded from the figures. Scrutiny here is unwelcome!
Courses can be mixed. Some elements need attendance, others not so close. Depends on the time of year and course. Even in the 1980s it was common to do that. Open University, professional training, etc. One can't draw conclusions a priori.
The guy can sod off back to Bangladesh while he does the distance learning bit then, can't he? But of course the media rarely looks into what is going on here. It is a bit like after the Grenfell tragedy, and it turned out an astonishing share of residents were illegal immigrants having their housing paid for by the taxpayer. Of course, that was an inappropriate time to talk about it, but it doesn't get reported the rest of the time. There is a conspiracy of silence on importing as many third worlders as possible by our left wing media.
I would have thought ‘from’ was shorter version of ‘come from’. I come from the place I was born and spent my formative years. I don’t live there now, but that’s where I am from. Is it really so difficult to say you’re ‘from’ X but now live in Y? If you had more than one place when you were a kid, then you can just say you’re from both, it’s not as though you’re going to lose a prize by giving the wrong answer
In the case of Habibur Masum, is there any need to specify where he is from at all? It doesn’t really add anything to the story to say he’s ‘from Oldham’ anyway.
The murder took place in Bradford; the suspect is from Oldham. This is somewhat standard police reporting. It means they are investigating in both places.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
So Harry is still fifth in line. What would his Dad say.
Surely he should be removed from the line of succession, seeing that he officially renounced his intention to undertake royal duties.
He isn't currently carrying out royal duties. He hasn't said, should 5 people die and he's next in line, that he wouldn't then pick up those duties.
Doesn't need 5 to die. Charles and William only. The Wales kids are too young and would be crowned with a regent doing the actual head of state role. Which is where Henry gets his fingers on the levers of power...
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
So Harry is still fifth in line. What would his Dad say.
Surely he should be removed from the line of succession, seeing that he officially renounced his intention to undertake royal duties.
He isn't currently carrying out royal duties. He hasn't said, should 5 people die and he's next in line, that he wouldn't then pick up those duties.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Everyone is from where they live.
When I go to work, or go to the shops, I go from my home.
I don't go from my birthplace.
I’ve lived in a place for nearly three years, and would never say I’m from there. I don’t think it’s as simple as you’re making out
"Hi, isam. Welcome to the PB face-to-face meeting. Where did you come from today?" Imagine being asked that. How would you answer? Wouldn't you answer based on where you had come from today, i.e. where you now live?
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
So Harry is still fifth in line. What would his Dad say.
Surely he should be removed from the line of succession, seeing that he officially renounced his intention to undertake royal duties.
He isn't currently carrying out royal duties. He hasn't said, should 5 people die and he's next in line, that he wouldn't then pick up those duties.
Doesn't need 5 to die. Charles and William only. The Wales kids are too young and would be crowned with a regent doing the actual head of state role. Which is where Henry gets his fingers on the levers of power...
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
So Harry is still fifth in line. What would his Dad say.
Surely he should be removed from the line of succession, seeing that he officially renounced his intention to undertake royal duties.
He isn't currently carrying out royal duties. He hasn't said, should 5 people die and he's next in line, that he wouldn't then pick up those duties.
Doesn't need 5 to die. Charles and William only. The Wales kids are too young and would be crowned with a regent doing the actual head of state role. Which is where Henry gets his fingers on the levers of power...
Doesn't need anyone to die, Wills could take the whole family out for a sunday to Westminster Cathedral...
An absolutely brilliant article in The Speccie by Gareth Roberts has crystallised everything I feel about the Tory Government.
The Telegraph reported at the weekend that the Conservative party appears to be attempting, in its selection process for parliamentary candidates, to weed out anybody who might just possibly be a conservative. This strategy – with all its ineptitude and wilful blindness – is a perfect capsule of the parliamentary party and its upper echelons...
This won’t be an encomium for Boris Johnson, who was one of the principal architects of the betrayal. He has the remarkable quality of being a totemic figure, a focus for other people’s dreams and nightmares. He was viewed as either a jovial Old King Cole or a callous idiot. But neither of these characterisations are remotely accurate. Take away the trappings and it turned out he was just another mediocre Blairite...
...It soon became apparent that, Brexit aside, the big problem remained. The Tory cabinet and parliamentary party was still stuffed with supposedly ‘sensible’ people who are, in fact, like their Labour and Lib Dem counterparts, the true extremists. But these are extremists with nice ties, shiny shoes and acceptably mad opinions.
Because it is extremist to derail the already moribund economy even further for the bizarre goal of net zero. It is extremist to have millions of people out of work and continue to import hundreds of thousands of extra people every year. It is extremist to tax and spend and quantitively ease like there’s no tomorrow. So yes, the Tories deserve very much to be punished.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
So Harry is still fifth in line. What would his Dad say.
Surely he should be removed from the line of succession, seeing that he officially renounced his intention to undertake royal duties.
He isn't currently carrying out royal duties. He hasn't said, should 5 people die and he's next in line, that he wouldn't then pick up those duties.
Doesn't need 5 to die. Charles and William only. The Wales kids are too young and would be crowned with a regent doing the actual head of state role. Which is where Henry gets his fingers on the levers of power...
I don't think the regent has to be next adult in line of succession. I wouldn't be surprised if Princess Anne got the job in that case as an experienced royal who knows the ropes.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
The last bit sounds odd. You wouldn't include it.
The BBC didn’t say ‘lives’ though, they said ‘is from’
Yep. And I was just explaining why in the context of this news story I took that to mean 'lives in'. Eg I didn't take it (which I think you are?) as the Beeb trying to imply he was born in Oldham.
An absolutely brilliant article in The Speccie by Gareth Roberts has crystallised everything I feel about the Tory Government.
The Telegraph reported at the weekend that the Conservative party appears to be attempting, in its selection process for parliamentary candidates, to weed out anybody who might just possibly be a conservative. This strategy – with all its ineptitude and wilful blindness – is a perfect capsule of the parliamentary party and its upper echelons...
This won’t be an encomium for Boris Johnson, who was one of the principal architects of the betrayal. He has the remarkable quality of being a totemic figure, a focus for other people’s dreams and nightmares. He was viewed as either a jovial Old King Cole or a callous idiot. But neither of these characterisations are remotely accurate. Take away the trappings and it turned out he was just another mediocre Blairite...
...It soon became apparent that, Brexit aside, the big problem remained. The Tory cabinet and parliamentary party was still stuffed with supposedly ‘sensible’ people who are, in fact, like their Labour and Lib Dem counterparts, the true extremists. But these are extremists with nice ties, shiny shoes and acceptably mad opinions.
Because it is extremist to derail the already moribund economy even further for the bizarre goal of net zero. It is extremist to have millions of people out of work and continue to import hundreds of thousands of extra people every year. It is extremist to tax and spend and quantitively ease like there’s no tomorrow. So yes, the Tories deserve very much to be punished.
Seems like just another 'The Tories have failed because they weren't right-wing enough' screed. Dr Who sounds about right for this guy. What planet are these people on?
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Everyone is from where they live.
When I go to work, or go to the shops, I go from my home.
I don't go from my birthplace.
I’ve lived in a place for nearly three years, and would never say I’m from there. I don’t think it’s as simple as you’re making out
"Hi, isam. Welcome to the PB face-to-face meeting. Where did you come from today?" Imagine being asked that. How would you answer? Wouldn't you answer based on where you had come from today, i.e. where you now live?
Obviously, as I had been asked where’d I’d traveled from that day. That’s completely different.
I’ll assume you are probably not stupid, so don’t be silly
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
The person in question appears to have lived in Bangladesh for over twenty years then moved to the UK two or three years ago on a student visa. After he arrived he moved to Oldham, so ‘from Oldham’ doesn’t feel right really. Had your brother lived in the place he was born for 22 years before moving to Britain in 2021, it would be perfectly normal to say he was ‘from’ his birthplace
What's the dividing line between 2-3 years and 22 years. When has someone "made it".
Common sense mainly
What's interesting is that there's no attempt to conceal the ethnic identity of this person - the concealment (if deliberate) is of his recent arrival. That feels like its being done so as to damoen down immigration as an electoral issue.
No. This is just the bog standard way people who have been arrested are described. Their place of residence is given.
An absolutely brilliant article in The Speccie by Gareth Roberts has crystallised everything I feel about the Tory Government.
The Telegraph reported at the weekend that the Conservative party appears to be attempting, in its selection process for parliamentary candidates, to weed out anybody who might just possibly be a conservative. This strategy – with all its ineptitude and wilful blindness – is a perfect capsule of the parliamentary party and its upper echelons...
This won’t be an encomium for Boris Johnson, who was one of the principal architects of the betrayal. He has the remarkable quality of being a totemic figure, a focus for other people’s dreams and nightmares. He was viewed as either a jovial Old King Cole or a callous idiot. But neither of these characterisations are remotely accurate. Take away the trappings and it turned out he was just another mediocre Blairite...
...It soon became apparent that, Brexit aside, the big problem remained. The Tory cabinet and parliamentary party was still stuffed with supposedly ‘sensible’ people who are, in fact, like their Labour and Lib Dem counterparts, the true extremists. But these are extremists with nice ties, shiny shoes and acceptably mad opinions.
Because it is extremist to derail the already moribund economy even further for the bizarre goal of net zero. It is extremist to have millions of people out of work and continue to import hundreds of thousands of extra people every year. It is extremist to tax and spend and quantitively ease like there’s no tomorrow. So yes, the Tories deserve very much to be punished.
Seems like just another 'The Tories have failed because they weren't right-wing enough' screed. Dr Who sounds about right for this guy. What planet are these people on?
A marginally more sane planet than the one that claims that they aren't centrist enough (after electing Sunak and Hunt) and if only they were more like the other three parties, they'd be on course for a stonking election victory.
I would have thought ‘from’ was shorter version of ‘come from’. I come from the place I was born and spent my formative years. I don’t live there now, but that’s where I am from. Is it really so difficult to say you’re ‘from’ X but now live in Y? If you had more than one place when you were a kid, then you can just say you’re from both, it’s not as though you’re going to lose a prize by giving the wrong answer
In the case of Habibur Masum, is there any need to specify where he is from at all? It doesn’t really add anything to the story to say he’s ‘from Oldham’ anyway.
Your formative years are all of your years not some of them. I'm affected by all of my experiences.
I'm not the same person today as I was before I had kids, or before I got married, or before I went to university. Every one of those has changed me. We constantly evolve, we don't stop changing at 18, life would be boring if it was.
I've lived in about a dozen towns and cities down the years. All of those are part of my background.
I'm originally from where I originally lived. I'm currently from where I currently live. My past is being from all of the places I've previously lived.
So level 3 includes NVQs. Not even the dogsh*t GNVQ. Back when I was at school we knew that NVQ stood for "Not Very Qualified". They were reserved for the thickos that couldn't get into sixth form and had to head to the useless community colleges in town.
And presumably those 15 hours can be remote learning too...
I would have thought ‘from’ was shorter version of ‘come from’. I come from the place I was born and spent my formative years. I don’t live there now, but that’s where I am from. Is it really so difficult to say you’re ‘from’ X but now live in Y? If you had more than one place when you were a kid, then you can just say you’re from both, it’s not as though you’re going to lose a prize by giving the wrong answer
In the case of Habibur Masum, is there any need to specify where he is from at all? It doesn’t really add anything to the story to say he’s ‘from Oldham’ anyway.
Your formative years are all of your years not some of them. I'm affected by all of my experiences.
I'm not the same person today as I was before I had kids, or before I got married, or before I went to university. Every one of those has changed me. We constantly evolve, we don't stop changing at 18, life would be boring if it was.
I've lived in about a dozen towns and cities down the years. All of those are part of my background.
I'm originally from where I originally lived. I'm currently from where I currently live. My past is being from all of the places I've previously lived.
Very boring now. I almost forgot what a bunch of weirdos PBers were
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
The person in question appears to have lived in Bangladesh for over twenty years then moved to the UK two or three years ago on a student visa. After he arrived he moved to Oldham, so ‘from Oldham’ doesn’t feel right really. Had your brother lived in the place he was born for 22 years before moving to Britain in 2021, it would be perfectly normal to say he was ‘from’ his birthplace
What's the dividing line between 2-3 years and 22 years. When has someone "made it".
Common sense mainly
What's interesting is that there's no attempt to conceal the ethnic identity of this person - the concealment (if deliberate) is of his recent arrival. That feels like its being done so as to damoen down immigration as an electoral issue.
No. This is just the bog standard way people who have been arrested are described. Their place of residence is given.
Yes, it could be that, but the comparative rarity of killings by those with a temporary residency status (with a defined end) means there isn't much precedent to go on.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
The last bit sounds odd. You wouldn't include it.
The BBC didn’t say ‘lives’ though, they said ‘is from’
Yep. And I was just explaining why in the context of this news story I took that to mean 'lives in'. Eg I didn't take it (which I think you are?) as the Beeb trying to imply he was born in Oldham.
Reporting should be clear and unambiguous.
"From" is ambiguous as witnessed by this discussion.
An absolutely brilliant article in The Speccie by Gareth Roberts has crystallised everything I feel about the Tory Government.
The Telegraph reported at the weekend that the Conservative party appears to be attempting, in its selection process for parliamentary candidates, to weed out anybody who might just possibly be a conservative. This strategy – with all its ineptitude and wilful blindness – is a perfect capsule of the parliamentary party and its upper echelons...
This won’t be an encomium for Boris Johnson, who was one of the principal architects of the betrayal. He has the remarkable quality of being a totemic figure, a focus for other people’s dreams and nightmares. He was viewed as either a jovial Old King Cole or a callous idiot. But neither of these characterisations are remotely accurate. Take away the trappings and it turned out he was just another mediocre Blairite...
...It soon became apparent that, Brexit aside, the big problem remained. The Tory cabinet and parliamentary party was still stuffed with supposedly ‘sensible’ people who are, in fact, like their Labour and Lib Dem counterparts, the true extremists. But these are extremists with nice ties, shiny shoes and acceptably mad opinions.
Because it is extremist to derail the already moribund economy even further for the bizarre goal of net zero. It is extremist to have millions of people out of work and continue to import hundreds of thousands of extra people every year. It is extremist to tax and spend and quantitively ease like there’s no tomorrow. So yes, the Tories deserve very much to be punished.
Seems like just another 'The Tories have failed because they weren't right-wing enough' screed. Dr Who sounds about right for this guy. What planet are these people on?
Oh, it's that Gareth Roberts. He was a lovely guy back in the day when he was writing Dr Who books, used to see him at the Tav, but he became very radicalised by trans issues.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
The person in question appears to have lived in Bangladesh for over twenty years then moved to the UK two or three years ago on a student visa. After he arrived he moved to Oldham, so ‘from Oldham’ doesn’t feel right really. Had your brother lived in the place he was born for 22 years before moving to Britain in 2021, it would be perfectly normal to say he was ‘from’ his birthplace
What's the dividing line between 2-3 years and 22 years. When has someone "made it".
Common sense mainly
What's interesting is that there's no attempt to conceal the ethnic identity of this person - the concealment (if deliberate) is of his recent arrival. That feels like its being done so as to damoen down immigration as an electoral issue.
Also, the people claiming he is accurately "from" Oldham are the same people that claim student immigration isn't really immigration, because they are due to go home after three years.
Really? Who has said that because I absolutely never have.
It's not true.
A significant proportion of people who arrive on temporary visas end up staying permanently and legally. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
I would have thought ‘from’ was shorter version of ‘come from’. I come from the place I was born and spent my formative years. I don’t live there now, but that’s where I am from. Is it really so difficult to say you’re ‘from’ X but now live in Y? If you had more than one place when you were a kid, then you can just say you’re from both, it’s not as though you’re going to lose a prize by giving the wrong answer
In the case of Habibur Masum, is there any need to specify where he is from at all? It doesn’t really add anything to the story to say he’s ‘from Oldham’ anyway.
I'm not the same person today as I was before I had kids, or before I got married, or before I went to university. Every one of those has changed me. We constantly evolve, we don't stop changing at 18, life would be boring if it was.
I would have thought ‘from’ was shorter version of ‘come from’. I come from the place I was born and spent my formative years. I don’t live there now, but that’s where I am from. Is it really so difficult to say you’re ‘from’ X but now live in Y? If you had more than one place when you were a kid, then you can just say you’re from both, it’s not as though you’re going to lose a prize by giving the wrong answer
In the case of Habibur Masum, is there any need to specify where he is from at all? It doesn’t really add anything to the story to say he’s ‘from Oldham’ anyway.
I'm not the same person today as I was before I had kids, or before I got married, or before I went to university. Every one of those has changed me. We constantly evolve, we don't stop changing at 18, life would be boring if it was.
You were a rabid EU-phile back then?
Yes. I wanted us to join the Single Currency when it launched. I was pro EU until 2016.
I changed my vote in part based on discussions here.
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
The last bit sounds odd. You wouldn't include it.
The BBC didn’t say ‘lives’ though, they said ‘is from’
Yep. And I was just explaining why in the context of this news story I took that to mean 'lives in'. Eg I didn't take it (which I think you are?) as the Beeb trying to imply he was born in Oldham.
Reporting should be clear and unambiguous.
"From" is ambiguous as witnessed by this discussion.
"Lives in" is not.
Why not use the latter? It doesn't cost much.
The suspect came from Oldham to commit the crime. When a visitor attraction asks where I'm from for their marketing I'll say I'm from Scotland and I came by train, car etc. I'm not going to go into my residence status or national identity.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
The person in question appears to have lived in Bangladesh for over twenty years then moved to the UK two or three years ago on a student visa. After he arrived he moved to Oldham, so ‘from Oldham’ doesn’t feel right really. Had your brother lived in the place he was born for 22 years before moving to Britain in 2021, it would be perfectly normal to say he was ‘from’ his birthplace
What's the dividing line between 2-3 years and 22 years. When has someone "made it".
Common sense mainly
What's interesting is that there's no attempt to conceal the ethnic identity of this person - the concealment (if deliberate) is of his recent arrival. That feels like its being done so as to damoen down immigration as an electoral issue.
Also, the people claiming he is accurately "from" Oldham are the same people that claim student immigration isn't really immigration, because they are due to go home after three years.
Really? Who has said that because I absolutely never have.
It's not true.
A significant proportion of people who arrive on temporary visas end up staying permanently and legally. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
I think the figure for student visas is that about 17% end up staying permanently, but the number has been going down.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
So Harry is still fifth in line. What would his Dad say.
Surely he should be removed from the line of succession, seeing that he officially renounced his intention to undertake royal duties.
He isn't currently carrying out royal duties. He hasn't said, should 5 people die and he's next in line, that he wouldn't then pick up those duties.
Doesn't need 5 to die. Charles and William only. The Wales kids are too young and would be crowned with a regent doing the actual head of state role. Which is where Henry gets his fingers on the levers of power...
Section 3(2) of the Regency Act 1937 requires the Regent to be resident in the United Kingdom. Which could be interesting. In any event I would expect Parliament to pass a new Regency Act to avoid the problem and install Edward or Anne.
I think they'd probably make Truss Regent, but I'm probably in a minority there.
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
No amount of sophistry about Ukraine 'provoking' Russia, or being 'equally corrupt', or 'unwilling to seek peace', changes that.
Absolutely. And of course, any territorial concessions by Ukraine will result in hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, being handed over to Russian martial law and a campaign of torture, rape and child abduction. Russia is 1930s Germany. Do we keep on muddling on, blaming the Yanks for their delays? Or do we say, no, we are Great Britain, we stand for democracy and the rule of law and we stand up tyrants?
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
The last bit sounds odd. You wouldn't include it.
The BBC didn’t say ‘lives’ though, they said ‘is from’
Yep. And I was just explaining why in the context of this news story I took that to mean 'lives in'. Eg I didn't take it (which I think you are?) as the Beeb trying to imply he was born in Oldham.
Reporting should be clear and unambiguous.
"From" is ambiguous as witnessed by this discussion.
"Lives in" is not.
Why not use the latter? It doesn't cost much.
Agreed. But is this an example of BBC disinformation trying to cover up that the guy is a migrant? IMO that's rather a lot to read into those 2 words 'from Oldham'.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
This is the quote; it is not disinformation. It's in relation to the fact that the murder was in Bradford, and the alleged perpetrator has been previously charged with threats and violence against the victim. ..Court documents show Mr Masum, who is from Oldham, was charged with threatening to kill Ms Akter on 24 November and assaulting her on 23 November. Both offences were alleged to have happened in Manchester...
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
The last bit sounds odd. You wouldn't include it.
The BBC didn’t say ‘lives’ though, they said ‘is from’
Yep. And I was just explaining why in the context of this news story I took that to mean 'lives in'. Eg I didn't take it (which I think you are?) as the Beeb trying to imply he was born in Oldham.
Reporting should be clear and unambiguous.
"From" is ambiguous as witnessed by this discussion.
"Lives in" is not.
Why not use the latter? It doesn't cost much.
Agreed. But is this an example of BBC disinformation trying to cover up that the guy is a migrant? IMO that's rather a lot to read into those 2 words 'from Oldham'.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
So Harry is still fifth in line. What would his Dad say.
Surely he should be removed from the line of succession, seeing that he officially renounced his intention to undertake royal duties.
He isn't currently carrying out royal duties. He hasn't said, should 5 people die and he's next in line, that he wouldn't then pick up those duties.
Doesn't need 5 to die. Charles and William only. The Wales kids are too young and would be crowned with a regent doing the actual head of state role. Which is where Henry gets his fingers on the levers of power...
Section 3(2) of the Regency Act 1937 requires the Regent to be resident in the United Kingdom. Which could be interesting. In any event I would expect Parliament to pass a new Regency Act to avoid the problem and install Edward or Anne.
I think they'd probably make Truss Regent, but I'm probably in a minority there.
Hah! Hilarious. If Harry was excluded from the regency by virtue of his domicile in the States then Prince Andrew becomes regent under the current Act, which I am now even more certain would be amended. In favour of Truss.
I would have thought ‘from’ was shorter version of ‘come from’. I come from the place I was born and spent my formative years. I don’t live there now, but that’s where I am from. Is it really so difficult to say you’re ‘from’ X but now live in Y? If you had more than one place when you were a kid, then you can just say you’re from both, it’s not as though you’re going to lose a prize by giving the wrong answer
In the case of Habibur Masum, is there any need to specify where he is from at all? It doesn’t really add anything to the story to say he’s ‘from Oldham’ anyway.
I'm not the same person today as I was before I had kids, or before I got married, or before I went to university. Every one of those has changed me. We constantly evolve, we don't stop changing at 18, life would be boring if it was.
You were a rabid EU-phile back then?
Yes. I wanted us to join the Single Currency when it launched. I was pro EU until 2016.
I changed my vote in part based on discussions here.
My pro EU rants can be a bit much sometimes so I'm not surprised I helped turn you.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
The last bit sounds odd. You wouldn't include it.
The BBC didn’t say ‘lives’ though, they said ‘is from’
Yep. And I was just explaining why in the context of this news story I took that to mean 'lives in'. Eg I didn't take it (which I think you are?) as the Beeb trying to imply he was born in Oldham.
Reporting should be clear and unambiguous.
"From" is ambiguous as witnessed by this discussion.
"Lives in" is not.
Why not use the latter? It doesn't cost much.
Agreed. But is this an example of BBC disinformation trying to cover up that the guy is a migrant? IMO that's rather a lot to read into those 2 words 'from Oldham'.
It's total delusion and paranoia. "From" in the context of a police crime report just means where they are resident, nothing more, nothing less. If I stabbed someone I would be reported as "a 48 year old man from South East London". I was not born in South East London.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
I think self-identification is entirely normal.
Given Mr Masum has not been found to ask, we should use a more factual form of language than "from".
One thing I don't quite understand in this case is how someone can be in the UK on a student visa for a college in Bedfordshire and yet live in Oldham. Its almost as if the course wasn't the point.
Distance learning?
Why the hell couldn't he distance learn from Bangladesh then? It's clearly complete abuse of the student immigration system. No wonder the left wants student visas excluded from the figures. Scrutiny here is unwelcome!
Courses can be mixed. Some elements need attendance, others not so close. Depends on the time of year and course. Even in the 1980s it was common to do that. Open University, professional training, etc. One can't draw conclusions a priori.
The guy can sod off back to Bangladesh while he does the distance learning bit then, can't he? But of course the media rarely looks into what is going on here. It is a bit like after the Grenfell tragedy, and it turned out an astonishing share of residents were illegal immigrants having their housing paid for by the taxpayer. Of course, that was an inappropriate time to talk about it, but it doesn't get reported the rest of the time. There is a conspiracy of silence on importing as many third worlders as possible by our left wing media.
Have you considered the alternative possibility he's staying with rellies during vacation? No?
Lots of possibilities - a bit early to get aerated till we know more.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
So Harry is still fifth in line. What would his Dad say.
Surely he should be removed from the line of succession, seeing that he officially renounced his intention to undertake royal duties.
He isn't currently carrying out royal duties. He hasn't said, should 5 people die and he's next in line, that he wouldn't then pick up those duties.
Doesn't need 5 to die. Charles and William only. The Wales kids are too young and would be crowned with a regent doing the actual head of state role. Which is where Henry gets his fingers on the levers of power...
Section 3(2) of the Regency Act 1937 requires the Regent to be resident in the United Kingdom. Which could be interesting. In any event I would expect Parliament to pass a new Regency Act to avoid the problem and install Edward or Anne.
I think they'd probably make Truss Regent, but I'm probably in a minority there.
Hah! Hilarious. If Harry was excluded from the regency by virtue of his domicile in the States then Prince Andrew becomes regent under the current Act, which I am now even more certain would be amended. In favour of Truss.
It would be TRUSS for certain, in some ways it already is. Many millions here, and around the world at large, consider her the true Queen of England. It is a mere half step to make that official, and one that the Waleses, Harry, and Meghan, are considering, and are probably determined to effect.
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
No amount of sophistry about Ukraine 'provoking' Russia, or being 'equally corrupt', or 'unwilling to seek peace', changes that.
I think you get a better sense of what Russia is doing to Ukraine if you consider it as a crime not a war. Ditto Hamas on Oct 7th and some of Israel's response to it in Gaza. "War" imbues these acts with a kind of geopolitical sheen which is distorting and unmerited.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
All hail Queen Sienna!
I've just spent several minutes trying to work out who the Duke of Edinburgh is!
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
So Harry is still fifth in line. What would his Dad say.
Surely he should be removed from the line of succession, seeing that he officially renounced his intention to undertake royal duties.
He isn't currently carrying out royal duties. He hasn't said, should 5 people die and he's next in line, that he wouldn't then pick up those duties.
Doesn't need 5 to die. Charles and William only. The Wales kids are too young and would be crowned with a regent doing the actual head of state role. Which is where Henry gets his fingers on the levers of power...
Section 3(2) of the Regency Act 1937 requires the Regent to be resident in the United Kingdom. Which could be interesting. In any event I would expect Parliament to pass a new Regency Act to avoid the problem and install Edward or Anne.
I think they'd probably make Truss Regent, but I'm probably in a minority there.
Hah! Hilarious. If Harry was excluded from the regency by virtue of his domicile in the States then Prince Andrew becomes regent under the current Act, which I am now even more certain would be amended. In favour of Truss.
It would be TRUSS for certain, in some ways it already is. Many millions here, and around the world at large, consider her the true Queen of England. It is a mere half step to make that official, and one that the Waleses, Harry, and Meghan, are considering, and are probably determined to effect.
To rescue the Commonwealth, her plan is to become Lord Protector.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
The last bit sounds odd. You wouldn't include it.
The BBC didn’t say ‘lives’ though, they said ‘is from’
Yep. And I was just explaining why in the context of this news story I took that to mean 'lives in'. Eg I didn't take it (which I think you are?) as the Beeb trying to imply he was born in Oldham.
Reporting should be clear and unambiguous.
"From" is ambiguous as witnessed by this discussion.
"Lives in" is not.
Why not use the latter? It doesn't cost much.
The suspect came from Oldham to commit the crime. When a visitor attraction asks where I'm from for their marketing I'll say I'm from Scotland and I came by train, car etc. I'm not going to go into my residence status or national identity.
IIRC the surveys are careful to ask "where did you come from today if it's a day trip", making provision for stays on holiday, and so on. Precisely to avoid this sort of thing.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
The last bit sounds odd. You wouldn't include it.
The BBC didn’t say ‘lives’ though, they said ‘is from’
Yep. And I was just explaining why in the context of this news story I took that to mean 'lives in'. Eg I didn't take it (which I think you are?) as the Beeb trying to imply he was born in Oldham.
Reporting should be clear and unambiguous.
"From" is ambiguous as witnessed by this discussion.
"Lives in" is not.
Why not use the latter? It doesn't cost much.
Agreed. But is this an example of BBC disinformation trying to cover up that the guy is a migrant? IMO that's rather a lot to read into those 2 words 'from Oldham'.
They are quoting "court documents".
Without quotation marks.
If anything, the commas make ‘who is from Oldham’ seem like the BBCs words rather than court documents.
“ Court documents show Mr Masum, who is from Oldham, was charged with threatening to kill Ms Akter on 24 November and assaulting her on 23 November. Both offences were alleged to have happened in Manchester...”
In any case, it would be more accurate to say ‘who is from Bangladesh and living in Oldham on a student visa’. He’s not a UK citizen, he is literally a temporary guest in our country. It’s not doing him down or being ‘blood & soil’ this that the other to say he’s not ‘from Oldham’ in the way everyone seems to be falling over themselves to take offence about
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
This is the quote; it is not disinformation. It's in relation to the fact that the murder was in Bradford, and the alleged perpetrator has been previously charged with threats and violence against the victim. ..Court documents show Mr Masum, who is from Oldham, was charged with threatening to kill Ms Akter on 24 November and assaulting her on 23 November. Both offences were alleged to have happened in Manchester...
If there's a fault in the BBC reporting, it's more likely lack of good journalistic capacity to provide more detail quickly.
Had Islam said they ought to include the facts about his immigration status, he'd have a reasonable point.
Notable that he jumped on that and called it 'disinformation', while ignoring the obvious failure of the police and courts to prevent what was quite possibly preventable.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
The last bit sounds odd. You wouldn't include it.
The BBC didn’t say ‘lives’ though, they said ‘is from’
Yep. And I was just explaining why in the context of this news story I took that to mean 'lives in'. Eg I didn't take it (which I think you are?) as the Beeb trying to imply he was born in Oldham.
Reporting should be clear and unambiguous.
"From" is ambiguous as witnessed by this discussion.
"Lives in" is not.
Why not use the latter? It doesn't cost much.
Agreed. But is this an example of BBC disinformation trying to cover up that the guy is a migrant? IMO that's rather a lot to read into those 2 words 'from Oldham'.
They are quoting "court documents".
Right. That too. So I think we can conclude this now. BBC report flawless. Complaints unfounded. We've been through it very thoroughly and we've got there. PB at its best.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
All hail Queen Sienna!
I've just spent several minutes trying to work out who the Duke of Edinburgh is!
Yes, it's so confusing. If they'd said the Earl of Forfar everyone would understand at once.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
This is the quote; it is not disinformation. It's in relation to the fact that the murder was in Bradford, and the alleged perpetrator has been previously charged with threats and violence against the victim. ..Court documents show Mr Masum, who is from Oldham, was charged with threatening to kill Ms Akter on 24 November and assaulting her on 23 November. Both offences were alleged to have happened in Manchester...
If there's a fault in the BBC reporting, it's more likely lack of good journalistic capacity to provide more detail quickly.
Had Islam said they ought to include the facts about his immigration status, he'd have a reasonable point.
Notable that he jumped on that and called it 'disinformation', while ignoring the obvious failure of the police and courts to prevent what was quite possibly preventable.
Thank you, in fact I do that in the post preceding this one of your I’m replying to
It’s not notable that I jumped on it and called it anything, those words are from someone else; a tweet I shared.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
So Harry is still fifth in line. What would his Dad say.
Surely he should be removed from the line of succession, seeing that he officially renounced his intention to undertake royal duties.
He isn't currently carrying out royal duties. He hasn't said, should 5 people die and he's next in line, that he wouldn't then pick up those duties.
Doesn't need 5 to die. Charles and William only. The Wales kids are too young and would be crowned with a regent doing the actual head of state role. Which is where Henry gets his fingers on the levers of power...
Section 3(2) of the Regency Act 1937 requires the Regent to be resident in the United Kingdom. Which could be interesting. In any event I would expect Parliament to pass a new Regency Act to avoid the problem and install Edward or Anne.
I think they'd probably make Truss Regent, but I'm probably in a minority there.
Hah! Hilarious. If Harry was excluded from the regency by virtue of his domicile in the States then Prince Andrew becomes regent under the current Act, which I am now even more certain would be amended. In favour of Truss.
It would be TRUSS for certain, in some ways it already is. Many millions here, and around the world at large, consider her the true Queen of England. It is a mere half step to make that official, and one that the Waleses, Harry, and Meghan, are considering, and are probably determined to effect.
To rescue the Commonwealth, her plan is to become Lord Protector.
If Boris wasn't incapable of telling the truth, then his basic instincts (whether on vaccines, Ukraine, or a realization that you had to get Brexit over the line) would have stood him in good stead.
Getting Brexit over the line is the greatest policy disaster in living memory.
The only reason BoZo pursued it was to get the crown, which he then befouled.
I think that's going a little far. But I think the point is 'getting Brexit over the line' was far better than the purgatory of having voted out but not having done a deal. Even if the deal was very poor.
This is correct.
Not making a choice is itself a choice. The wound had to be cauterized. And yes, for tens of millions of Remain supporters, that absolutely sucked. But the alternatives - i.e. a second vote or somehow remaining in a not in / not out state - were not realistic.
Remain - or should I say Rejoin - supporters have an opportunity now. They can campaign for us to Rejoin, or they could campaign for closer links to the EU. Heck, I would probably support the latter position.
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
No amount of sophistry about Ukraine 'provoking' Russia, or being 'equally corrupt', or 'unwilling to seek peace', changes that.
I think you get a better sense of what Russia is doing to Ukraine if you consider it as a crime not a war. Ditto Hamas on Oct 7th and some of Israel's response to it in Gaza. "War" imbues these acts with a kind of geopolitical sheen which is distorting and unmerited.
That's why international law talks about 'armed conflict' and not 'war'.
"Netanel Isaac, the director general of the Ministry of Jerusalem Affairs and Heritage, delivered a speech in honour of the heifers’ arrival at Ben Gurion airport in September 2022 and admitted that the ministry has been funding the development of the Mount of Olives area where the ceremony is planned."
...
"In a video from January posted on Boneh Israel’s website, Michael Samuel Smith, a Christian preacher working to bring forth the temple prophecy, said the red heifers they have been raising in Shiloh have come of sacrificial age.
“This is the first time in nearly 2,000 years a successful red heifer has come about,” Smith said in the video. “It is still our opinion the first successful red heifer sacrifice will take place in the spring of 2024 around the Passover to Pentecost timeframe.
“We believe God is going to reveal himself through the efforts of this future event. It is truly a sign of the times, most especially for Jews in Israel.”
Passover will be towards the end of April while Pentecost is in mid-May."
Those who are inclined to believe that this is no more than empty ranting by a tiny scene of religious nutcases should pay attention to the current make-up of the Netanyahu administration and in particular to which political parties have supplied the minister of finance (Bezalel Smotrich, who also has a post in the defence ministry) and the minister of national security (Itamar Ben Gvir). These were the guys who recently threatened to bring down the government. That was in between the withdrawal of many Israeli ground forces from southern Gaza ... and the moment when Netanyahu said hell yeah we're gonna go into Rafah and we got a date too.
Smotrich has said there is no such thing as the Palestinian people and that Palestinians should choose between 1. deportation, 2. subjugation, or 3. being killed. He apologised after he called for Huwara, a town on the West Bank, to be "erased", but the question is why someone like him is a government minister.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
The last bit sounds odd. You wouldn't include it.
The BBC didn’t say ‘lives’ though, they said ‘is from’
Yep. And I was just explaining why in the context of this news story I took that to mean 'lives in'. Eg I didn't take it (which I think you are?) as the Beeb trying to imply he was born in Oldham.
Reporting should be clear and unambiguous.
"From" is ambiguous as witnessed by this discussion.
"Lives in" is not.
Why not use the latter? It doesn't cost much.
Agreed. But is this an example of BBC disinformation trying to cover up that the guy is a migrant? IMO that's rather a lot to read into those 2 words 'from Oldham'.
They are quoting "court documents".
Right. That too. So I think we can conclude this now. BBC report flawless. Complaints unfounded. We've been through it very thoroughly and we've got there. PB at its best.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
The person in question appears to have lived in Bangladesh for over twenty years then moved to the UK two or three years ago on a student visa. After he arrived he moved to Oldham, so ‘from Oldham’ doesn’t feel right really. Had your brother lived in the place he was born for 22 years before moving to Britain in 2021, it would be perfectly normal to say he was ‘from’ his birthplace
What's the dividing line between 2-3 years and 22 years. When has someone "made it".
Common sense mainly
What's interesting is that there's no attempt to conceal the ethnic identity of this person - the concealment (if deliberate) is of his recent arrival. That feels like its being done so as to damoen down immigration as an electoral issue.
Also, the people claiming he is accurately "from" Oldham are the same people that claim student immigration isn't really immigration, because they are due to go home after three years.
Really? Who has said that because I absolutely never have.
It's not true.
A significant proportion of people who arrive on temporary visas end up staying permanently and legally. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
I think the figure for student visas is that about 17% end up staying permanently, but the number has been going down.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
This is the quote; it is not disinformation. It's in relation to the fact that the murder was in Bradford, and the alleged perpetrator has been previously charged with threats and violence against the victim. ..Court documents show Mr Masum, who is from Oldham, was charged with threatening to kill Ms Akter on 24 November and assaulting her on 23 November. Both offences were alleged to have happened in Manchester...
If there's a fault in the BBC reporting, it's more likely lack of good journalistic capacity to provide more detail quickly.
Had Islam said they ought to include the facts about his immigration status, he'd have a reasonable point.
Notable that he jumped on that and called it 'disinformation', while ignoring the obvious failure of the police and courts to prevent what was quite possibly preventable.
Thank you, in fact I do that in the post preceding this one of your I’m replying to
It’s not notable that I jumped on it and called it anything, those words are from someone else; a tweet I shared.
Fair enough; I jumped in late and haven't read the whole thread.
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
No amount of sophistry about Ukraine 'provoking' Russia, or being 'equally corrupt', or 'unwilling to seek peace', changes that.
I think you get a better sense of what Russia is doing to Ukraine if you consider it as a crime not a war. Ditto Hamas on Oct 7th and some of Israel's response to it in Gaza. "War" imbues these acts with a kind of geopolitical sheen which is distorting and unmerited.
You pays your money. HMF in NI went to great lengths to avoid calling The Troubles a war and PIRA were criminals not warriors.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
The person in question appears to have lived in Bangladesh for over twenty years then moved to the UK two or three years ago on a student visa. After he arrived he moved to Oldham, so ‘from Oldham’ doesn’t feel right really. Had your brother lived in the place he was born for 22 years before moving to Britain in 2021, it would be perfectly normal to say he was ‘from’ his birthplace
What's the dividing line between 2-3 years and 22 years. When has someone "made it".
Common sense mainly
What's interesting is that there's no attempt to conceal the ethnic identity of this person - the concealment (if deliberate) is of his recent arrival. That feels like its being done so as to damoen down immigration as an electoral issue.
Also, the people claiming he is accurately "from" Oldham are the same people that claim student immigration isn't really immigration, because they are due to go home after three years.
Really? Who has said that because I absolutely never have.
It's not true.
A significant proportion of people who arrive on temporary visas end up staying permanently and legally. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
I think the figure for student visas is that about 17% end up staying permanently, but the number has been going down.
According to that data 61% left, 35% stayed and 3% is unknown.
The remaining one percent presumably being rounding.
I'd count everyone who stays as staying, though they may indeed subsequently emigrate.
And, of course, the increase in foreign student numbers probably also causes some emigration of Brits. My Head of Marketing went to St Andrews where she met an American student, and the two are now married and she lives in Seattle.
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
No amount of sophistry about Ukraine 'provoking' Russia, or being 'equally corrupt', or 'unwilling to seek peace', changes that.
I think you get a better sense of what Russia is doing to Ukraine if you consider it as a crime not a war. Ditto Hamas on Oct 7th and some of Israel's response to it in Gaza. "War" imbues these acts with a kind of geopolitical sheen which is distorting and unmerited.
That's why international law talks about 'armed conflict' and not 'war'.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
The last bit sounds odd. You wouldn't include it.
The BBC didn’t say ‘lives’ though, they said ‘is from’
Yep. And I was just explaining why in the context of this news story I took that to mean 'lives in'. Eg I didn't take it (which I think you are?) as the Beeb trying to imply he was born in Oldham.
Reporting should be clear and unambiguous.
"From" is ambiguous as witnessed by this discussion.
"Lives in" is not.
Why not use the latter? It doesn't cost much.
Agreed. But is this an example of BBC disinformation trying to cover up that the guy is a migrant? IMO that's rather a lot to read into those 2 words 'from Oldham'.
It's not disinformation and they're not covering anything up. It's meant to make the blood of white racists boil - the blood of the kind of dickheads who whenever they read in the media that someone has murdered someone else they wonder whether the murderer may be non-white. If it turns out that he is, they think "No surprise there. It's about time a government did something. These people come over here and act as though they own the place." I.e. about 50% of the electorate, or perhaps I should say 52%? Of course I may be completely wrong and in fact there's no-one at the state broadcaster who understands its audience because they're too busy training up their "awareness". Of course if it turns out the murderer is white like Wayne Couzens or Harold Shipman those who belong to this enormous audience segment don't even think about his skin colour.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I took it to mean 'lives in' because a news story wouldn't usually say where the people who feature in it were born.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
The last bit sounds odd. You wouldn't include it.
The BBC didn’t say ‘lives’ though, they said ‘is from’
Yep. And I was just explaining why in the context of this news story I took that to mean 'lives in'. Eg I didn't take it (which I think you are?) as the Beeb trying to imply he was born in Oldham.
Reporting should be clear and unambiguous.
"From" is ambiguous as witnessed by this discussion.
"Lives in" is not.
Why not use the latter? It doesn't cost much.
Agreed. But is this an example of BBC disinformation trying to cover up that the guy is a migrant? IMO that's rather a lot to read into those 2 words 'from Oldham'.
They are quoting "court documents".
Without quotation marks.
If anything, the commas make ‘who is from Oldham’ seem like the BBCs words rather than court documents.
“ Court documents show Mr Masum, who is from Oldham, was charged with threatening to kill Ms Akter on 24 November and assaulting her on 23 November. Both offences were alleged to have happened in Manchester...”
In any case, it would be more accurate to say ‘who is from Bangladesh and living in Oldham on a student visa’. He’s not a UK citizen, he is literally a temporary guest in our country. It’s not doing him down or being ‘blood & soil’ this that the other to say he’s not ‘from Oldham’ in the way everyone seems to be falling over themselves to take offence about
Is this really worth all the faff. I doubt the BBC has done anything other than quote the police report or court documents the convention of which is to state where the person resides.
They (the police, court) probably don't do a deep dive into the perp's socio-geo-cultural origins.
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
No amount of sophistry about Ukraine 'provoking' Russia, or being 'equally corrupt', or 'unwilling to seek peace', changes that.
I think you get a better sense of what Russia is doing to Ukraine if you consider it as a crime not a war. Ditto Hamas on Oct 7th and some of Israel's response to it in Gaza. "War" imbues these acts with a kind of geopolitical sheen which is distorting and unmerited.
You pays your money. HMF in NI went to great lengths to avoid calling The Troubles a war and PIRA were criminals not warriors.
Well they were criminals. It was also, though, an armed conflict.
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
No amount of sophistry about Ukraine 'provoking' Russia, or being 'equally corrupt', or 'unwilling to seek peace', changes that.
Absolutely. And of course, any territorial concessions by Ukraine will result in hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, being handed over to Russian martial law and a campaign of torture, rape and child abduction. Russia is 1930s Germany. Do we keep on muddling on, blaming the Yanks for their delays? Or do we say, no, we are Great Britain, we stand for democracy and the rule of law and we stand up tyrants?
Yes. We have a choice between our best chance of victory and probable defeat.
An absolutely brilliant article in The Speccie by Gareth Roberts has crystallised everything I feel about the Tory Government.
The Telegraph reported at the weekend that the Conservative party appears to be attempting, in its selection process for parliamentary candidates, to weed out anybody who might just possibly be a conservative. This strategy – with all its ineptitude and wilful blindness – is a perfect capsule of the parliamentary party and its upper echelons...
This won’t be an encomium for Boris Johnson, who was one of the principal architects of the betrayal. He has the remarkable quality of being a totemic figure, a focus for other people’s dreams and nightmares. He was viewed as either a jovial Old King Cole or a callous idiot. But neither of these characterisations are remotely accurate. Take away the trappings and it turned out he was just another mediocre Blairite...
...It soon became apparent that, Brexit aside, the big problem remained. The Tory cabinet and parliamentary party was still stuffed with supposedly ‘sensible’ people who are, in fact, like their Labour and Lib Dem counterparts, the true extremists. But these are extremists with nice ties, shiny shoes and acceptably mad opinions.
Because it is extremist to derail the already moribund economy even further for the bizarre goal of net zero. It is extremist to have millions of people out of work and continue to import hundreds of thousands of extra people every year. It is extremist to tax and spend and quantitively ease like there’s no tomorrow. So yes, the Tories deserve very much to be punished.
Seems like just another 'The Tories have failed because they weren't right-wing enough' screed. Dr Who sounds about right for this guy. What planet are these people on?
I agree with a couple of his examples of non-conservative behaviour. But I suspect his solutions are even more un-conservative. And it is the people who I suspect he supports that have been most active in driving out the true conservatives.
I don't care that much because I won't vote for them anyway but I'd much rather that we had a Conservative Party that was electable by the time the shine wears off Labour. It took them a term too long last time and they look like they will be starting even further away from sanity now.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
The person in question appears to have lived in Bangladesh for over twenty years then moved to the UK two or three years ago on a student visa. After he arrived he moved to Oldham, so ‘from Oldham’ doesn’t feel right really. Had your brother lived in the place he was born for 22 years before moving to Britain in 2021, it would be perfectly normal to say he was ‘from’ his birthplace
What's the dividing line between 2-3 years and 22 years. When has someone "made it".
Common sense mainly
What's interesting is that there's no attempt to conceal the ethnic identity of this person - the concealment (if deliberate) is of his recent arrival. That feels like its being done so as to damoen down immigration as an electoral issue.
Also, the people claiming he is accurately "from" Oldham are the same people that claim student immigration isn't really immigration, because they are due to go home after three years.
Really? Who has said that because I absolutely never have.
It's not true.
A significant proportion of people who arrive on temporary visas end up staying permanently and legally. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
I think the figure for student visas is that about 17% end up staying permanently, but the number has been going down.
According to that data 61% left, 35% stayed and 3% is unknown.
The remaining one percent presumably being rounding.
I'd count everyone who stays as staying, though they may indeed subsequently emigrate.
I think it matters how long they stay. 35% stay for a bit. I have a memory of 17% from a different ONS analysis for how many stay permanently. Someone working in the UK for a couple of years after their degree and then leaving seems to me quite different from someone who settles down, become a UK citizen and spends the rest of their life in the country.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
This is the quote; it is not disinformation. It's in relation to the fact that the murder was in Bradford, and the alleged perpetrator has been previously charged with threats and violence against the victim. ..Court documents show Mr Masum, who is from Oldham, was charged with threatening to kill Ms Akter on 24 November and assaulting her on 23 November. Both offences were alleged to have happened in Manchester...
If there's a fault in the BBC reporting, it's more likely lack of good journalistic capacity to provide more detail quickly.
Had Islam said they ought to include the facts about his immigration status, he'd have a reasonable point.
Notable that he jumped on that and called it 'disinformation', while ignoring the obvious failure of the police and courts to prevent what was quite possibly preventable.
Thank you, in fact I do that in the post preceding this one of your I’m replying to
It’s not notable that I jumped on it and called it anything, those words are from someone else; a tweet I shared.
In the first heat your chosen subject was Answering Questions Before They Were Asked. This time you have chosen to Answer the Question Before Last each time. Is that correct?
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
So Harry is still fifth in line. What would his Dad say.
Surely he should be removed from the line of succession, seeing that he officially renounced his intention to undertake royal duties.
He isn't currently carrying out royal duties. He hasn't said, should 5 people die and he's next in line, that he wouldn't then pick up those duties.
Doesn't need 5 to die. Charles and William only. The Wales kids are too young and would be crowned with a regent doing the actual head of state role. Which is where Henry gets his fingers on the levers of power...
Section 3(2) of the Regency Act 1937 requires the Regent to be resident in the United Kingdom. Which could be interesting. In any event I would expect Parliament to pass a new Regency Act to avoid the problem and install Edward or Anne.
I think they'd probably make Truss Regent, but I'm probably in a minority there.
Hah! Hilarious. If Harry was excluded from the regency by virtue of his domicile in the States then Prince Andrew becomes regent under the current Act, which I am now even more certain would be amended. In favour of Truss.
It would be TRUSS for certain, in some ways it already is. Many millions here, and around the world at large, consider her the true Queen of England. It is a mere half step to make that official, and one that the Waleses, Harry, and Meghan, are considering, and are probably determined to effect.
To rescue the Commonwealth, her plan is to become Lord Protector.
Saw a cartoon recently that played on the "where are you from" problem. An alien is facing a man and saying: "I'm from Atlanta, but I think you meant where am I from, orginally."
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Come off it, this is just down to the vagaries of the English language (and indeed any other language probably).
'Where are you from' can mean 'where do you live' or 'where do you originate from'. Neither is right, neither is wrong.
Hmm I've always taken it to mean the latter. "Court documents show Mr Masum, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester," would be correct, but he's not "from Oldham".
Why would it mean the latter?
There's a reason why people can and do say "originally from".
There's a blood and soil racism to the implication that people are only from their birthplace.
??? Of course it means the latter. I've lived in or near Sheffield for about 15 years but I'm certainly not "from" here. I'd be interested to see polling on this, I think my and @isam take on it would hold sway. The way the BBC article is written makes it sound like he was born in Oldham.
I was born in Birkenhead but I haven't lived there since I was 7 years old. Would I be wrong to say I'm from where I live instead of Birkenhead?
I for a few years lived abroad on a temporary visa as a child and by coincidence my brother was born there. He's not lived there since he was one, he only has British citizenship, he has no eligibility to citizenship of the country he was born in and has lived in the UK since he was one. Would it be lying to say he is from the UK?
The person in question appears to have lived in Bangladesh for over twenty years then moved to the UK two or three years ago on a student visa. After he arrived he moved to Oldham, so ‘from Oldham’ doesn’t feel right really. Had your brother lived in the place he was born for 22 years before moving to Britain in 2021, it would be perfectly normal to say he was ‘from’ his birthplace
What's the dividing line between 2-3 years and 22 years. When has someone "made it".
Common sense mainly
What's interesting is that there's no attempt to conceal the ethnic identity of this person - the concealment (if deliberate) is of his recent arrival. That feels like its being done so as to damoen down immigration as an electoral issue.
Also, the people claiming he is accurately "from" Oldham are the same people that claim student immigration isn't really immigration, because they are due to go home after three years.
Really? Who has said that because I absolutely never have.
It's not true.
A significant proportion of people who arrive on temporary visas end up staying permanently and legally. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
I think the figure for student visas is that about 17% end up staying permanently, but the number has been going down.
According to that data 61% left, 35% stayed and 3% is unknown.
The remaining one percent presumably being rounding.
I'd count everyone who stays as staying, though they may indeed subsequently emigrate.
I think it matters how long they stay. 35% stay for a bit. I have a memory of 17% from a different ONS analysis for how many stay permanently. Someone working in the UK for a couple of years after their degree and then leaving seems to me quite different from someone who settles down, become a UK citizen and spends the rest of their life in the country.
I don't think it matters, but then I don't think it matters how many people come or go we just need to invest in appropriate infrastructure for however many people are here and the key is they're still here.
Though according to that data you gave, 77% of the 35% who stay are staying on long term visas. So that equals 27% staying long term.
The remaining 23% of the 35% are staying on a short term visa. So that's 10% staying on short term, of whom they may then renew to another short (or long) term visa or emigrate, we don't know.
Comments
In the case of Habibur Masum, is there any need to specify where he is from at all? It doesn’t really add anything to the story to say he’s ‘from Oldham’ anyway.
"In this case, in the light of the complexity and the nature of the issues involved, the Court found that it could not be detailed or prescriptive as regards any measures to be implemented in order to effectively comply with the present judgment. Given the discretion accorded the State in this area, it considered that the Swiss Confederation, with the assistance of the Committee of Ministers, was better placed to assess the specific measures to be taken. It thus left it to the Committee of Ministers to supervise, on the basis of the information provided by the State, the adoption of measures aimed at ensuring that the national authorities comply with Convention requirements, as clarified in this judgment."
So, they're not instructing the Swiss government to do anything in particular. So what are they saying that's been done wrong?
"the Court found that there had been critical gaps in the process of putting in place the relevant domestic regulatory framework, including a failure by the Swiss authorities to quantify, through a carbon budget or
otherwise, national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limitations. Furthermore, the Court noted that
Switzerland had previously failed to meet its past GHG emission reduction targets. The Swiss authorities had not acted in time and in an appropriate way to devise and implement the relevant legislation and measures in accordance with their positive obligations pursuant to Article 8 of the Convention, which were of relevance in the context of climate change.
"The Swiss Confederation had therefore exceeded its discretion (“margin of appreciation”) and had failed to comply with its duties in this respect. There had therefore been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention."
The ambiguity with the BBC article is that it has multiple audiences, and so the context for the statement "from Oldham" isn't clear.
I wouldn't dream of telling any of the locals around here that I was from the area, but it would be accurate to say I was from where I'm living when I'm travelling away from home.
"Today a 63 year old man was arrested for streaking in Hampstead High Street. It's understood the man lives locally but was born in Rotherham."
The last bit sounds odd. You wouldn't include it.
I think this exposes how useless and ineffectual ministers are in running department and I think that is the fault of the system. I also think it shows that civil servants are biased towards shutting stuff down rather than creating more work and scandals. I did have a conversation with an ex-minister, who rarely was appointed for their expertise (a Lords appointment). Their opinion of the competence of fellow ministers without departmental expertise was scathing.
And most of these rules were and are exceedingly boring things like refrigerator standards.
Because it is extremist to derail the already moribund economy even further for the bizarre goal of net zero. It is extremist to have millions of people out of work and continue to import hundreds of thousands of extra people every year. It is extremist to tax and spend and quantitively ease like there’s no tomorrow. So yes, the Tories deserve very much to be punished.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-tories-deserve-our-contempt/
In the case of this Bangladeshi sicko, it does seem to be permanent. Which is why he used the student immigration system, and the University of Bedfordshire, as a way to move to Oldham.
Hmmm, I wonder where the Uni of Bedfordshire is based? Oh yes, Luton. A town with a self-segregated Bangladeshi community where they were selling Al-Qaeda videos in the street markets after 9/11. I am sure there isn't any concerted effort to bring in friends and relatives through the Uni of Bedfordshire happening at all.
Would one of our ‘legal eagles’ like to advise me on my options.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-tories-deserve-our-contempt/ Report it to the Scottish Police as a hate crime.
I’ll assume you are probably not stupid, so don’t be silly
I'm not the same person today as I was before I had kids, or before I got married, or before I went to university. Every one of those has changed me. We constantly evolve, we don't stop changing at 18, life would be boring if it was.
I've lived in about a dozen towns and cities down the years. All of those are part of my background.
I'm originally from where I originally lived.
I'm currently from where I currently live.
My past is being from all of the places I've previously lived.
https://www.gov.uk/what-different-qualification-levels-mean/list-of-qualification-levels
So level 3 includes NVQs. Not even the dogsh*t GNVQ. Back when I was at school we knew that NVQ stood for "Not Very Qualified". They were reserved for the thickos that couldn't get into sixth form and had to head to the useless community colleges in town.
And presumably those 15 hours can be remote learning too...
"From" is ambiguous as witnessed by this discussion.
"Lives in" is not.
Why not use the latter? It doesn't cost much.
It's not true.
A significant proportion of people who arrive on temporary visas end up staying permanently and legally. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
I changed my vote in part based on discussions here.
https://twitter.com/United24media/status/1777667789970682368
No amount of sophistry about Ukraine 'provoking' Russia, or being 'equally corrupt', or 'unwilling to seek peace', changes that.
The standard wording and custom of a police report is repeated by all news outlets and on X itself.
Those with tin foil hats jump on that and see goblins and ghouls.
And that's how the world works today.
Section 5 of this, https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/visajourneysandstudentoutcomes/2021-11-29 , has a huge amount of data on what happens to students. Lots of people on student visas stay in the country, but that's usually just another student visa. Some go on to work visas. A few end up saying long term.
I think they'd probably make Truss Regent, but I'm probably in a minority there.
It's in relation to the fact that the murder was in Bradford, and the alleged perpetrator has been previously charged with threats and violence against the victim.
..Court documents show Mr Masum, who is from Oldham, was charged with threatening to kill Ms Akter on 24 November and assaulting her on 23 November. Both offences were alleged to have happened in Manchester...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg8lGvwH25Y&t=855s
Lots of possibilities - a bit early to get aerated till we know more.
If anything, the commas make ‘who is from Oldham’ seem like the BBCs words rather than court documents.
“ Court documents show Mr Masum, who is from Oldham, was charged with threatening to kill Ms Akter on 24 November and assaulting her on 23 November. Both offences were alleged to have happened in Manchester...”
In any case, it would be more accurate to say ‘who is from Bangladesh and living in Oldham on a student visa’. He’s not a UK citizen, he is literally a temporary guest in our country. It’s not doing him down or being ‘blood & soil’ this that the other to say he’s not ‘from Oldham’ in the way everyone seems to be falling over themselves to take offence about
Had Islam said they ought to include the facts about his immigration status, he'd have a reasonable point.
Notable that he jumped on that and called it 'disinformation', while ignoring the obvious failure of the police and courts to prevent what was quite possibly preventable.
It’s not notable that I jumped on it and called it anything, those words are from someone else; a tweet I shared.
TRUSS
Not making a choice is itself a choice. The wound had to be cauterized. And yes, for tens of millions of Remain supporters, that absolutely sucked. But the alternatives - i.e. a second vote or somehow remaining in a not in / not out state - were not realistic.
Remain - or should I say Rejoin - supporters have an opportunity now. They can campaign for us to Rejoin, or they could campaign for closer links to the EU. Heck, I would probably support the latter position.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/9/what-do-texan-red-heifers-have-to-do-with-al-aqsa-and-a-jewish-temple
"Netanel Isaac, the director general of the Ministry of Jerusalem Affairs and Heritage, delivered a speech in honour of the heifers’ arrival at Ben Gurion airport in September 2022 and admitted that the ministry has been funding the development of the Mount of Olives area where the ceremony is planned."
...
"In a video from January posted on Boneh Israel’s website, Michael Samuel Smith, a Christian preacher working to bring forth the temple prophecy, said the red heifers they have been raising in Shiloh have come of sacrificial age.
“This is the first time in nearly 2,000 years a successful red heifer has come about,” Smith said in the video. “It is still our opinion the first successful red heifer sacrifice will take place in the spring of 2024 around the Passover to Pentecost timeframe.
“We believe God is going to reveal himself through the efforts of this future event. It is truly a sign of the times, most especially for Jews in Israel.”
Passover will be towards the end of April while Pentecost is in mid-May."
Those who are inclined to believe that this is no more than empty ranting by a tiny scene of religious nutcases should pay attention to the current make-up of the Netanyahu administration and in particular to which political parties have supplied the minister of finance (Bezalel Smotrich, who also has a post in the defence ministry) and the minister of national security (Itamar Ben Gvir). These were the guys who recently threatened to bring down the government. That was in between the withdrawal of many Israeli ground forces from southern Gaza ... and the moment when Netanyahu said hell yeah we're gonna go into Rafah and we got a date too.
Smotrich has said there is no such thing as the Palestinian people and that Palestinians should choose between 1. deportation, 2. subjugation, or 3. being killed. He apologised after he called for Huwara, a town on the West Bank, to be "erased", but the question is why someone like him is a government minister.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/20/israeli-minister-condemned-claiming-no-such-thing-as-a-palestinian-people-bezalel-smotrich
The remaining one percent presumably being rounding.
I'd count everyone who stays as staying, though they may indeed subsequently emigrate.
"Hang on, isn't he the guy who...and he wants my vote?"
(St Andrews, she tells me, is now 40% Americans.)
They (the police, court) probably don't do a deep dive into the perp's socio-geo-cultural origins.
It was also, though, an armed conflict.
I don't care that much because I won't vote for them anyway but I'd much rather that we had a Conservative Party that was electable by the time the shine wears off Labour. It took them a term too long last time and they look like they will be starting even further away from sanity now.
http://www.ukgameshows.com/ukgs/Answering_the_Question_Before_Last
Though according to that data you gave, 77% of the 35% who stay are staying on long term visas. So that equals 27% staying long term.
The remaining 23% of the 35% are staying on a short term visa. So that's 10% staying on short term, of whom they may then renew to another short (or long) term visa or emigrate, we don't know.