"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
Its my wife's birthday on 7th September and she has finally conceded that she needs a smartphone. Any recommendations? She needs to pick up emails and text messages from our needy kids, phone messages from her mother and the unending supply of agencies involved in her care and she likes some games like Candy crush. Nothing too fancy.
iPhone SE. cheapest one.
Think of it as the cheapest house on the nicest street.
Yes, she loves her Ipads and the phone being able to speak to them would be helpful.
Cool. I have the SE myself, and I bought them for my parents. Yes they can sync messages, emails, calendars etc between devices and if she has an ipad already then there’s few training issues.
I still don’t get the £1,000+ phones, for anyone who isn’t using the camera to replace a proper camera for work.
"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
Its my wife's birthday on 7th September and she has finally conceded that she needs a smartphone. Any recommendations? She needs to pick up emails and text messages from our needy kids, phone messages from her mother and the unending supply of agencies involved in her care and she likes some games like Candy crush. Nothing too fancy.
If you're not locked into the Apple ecosystem then almost any Android.
"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
Its my wife's birthday on 7th September and she has finally conceded that she needs a smartphone. Any recommendations? She needs to pick up emails and text messages from our needy kids, phone messages from her mother and the unending supply of agencies involved in her care and she likes some games like Candy crush. Nothing too fancy.
iPhone SE. cheapest one.
Think of it as the cheapest house on the nicest street.
Yes, she loves her Ipads and the phone being able to speak to them would be helpful.
Cool. I have the SE myself, and I bought them for my parents. Yes they can sync messages, emails, calendars etc between devices and if she has an ipad already then there’s few training issues.
I still don’t get the £1,000+ phones, for anyone who isn’t using the camera to replace a proper camera for work.
SE's are great because they are small enough to fit into running/cycling zipped pockets, jeans pockets and bras. I've got a Pixel for the camera (instagram innit) but might switch back to an SE when it gives up.
"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
Its my wife's birthday on 7th September and she has finally conceded that she needs a smartphone. Any recommendations? She needs to pick up emails and text messages from our needy kids, phone messages from her mother and the unending supply of agencies involved in her care and she likes some games like Candy crush. Nothing too fancy.
If you're not locked into the Apple ecosystem then almost any Android.
Can I just remind all anti-Zionists that if they want Israel to be allowed to exist, then they are in fact Zionists
There is no middle ground. If you're anti-Zionist you're on the side that means no Israel, and no Jews anywhere near it
But how do we criticize Israeli policy towards the Palestinians without being branded antisemitic?
One idea
Don't chant, or support chanting of, "From the river to the sea"
It means no Israel
It's one of those black and white ones again
"From the river to the sea, Israel will be free"?
Or is that Islamophobic?
Probably, although there are two points to note:
1) There are Muslims in Israel so the suggestion that Israel encompass the West Bank and Gaza doesn't necessarily mean exterminating or expelling them as the 'Palestine' equivalent does the Israelis;
2) Most Israelis I have met *do* actually want to take at least the West Bank, and I can't imagine recent events have exactly led them to think Gaza would be better as a separate state.
"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
Its my wife's birthday on 7th September and she has finally conceded that she needs a smartphone. Any recommendations? She needs to pick up emails and text messages from our needy kids, phone messages from her mother and the unending supply of agencies involved in her care and she likes some games like Candy crush. Nothing too fancy.
iPhone SE. cheapest one.
Think of it as the cheapest house on the nicest street.
Yes, she loves her Ipads and the phone being able to speak to them would be helpful.
Cool. I have the SE myself, and I bought them for my parents. Yes they can sync messages, emails, calendars etc between devices and if she has an ipad already then there’s few training issues.
I still don’t get the £1,000+ phones, for anyone who isn’t using the camera to replace a proper camera for work.
The problem with apple’s cheap offering is the battery life. Thus far they’ve been reusing old designs and the battery capacity simply can’t keep up with the increased power draw with each update.
A fancy slim phone that lasts half a day, then dies, is the opposite of useful.
I needed to make an emergency call, some time back, and with 2% battery it was touch and go if my iphone se stayed on long enough to see out the call.
I realised, even a £10 Nokia brickphone is better than a dead iPhone SE, in that moment.
Can I just remind all anti-Zionists that if they want Israel to be allowed to exist, then they are in fact Zionists
There is no middle ground. If you're anti-Zionist you're on the side that means no Israel, and no Jews anywhere near it
But how do we criticize Israeli policy towards the Palestinians without being branded antisemitic?
One idea
Don't chant, or support chanting of, "From the river to the sea"
It means no Israel
It's one of those black and white ones again
"From the river to the sea, Israel will be free"?
How many Jews chant that?
I doubt many of them chant it, given I invented it just now!
They don't chant it, per se. But when I was in Israel last I went to a talk at the Hebrew University on Israeli politics given by a British born Israeli academic. He said, and I quote, 'Most Israelis want an Israel that is three things: Jewish, democratic and from the river to the sea.'
He then went on to point out that's an inconsistent triad and you can only have at most two of them.
Certainly what he said was borne out by what I saw and heard. And not just from Israeli Jews. It's what the Israeli Muslims and Christians think the Israeli Jews want as well (if that makes sense).
"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
Its my wife's birthday on 7th September and she has finally conceded that she needs a smartphone. Any recommendations? She needs to pick up emails and text messages from our needy kids, phone messages from her mother and the unending supply of agencies involved in her care and she likes some games like Candy crush. Nothing too fancy.
If you're a Mac (desktop/laptop/ipad) family the the cheapest iPhone you can get. The ... 'handover'(?) thing is super-useful. Get a link/code/whatever via SMS? Copy it on your phone and just paste it into your desktop seamlessly.
"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
Its my wife's birthday on 7th September and she has finally conceded that she needs a smartphone. Any recommendations? She needs to pick up emails and text messages from our needy kids, phone messages from her mother and the unending supply of agencies involved in her care and she likes some games like Candy crush. Nothing too fancy.
iPhone SE. cheapest one.
Think of it as the cheapest house on the nicest street.
Yes, she loves her Ipads and the phone being able to speak to them would be helpful.
Cool. I have the SE myself, and I bought them for my parents. Yes they can sync messages, emails, calendars etc between devices and if she has an ipad already then there’s few training issues.
I still don’t get the £1,000+ phones, for anyone who isn’t using the camera to replace a proper camera for work.
On Monday night while watching out for Perseid meteors I thought I saw some faint lights in the north. Point and shoot with my iPhone 15 Pro camera captured this.
"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
Its my wife's birthday on 7th September and she has finally conceded that she needs a smartphone. Any recommendations? She needs to pick up emails and text messages from our needy kids, phone messages from her mother and the unending supply of agencies involved in her care and she likes some games like Candy crush. Nothing too fancy.
If you're not locked into the Apple ecosystem then almost any Android.
I prefer Samsung but others are pretty good too.
Samsung Galaxy A15 is about £100 now….
Motorola E7i is £85 at Tesco. Had mine for nearly three years. Does everything I need it to.
"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
Its my wife's birthday on 7th September and she has finally conceded that she needs a smartphone. Any recommendations? She needs to pick up emails and text messages from our needy kids, phone messages from her mother and the unending supply of agencies involved in her care and she likes some games like Candy crush. Nothing too fancy.
iPhone SE. cheapest one.
Think of it as the cheapest house on the nicest street.
Yes, she loves her Ipads and the phone being able to speak to them would be helpful.
@Sandpit is right in principle but the current iPhone SE is very outdated and due for an update soon, so of the current range that you can buy new, an iPhone 13 would be the best value.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
Issue is they will not do any job , far better to take the benefits. We have a surplus of people who would have trouble counting their fingers. The countries you mention do not featherbed people.
Who is "they"?
Lots of the ones that never ever have employment or even look for it, for sure it is hard to believe that the UK can have an incredibly higher number of people who will not or cannot work than the rest of the developed world.
We don't. We have one of the highest employment rates in the world.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
Its my wife's birthday on 7th September and she has finally conceded that she needs a smartphone. Any recommendations? She needs to pick up emails and text messages from our needy kids, phone messages from her mother and the unending supply of agencies involved in her care and she likes some games like Candy crush. Nothing too fancy.
iPhone SE. cheapest one.
Think of it as the cheapest house on the nicest street.
Yes, she loves her Ipads and the phone being able to speak to them would be helpful.
Cool. I have the SE myself, and I bought them for my parents. Yes they can sync messages, emails, calendars etc between devices and if she has an ipad already then there’s few training issues.
I still don’t get the £1,000+ phones, for anyone who isn’t using the camera to replace a proper camera for work.
The problem with apple’s cheap offering is the battery life. Thus far they’ve been reusing old designs and the battery capacity simply can’t keep up with the increased power draw with each update.
A fancy slim phone that lasts half a day, then dies, is the opposite of useful.
I needed to make an emergency call, some time back, and with 2% battery it was touch and go if my iphone se stayed on long enough to see out the call.
I realised, even a £10 Nokia brickphone is better than a dead iPhone SE, in that moment.
Mrs P loves her iPhone SE. She uses it to phone her dad for 60 to 90 minutes every day and never seems to have issues with battery life.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Meanwhile, there's a careers advisor at Eton who suggested to Johnson and Rees-Mogg that they should go in for politics.
If you don't want that, then you are an anti-Zionist
You want Israel to be destroyed
There are only two sides
Is this about agreed meanings of words or something else? I'm just a bit doubtful about whether one of the world's tricky problems, dating back to 586BCE/David's reign - 1000BCE/the Jewish War of 70CE/the Islamic conquests of 7th century CE/the Sassanian conquest early 7th century CE (take your pick or add some more like the end, or the beginning, of the Ottomans) can be reduced to two lines of binary choice.
Maybe a better starting point than binary choices is: What is the best possible outcome for good people of goodwill on all sides?
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Reminds me of the Bob Monkhouse classic:
"When I told my family I wanted to be a comedian, they laughed. Well, they're not laughing now."
Anyone who disagrees with me, take your "Two State Solution" banner along to the next pro-Palestine march
And this one even moreso.
The world is divided into those who agree with Blanche, those who disagree with Blanche, and the other 95% who ignore Blanche.
The population of the world is 8.2 billion.
5% of 8.2 billion is 410 million.
That seems an awful lot of people who are interested in Blanche's views. Approximately 34 times as many as live in the whole of Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
Anyone who disagrees with me, take your "Two State Solution" banner along to the next pro-Palestine march
And this one even moreso.
The world is divided into those who agree with Blanche, those who disagree with Blanche, and the other 95% who ignore Blanche.
The population of the world is 8.2 billion.
5% of 8.2 billion is 410 million.
That seems an awful lot of people who are interested in Blanche's views. Approximately 34 times as many as live in the whole of Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
You may define the 'world' thus - my 'world' is PB.com.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Reminds me of the Bob Monkhouse classic:
"When I told my family I wanted to be a comedian, they laughed. Well, they're not laughing now."
Or the Stephen Fry anecdote.
On his pre-careers interview form, he wrote "I would like to be a careers advisor." Said advisor then wrote "comedian, eh?" on the form.
Making Stephen Fry one of the few people to actually follow a careers advisor's advice.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Reminds me of the Bob Monkhouse classic:
"When I told my family I wanted to be a comedian, they laughed. Well, they're not laughing now."
Or the Stephen Fry anecdote.
On his pre-careers interview form, he wrote "I would like to be a careers advisor." Said advisor then wrote "comedian, eh?" on the form.
Making Stephen Fry one of the few people to actually follow a careers advisor's advice.
I used to really puzzle the careers advisor at Newent.
She would ask me what I wanted to do, and I'd answer, quite honestly, 'I don't know.'
Left her totally flummoxed.
One year, just to confuse things, I said, 'I'd like to play the organ as much as possible.'
It took some smoothing over as she was not religious and didn't realise I was being both completely honest and not saying what she thought.
Anyone who disagrees with me, take your "Two State Solution" banner along to the next pro-Palestine march
And this one even moreso.
Support for the existence of Israel depresses you?
You're probably just anti-Zionist
Not at all, you are making assumptions which are untrue.
I would support a two state solution.
Then you support a homeland for the Jews so you're a Zionist
The Palestinians that you support hate you and want you dead
I would have preferred the Balfour Declaration to have been stillborn. A homeland somewhere less contentious would have been advantageous. I also disagree with the displacement of the people of Palestine in 1947, and later in 1968. However we are where we are.
i very much doubt Palestinians trying to eke out a living in war-torn Gaza or being displaced by settlers in the West Bank couldn't give two hoots about me.
FWIW my guess is that the next switch in this tale will be for the race to narrow once again. Whether that comes from an unpersuasive Convention speech by Harris or a refocusing of the artillery by Trump I can feel it coming. In fact we are seeing signs already that the gap between them is starting to narrow rather than continuing to widen.
This is going to the wire but I still think Harris is favourite.
I wouldn’t be so definite that it is going to narrow. But Harris is only slightly in front at the moment.
Some people seem to be acting as if she is looking at winning 50 states.
If you look at some of the more credible aggregates, such as 538, the gap between them was much wider than RCP has indicated but it peaked at about 2.9% and is now down to 2.6%. Its not much but the big Mo that people have been talking about has somewhat run out of steam.
0.3% variation in a polling average isn’t data - that’s noise.
But it was consistently growing week after week, day after day. Until about 7 days ago when the trend changed. Trump is looking more incoherent and demented by the day and Vance is not helping but people are finally starting to look at what Harris is offering and her "profit gouging" price control mechanisms is not a good start. Her commitment to more social housing is somewhat better.
More to do with the limited pool of voters
45% will vote for Trump if he engages in a threesome with Putin and Xi. On stage.
45% will vote for the opponent of Trump. Even if that is Cuthulu’s younger, worse, brother.
So you are looking at 10% of voters.
This does ignore the possibility of differential turnout, but is a fair guess.
America is polarised, but this risks exaggerating how polarised.
There is a fair proportion of the electorate who see Trump as a flawed person who is also quite entertaining and makes some fair points on the economy, borders etc.
Feelings are stronger on Trump than many previous candidates, clearly. But there is a tendency here to overestimate how many Americans are highly engaged, and underestimate how many are somewhat ambivalent about the choices. Not everyone in America attends rallies, tweets about politics etc.
If you don't want that, then you are an anti-Zionist
You want Israel to be destroyed
There are only two sides
Is this about agreed meanings of words or something else? I'm just a bit doubtful about whether one of the world's tricky problems, dating back to 586BCE/David's reign - 1000BCE/the Jewish War of 70CE/the Islamic conquests of 7th century CE/the Sassanian conquest early 7th century CE (take your pick or add some more like the end, or the beginning, of the Ottomans) can be reduced to two lines of binary choice.
Maybe a better starting point than binary choices is: What is the best possible outcome for good people of goodwill on all sides?
‘First find your good people of goodwill on all sides’
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Meanwhile, there's a careers advisor at Eton who suggested to Johnson and Rees-Mogg that they should go in for politics.
Now *that's* somebody I would like to speak to...
At Eton going into politics and even becoming PM would be considered a bit common compared to say becoming a High Court Judge, Oxbridge Professor, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, partner at Goldman Sachs, Oscar winning actor, Olympic rower etc
Anyone who disagrees with me, take your "Two State Solution" banner along to the next pro-Palestine march
And this one even moreso.
Support for the existence of Israel depresses you?
You're probably just anti-Zionist
Not at all, you are making assumptions which are untrue.
I would support a two state solution.
Then you support a homeland for the Jews so you're a Zionist
The Palestinians that you support hate you and want you dead
I would have preferred the Balfour Declaration to have been stillborn. A homeland somewhere less contentious would have been advantageous. I also disagree with the displacement of the people of Palestine in 1947, and later in 1968. However we are where we are.
i very much doubt Palestinians trying to eke out a living in war-torn Gaza or being displaced by settlers in the West Bank couldn't give two hoots about me.
This means that I will have to pay for a TV licence and then ask for a refund for the months I didn't use it (11/12) in December 2025. Cancelling the monthly direct debit is not advisable because you will get an angry letter through the door every week for the rest of your life.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
Switzerland and Singapore are the 2 nations with about the highest average IQ in the world, I doubt we will match them though yes more ambitious schooling would help. Singapore is a city state so somewhat unique but also gets a lot of high skilled finanical services immigrant workers, Switzerland is also tough in terms of cultural assimilation, banning Muslim women wearing full veil in public for example
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Meanwhile, there's a careers advisor at Eton who suggested to Johnson and Rees-Mogg that they should go in for politics.
Now *that's* somebody I would like to speak to...
At Eton going into politics and even becoming PM would be considered a bit common compared to say becoming a High Court Judge, Oxbridge Professor, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, partner at Goldman Sachs, Oscar winning actor, Olympic rower etc
It's a huge school. Most OEs are mid ranking solicitors and accountants.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Meanwhile, there's a careers advisor at Eton who suggested to Johnson and Rees-Mogg that they should go in for politics.
Now *that's* somebody I would like to speak to...
At Eton going into politics and even becoming PM would be considered a bit common compared to say becoming a High Court Judge, Oxbridge Professor, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, partner at Goldman Sachs, Oscar winning actor, Olympic rower etc
It's a huge school. Most OEs are mid ranking solicitors and accountants.
Lots of OEs partners in magic circle law firms and KCs which would likely be put higher up the OE notice board than being elected an MP or councillor.
Even the quality of OE PMs ie Cameron and Johnson most recently is not as big a brag as when OEs like Gladstone or Salisbury ran an Empire as well as the nation or Macmillan was sidekick to JFK
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Meanwhile, there's a careers advisor at Eton who suggested to Johnson and Rees-Mogg that they should go in for politics.
Now *that's* somebody I would like to speak to...
At Eton going into politics and even becoming PM would be considered a bit common compared to say becoming a High Court Judge, Oxbridge Professor, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, partner at Goldman Sachs, Oscar winning actor, Olympic rower etc
It's a huge school. Most OEs are mid ranking solicitors and accountants.
Indeed.
Shame so many of them seem to end up as high court judges, civil servants, professors, FTSE 100 bosses, politicians etc despite being mid ranking solicitors and accountants.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Meanwhile, there's a careers advisor at Eton who suggested to Johnson and Rees-Mogg that they should go in for politics.
Now *that's* somebody I would like to speak to...
At Eton going into politics and even becoming PM would be considered a bit common compared to say becoming a High Court Judge, Oxbridge Professor, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, partner at Goldman Sachs, Oscar winning actor, Olympic rower etc
It's a huge school. Most OEs are mid ranking solicitors and accountants.
Indeed.
Shame so many of them seem to end up as high court judges, civil servants, professors, FTSE 100 bosses, politicians etc despite being mid ranking solicitors and accountants.
Partly down to being PM not quite what it was in say Gladstone or Pitt's day, both OEs, when it was a job the most intellectual would aspire to. Now PMs are more likely to be elected on charisma than high intellect in the TV and internet age of mass democracy. So the most intellectual OEs focus on the law, academia etc instead
"Catastrophic Failure of Justice BlackBeltBarrister
Railway operators unlawfully prosecuted over 74,000 cases using the Single Justice Procedure, leading to all convictions being declared null and void. This abuse of the SJP highlighted serious jurisdictional overreach."
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Meanwhile, there's a careers advisor at Eton who suggested to Johnson and Rees-Mogg that they should go in for politics.
Now *that's* somebody I would like to speak to...
At Eton going into politics and even becoming PM would be considered a bit common compared to say becoming a High Court Judge, Oxbridge Professor, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, partner at Goldman Sachs, Oscar winning actor, Olympic rower etc
It's a huge school. Most OEs are mid ranking solicitors and accountants.
If you don't want that, then you are an anti-Zionist
You want Israel to be destroyed
There are only two sides
Is this about agreed meanings of words or something else? I'm just a bit doubtful about whether one of the world's tricky problems, dating back to 586BCE/David's reign - 1000BCE/the Jewish War of 70CE/the Islamic conquests of 7th century CE/the Sassanian conquest early 7th century CE (take your pick or add some more like the end, or the beginning, of the Ottomans) can be reduced to two lines of binary choice.
Maybe a better starting point than binary choices is: What is the best possible outcome for good people of goodwill on all sides?
The world's oldest and most intractable real estate dispute.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Meanwhile, there's a careers advisor at Eton who suggested to Johnson and Rees-Mogg that they should go in for politics.
Now *that's* somebody I would like to speak to...
At Eton going into politics and even becoming PM would be considered a bit common compared to say becoming a High Court Judge, Oxbridge Professor, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, partner at Goldman Sachs, Oscar winning actor, Olympic rower etc
It's a huge school. Most OEs are mid ranking solicitors and accountants.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Meanwhile, there's a careers advisor at Eton who suggested to Johnson and Rees-Mogg that they should go in for politics.
Now *that's* somebody I would like to speak to...
At Eton going into politics and even becoming PM would be considered a bit common compared to say becoming a High Court Judge, Oxbridge Professor, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, partner at Goldman Sachs, Oscar winning actor, Olympic rower etc
It's a huge school. Most OEs are mid ranking solicitors and accountants.
That's just your projection.
Golly. Are we discussing OEs for a change? My three favourites are George Orwell, Ben Whitaker and Tam Dalyell. Are there any others worthy of consideration? Lord Home, maybe. And Supermac, of course. I could mention a few from personal acquaintance but they wouldn't thank me.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Meanwhile, there's a careers advisor at Eton who suggested to Johnson and Rees-Mogg that they should go in for politics.
Now *that's* somebody I would like to speak to...
At Eton going into politics and even becoming PM would be considered a bit common compared to say becoming a High Court Judge, Oxbridge Professor, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, partner at Goldman Sachs, Oscar winning actor, Olympic rower etc
It's a huge school. Most OEs are mid ranking solicitors and accountants.
That's just your projection.
Golly. Are we discussing OEs for a change? My three favourites are George Orwell, Ben Whitaker and Tam Dalyell. Are there any others worthy of consideration? Lord Home, maybe. And Supermac, of course. I could mention a few from personal acquaintance but they wouldn't thank me.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Meanwhile, there's a careers advisor at Eton who suggested to Johnson and Rees-Mogg that they should go in for politics.
Now *that's* somebody I would like to speak to...
At Eton going into politics and even becoming PM would be considered a bit common compared to say becoming a High Court Judge, Oxbridge Professor, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, partner at Goldman Sachs, Oscar winning actor, Olympic rower etc
It's a huge school. Most OEs are mid ranking solicitors and accountants.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Meanwhile, there's a careers advisor at Eton who suggested to Johnson and Rees-Mogg that they should go in for politics.
Now *that's* somebody I would like to speak to...
At Eton going into politics and even becoming PM would be considered a bit common compared to say becoming a High Court Judge, Oxbridge Professor, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, partner at Goldman Sachs, Oscar winning actor, Olympic rower etc
It's a huge school. Most OEs are mid ranking solicitors and accountants.
That's just your projection.
Is it a big one?
When I am prime minister I am going to make a law that you can never display a Mercator projection without also displaying the same thing but centred on the 180 meridian. A lot of UK misunderstanding about ww2 is based on not realising that you can go round the back.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Meanwhile, there's a careers advisor at Eton who suggested to Johnson and Rees-Mogg that they should go in for politics.
Now *that's* somebody I would like to speak to...
At Eton going into politics and even becoming PM would be considered a bit common compared to say becoming a High Court Judge, Oxbridge Professor, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, partner at Goldman Sachs, Oscar winning actor, Olympic rower etc
It's a huge school. Most OEs are mid ranking solicitors and accountants.
That's just your projection.
Is it a big one?
When I am prime minister I am going to make a law that you can never display a Mercator projection without also displaying the same thing but centred on the 180 meridian. A lot of UK misunderstanding about ww2 is based on not realising that you can go round the back.
It's a helluva long way, though. Have you seen it? It's all blue. Nothing at all for miles and miles.
When you checkmate your opponent’s king, start the timer—if they can explain to everyone within earshot that they actually lost on purpose, their king will regain control of the narrative, and take control of the board.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Meanwhile, there's a careers advisor at Eton who suggested to Johnson and Rees-Mogg that they should go in for politics.
Now *that's* somebody I would like to speak to...
At Eton going into politics and even becoming PM would be considered a bit common compared to say becoming a High Court Judge, Oxbridge Professor, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, partner at Goldman Sachs, Oscar winning actor, Olympic rower etc
It's a huge school. Most OEs are mid ranking solicitors and accountants.
That's just your projection.
Is it a big one?
When I am prime minister I am going to make a law that you can never display a Mercator projection without also displaying the same thing but centred on the 180 meridian. A lot of UK misunderstanding about ww2 is based on not realising that you can go round the back.
It's a helluva long way, though. Have you seen it? It's all blue. Nothing at all for miles and miles.
Seen it? Sailed it. Can confirm lorra bloody flying fishes, norra lot else
Consider this: The Loser gets along quite well with the Saudis -- and with North Korea's Kim. What do those two nations have in common? Not much, but they are both absolute monarchies.
The Loser admires power -- especially if it is inherited. The second part tells me that neither "communist" nor "facist" is a good description of the Loser, but monarchist is closer. And that helps explain some of his appeal. (If I recall correctly, Bagehot had something sensible to say about the appeal of monarchies, way back in the 19th century.)
To what extent do people think Musk will swing it for Trump? I have a strong suspicion he will invest heavily in disinformation ahead off November.
No doubt.
But people have been pretty well inoculated against that in recent years.
The Harris offering is pretty straightforward - and a substantial amount if it is based on the last four years in government - so ‘Hillary’s emails’ or the like is not particularly likely to determine the outcome.
Just in case it hasn't been spelt out clearly for some of you
From the river to the sea
Means no two state solution
It means death to Jews
Zionism means, literally, supporting that Israel exists
Indeed. A fact that gets overlooked.
Also what gets overlooked - there is a strong strand in Islam that says that, if you do not believe all the land is Palestine, you are not a true Muslim ie there is no room for Israel.
Another fun fact - Hamas built up its power through schools and hospitals, which remained Hamas run up to 7/10. So, this is not like the West where hospitals are neutral - they are actively run by one side or the conflict.
Just in case it hasn't been spelt out clearly for some of you
From the river to the sea
Means no two state solution
It means death to Jews
Zionism means, literally, supporting that Israel exists
Indeed. A fact that gets overlooked.
Also what gets overlooked - there is a strong strand in Islam that says that, if you do not believe all the land is Palestine, you are not a true Muslim ie there is no room for Israel.
Another fun fact - Hamas built up its power through schools and hospitals, which remained Hamas run up to 7/10. So, this is not like the West where hospitals are neutral - they are actively run by one side or the conflict.
The British health system is owned and run by the state and cannot, by that logic, be neutral.
On topic (vaguely), one interesting “what if” question is this: if DJT had been assassinated, would Joe Biden had been forced out?
My view on this is no. I think the Democrats would have stuck with Joe, part because the dynamics would have changed and part because the Republicans would have been forced to have nominated another candidate and my guess is the election would have been framed as inexperience v inexperience.
It also should be noted the events of the last few months would make a great political thriller - polarising presidential candidate nearly gets killed, sitting President shoved aside with a threat to use the 25th etc ’
Just in case it hasn't been spelt out clearly for some of you
From the river to the sea
Means no two state solution
It means death to Jews
Zionism means, literally, supporting that Israel exists
Indeed. A fact that gets overlooked.
Also what gets overlooked - there is a strong strand in Islam that says that, if you do not believe all the land is Palestine, you are not a true Muslim ie there is no room for Israel.
Another fun fact - Hamas built up its power through schools and hospitals, which remained Hamas run up to 7/10. So, this is not like the West where hospitals are neutral - they are actively run by one side or the conflict.
The British health system is owned and run by the state and cannot, by that logic, be neutral.
A good point although most others aren’t in W Europe. Key point is this though - in Gaza, the hospital are Hamas entities, not cuddly “let’s help everyone”.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
I'm slightly surprised you don't see the problem. "I don't like you saying x" should not equate to "saying x should be illegal". Otherwise we're on the route straight back to the middle ages.
Weedy and unthreatening stranger bloke goes up to a young mother with a baby in her arms in the street and, keeping at several yards distance, audibly says:
"I am a pacifist and no threat to you whatsoever. But I hate you, you are a c...; I hate all women and you especially; you should all f... off. I would much prefer it if you and your baby die of something painful, and very soon."
I think this speech should be an offence. (Abusive and insulting behaviour). SFAICS the total free speech brigade would think that's OK. Is it?
She is obviously not being threatened so why should it be an offence? Is it an offence when a muslim calls me a kaffir....and yes have had that. I didn't feel threatened.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have had very offensive things said to me or about me, and in those instances I would have prefer I that it hadn't happened, but my concern is that "banning" or making a law against it is very difficult without lots of other behaviour falling into the same trap. Also, young people, or possibly people with learning difficulties or Touretts or other conditions could potentially be arrested for saying things that they didn't mean to say, or didn't understand to be offensive. I'm sure we all like to think that the police would exercise common sense in such cases, but... I think the better approach is changing the culture through education and developing a shared understanding of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. It takes time, and commitment, though. I don't think legislation is the answer.
An example here is immigration, objecting to it because they are brown people is not a good thing, objecting because we lack housing or services for the increased population is a legitimate concern. I suspect many here would outlaw all criticism of immigration on grounds its hateful
You are making things up again.
Which PB posters do you think want all criticism of immigration outlawed?
Plenty of poster here if you say immigration is to high call racist on you, Sometimes yes it is people are racist, sometimes they are concerned about public services and housing
So you can't name anyone who wants all criticism of immigration outlawed?
I generally don't call peoples names apart from when they reply to a post but if you think it doesn't happen you are blind
I don’t know a single person on here, or in fact anywhere, that says criticism of immigration should be outlawed. There’s a really depressing tendency on by rightists to paint themselves as victims so we all give them a big hug.
Shrugs I have criticized immigration before and been labelled racist on here because I objected to low wage immigration from the eu....people coming to be barista's do not pay their way sorry
There's a wide spectrum of views on this site on immigration, many quite contradictory with other people's views.
Some who are quite clearly racists and talk, especially after a few drinks, about white culture and other things.
Some who object to high numbers due to infrastructure pressures.
Some who don't object to numbers but want infrastructure spending to match.
Some who want the migrants but don't want any infrastructure investment.
Some who prefer high skilled migrants over low skilled migrants.
And some who want low skilled migrants and object to high skilled ones.
Personally I'm in the camp that I want high skilled migrants and don't care about numbers but think we need to invest in infrastructure.
I am of the same view....an indian software engineer or a doctor hell yes, a portugese barista hell no. Use the taxes to increase infrastructure all good
Personally, I think this is madness.
The most successful countries in the world are places like Switzerland and Singapore: in those countries, the vast bulk of the immigration of the low skilled, because the locals are well educated. We should be aiming to follow their model. (I do appreciate that this is not an overnight thing, but in the long-run, no Brit should be aspiring to work a minimum wage job.)
When I suggested to my school 'career advisor' that I wanted to be 'a computer programmer', he smiled sadly and suggested I got a job shelf-stacking in a local warehouse.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
Meanwhile, there's a careers advisor at Eton who suggested to Johnson and Rees-Mogg that they should go in for politics.
Now *that's* somebody I would like to speak to...
At Eton going into politics and even becoming PM would be considered a bit common compared to say becoming a High Court Judge, Oxbridge Professor, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, partner at Goldman Sachs, Oscar winning actor, Olympic rower etc
It's a huge school. Most OEs are mid ranking solicitors and accountants.
That's just your projection.
Is it a big one?
When I am prime minister I am going to make a law that you can never display a Mercator projection without also displaying the same thing but centred on the 180 meridian. A lot of UK misunderstanding about ww2 is based on not realising that you can go round the back.
It's a helluva long way, though. Have you seen it? It's all blue. Nothing at all for miles and miles.
Seen it? Sailed it. Can confirm lorra bloody flying fishes, norra lot else
Flying is what fish do when they think no-one's looking.
On topic (vaguely), one interesting “what if” question is this: if DJT had been assassinated, would Joe Biden had been forced out?
My view on this is no. I think the Democrats would have stuck with Joe, part because the dynamics would have changed and part because the Republicans would have been forced to have nominated another candidate and my guess is the election would have been framed as inexperience v inexperience.
It also should be noted the events of the last few months would make a great political thriller - polarising presidential candidate nearly gets killed, sitting President shoved aside with a threat to use the 25th etc ’
I genuinely don't know the answer to that question. I don't think the Brits have internalised how big the almost-assassination was: how close it was, how his reaction to it solidified his support. A slight intake of breath at the wrong time and he would be dead, and God alone knows what would have happened next.
On topic (vaguely), one interesting “what if” question is this: if DJT had been assassinated, would Joe Biden had been forced out?
My view on this is no. I think the Democrats would have stuck with Joe, part because the dynamics would have changed and part because the Republicans would have been forced to have nominated another candidate and my guess is the election would have been framed as inexperience v inexperience.
It also should be noted the events of the last few months would make a great political thriller - polarising presidential candidate nearly gets killed, sitting President shoved aside with a threat to use the 25th etc ’
But if the GOP had been forced to migrate to someone younger, they’d probably have the lead against Biden.
The youth dividend goes to whoever chooses someone younger, obvs.
On topic (vaguely), one interesting “what if” question is this: if DJT had been assassinated, would Joe Biden had been forced out?
My view on this is no. I think the Democrats would have stuck with Joe, part because the dynamics would have changed and part because the Republicans would have been forced to have nominated another candidate and my guess is the election would have been framed as inexperience v inexperience.
It also should be noted the events of the last few months would make a great political thriller - polarising presidential candidate nearly gets killed, sitting President shoved aside with a threat to use the 25th etc ’
I genuinely don't know the answer to that question. I don't think the Brits have internalised how big the almost-assassination was: how close it was, how his reaction to it solidified his support. A slight intake of breath at the wrong time and he would be dead, and God alone knows what would have happened next.
It would have been absolute carnage in the States is my view - there were so many failures of the Secret Service that it would have been relatively easy to persuade a large chunk of the base that the assassination was not down to incompetence but malignancy, especially given the language being thrown about.
Tremendous activity in the Western Ring of Fire in the past few days. Earthquakes right from Kamchatka to Indonesia. And everywhere in between. Dunno if it's building to a really big one but summat to note.
On topic (vaguely), one interesting “what if” question is this: if DJT had been assassinated, would Joe Biden had been forced out?
My view on this is no. I think the Democrats would have stuck with Joe, part because the dynamics would have changed and part because the Republicans would have been forced to have nominated another candidate and my guess is the election would have been framed as inexperience v inexperience.
It also should be noted the events of the last few months would make a great political thriller - polarising presidential candidate nearly gets killed, sitting President shoved aside with a threat to use the 25th etc ’
But if the GOP had been forced to migrate to someone younger, they’d probably have the lead against Biden.
The youth dividend goes to whoever chooses someone younger, obvs.
Possibly but there is a strong argument for saying a “stick with Mother” candidate would win ie the world is a dangerous place and you neee experience.
I do think the assassination attempt was the final straw for the Democrats - the bounce it gave Trump at the Convention mean they had to throw the dice.
On topic (vaguely), one interesting “what if” question is this: if DJT had been assassinated, would Joe Biden had been forced out?
My view on this is no. I think the Democrats would have stuck with Joe, part because the dynamics would have changed and part because the Republicans would have been forced to have nominated another candidate and my guess is the election would have been framed as inexperience v inexperience.
It also should be noted the events of the last few months would make a great political thriller - polarising presidential candidate nearly gets killed, sitting President shoved aside with a threat to use the 25th etc ’
But if the GOP had been forced to migrate to someone younger, they’d probably have the lead against Biden.
The youth dividend goes to whoever chooses someone younger, obvs.
It's not really a youth dividend. It's a non senile one.
To what extent do people think Musk will swing it for Trump? I have a strong suspicion he will invest heavily in disinformation ahead off November.
I think some of us are underestimating how much twitter/x is now an irrelevance. I have a few colleagues under 30, even 35, for whom it's just nothing - doesn't exist in their world. TikTok/Insta is still huge though. And a few over 50's for whom it's never been a thing in the first place.
Maybe Elon will flail in his echo-chamber. Influencing newspaper journalists of a certain vintage, all hot-taking each other in a downward spiral of dwindling import.
On topic (vaguely), one interesting “what if” question is this: if DJT had been assassinated, would Joe Biden had been forced out?
My view on this is no. I think the Democrats would have stuck with Joe, part because the dynamics would have changed and part because the Republicans would have been forced to have nominated another candidate and my guess is the election would have been framed as inexperience v inexperience.
It also should be noted the events of the last few months would make a great political thriller - polarising presidential candidate nearly gets killed, sitting President shoved aside with a threat to use the 25th etc ’
But if the GOP had been forced to migrate to someone younger, they’d probably have the lead against Biden.
The youth dividend goes to whoever chooses someone younger, obvs.
I still think the logical conclusion of US politics is Kanye vs. Oprah.
To what extent do people think Musk will swing it for Trump? I have a strong suspicion he will invest heavily in disinformation ahead off November.
I think some of us are underestimating how much twitter/x is now an irrelevance. I have a few colleagues under 30, even 35, for whom it's just nothing - doesn't exist in their world. TikTok/Insta is still huge though. And a few over 50's for whom it's never been a thing in the first place…
To what extent do people think Musk will swing it for Trump? I have a strong suspicion he will invest heavily in disinformation ahead off November.
I think some of us are underestimating how much twitter/x is now an irrelevance. I have a few colleagues under 30, even 35, for whom it's just nothing - doesn't exist in their world. TikTok/Insta is still huge though. And a few over 50's for whom it's never been a thing in the first place…
How are TikTok/instagram for breaking news ?
No idea - I don't use any of them. I quite like my news at 8am and 9pm.
Tremendous activity in the Western Ring of Fire in the past few days. Earthquakes right from Kamchatka to Indonesia. And everywhere in between. Dunno if it's building to a really big one but summat to note.
“The most unique aspect of this lithograph is the ink. As indicated in the lower left side of the lithograph, the ink used in the printing process was mixed with a portion of the actual neutron moderator graphite from CP-1.” https://x.com/curiouswavefn/status/1825285928774181009
Ukrainian military destroying the paperwork on Russians that didn't want to fight in the Kursk region. But doesn't the shithole have digital paperwork on them in 2024 you may ask, no, they don't.
"These documents were found at the conscription station of "Sudzhanki RVC", where the Russian occupiers recruited and sent their soldiers to kill Ukrainians. Among the folders is one with the telling title: "Wanted persons due to evasion of activities related to the performance of military duty." Our duty is to help citizens who do not want to fight against Ukrainians and die for Putin, so all personal files were destroyed." https://x.com/kvistp/status/1825240289436418498
Tremendous activity in the Western Ring of Fire in the past few days. Earthquakes right from Kamchatka to Indonesia. And everywhere in between. Dunno if it's building to a really big one but summat to note.
I remember walking through the foundations of the washed away tourist huts on the stunning, deserted beach north of hut bay on Little Andaman, about 5 years after the tsunami.
Bought home the terrifying power of nature.
Let's hope the early warning systems work next time around.
"Emperor" Xi has described himself as in favor of "socialism with Chinese characteristics". At the risk of angering some of you, I will say that sounds a bit like a kind of national socialism.
You can construct a much better argument that Trump is a fascist than Kamela is a communist.
Actually Donald Trump LOVES Communists! Recently sent Xi a fricking love letter.
PLUS is good buddies with Kim the Commie dictator of North Korea.
AND is well-know for wanting to give up Ukraine on a sliver platter to Putin.
So no wonder Trump-fluffers like NY Post AND our own PB Sophist-in Chief, who descirates the UKR flag every time he stirs more shit on here.
The word communist isn’t a synonym for “cartoon villain enemy of the US”.
For all the anti-Communist rhetoric over the years, there has always been a considerable degree of hypocrisy and a lack of self-awareness to go therewith.
The way sporting leagues are typically run in the US, for example.
"Emperor" Xi has described himself as in favor of "socialism with Chinese characteristics". At the risk of angering some of you, I will say that sounds a bit like a kind of national socialism.
I thought a Chinese president said he was in favour of this about 35 years ago.
Andy_JS - True enough, though what was meant by "socialism with Chinese characteristics" has changed over time, as the ChiCom leaders have changed, and as their tactics have changed.
This is quite an interesting spat. While I think Florida laws barring felons from voting are stupid, it's pretty scandalous that they allowed Trump to vote - when they've prosecuted people in similar situations for doing so.
Thread 🧵 1/ Despite what the press is erroneously saying, Trump was NOT legally eligible to vote in Florida when he cast his ballot the other day, because our state constitution prohibits it... https://x.com/Matt_Fleming321/status/1824829513559101623
"Operation Early Dawn: Emergency move to avoid prison overcrowding expected to be triggered today
The chairman of the Prison Officers' Association says he expects an announcement on Operation Early Dawn as early as Monday, with the North East and North West under particular pressure."
"The word communist isn’t a synonym for “cartoon villain enemy of the US”."
What the freaking fuck is THIS supposed to mean???
Xi is definitely a commie, and ditto Kim. AND even though he pretends he's not, so is Putin. AND all three are most definitely villians AND enemies of the US, and also UKR and UK.
On topic (vaguely), one interesting “what if” question is this: if DJT had been assassinated, would Joe Biden had been forced out?
My view on this is no. I think the Democrats would have stuck with Joe, part because the dynamics would have changed and part because the Republicans would have been forced to have nominated another candidate and my guess is the election would have been framed as inexperience v inexperience.
It also should be noted the events of the last few months would make a great political thriller - polarising presidential candidate nearly gets killed, sitting President shoved aside with a threat to use the 25th etc ’
I genuinely don't know the answer to that question. I don't think the Brits have internalised how big the almost-assassination was: how close it was, how his reaction to it solidified his support. A slight intake of breath at the wrong time and he would be dead, and God alone knows what would have happened next.
What would have happened next is that someone else would run for the election instead.
Just like after every other US Presidential shootings of which this is the latest in a long line.
There's nothing unique or unprecedented in what almost happened. That's America for you.
Comments
I still don’t get the £1,000+ phones, for anyone who isn’t using the camera to replace a proper camera for work.
And is fear of Islam absolutely rational for Jews?
Calling it a phobia seems irrational to me
1) There are Muslims in Israel so the suggestion that Israel encompass the West Bank and Gaza doesn't necessarily mean exterminating or expelling them as the 'Palestine' equivalent does the Israelis;
2) Most Israelis I have met *do* actually want to take at least the West Bank, and I can't imagine recent events have exactly led them to think Gaza would be better as a separate state.
A fancy slim phone that lasts half a day, then dies, is the opposite of useful.
I needed to make an emergency call, some time back, and with 2% battery it was touch and go if my iphone se stayed on long enough to see out the call.
I realised, even a £10 Nokia brickphone is better than a dead iPhone SE, in that moment.
He then went on to point out that's an inconsistent triad and you can only have at most two of them.
Certainly what he said was borne out by what I saw and heard. And not just from Israeli Jews. It's what the Israeli Muslims and Christians think the Israeli Jews want as well (if that makes sense).
I want Israel, a homeland for the Jews, to exist
If you don't want that, then you are an anti-Zionist
You want Israel to be destroyed
There are only two sides
Otherwise whatever is a good deal really.
(Taken from my Dorset garden.)
Had mine for nearly three years. Does everything I need it to.
I'm not entirely convinced he wasn't right, in retrospect. But the low ambition is seeded right through the system.
You're probably just anti-Zionist
Now *that's* somebody I would like to speak to...
I would support a two state solution.
Maybe a better starting point than binary choices is: What is the best possible outcome for good people of goodwill on all sides?
"When I told my family I wanted to be a comedian, they laughed. Well, they're not laughing now."
5% of 8.2 billion is 410 million.
That seems an awful lot of people who are interested in Blanche's views. Approximately 34 times as many as live in the whole of Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
The Palestinians that you support hate you and want you dead
Glamorgan and Somerset go through to the final as Leicestershire fall short in a tough chase and Warwickshire spin themselves into a hole.
Could be an interesting final. I tipped Glamorgan for one-day silverware last year so naturally they bombed, but this year they've done very well.
On his pre-careers interview form, he wrote "I would like to be a careers advisor." Said advisor then wrote "comedian, eh?" on the form.
Making Stephen Fry one of the few people to actually follow a careers advisor's advice.
She would ask me what I wanted to do, and I'd answer, quite honestly, 'I don't know.'
Left her totally flummoxed.
One year, just to confuse things, I said, 'I'd like to play the organ as much as possible.'
It took some smoothing over as she was not religious and didn't realise I was being both completely honest and not saying what she thought.
i very much doubt Palestinians trying to eke out a living in war-torn Gaza or being displaced by settlers in the West Bank couldn't give two hoots about me.
And a few days later, there'll be a mass of it.
There is a fair proportion of the electorate who see Trump as a flawed person who is also quite entertaining and makes some fair points on the economy, borders etc.
Feelings are stronger on Trump than many previous candidates, clearly. But there is a tendency here to overestimate how many Americans are highly engaged, and underestimate how many are somewhat ambivalent about the choices. Not everyone in America attends rallies, tweets about politics etc.
Currently RCP has the EC very tight, 276 to Trump and 262 to Harris which would be the closest election since 2000 and PA the deciding state and tied.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/president/2024/no-toss-up/electoral-college
The popular vote has Harris ahead by 1.4%, also close and a smaller margin for Harris than Biden led Trump by in 2020 and Hillary led Trump by in 2016
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris
Wanting Israel to exist is anti-Palestine
They want one state, from the river to the sea
This means that I will have to pay for a TV licence and then ask for a refund for the months I didn't use it (11/12) in December 2025. Cancelling the monthly direct debit is not advisable because you will get an angry letter through the door every week for the rest of your life.
Just because popular vote isn't everything doesn't mean it isn't anything.
If I knew a candidate had a 2% edge in the popular vote, I'd bet on them. In 2016, I'd have been wrong. But I'd more often have been right.
From the river to the sea
Means no two state solution
It means death to Jews
Zionism means, literally, supporting that Israel exists
Even the quality of OE PMs ie Cameron and Johnson most recently is not as big a brag as when OEs like Gladstone or Salisbury ran an Empire as well as the nation or Macmillan was sidekick to JFK
Shame so many of them seem to end up as high court judges, civil servants, professors, FTSE 100 bosses, politicians etc despite being mid ranking solicitors and accountants.
BlackBeltBarrister
Railway operators unlawfully prosecuted over 74,000 cases using the Single Justice Procedure, leading to all convictions being declared null and void. This abuse of the SJP highlighted serious jurisdictional overreach."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FtNxbMlo-k
PLUS is good buddies with Kim the Commie dictator of North Korea.
AND is well-know for wanting to give up Ukraine on a sliver platter to Putin.
So no wonder Trump-fluffers like NY Post AND our own PB Sophist-in Chief, who descirates the UKR flag every time he stirs more shit on here.
---
Board Games for Liberals:
Four-Dimensional Chess
When you checkmate your opponent’s king, start the timer—if they can explain to everyone within earshot that they actually lost on purpose, their king will regain control of the narrative, and take control of the board.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/shouts-murmurs/board-games-for-liberals
The Loser admires power -- especially if it is inherited. The second part tells me that neither "communist" nor "facist" is a good description of the Loser, but monarchist is closer. And that helps explain some of his appeal. (If I recall correctly, Bagehot had something sensible to say about the appeal of monarchies, way back in the 19th century.)
But people have been pretty well inoculated against that in recent years.
The Harris offering is pretty straightforward - and a substantial amount if it is based on the last four years in government - so ‘Hillary’s emails’ or the like is not particularly likely to determine the outcome.
Also what gets overlooked - there is a strong strand in Islam that says that, if you do not believe all the land is Palestine, you are not a true Muslim ie there is no room for Israel.
Another fun fact - Hamas built up its power through schools and hospitals, which remained Hamas run up to 7/10. So, this is not like the West where hospitals are neutral - they are actively run by one side or the conflict.
Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
·
5m
EXPRESS: Tories united in support of winter fuel crusade #TomorrowsPapersToday
My view on this is no. I think the Democrats would have stuck with Joe, part because the dynamics would have changed and part because the Republicans would have been forced to have nominated another candidate and my guess is the election would have been framed as inexperience v inexperience.
It also should be noted the events of the last few months would make a great political thriller - polarising presidential candidate nearly gets killed, sitting President shoved aside with a threat to use the 25th etc ’
The youth dividend goes to whoever chooses someone younger, obvs.
Dunno if it's building to a really big one but summat to note.
I do think the assassination attempt was the final straw for the Democrats - the bounce it gave Trump at the Convention mean they had to throw the dice.
Maybe Elon will flail in his echo-chamber. Influencing newspaper journalists of a certain vintage, all hot-taking each other in a downward spiral of dwindling import.
🔵 Harris 50% (+5)
🔴 Trump 45%
Last poll vs Biden (May) - 🔴 Trump +6
Siena #A - LV - 8/15
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1825278722112426440
“The most unique aspect of this lithograph is the ink. As indicated in the lower left side of the lithograph, the ink used in the printing process was mixed with a portion of the actual neutron moderator graphite from CP-1.”
https://x.com/curiouswavefn/status/1825285928774181009
Sadly of no great artistic merit.
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
An unnecessary (I assume) reminder to Dem convention planners:
1. Speak to indies and gettable Rs not just Dems.
2. Trump-Vance are for surrender in Ukraine and victory for Putin.
3. Trump is anti-military.
4. Project 2025 is anti-American.
5. Happy warrior/big tent vibes.
https://x.com/BillKristol/status/1825185557405659489
But doesn't the shithole have digital paperwork on them in 2024 you may ask, no, they don't.
"These documents were found at the conscription station of "Sudzhanki RVC", where the Russian occupiers recruited and sent their soldiers to kill Ukrainians. Among the folders is one with the telling title: "Wanted persons due to evasion of activities related to the performance of military duty." Our duty is to help citizens who do not want to fight against Ukrainians and die for Putin, so all personal files were destroyed."
https://x.com/kvistp/status/1825240289436418498
Bought home the terrifying power of nature.
Let's hope the early warning systems work next time around.
The word certainly doesn’t describe Harris. As a GOP attack line, it’s pathetic.
For all the anti-Communist rhetoric over the years, there has always been a considerable degree of hypocrisy and a lack of self-awareness to go therewith.
The way sporting leagues are typically run in the US, for example.
https://x.com/krassenstein/status/1825131249549119634/mediaViewer
https://x.com/JohnRentoul/status/1825183748104548837
While I think Florida laws barring felons from voting are stupid, it's pretty scandalous that they allowed Trump to vote - when they've prosecuted people in similar situations for doing so.
Thread 🧵 1/
Despite what the press is erroneously saying, Trump was NOT legally eligible to vote in Florida when he cast his ballot the other day, because our state constitution prohibits it...
https://x.com/Matt_Fleming321/status/1824829513559101623
The chairman of the Prison Officers' Association says he expects an announcement on Operation Early Dawn as early as Monday, with the North East and North West under particular pressure."
https://news.sky.com/story/operation-early-dawn-emergency-move-to-avoid-prison-overcrowding-expected-to-be-triggered-on-monday-13199191
What the freaking fuck is THIS supposed to mean???
Xi is definitely a commie, and ditto Kim. AND even though he pretends he's not, so is Putin. AND all three are most definitely villians AND enemies of the US, and also UKR and UK.
Just like after every other US Presidential shootings of which this is the latest in a long line.
There's nothing unique or unprecedented in what almost happened. That's America for you.