In Vance's book though he makes the point that in his community, and across the fly over states in general, there were a lot of people who would talk proudly about their church going and their religiousness - but didn't actually go near the church in reality. Makes me a bit sceptical of this kind of polling.
Vance's interest is family rather than religion.
Which is why he seems to view the childless in the same way religious obsessives view the non-religious.
“The largest organization representing the Christian faith in Ohio issued a scathing letter in defense of Haitian migrants in Springfield.
“The letter released Friday evening by the Ohio Council of Churches (OCC) decried the false statements from Republican vice presidential nominee and U.S. Sen. JD Vance and running mate, former president Donald Trump, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were eating pets and wildlife.”
“The Catholic Conference of Ohio, which represents bishops from diocesan groups across the state, published a letter Thursday asking for the public to treat Haitian immigrants in Springfield with respect and dignity, warning against "unfounded gossip" and "scapegoating."”
Setting the bar for scathing a bit low.
These guys have a biological imperative to eat protein, a religious imperative to sacrifice small animals, and no money. How do *you* think they might solve these problems?
Mercator, the claims of pet-eating Haitians have been thoroughly debunked. It never happened. Republican politicians took someone repeating an urban myth on Facebook and just invented a new blood libel. Why are you holding on to the idea? It is pure racism.
They haven't been debunked, statements have been made that there is "no evidence" for them, misunderstanding the meaning of "evidence." Perhaps you think vodou or the requirement of animal sacrifice is an urban myth? It's an official religion.
Animal sacrifice is huge in the US. I can't say I am particularly fussed, I am irreligious but religion tolerant and if I eat animals I am cool with humanely conducted sacrifice. I also agree that talking about it on US facing social media is an uncontroversially bad thing. But truth is independent of how we would like things to be.
More notably, it’s now more than two weeks after the debate and everyone is still talking about immigration, which can only help the Republicans. The story itself has enough plausibility, and people’s actual experiences don’t match with those saying it’s a racist lie.
What actual experiences? No-one had had an experience of an immigrant eating their pet.
One of the groups who are most supportive of Trump are non-churchgoing evangelicals.
Being evangelical once suggested regular church attendance, a focus on salvation and conversion and strongly held views on specific issues such as abortion. Today, it is as often used to describe a cultural and political identity: one in which Christians are considered a persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically and Mr. Trump looms large...
But as Mr. Trump gained ground in the early primaries, his growing strength among white evangelical voters became clear. Polls showed that the future nominee was most popular among one group in particular: white evangelicals who seldom or never went to church
Beyond even the buzz of the megachurch, there is the buzz of the televangelist, which manages to line up with MAGA even more.
Reminiscent of the non-churchgoing Reagan who managed to convince voters he was more religious than Jimmy Carter, a president who even taught Sunday school from the White House.
Carter won evangelicals in 1976 against Ford but lost them in 1980, he is the only Democrat though to have won evangelicals at a presidential election
It depends a little on definition, but Carter was perhaps the second "Born Again" President, with Garfield being the first.
Considering the large number of Evangelicals in the USA, it is a surprisingly small number. Nearly all other presidents have been either traditional denominations or not particularly interested in religion at all.
I think some of the mutual antipathy we see between MAGA Republicans and coastal Democrats arises from this lack of Evangelical representation and priorities on the national stage. Trump being a businessman with no political hinterland prior to 2016 helps him ally with this anti-elite mindset.
Bill Clinton was a Baptist, Trump is Presbyterian. There hasn't been an Anglican President since Bush 41, Bush 43 was Methodist, Biden is Catholic, Obama was congregational United Church of Christ
The funniest reaction video I saw was an American reacting to the interfaith episode of Derry Girls, where (during the Troubles) the Catholic girls school met the Protestant boys school and hilarity ensued. This poor American was tying himself in knots commenting on the differences between various protestant denominations because he did not realise religion was a proxy for Republicanism or Loyalism.
“The largest organization representing the Christian faith in Ohio issued a scathing letter in defense of Haitian migrants in Springfield.
“The letter released Friday evening by the Ohio Council of Churches (OCC) decried the false statements from Republican vice presidential nominee and U.S. Sen. JD Vance and running mate, former president Donald Trump, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were eating pets and wildlife.”
“The Catholic Conference of Ohio, which represents bishops from diocesan groups across the state, published a letter Thursday asking for the public to treat Haitian immigrants in Springfield with respect and dignity, warning against "unfounded gossip" and "scapegoating."”
Setting the bar for scathing a bit low.
These guys have a biological imperative to eat protein, a religious imperative to sacrifice small animals, and no money. How do *you* think they might solve these problems?
Mercator, the claims of pet-eating Haitians have been thoroughly debunked. It never happened. Republican politicians took someone repeating an urban myth on Facebook and just invented a new blood libel. Why are you holding on to the idea? It is pure racism.
They haven't been debunked, statements have been made that there is "no evidence" for them, misunderstanding the meaning of "evidence." Perhaps you think vodou or the requirement of animal sacrifice is an urban myth? It's an official religion.
Animal sacrifice is huge in the US. I can't say I am particularly fussed, I am irreligious but religion tolerant and if I eat animals I am cool with humanely conducted sacrifice. I also agree that talking about it on US facing social media is an uncontroversially bad thing. But truth is independent of how we would like things to be.
More notably, it’s now more than two weeks after the debate and everyone is still talking about immigration, which can only help the Republicans. The story itself has enough plausibility, and people’s actual experiences don’t match with those saying it’s a racist lie.
What actual experiences? No-one had had an experience of an immigrant eating their pet.
sandpit has denied it, but the story that he eats cats definitely has enough plausibility
He is an immigrant, and definitely eats foods that the local, non-immigrant population find disgusting.
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
Why is "homosexuality" sinful? I can see arguments for "adultery, gluttony, lying or greed" being sinful, but I can't see how homosexuality can be added to the list?
Being homosexual isn't sinful, same sex sexual acts is sinful if you read certain Biblical or Koran passages, just as admiring a beautiful woman isn't sinful of itself unless you have sex outside marriage with them
Matthew 5:27-9
Avoiding going full lustfully is the key
You said “unless you have sex outside marriage with them”. Jesus clearly disagrees with you.
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
Why is "homosexuality" sinful? I can see arguments for "adultery, gluttony, lying or greed" being sinful, but I can't see how homosexuality can be added to the list?
Being homosexual isn't sinful, same sex sexual acts is sinful if you read certain Biblical or Koran passages, just as admiring a beautiful woman isn't sinful of itself unless you have sex outside marriage with them
Matthew 5:27-9
Avoiding going full lustfully is the key
You said “unless you have sex outside marriage with them”. Jesus clearly disagrees with you.
There is a distinction between admiration for beauty and lustful thought
(When I like a government it's a sure sign that the voters will kill it and bury it in a hole at the first opportunity they get.)
All wind. The current system is already default permission. You have to prove that there are valid reasons why houses should not be built. The issue of course is who decides what reasons are valid.
So this changes absolutely nothing in prcatice whilst sounding like they are doing something.
Other bits are better - high density is good if it means building 4 and 5 stories rather than 2. Copy the Europeans or the way we used to build pre 20th century.
Here in mid-Warks we have street after street of scruffy suburban bungalows built in the 1960s. My modest proposal is to bulldoze them all and replace with five-storey neo-Georgian terraces instead. The sort that sell for a million or two in Islington. Not only a better use of valuable brownfield land, they would actually look nicer as I drive past.
- if you are irreligious/secular, why do you not drink?
This is not a gotcha, I am properly curious. Alcohol, in moderation (heck, in excess, but that's maybe just me) - is one of life's great pleasures. Really really great
Yes it's bad for you in some ways but so is sleeping with dozens of beautiful women, or so I am told by my married and feminist friends
So, why not indulge? You're not going to Islamic hell, there's no one eating up the human-sized kebab skewers, you don't believe in it
“The largest organization representing the Christian faith in Ohio issued a scathing letter in defense of Haitian migrants in Springfield.
“The letter released Friday evening by the Ohio Council of Churches (OCC) decried the false statements from Republican vice presidential nominee and U.S. Sen. JD Vance and running mate, former president Donald Trump, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were eating pets and wildlife.”
“The Catholic Conference of Ohio, which represents bishops from diocesan groups across the state, published a letter Thursday asking for the public to treat Haitian immigrants in Springfield with respect and dignity, warning against "unfounded gossip" and "scapegoating."”
Setting the bar for scathing a bit low.
These guys have a biological imperative to eat protein, a religious imperative to sacrifice small animals, and no money. How do *you* think they might solve these problems?
Mercator, the claims of pet-eating Haitians have been thoroughly debunked. It never happened. Republican politicians took someone repeating an urban myth on Facebook and just invented a new blood libel. Why are you holding on to the idea? It is pure racism.
They haven't been debunked, statements have been made that there is "no evidence" for them, misunderstanding the meaning of "evidence." Perhaps you think vodou or the requirement of animal sacrifice is an urban myth? It's an official religion.
Animal sacrifice is huge in the US. I can't say I am particularly fussed, I am irreligious but religion tolerant and if I eat animals I am cool with humanely conducted sacrifice. I also agree that talking about it on US facing social media is an uncontroversially bad thing. But truth is independent of how we would like things to be.
More notably, it’s now more than two weeks after the debate and everyone is still talking about immigration, which can only help the Republicans. The story itself has enough plausibility, and people’s actual experiences don’t match with those saying it’s a racist lie.
What actual experiences? No-one had had an experience of an immigrant eating their pet.
How do you know that?
I refer you to the post I made earlier.
What, some bishops issued a press release about it?
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
Why is "homosexuality" sinful? I can see arguments for "adultery, gluttony, lying or greed" being sinful, but I can't see how homosexuality can be added to the list?
Being homosexual isn't sinful, same sex sexual acts is sinful if you read certain Biblical or Koran passages, just as admiring a beautiful woman isn't sinful of itself unless you have sex outside marriage with them
Matthew 5:27-9
Avoiding going full lustfully is the key
You said “unless you have sex outside marriage with them”. Jesus clearly disagrees with you.
There is a distinction between admiration for beauty and lustful thought
The words of the elders are like the droppings of the hyena. (We’re just posting random observations now, I take it.) Jesus clearly said something different to what you said.
It's been a while since we've had a politician as poor as Jenrick. He hasn't a single quality to distinguish him: no moral centre, no trace of intellectual substance, no microscopic hint of charisma, no presentational ability.
If Badenoch gets to the final two she wins. And I win my bet of £5 at 11/8.
Lefties well meaning advice to the Tories again - where should we file that?
Jenrick is interesting because he divides the crowd and not in a political way. Even on PB there is a split between those saying Jenrick is a great speaker and those saying he'd cure insomnia.
“The largest organization representing the Christian faith in Ohio issued a scathing letter in defense of Haitian migrants in Springfield.
“The letter released Friday evening by the Ohio Council of Churches (OCC) decried the false statements from Republican vice presidential nominee and U.S. Sen. JD Vance and running mate, former president Donald Trump, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were eating pets and wildlife.”
“The Catholic Conference of Ohio, which represents bishops from diocesan groups across the state, published a letter Thursday asking for the public to treat Haitian immigrants in Springfield with respect and dignity, warning against "unfounded gossip" and "scapegoating."”
Setting the bar for scathing a bit low.
These guys have a biological imperative to eat protein, a religious imperative to sacrifice small animals, and no money. How do *you* think they might solve these problems?
Mercator, the claims of pet-eating Haitians have been thoroughly debunked. It never happened. Republican politicians took someone repeating an urban myth on Facebook and just invented a new blood libel. Why are you holding on to the idea? It is pure racism.
They haven't been debunked, statements have been made that there is "no evidence" for them, misunderstanding the meaning of "evidence." Perhaps you think vodou or the requirement of animal sacrifice is an urban myth? It's an official religion.
Animal sacrifice is huge in the US. I can't say I am particularly fussed, I am irreligious but religion tolerant and if I eat animals I am cool with humanely conducted sacrifice. I also agree that talking about it on US facing social media is an uncontroversially bad thing. But truth is independent of how we would like things to be.
More notably, it’s now more than two weeks after the debate and everyone is still talking about immigration, which can only help the Republicans. The story itself has enough plausibility, and people’s actual experiences don’t match with those saying it’s a racist lie.
What actual experiences? No-one had had an experience of an immigrant eating their pet.
How do you know that?
I refer you to the post I made earlier.
What, some bishops issued a press release about it?
I recommend a basic course in epistemology.
I teach a basic course in epistemology, as it happens.
But, no, the post where I went through how the cat-eating story has been debunked.
In Vance's book though he makes the point that in his community, and across the fly over states in general, there were a lot of people who would talk proudly about their church going and their religiousness - but didn't actually go near the church in reality. Makes me a bit sceptical of this kind of polling.
Vance's interest is family rather than religion.
Which is why he seems to view the childless in the same way religious obsessives view the non-religious.
Vance's interest is Vance. He'd be in a polycule with two or more trans Scientologists if he thought it would advance him politically.
“The largest organization representing the Christian faith in Ohio issued a scathing letter in defense of Haitian migrants in Springfield.
“The letter released Friday evening by the Ohio Council of Churches (OCC) decried the false statements from Republican vice presidential nominee and U.S. Sen. JD Vance and running mate, former president Donald Trump, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were eating pets and wildlife.”
“The Catholic Conference of Ohio, which represents bishops from diocesan groups across the state, published a letter Thursday asking for the public to treat Haitian immigrants in Springfield with respect and dignity, warning against "unfounded gossip" and "scapegoating."”
Setting the bar for scathing a bit low.
These guys have a biological imperative to eat protein, a religious imperative to sacrifice small animals, and no money. How do *you* think they might solve these problems?
Mercator, the claims of pet-eating Haitians have been thoroughly debunked. It never happened. Republican politicians took someone repeating an urban myth on Facebook and just invented a new blood libel. Why are you holding on to the idea? It is pure racism.
They haven't been debunked, statements have been made that there is "no evidence" for them, misunderstanding the meaning of "evidence." Perhaps you think vodou or the requirement of animal sacrifice is an urban myth? It's an official religion.
Animal sacrifice is huge in the US. I can't say I am particularly fussed, I am irreligious but religion tolerant and if I eat animals I am cool with humanely conducted sacrifice. I also agree that talking about it on US facing social media is an uncontroversially bad thing. But truth is independent of how we would like things to be.
More notably, it’s now more than two weeks after the debate and everyone is still talking about immigration, which can only help the Republicans. The story itself has enough plausibility, and people’s actual experiences don’t match with those saying it’s a racist lie.
What actual experiences? No-one had had an experience of an immigrant eating their pet.
How do you know that?
I refer you to the post I made earlier.
What, some bishops issued a press release about it?
I recommend a basic course in epistemology.
I teach a basic course in epistemology, as it happens.
But, no, the post where I went through how the cat-eating story has been debunked.
It really really hasn't been debunked. You are the most credulous fuckwit
The idea there are thousands of Haitians perpetually roaming Springfield looking for cats to eat or sacrifice has been debunked but it was never bunked, no one claimed anything that dramatic
Several Springfield residents have made statements about noticing stray cat populations vanish, and actually seeing Haitians snatching ducks in the park
Moreover, we have absolute evidence of Voodoo/Santeria rituals leading to the disappearance and death of domestic animals in America before this
- if you are irreligious/secular, why do you not drink?
This is not a gotcha, I am properly curious. Alcohol, in moderation (heck, in excess, but that's maybe just me) - is one of life's great pleasures. Really really great
Yes it's bad for you in some ways but so is sleeping with dozens of beautiful women, or so I am told by my married and feminist friends
So, why not indulge? You're not going to Islamic hell, there's no one eating up the human-sized kebab skewers, you don't believe in it
It's even odder than you would think because the holy Quran treats alcohol and betting as twin evils.
They ask you ˹O Prophet˺ about intoxicants and gambling. Say, “There is great evil in both, as well as some benefit for people—but the evil outweighs the benefit.” surah al Baqarah 219
Bloody right about the "some benefit", but if you are doomed to hell for editing a gambling site it seems perverse to forgo the occasional sharpener.
“The largest organization representing the Christian faith in Ohio issued a scathing letter in defense of Haitian migrants in Springfield.
“The letter released Friday evening by the Ohio Council of Churches (OCC) decried the false statements from Republican vice presidential nominee and U.S. Sen. JD Vance and running mate, former president Donald Trump, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were eating pets and wildlife.”
“The Catholic Conference of Ohio, which represents bishops from diocesan groups across the state, published a letter Thursday asking for the public to treat Haitian immigrants in Springfield with respect and dignity, warning against "unfounded gossip" and "scapegoating."”
Setting the bar for scathing a bit low.
These guys have a biological imperative to eat protein, a religious imperative to sacrifice small animals, and no money. How do *you* think they might solve these problems?
Mercator, the claims of pet-eating Haitians have been thoroughly debunked. It never happened. Republican politicians took someone repeating an urban myth on Facebook and just invented a new blood libel. Why are you holding on to the idea? It is pure racism.
They haven't been debunked, statements have been made that there is "no evidence" for them, misunderstanding the meaning of "evidence." Perhaps you think vodou or the requirement of animal sacrifice is an urban myth? It's an official religion.
Animal sacrifice is huge in the US. I can't say I am particularly fussed, I am irreligious but religion tolerant and if I eat animals I am cool with humanely conducted sacrifice. I also agree that talking about it on US facing social media is an uncontroversially bad thing. But truth is independent of how we would like things to be.
More notably, it’s now more than two weeks after the debate and everyone is still talking about immigration, which can only help the Republicans. The story itself has enough plausibility, and people’s actual experiences don’t match with those saying it’s a racist lie.
What actual experiences? No-one had had an experience of an immigrant eating their pet.
sandpit has denied it, but the story that he eats cats definitely has enough plausibility
He is an immigrant, and definitely eats foods that the local, non-immigrant population find disgusting.
“The largest organization representing the Christian faith in Ohio issued a scathing letter in defense of Haitian migrants in Springfield.
“The letter released Friday evening by the Ohio Council of Churches (OCC) decried the false statements from Republican vice presidential nominee and U.S. Sen. JD Vance and running mate, former president Donald Trump, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were eating pets and wildlife.”
“The Catholic Conference of Ohio, which represents bishops from diocesan groups across the state, published a letter Thursday asking for the public to treat Haitian immigrants in Springfield with respect and dignity, warning against "unfounded gossip" and "scapegoating."”
Setting the bar for scathing a bit low.
These guys have a biological imperative to eat protein, a religious imperative to sacrifice small animals, and no money. How do *you* think they might solve these problems?
Mercator, the claims of pet-eating Haitians have been thoroughly debunked. It never happened. Republican politicians took someone repeating an urban myth on Facebook and just invented a new blood libel. Why are you holding on to the idea? It is pure racism.
They haven't been debunked, statements have been made that there is "no evidence" for them, misunderstanding the meaning of "evidence." Perhaps you think vodou or the requirement of animal sacrifice is an urban myth? It's an official religion.
Animal sacrifice is huge in the US. I can't say I am particularly fussed, I am irreligious but religion tolerant and if I eat animals I am cool with humanely conducted sacrifice. I also agree that talking about it on US facing social media is an uncontroversially bad thing. But truth is independent of how we would like things to be.
More notably, it’s now more than two weeks after the debate and everyone is still talking about immigration, which can only help the Republicans. The story itself has enough plausibility, and people’s actual experiences don’t match with those saying it’s a racist lie.
What actual experiences? No-one had had an experience of an immigrant eating their pet.
How do you know that?
I refer you to the post I made earlier.
What, some bishops issued a press release about it?
I recommend a basic course in epistemology.
I teach a basic course in epistemology, as it happens.
But, no, the post where I went through how the cat-eating story has been debunked.
One of the groups who are most supportive of Trump are non-churchgoing evangelicals.
Being evangelical once suggested regular church attendance, a focus on salvation and conversion and strongly held views on specific issues such as abortion. Today, it is as often used to describe a cultural and political identity: one in which Christians are considered a persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically and Mr. Trump looms large...
But as Mr. Trump gained ground in the early primaries, his growing strength among white evangelical voters became clear. Polls showed that the future nominee was most popular among one group in particular: white evangelicals who seldom or never went to church
Beyond even the buzz of the megachurch, there is the buzz of the televangelist, which manages to line up with MAGA even more.
Reminiscent of the non-churchgoing Reagan who managed to convince voters he was more religious than Jimmy Carter, a president who even taught Sunday school from the White House.
Carter won evangelicals in 1976 against Ford but lost them in 1980, he is the only Democrat though to have won evangelicals at a presidential election
It depends a little on definition, but Carter was perhaps the second "Born Again" President, with Garfield being the first.
Considering the large number of Evangelicals in the USA, it is a surprisingly small number. Nearly all other presidents have been either traditional denominations or not particularly interested in religion at all.
I think some of the mutual antipathy we see between MAGA Republicans and coastal Democrats arises from this lack of Evangelical representation and priorities on the national stage. Trump being a businessman with no political hinterland prior to 2016 helps him ally with this anti-elite mindset.
Carter was asked "Are you born again", and answered "Yes, I am". I suggest the difference from Trump, and to an extent Reagan, is that Carter was from a liberal (ie tolerant) evangelical background, not an authoritarian one, and regarded it as definitional for him personally, rather than as a convenient marketing strategy. That brings it back to deeds ultimately matter more than words.
Here's a reference from Foreign Policy: Carter’s interest in foreign affairs derived in part from his involvement with the Trilateral Commission, where he met and formed an alliance with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who became Carter’s national security advisor. A larger influence on the president, however, was his evangelical faith. Carter’s declaration that he was a born-again Christian had provoked incredulity from the national press corps, but the statement resonated with many Americans, including evangelicals themselves, who looked for integrity in the White House following the scandals of former U.S. President Richard Nixon’s administration. Carter, a Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher, fit the bill. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/22/jimmy-carter-foreign-policy-america-evangelical-christianity/
Also, the news about rich people leaving the UK is now international, we had dinner with some American friends who are over for the week last night and they brought it up as it's made their news cycle in the last couple of weeks that British millionaires and very high earners are leaving for the US, Dubai and parts of europe. My wife did nothing to disabuse them of that impression when she mentioned that she's begun looking for a house in Switzerland.
If Harris and Walz get in with their tax raising plans for CGT too I would also expect some rich Americans to move to the Bahamas, Dubai, Switzerland, Singapore etc too.
Though as a more Federal system you can also see shift from high tax states like Massachusetts and California to lower tax states like Texas
I also see Macron has just appointed Barnier PM and a largely centre right cabinet made up of his party and Les Republicains.
If Harris and Walz win following Starmer's win here in July and the Democrats win at least one chamber of Congress then France would have a government right of both the UK and US for the first time since Sarkozy was in power and Brown and Obama were in office (also right of Germany and its SPD led government). You might also see some wealthy investors move to Paris
“The largest organization representing the Christian faith in Ohio issued a scathing letter in defense of Haitian migrants in Springfield.
“The letter released Friday evening by the Ohio Council of Churches (OCC) decried the false statements from Republican vice presidential nominee and U.S. Sen. JD Vance and running mate, former president Donald Trump, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were eating pets and wildlife.”
“The Catholic Conference of Ohio, which represents bishops from diocesan groups across the state, published a letter Thursday asking for the public to treat Haitian immigrants in Springfield with respect and dignity, warning against "unfounded gossip" and "scapegoating."”
Setting the bar for scathing a bit low.
These guys have a biological imperative to eat protein, a religious imperative to sacrifice small animals, and no money. How do *you* think they might solve these problems?
Mercator, the claims of pet-eating Haitians have been thoroughly debunked. It never happened. Republican politicians took someone repeating an urban myth on Facebook and just invented a new blood libel. Why are you holding on to the idea? It is pure racism.
They haven't been debunked, statements have been made that there is "no evidence" for them, misunderstanding the meaning of "evidence." Perhaps you think vodou or the requirement of animal sacrifice is an urban myth? It's an official religion.
Animal sacrifice is huge in the US. I can't say I am particularly fussed, I am irreligious but religion tolerant and if I eat animals I am cool with humanely conducted sacrifice. I also agree that talking about it on US facing social media is an uncontroversially bad thing. But truth is independent of how we would like things to be.
More notably, it’s now more than two weeks after the debate and everyone is still talking about immigration, which can only help the Republicans. The story itself has enough plausibility, and people’s actual experiences don’t match with those saying it’s a racist lie.
What actual experiences? No-one had had an experience of an immigrant eating their pet.
How do you know that?
I refer you to the post I made earlier.
What, some bishops issued a press release about it?
I recommend a basic course in epistemology.
I teach a basic course in epistemology, as it happens.
But, no, the post where I went through how the cat-eating story has been debunked.
That is almost too good to be true.
Can you link to the post?
Look up thread. If that’s beyond you, I don’t know that I can help.
It's been a while since we've had a politician as poor as Jenrick. He hasn't a single quality to distinguish him: no moral centre, no trace of intellectual substance, no microscopic hint of charisma, no presentational ability.
If Badenoch gets to the final two she wins. And I win my bet of £5 at 11/8.
Lefties well meaning advice to the Tories again - where should we file that?
Jenrick is interesting because he divides the crowd and not in a political way. Even on PB there is a split between those saying Jenrick is a great speaker and those saying he'd cure insomnia.
"If Badenoch gets to the final two she wins. And I win my bet of £5 at 11/8."
Yes. Absolutely she wins. And it seems to me the membership are going to be f-ing furious when the MPs don't put her through.
- if you are irreligious/secular, why do you not drink?
This is not a gotcha, I am properly curious. Alcohol, in moderation (heck, in excess, but that's maybe just me) - is one of life's great pleasures. Really really great
Yes it's bad for you in some ways but so is sleeping with dozens of beautiful women, or so I am told by my married and feminist friends
So, why not indulge? You're not going to Islamic hell, there's no one eating up the human-sized kebab skewers, you don't believe in it
It started off as a religious thing, when I arrived at university I fell off the Muslim wagon but I saw people make really bad decisions when drunk.
Then after university I was working 100 plus hours I didn't want any distractions, I would work, go home, watch some sport, sleep.
Then I moved to North Yorkshire and working in Leeds, and had a girlfriend who lived in the Wirral who didn't drive.
I was doing 25,000 miles a year commuting and maintaining a relationship, I was worried about ending up with a drink driving charge because early in my career a colleague ended up with a drink driving conviction despite not drinking much.
I've always managed to have a good time without needing to drink alcohol or consume drugs.
Edit - My mother has forgiven my many transgressions but me being drunk would put her six foot under.
(When I like a government it's a sure sign that the voters will kill it and bury it in a hole at the first opportunity they get.)
All wind. The current system is already default permission. You have to prove that there are valid reasons why houses should not be built. The issue of course is who decides what reasons are valid.
So this changes absolutely nothing in prcatice whilst sounding like they are doing something.
Other bits are better - high density is good if it means building 4 and 5 stories rather than 2. Copy the Europeans or the way we used to build pre 20th century.
My personal prescription (https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4941411#Comment_4941411 ) includes as a key point the use of LDOs to provide key reports up front for an area (or "zone," if you will), so that permission is automatic as long as it complies with a given set of conditions.
And in this paper:
5.4 Area-wide permissions
Finally, while the options set out above could be used only to give greater support to individual applications, an additional approach would be to combine the options for the scale and form of development with Local Development Orders (LDOs), in order to provide upfront consent to developments that meet the specified criteria.
LDOs are an existing tool, prepared by local planning authorities, which give upfront planning permission for specified forms of development across all or part of an authority’s area.
Combining them with criteria on the scale and/or form of development as suggested above would allow a local planning authority to effectively establish one or more zones in which particular types of development had planning permission without the need for individual applications.
Now, they're probably going to need to provide a little funding for this - the various reports still need to be done - but it could both provide almost auto-permissions for development in a given large site (saving time, risk, and money for developers and possibly making it more feasible for smaller developers to get in on the act) AND allow for local control (people get much grumpier about development away from allocated sites than they do at allocated sites, and this would focus development at the latter - because it would be much cheaper and easier).
I've got a lot I'm critical about with this Government, but this might actually be a good move.
One of the groups who are most supportive of Trump are non-churchgoing evangelicals.
Being evangelical once suggested regular church attendance, a focus on salvation and conversion and strongly held views on specific issues such as abortion. Today, it is as often used to describe a cultural and political identity: one in which Christians are considered a persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically and Mr. Trump looms large...
But as Mr. Trump gained ground in the early primaries, his growing strength among white evangelical voters became clear. Polls showed that the future nominee was most popular among one group in particular: white evangelicals who seldom or never went to church
Beyond even the buzz of the megachurch, there is the buzz of the televangelist, which manages to line up with MAGA even more.
Reminiscent of the non-churchgoing Reagan who managed to convince voters he was more religious than Jimmy Carter, a president who even taught Sunday school from the White House.
Carter won evangelicals in 1976 against Ford but lost them in 1980, he is the only Democrat though to have won evangelicals at a presidential election
It depends a little on definition, but Carter was perhaps the second "Born Again" President, with Garfield being the first.
Considering the large number of Evangelicals in the USA, it is a surprisingly small number. Nearly all other presidents have been either traditional denominations or not particularly interested in religion at all.
I think some of the mutual antipathy we see between MAGA Republicans and coastal Democrats arises from this lack of Evangelical representation and priorities on the national stage. Trump being a businessman with no political hinterland prior to 2016 helps him ally with this anti-elite mindset.
Carter was asked "Are you born again", and answered "Yes, I am". I suggest the difference from Trump, and to an extent Reagan, is that Carter was from a liberal (ie tolerant) evangelical background, not an authoritarian one, and regarded it as definitional for him personally, rather than as a convenient marketing strategy. That brings it back to deeds ultimately matter more than words.
Here's a reference from Foreign Policy: Carter’s interest in foreign affairs derived in part from his involvement with the Trilateral Commission, where he met and formed an alliance with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who became Carter’s national security advisor. A larger influence on the president, however, was his evangelical faith. Carter’s declaration that he was a born-again Christian had provoked incredulity from the national press corps, but the statement resonated with many Americans, including evangelicals themselves, who looked for integrity in the White House following the scandals of former U.S. President Richard Nixon’s administration. Carter, a Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher, fit the bill. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/22/jimmy-carter-foreign-policy-america-evangelical-christianity/
Carter was economically left of centre in US terms but socially relatively conservative, he was personally opposed to abortion with exceptions for rape and incest and while he supports same sex marriages in civil ceremonies he does not extend that to churches.
After a 2.4 mile swim and a 112-mile bike ride, Kat Matthew (GB) and Laura Phillip (Germany) are both in the lead at the start of the run.
Go Kat!
Just how mad does one have to be, to want do an Ironman Triathlon voluntarily?
'Friends' are trying to persuade me.
I put friends in quotes as they can't be very good friends to want to put me through that.
I've done four sprints now, in far from world-changing time, and an Ironman is essentially eight times the distance. I will try an Olympic distance or two next year, and see if I can get reasonable times. But the problem is the training: it just takes up so much time. Leaving aside all the physical and mental efforts required, I don't know if I can afford the time training per week.
A woman I know from the pool won her age group at an Ironman race in Italy yesterday. I'm in awe.
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
One of the groups who are most supportive of Trump are non-churchgoing evangelicals.
Being evangelical once suggested regular church attendance, a focus on salvation and conversion and strongly held views on specific issues such as abortion. Today, it is as often used to describe a cultural and political identity: one in which Christians are considered a persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically and Mr. Trump looms large...
But as Mr. Trump gained ground in the early primaries, his growing strength among white evangelical voters became clear. Polls showed that the future nominee was most popular among one group in particular: white evangelicals who seldom or never went to church
Beyond even the buzz of the megachurch, there is the buzz of the televangelist, which manages to line up with MAGA even more.
Reminiscent of the non-churchgoing Reagan who managed to convince voters he was more religious than Jimmy Carter, a president who even taught Sunday school from the White House.
Carter won evangelicals in 1976 against Ford but lost them in 1980, he is the only Democrat though to have won evangelicals at a presidential election
It depends a little on definition, but Carter was perhaps the second "Born Again" President, with Garfield being the first.
Considering the large number of Evangelicals in the USA, it is a surprisingly small number. Nearly all other presidents have been either traditional denominations or not particularly interested in religion at all.
I think some of the mutual antipathy we see between MAGA Republicans and coastal Democrats arises from this lack of Evangelical representation and priorities on the national stage. Trump being a businessman with no political hinterland prior to 2016 helps him ally with this anti-elite mindset.
Carter was asked "Are you born again", and answered "Yes, I am". I suggest the difference from Trump, and to an extent Reagan, is that Carter was from a liberal (ie tolerant) evangelical background, not an authoritarian one, and regarded it as definitional for him personally, rather than as a convenient marketing strategy. That brings it back to deeds ultimately matter more than words.
Here's a reference from Foreign Policy: Carter’s interest in foreign affairs derived in part from his involvement with the Trilateral Commission, where he met and formed an alliance with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who became Carter’s national security advisor. A larger influence on the president, however, was his evangelical faith. Carter’s declaration that he was a born-again Christian had provoked incredulity from the national press corps, but the statement resonated with many Americans, including evangelicals themselves, who looked for integrity in the White House following the scandals of former U.S. President Richard Nixon’s administration. Carter, a Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher, fit the bill. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/22/jimmy-carter-foreign-policy-america-evangelical-christianity/
A more recent meeting of religious minds and foreign affairs came on dealing with third world debt, between President Bush and our own son of the manse, Gordon Brown.
- if you are irreligious/secular, why do you not drink?
This is not a gotcha, I am properly curious. Alcohol, in moderation (heck, in excess, but that's maybe just me) - is one of life's great pleasures. Really really great
Yes it's bad for you in some ways but so is sleeping with dozens of beautiful women, or so I am told by my married and feminist friends
So, why not indulge? You're not going to Islamic hell, there's no one eating up the human-sized kebab skewers, you don't believe in it
I think peoples' reaction to alcohol must vary quite a lot. I do drink a bit (cider on a Friday as part of a meetup with friends is about it), but it doesn't really register as a great pleasure -- I'd class a really good coffee or dessert above it, for instance. And I think I prefer the Saturday mornings after Fridays when I didn't drink anything over the ones when I did...
Starmer today talking about "tough choices" he has to make.
"Gucci or Porsche frames: what do you think?"
"They had the contents of somebody's pockets, you mean."
He nodded. "The passport was Belgian. It was also bogus, looked to me, so I put it in the furnace. Put the cards in with it. The watch was okay, a Porsche, nice watch."
After a 2.4 mile swim and a 112-mile bike ride, Kat Matthew (GB) and Laura Phillip (Germany) are both in the lead at the start of the run.
Go Kat!
Just how mad does one have to be, to want do an Ironman Triathlon voluntarily?
'Friends' are trying to persuade me.
I put friends in quotes as they can't be very good friends to want to put me through that.
I've done four sprints now, in far from world-changing time, and an Ironman is essentially eight times the distance. I will try an Olympic distance or two next year, and see if I can get reasonable times. But the problem is the training: it just takes up so much time. Leaving aside all the physical and mental efforts required, I don't know if I can afford the time training per week.
A woman I know from the pool won her age group at an Ironman race in Italy yesterday. I'm in awe.
The Olympic distance I can just about understand, it’s hard work but at least comes across as possible.
I don’t see how anyone can get off the bike after four hours, thinking that it’s just three hours of running a marathon to go.
- if you are irreligious/secular, why do you not drink?
This is not a gotcha, I am properly curious. Alcohol, in moderation (heck, in excess, but that's maybe just me) - is one of life's great pleasures. Really really great
Yes it's bad for you in some ways but so is sleeping with dozens of beautiful women, or so I am told by my married and feminist friends
So, why not indulge? You're not going to Islamic hell, there's no one eating up the human-sized kebab skewers, you don't believe in it
It started off as a religious thing, when I arrived at university I fell off the Muslim wagon but I saw people make really bad decisions when drunk.
Then after university I was working 100 plus hours I didn't want any distractions, I would work, go home, watch some sport, sleep.
Then I moved to North Yorkshire and working in Leeds, and had a girlfriend who lived in the Wirral who didn't drive.
I was doing 25,000 miles a year commuting and maintaining a relationship, I was worried about ending up with a drink driving charge because early in my career a colleague ended up with a drink driving conviction despite not drinking much.
I've always managed to have a good time without needing to drink alcohol or consume drugs.
Edit - My mother has forgiven my many transgressions but me being drunk would put her six foot under.
A comprehensive answer. Thankyou
I am always intrigued by teetotallers. My eldest daughter is one
As we dropped her off at St Andrews for her first (nervous) weekend at Uni I did worry about how she would cope without booze to overcome her shyness. I asked her why not try just a glass of wine, she said maybe, but "I don't like booze, because I've seen you and Mum"
TBF to me (and not to her Mum) her mum is quite a bad drunk. Gets querulous and nasty and then falls into a sullen sleep. If that was my one main example of a drinker I too might be teetotal
However the daughter is now havering because she's spent long holdays with me and she's seen that I am a benign drunk, I just become more mellow and cheerful as I drink (except on here)
Of course, she might just be the kind of person that simply doesn't like to drink. Like you. And gets by just fine
I do think you are missing out on something, but then non-drinkers would say exactly the same to me. Each to their own!
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
That's the thing - No company would allow their directors or staff to receive those sort of inducements from third parties...
Interesting from @foxy - yes to try and get the appeal of Trump you have to dispense with facts and reason and plunge into the netherworld of primitive brain chemistries.
(When I like a government it's a sure sign that the voters will kill it and bury it in a hole at the first opportunity they get.)
All wind. The current system is already default permission. You have to prove that there are valid reasons why houses should not be built. The issue of course is who decides what reasons are valid.
So this changes absolutely nothing in prcatice whilst sounding like they are doing something.
Other bits are better - high density is good if it means building 4 and 5 stories rather than 2. Copy the Europeans or the way we used to build pre 20th century.
Here in mid-Warks we have street after street of scruffy suburban bungalows built in the 1960s. My modest proposal is to bulldoze them all and replace with five-storey neo-Georgian terraces instead. The sort that sell for a million or two in Islington. Not only a better use of valuable brownfield land, they would actually look nicer as I drive past.
We could solve our entire housing problem by doing this. Flatten the hideous bungalows and similar, and build beautiful high density neo-Georgian terraces
It's been a while since we've had a politician as poor as Jenrick. He hasn't a single quality to distinguish him: no moral centre, no trace of intellectual substance, no microscopic hint of charisma, no presentational ability.
If Badenoch gets to the final two she wins. And I win my bet of £5 at 11/8.
Lefties well meaning advice to the Tories again - where should we file that?
Jenrick is interesting because he divides the crowd and not in a political way. Even on PB there is a split between those saying Jenrick is a great speaker and those saying he'd cure insomnia.
"If Badenoch gets to the final two she wins. And I win my bet of £5 at 11/8."
Yes. Absolutely she wins. And it seems to me the membership are going to be f-ing furious when the MPs don't put her through.
Tory MPs have a great track record in who they put to the membership. Truss instead of Mordaunt, anyone?
A fascinating header, thanks Foxy. I've just finished reading "Lone Survivor" by ex SEAL Marcus Luttrell. Top tip: don't bother, Markie Mark ( no, not that one) in the film is much more likeable) I got offered it free on a kindle deal, a couple of nights of my life I won't get back. The link between god, guns and US patriotism is a large theme in the book. God is on the US Navy SEAL team and they pray to him all the time. The SEAL teams do god's work via Uncle Sam. Luttrell spent most of the battle falling down the Afghan mountainside and because god was watching over him he avoided death many times. No matter what happened, his rifle landed never more than two feet away, because god wanted him to keep it. God gave him the strength to carry on, god made his aim true, even when badly injured. All of his SEAL buddies were/are deeply religious and hate the "liberal media ". He more or less blames the liberals for the death of his team- they didn't kill the goatherds who discovered them because the liberal media in the US would slaughter them and they'd do time for murdering innocents. Basically, God is a Navy Seal, The US is god's chosen land and ultimately God is a Republican. I'd say the MAGA movement would be in agreement.
All SAS memoirs back to David Smiley in Albania start the same: parachute in, decide not to kill innocent goatherd, regret it. Goatherd preservation is great, but if you are not prepared to eliminate them you can save a lot of time and money by not parachuting in at all.
I recall reading an account of an operation by US Marines in the first Iraq war. An original copy of the action report.
Like the Bravo Two Zero patrol, they were Scud hunting behind the lines. Like Our Heros, they got discovered by a goatherd. Etc etc.
The plot forked at the point where their radios worked, they called in air support and went home for tea and medals.
It occurs to me that the U.K. military should invest in goat herds for base security.
(When I like a government it's a sure sign that the voters will kill it and bury it in a hole at the first opportunity they get.)
All wind. The current system is already default permission. You have to prove that there are valid reasons why houses should not be built. The issue of course is who decides what reasons are valid.
So this changes absolutely nothing in prcatice whilst sounding like they are doing something.
Other bits are better - high density is good if it means building 4 and 5 stories rather than 2. Copy the Europeans or the way we used to build pre 20th century.
Here in mid-Warks we have street after street of scruffy suburban bungalows built in the 1960s. My modest proposal is to bulldoze them all and replace with five-storey neo-Georgian terraces instead. The sort that sell for a million or two in Islington. Not only a better use of valuable brownfield land, they would actually look nicer as I drive past.
We could solve our entire housing problem by doing this. Flatten the hideous bungalows and similar, and build beautiful high density neo-Georgian terraces
Do the people who live in the bungalows get some warning?
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
People who are very rule-driven or process-driven are sometimes blind & deaf to the impact on people of strict adherence to rules or the process.
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
That's the thing - No company would allow their directors or staff to receive those sort of inducements from third parties...
It'd be interesting to know how many Labour MPs - and the cabinet in particular - have substantial work experience outside the public sector, particularly at high levels.
I don't think working in the public sector for a few years, then going into politics, makes you particularly well-rounded, whatever your class and background.
This is ALL about migration/asylum. SF have fucked the mutt
SNP collapsed in Scotland, Scottish Labour now has more MPs and looks like a Unionist majority in Holyrood next time and SF collapsing in Ireland too. Looks like Unionism is now on the up again, indeed even in NI it is the Alliance making the biggest gains not SF
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
That's the thing - No company would allow their directors or staff to receive those sort of inducements from third parties...
Not only that, but rules and regulations surrounding hospitality and gifts have become significantly tighter in recent years, but it does appear that the politicans voted to exempt themselves from the rules that apply to the rest of us.
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
That's the thing - No company would allow their directors or staff to receive those sort of inducements from third parties...
It'd be interesting to know how many Labour MPs - and the cabinet in particular - have substantial work experience outside the public sector, particularly at high levels.
I don't think working in the public sector for a few years, then going into politics, makes you particularly well-rounded, whatever your class and background.
My guess would be the public sector is even stricter on not receiving lavish entertainment.
(When I like a government it's a sure sign that the voters will kill it and bury it in a hole at the first opportunity they get.)
All wind. The current system is already default permission. You have to prove that there are valid reasons why houses should not be built. The issue of course is who decides what reasons are valid.
So this changes absolutely nothing in prcatice whilst sounding like they are doing something.
Other bits are better - high density is good if it means building 4 and 5 stories rather than 2. Copy the Europeans or the way we used to build pre 20th century.
Here in mid-Warks we have street after street of scruffy suburban bungalows built in the 1960s. My modest proposal is to bulldoze them all and replace with five-storey neo-Georgian terraces instead. The sort that sell for a million or two in Islington. Not only a better use of valuable brownfield land, they would actually look nicer as I drive past.
We could solve our entire housing problem by doing this. Flatten the hideous bungalows and similar, and build beautiful high density neo-Georgian terraces
Do the people who live in the bungalows get some warning?
lol, of course, who do you think I am, Reinhard Heydrich?
36 hours warning, just pack one suitcase, leave your stupid fucking pets behind. I will walk up and down the streets of Nuneaton in a long leather coat with a big bully XL shouting "schnell, schnell, schnell!!!" just to make everything relaxed and cheerful as people make their long-awaited move, that they were told about 2 hours before
A fascinating header, thanks Foxy. I've just finished reading "Lone Survivor" by ex SEAL Marcus Luttrell. Top tip: don't bother, Markie Mark ( no, not that one) in the film is much more likeable) I got offered it free on a kindle deal, a couple of nights of my life I won't get back. The link between god, guns and US patriotism is a large theme in the book. God is on the US Navy SEAL team and they pray to him all the time. The SEAL teams do god's work via Uncle Sam. Luttrell spent most of the battle falling down the Afghan mountainside and because god was watching over him he avoided death many times. No matter what happened, his rifle landed never more than two feet away, because god wanted him to keep it. God gave him the strength to carry on, god made his aim true, even when badly injured. All of his SEAL buddies were/are deeply religious and hate the "liberal media ". He more or less blames the liberals for the death of his team- they didn't kill the goatherds who discovered them because the liberal media in the US would slaughter them and they'd do time for murdering innocents. Basically, God is a Navy Seal, The US is god's chosen land and ultimately God is a Republican. I'd say the MAGA movement would be in agreement.
All SAS memoirs back to David Smiley in Albania start the same: parachute in, decide not to kill innocent goatherd, regret it. Goatherd preservation is great, but if you are not prepared to eliminate them you can save a lot of time and money by not parachuting in at all.
I recall reading an account of an operation by US Marines in the first Iraq war. An original copy of the action report.
Like the Bravo Two Zero patrol, they were Scud hunting behind the lines. Like Our Heros, they got discovered by a goatherd. Etc etc.
The plot forked at the point where their radios worked, they called in air support and went home for tea and medals.
It occurs to me that the U.K. military should invest in goat herds for base security.
They mostly have other things on their minds:
One little girl in a pale pink coat heard Lay-ee-odl-lay-ee-odl-lay-hoo-hoo She yodeled back to the lonely goatherd Lay-ee-odl-lay-ee-odl-ooh
Soon her mama with a gleaming gloat heard Lay-ee-odl-lay-ee-odl-lay-hmm-hmm What a duet for a girl and goatherd Lay-ee-odl-lay-ee-odl-ooh
Happy are they, lay-dee-o-lay-dee-lee-oh Oh-lay-dee-oh-lay-dee-hay-dee-oh Soon the duet will become a trio Lay-ee-odl-lay-ee-odl-ooh
It's been a while since we've had a politician as poor as Jenrick. He hasn't a single quality to distinguish him: no moral centre, no trace of intellectual substance, no microscopic hint of charisma, no presentational ability.
If Badenoch gets to the final two she wins. And I win my bet of £5 at 11/8.
Lefties well meaning advice to the Tories again - where should we file that?
Jenrick is interesting because he divides the crowd and not in a political way. Even on PB there is a split between those saying Jenrick is a great speaker and those saying he'd cure insomnia.
"If Badenoch gets to the final two she wins. And I win my bet of £5 at 11/8."
Yes. Absolutely she wins. And it seems to me the membership are going to be f-ing furious when the MPs don't put her through.
Tory MPs have a great track record in who they put to the membership. Truss instead of Mordaunt, anyone?
The members get the blame, but plenty of the MPs were just as bad.
- if you are irreligious/secular, why do you not drink?
This is not a gotcha, I am properly curious. Alcohol, in moderation (heck, in excess, but that's maybe just me) - is one of life's great pleasures. Really really great
Yes it's bad for you in some ways but so is sleeping with dozens of beautiful women, or so I am told by my married and feminist friends
So, why not indulge? You're not going to Islamic hell, there's no one eating up the human-sized kebab skewers, you don't believe in it
It started off as a religious thing, when I arrived at university I fell off the Muslim wagon but I saw people make really bad decisions when drunk.
Then after university I was working 100 plus hours I didn't want any distractions, I would work, go home, watch some sport, sleep.
Then I moved to North Yorkshire and working in Leeds, and had a girlfriend who lived in the Wirral who didn't drive.
I was doing 25,000 miles a year commuting and maintaining a relationship, I was worried about ending up with a drink driving charge because early in my career a colleague ended up with a drink driving conviction despite not drinking much.
I've always managed to have a good time without needing to drink alcohol or consume drugs.
Edit - My mother has forgiven my many transgressions but me being drunk would put her six foot under.
A comprehensive answer. Thankyou
I am always intrigued by teetotallers. My eldest daughter is one
As we dropped her off at St Andrews for her first (nervous) weekend at Uni I did worry about how she would cope without booze to overcome her shyness. I asked her why not try just a glass of wine, she said maybe, but "I don't like booze, because I've seen you and Mum"
TBF to me (and not to her Mum) her mum is quite a bad drunk. Gets querulous and nasty and then falls into a sullen sleep. If that was my one main example of a drinker I too might be teetotal
However the daughter is now havering because she's spent long holdays with me and she's seen that I am a benign drunk, I just become more mellow and cheerful as I drink (except on here)
Of course, she might just be the kind of person that simply doesn't like to drink. Like you. And gets by just fine
I do think you are missing out on something, but then non-drinkers would say exactly the same to me. Each to their own!
I think there's a little bit of fear about it as well.
Since university I have friends who drink a lot, 95% of them are the same people sober as they are drunk, but 5% of them turn in to utter arseholes, from looking for a scrap, touching up anyone they fancy, or other twattish behaviour, I don't want to be that 5%.
Most of my friends want to see me drunk to see if my innuendos/jokes get any more shocking.
It's been a while since we've had a politician as poor as Jenrick. He hasn't a single quality to distinguish him: no moral centre, no trace of intellectual substance, no microscopic hint of charisma, no presentational ability.
After a 2.4 mile swim and a 112-mile bike ride, Kat Matthew (GB) and Laura Phillip (Germany) are both in the lead at the start of the run.
Go Kat!
Just how mad does one have to be, to want do an Ironman Triathlon voluntarily?
'Friends' are trying to persuade me.
I put friends in quotes as they can't be very good friends to want to put me through that.
I've done four sprints now, in far from world-changing time, and an Ironman is essentially eight times the distance. I will try an Olympic distance or two next year, and see if I can get reasonable times. But the problem is the training: it just takes up so much time. Leaving aside all the physical and mental efforts required, I don't know if I can afford the time training per week.
A woman I know from the pool won her age group at an Ironman race in Italy yesterday. I'm in awe.
The Olympic distance I can just about understand, it’s hard work but at least comes across as possible.
I don’t see how anyone can get off the bike after four hours, thinking that it’s just three hours of running a marathon to go.
Four hours? For the women it'll be four and a half to five hours on the bike, if they're on brilliant form on a fast course. Today's course at Nice was rather hilly.
It's amazing. An old uni friend of mine competed in Ironman competitions back in the mid-1990s to ~2000, getting very good times. The amount of effort he put in, and his general fitness, was staggering. I admire anyone who does it so much, especially at the sharp end of competing. TBF he put me off even considering triathlon, because I could never be as fit as him.
But at the end of the day, we all race our own races against ourselves. One Ironwoman I've recently met is older than me, and is now officially a paratriathlete after a back injury she suffered. And she's faster than me at the shorter distances. It's amazing she can even run.
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
That's the thing - No company would allow their directors or staff to receive those sort of inducements from third parties...
It'd be interesting to know how many Labour MPs - and the cabinet in particular - have substantial work experience outside the public sector, particularly at high levels.
I don't think working in the public sector for a few years, then going into politics, makes you particularly well-rounded, whatever your class and background.
That's true but I would add academia and the third sector to what you say about the public sector.
Until you've had to stress about keeping customers happy and making payroll every month it's very difficult to understand an economy, which is doubtless why Reeves is so useless and socialists generally think of the private sector as one huge ATM for them to plunder.
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
Which is all fine and tolerant, so far as it goes.
But your doctrine effectively declares stable, loving relationships ‘sinful’. That’s a doctrine, which in that respect at least, sucks.
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
That's the thing - No company would allow their directors or staff to receive those sort of inducements from third parties...
It'd be interesting to know how many Labour MPs - and the cabinet in particular - have substantial work experience outside the public sector, particularly at high levels.
I don't think working in the public sector for a few years, then going into politics, makes you particularly well-rounded, whatever your class and background.
In fairness, Starmer's shoulders seem particularly well rounded so that any burdens or awkwardness slips off them all too easily.
- if you are irreligious/secular, why do you not drink?
This is not a gotcha, I am properly curious. Alcohol, in moderation (heck, in excess, but that's maybe just me) - is one of life's great pleasures. Really really great
Yes it's bad for you in some ways but so is sleeping with dozens of beautiful women, or so I am told by my married and feminist friends
So, why not indulge? You're not going to Islamic hell, there's no one eating up the human-sized kebab skewers, you don't believe in it
It started off as a religious thing, when I arrived at university I fell off the Muslim wagon but I saw people make really bad decisions when drunk.
Then after university I was working 100 plus hours I didn't want any distractions, I would work, go home, watch some sport, sleep.
Then I moved to North Yorkshire and working in Leeds, and had a girlfriend who lived in the Wirral who didn't drive.
I was doing 25,000 miles a year commuting and maintaining a relationship, I was worried about ending up with a drink driving charge because early in my career a colleague ended up with a drink driving conviction despite not drinking much.
I've always managed to have a good time without needing to drink alcohol or consume drugs.
Edit - My mother has forgiven my many transgressions but me being drunk would put her six foot under.
A comprehensive answer. Thankyou
I am always intrigued by teetotallers. My eldest daughter is one
As we dropped her off at St Andrews for her first (nervous) weekend at Uni I did worry about how she would cope without booze to overcome her shyness. I asked her why not try just a glass of wine, she said maybe, but "I don't like booze, because I've seen you and Mum"
TBF to me (and not to her Mum) her mum is quite a bad drunk. Gets querulous and nasty and then falls into a sullen sleep. If that was my one main example of a drinker I too might be teetotal
However the daughter is now havering because she's spent long holdays with me and she's seen that I am a benign drunk, I just become more mellow and cheerful as I drink (except on here)
Of course, she might just be the kind of person that simply doesn't like to drink. Like you. And gets by just fine
I do think you are missing out on something, but then non-drinkers would say exactly the same to me. Each to their own!
I think there's a little bit of fear about it as well.
Since university I have friends who drink a lot, 95% of them are the same people sober as they are drunk, but 5% of them turn in to utter arseholes, from looking for a scrap, touching up anyone they fancy, or other twattish behaviour, I don't want to be that 5%.
Most of my friends want to see me drunk to see if my innuendos/jokes get any more shocking.
Yes, I entirely agree on that. And 5% is about right as a proportion of the total, in my opinion
5% of people are "bad drunks" who should never drink
I've met a few, inc my older daughter's mother. One of them, unfortunately, was one of my many stepmothers. She literally tried to stab me with scissors during one of her sessions. And she became evil and deranged almost EVERY TIME she drank. It flipped some Satanic switch in her and her eyes started to roll
Another was a quite famous writer friend of mine, who would start very funny and witty and then, bang, wanted to kill people. He had the self awareness to give up the evil liquor
It's been a while since we've had a politician as poor as Jenrick. He hasn't a single quality to distinguish him: no moral centre, no trace of intellectual substance, no microscopic hint of charisma, no presentational ability.
If Badenoch gets to the final two she wins. And I win my bet of £5 at 11/8.
Lefties well meaning advice to the Tories again - where should we file that?
Jenrick is interesting because he divides the crowd and not in a political way. Even on PB there is a split between those saying Jenrick is a great speaker and those saying he'd cure insomnia.
"If Badenoch gets to the final two she wins. And I win my bet of £5 at 11/8."
Yes. Absolutely she wins. And it seems to me the membership are going to be f-ing furious when the MPs don't put her through.
If the membership like the idea of her as leader and the MPs don't, wouldn't it make sense to let the membership pick her early on so she can crash & burn as soon as possible?
"What is at stake over [the WFA] issue and what needs to be set out politically, practically and rhetorically in the speeches of Reeves and Starmer at the conference this week is: what is the project of the Labour government? It has to be more than balancing the books — if the country had wanted that, they would have appointed book-keepers to take over from the Tories."
"Labour’s mandate at the election was to rebuild public services, not to rebuild the public finances at any cost"
If you want to rebuild public services then cutting unnecessary welfare to those who neither need nor have paid for nor deserve that welfare, and redirecting the expenditure towards public services instead, would surely make sense?
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
American evangelicals and HTB and St Helen's types are on the whole remarkably comfortable with remarriage following divorce, which is forbidden by Jesus, explicitly. Whether or not they allow it in church, they don't cut off the remarried from the fellowship, and this is commonplace.
They are also comfortable with wealth.
The impression is strong that fundamentalism is pretty selective about what counts.
This is ALL about migration/asylum. SF have fucked the mutt
SNP collapsed in Scotland, Scottish Labour now has more MPs and looks like a Unionist majority in Holyrood next time and SF collapsing in Ireland too. Looks like Unionism is now on the up again, indeed even in NI it is the Alliance making the biggest gains not SF
Well, except that the latest polls all show Scottish Labour plunging again and SNP back in the lead, thanks to Starmer and Co being so fucking awful
“The largest organization representing the Christian faith in Ohio issued a scathing letter in defense of Haitian migrants in Springfield.
“The letter released Friday evening by the Ohio Council of Churches (OCC) decried the false statements from Republican vice presidential nominee and U.S. Sen. JD Vance and running mate, former president Donald Trump, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were eating pets and wildlife.”
“The Catholic Conference of Ohio, which represents bishops from diocesan groups across the state, published a letter Thursday asking for the public to treat Haitian immigrants in Springfield with respect and dignity, warning against "unfounded gossip" and "scapegoating."”
Setting the bar for scathing a bit low.
These guys have a biological imperative to eat protein, a religious imperative to sacrifice small animals, and no money. How do *you* think they might solve these problems?
Mercator, the claims of pet-eating Haitians have been thoroughly debunked. It never happened. Republican politicians took someone repeating an urban myth on Facebook and just invented a new blood libel. Why are you holding on to the idea? It is pure racism.
They haven't been debunked, statements have been made that there is "no evidence" for them, misunderstanding the meaning of "evidence." Perhaps you think vodou or the requirement of animal sacrifice is an urban myth? It's an official religion.
Animal sacrifice is huge in the US. I can't say I am particularly fussed, I am irreligious but religion tolerant and if I eat animals I am cool with humanely conducted sacrifice. I also agree that talking about it on US facing social media is an uncontroversially bad thing. But truth is independent of how we would like things to be.
More notably, it’s now more than two weeks after the debate and everyone is still talking about immigration, which can only help the Republicans. The story itself has enough plausibility, and people’s actual experiences don’t match with those saying it’s a racist lie.
What actual experiences? No-one had had an experience of an immigrant eating their pet.
How do you know that?
I refer you to the post I made earlier.
What, some bishops issued a press release about it?
I recommend a basic course in epistemology.
I teach a basic course in epistemology, as it happens.
But, no, the post where I went through how the cat-eating story has been debunked.
That is almost too good to be true.
Can you link to the post?
Look up thread. If that’s beyond you, I don’t know that I can help.
Genuinely baffled. Is it this?
"It has been debunked. We know how the story started. There was a Facebook post: we know who made that Facebook post and on what evidence (a friend of a friend of an acquaintance said… stuff). I.e., nothing. Defenders of the idea then rushed to find evidence. There was the bodycam video of someone being arrested for killing and eating a cat… and this turned out to be some mad woman, not in Springfield, not Haitian, not an immigrant, not a vodou practitioner. There was the photo of a guy with two dead geese… not an immigrant, not a Haitian, not in Springfield, he hadn’t killed the geese but was carrying them away from a car accident and there’s no evidence he was intending to eat them.
What we do have evidence for is how MAGAts have used this falsehood for propaganda and a long history of racist propaganda that takes the same form, othering people by connecting them to some disgusting food source and a threat they pose to the family."
You genuinely don't understand "evidence" do you?
"we know who made that Facebook post and on what evidence (a friend of a friend of an acquaintance said… stuff). I.e., nothing..."
Pretend it's 29 October 2011 and I post on Facebook "I see Savile has snuffed it, kiddy fiddling old creep..." (I didn't, I think lots of people did, but crucially I knew of the rumours) and consider how many links down a chain I am from anyone with first hand experience of Savile. Without diving too deeply into the Meno, I believed on the basis of evidence that Savile was a kiddy fiddler and I was right about it. I am not clear what debunking is and I am surprised at an epistemologist using the term, but I think it goes "this is a homophobic slur strenuously denied by his family and his church and nobody was ever prosecuted and shut up SHUT UP I SAY.
Is that about right?
To be clear, I am not remotely anti Haitian. IF they are eating cats I am merely sorry they are reduced to it and impressed by their self reliance. If I had first hand evidence of it I would suppress that evidence. But we must not distort the facts to accommodate your squeamishness about catophagy.
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
That's the thing - No company would allow their directors or staff to receive those sort of inducements from third parties...
It'd be interesting to know how many Labour MPs - and the cabinet in particular - have substantial work experience outside the public sector, particularly at high levels.
I don't think working in the public sector for a few years, then going into politics, makes you particularly well-rounded, whatever your class and background.
My guess would be the public sector is even stricter on not receiving lavish entertainment.
At the bottom, perhaps. At the top? Where would the civil service be without boozy lunches and clandestine meetings?
It's been a while since we've had a politician as poor as Jenrick. He hasn't a single quality to distinguish him: no moral centre, no trace of intellectual substance, no microscopic hint of charisma, no presentational ability.
If Badenoch gets to the final two she wins. And I win my bet of £5 at 11/8.
Lefties well meaning advice to the Tories again - where should we file that?
Jenrick is interesting because he divides the crowd and not in a political way. Even on PB there is a split between those saying Jenrick is a great speaker and those saying he'd cure insomnia.
"If Badenoch gets to the final two she wins. And I win my bet of £5 at 11/8."
Yes. Absolutely she wins. And it seems to me the membership are going to be f-ing furious when the MPs don't put her through.
Tory MPs have a great track record in who they put to the membership. Truss instead of Mordaunt, anyone?
The members get the blame, but plenty of the MPs were just as bad.
Most sophisticated electorate in the world my Aunt Fanny. Tory MPs always get it wrong, going back to when they elected Mrs Thatcher by mistake.
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
Politicians are people not drones. I have a friend in California and last year I went to visit them for a week and stay at their property, if I was an MP I'd have to declare it. Are we saying MPs can't have friends?
- if you are irreligious/secular, why do you not drink?
This is not a gotcha, I am properly curious. Alcohol, in moderation (heck, in excess, but that's maybe just me) - is one of life's great pleasures. Really really great
Yes it's bad for you in some ways but so is sleeping with dozens of beautiful women, or so I am told by my married and feminist friends
So, why not indulge? You're not going to Islamic hell, there's no one eating up the human-sized kebab skewers, you don't believe in it
It started off as a religious thing, when I arrived at university I fell off the Muslim wagon but I saw people make really bad decisions when drunk.
Then after university I was working 100 plus hours I didn't want any distractions, I would work, go home, watch some sport, sleep.
Then I moved to North Yorkshire and working in Leeds, and had a girlfriend who lived in the Wirral who didn't drive.
I was doing 25,000 miles a year commuting and maintaining a relationship, I was worried about ending up with a drink driving charge because early in my career a colleague ended up with a drink driving conviction despite not drinking much.
I've always managed to have a good time without needing to drink alcohol or consume drugs.
Edit - My mother has forgiven my many transgressions but me being drunk would put her six foot under.
A comprehensive answer. Thankyou
I am always intrigued by teetotallers. My eldest daughter is one
As we dropped her off at St Andrews for her first (nervous) weekend at Uni I did worry about how she would cope without booze to overcome her shyness. I asked her why not try just a glass of wine, she said maybe, but "I don't like booze, because I've seen you and Mum"
TBF to me (and not to her Mum) her mum is quite a bad drunk. Gets querulous and nasty and then falls into a sullen sleep. If that was my one main example of a drinker I too might be teetotal
However the daughter is now havering because she's spent long holdays with me and she's seen that I am a benign drunk, I just become more mellow and cheerful as I drink (except on here)
Of course, she might just be the kind of person that simply doesn't like to drink. Like you. And gets by just fine
I do think you are missing out on something, but then non-drinkers would say exactly the same to me. Each to their own!
I think there's a little bit of fear about it as well.
Since university I have friends who drink a lot, 95% of them are the same people sober as they are drunk, but 5% of them turn in to utter arseholes, from looking for a scrap, touching up anyone they fancy, or other twattish behaviour, I don't want to be that 5%.
Most of my friends want to see me drunk to see if my innuendos/jokes get any more shocking.
This is also the case against cocaine but transposing the 95% and 5%.
This is ALL about migration/asylum. SF have fucked the mutt
SNP collapsed in Scotland, Scottish Labour now has more MPs and looks like a Unionist majority in Holyrood next time and SF collapsing in Ireland too. Looks like Unionism is now on the up again, indeed even in NI it is the Alliance making the biggest gains not SF
Well, except that the latest polls all show Scottish Labour plunging again and SNP back in the lead, thanks to Starmer and Co being so fucking awful
Being worse than John Swinney. Its really quite hard to imagine.
- if you are irreligious/secular, why do you not drink?
This is not a gotcha, I am properly curious. Alcohol, in moderation (heck, in excess, but that's maybe just me) - is one of life's great pleasures. Really really great
Yes it's bad for you in some ways but so is sleeping with dozens of beautiful women, or so I am told by my married and feminist friends
So, why not indulge? You're not going to Islamic hell, there's no one eating up the human-sized kebab skewers, you don't believe in it
It started off as a religious thing, when I arrived at university I fell off the Muslim wagon but I saw people make really bad decisions when drunk.
Then after university I was working 100 plus hours I didn't want any distractions, I would work, go home, watch some sport, sleep.
Then I moved to North Yorkshire and working in Leeds, and had a girlfriend who lived in the Wirral who didn't drive.
I was doing 25,000 miles a year commuting and maintaining a relationship, I was worried about ending up with a drink driving charge because early in my career a colleague ended up with a drink driving conviction despite not drinking much.
I've always managed to have a good time without needing to drink alcohol or consume drugs.
Edit - My mother has forgiven my many transgressions but me being drunk would put her six foot under.
A comprehensive answer. Thankyou
I am always intrigued by teetotallers. My eldest daughter is one
As we dropped her off at St Andrews for her first (nervous) weekend at Uni I did worry about how she would cope without booze to overcome her shyness. I asked her why not try just a glass of wine, she said maybe, but "I don't like booze, because I've seen you and Mum"
TBF to me (and not to her Mum) her mum is quite a bad drunk. Gets querulous and nasty and then falls into a sullen sleep. If that was my one main example of a drinker I too might be teetotal
However the daughter is now havering because she's spent long holdays with me and she's seen that I am a benign drunk, I just become more mellow and cheerful as I drink (except on here)
Of course, she might just be the kind of person that simply doesn't like to drink. Like you. And gets by just fine
I do think you are missing out on something, but then non-drinkers would say exactly the same to me. Each to their own!
I think there's a little bit of fear about it as well.
Since university I have friends who drink a lot, 95% of them are the same people sober as they are drunk, but 5% of them turn in to utter arseholes, from looking for a scrap, touching up anyone they fancy, or other twattish behaviour, I don't want to be that 5%.
Most of my friends want to see me drunk to see if my innuendos/jokes get any more shocking.
This is also the case against cocaine but transposing the 95% and 5%.
Cocaine is different in that people become much more aggressive very quickly on cocaine.
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
HTB isn't leaving the C of E at all, there are a few conservative evangelical churches like St Ebb's or All Souls Langham Place withholding parish share over PLF but they remain in the C of E. PLF also isn't gay marriage in church, just prayers for same sex couples in churches which want to which evangelical churches can still opt out from. Indeed a few pro same sex liberals like Jayne Ozanne left the C of E for the Methodists after Synod rejected full same sex marriages in its churches as the Methodists do now perform same sex marriages in their churches.
All C of E churches are owned by the diocese and C of E and any church which tries to break away and take the building would likely lose a legal battle as happened with conservative in North America Churches which broke away from the Episcopal church.
It is also not true to say that only evangelical churches have big congregations, there are some Anglo Catholic churches which are growing eg St Bartholomew's and of course the C of E has £1 billion in annual income which it can and should put into its Parishes
That's generally about right from @HYUFD , including the comments about ECUSA - though there it was almost a civil war within the Episcopal Church waged by the Presiding Bishop who spent £10s of millions (including much from the missionary budget) on legal fees suing her own denominations' own congregations, which I followed for the best part of a decade on a blog called Anglican Curmudgeon, written by a (very detailed) lawyer. They were 'separatists' or 'orthodox' depending on the side of the argument.
Here it would never run so deep, as in ECUSA congregations own their buildings, the issue was the rabbit warren of law by which the central church organisation deemed it had the right take them away.
Here there are a number of exceptions where CofE churches do own their own buildings for historical reasons (may have been eg created privately, be open to the public, but have a licensed Anglican cleric). One set of exceptions are called Propriety Chapels, such as listed here (below). But they may be perhaps 1% or less of all CofE buildings.
"What is at stake over [the WFA] issue and what needs to be set out politically, practically and rhetorically in the speeches of Reeves and Starmer at the conference this week is: what is the project of the Labour government? It has to be more than balancing the books — if the country had wanted that, they would have appointed book-keepers to take over from the Tories."
"Labour’s mandate at the election was to rebuild public services, not to rebuild the public finances at any cost"
If you want to rebuild public services then cutting unnecessary welfare to those who neither need nor have paid for nor deserve that welfare, and redirecting the expenditure towards public services instead, would surely make sense?
I agree -- I think part of Labour's problem with the WFA is that it's come across as a single change and not as part of a wider realignment and reassessment of priorities and spending. The latter would certainly still have some people pissed off about losing the money, but it would be easier to make the case for why you did it to the part of public who aren't going to be opposed to it come what may. (Similarly with that story about the funding for the new hospital programme -- you need to be making the case for "we're going to do XYZ for the NHS instead" rather than just "we don't have the money, we're cancelling the new hospitals that hadn't made it to the business-case stage yet".)
- if you are irreligious/secular, why do you not drink?
This is not a gotcha, I am properly curious. Alcohol, in moderation (heck, in excess, but that's maybe just me) - is one of life's great pleasures. Really really great
Yes it's bad for you in some ways but so is sleeping with dozens of beautiful women, or so I am told by my married and feminist friends
So, why not indulge? You're not going to Islamic hell, there's no one eating up the human-sized kebab skewers, you don't believe in it
It started off as a religious thing, when I arrived at university I fell off the Muslim wagon but I saw people make really bad decisions when drunk.
Then after university I was working 100 plus hours I didn't want any distractions, I would work, go home, watch some sport, sleep.
Then I moved to North Yorkshire and working in Leeds, and had a girlfriend who lived in the Wirral who didn't drive.
I was doing 25,000 miles a year commuting and maintaining a relationship, I was worried about ending up with a drink driving charge because early in my career a colleague ended up with a drink driving conviction despite not drinking much.
I've always managed to have a good time without needing to drink alcohol or consume drugs.
Edit - My mother has forgiven my many transgressions but me being drunk would put her six foot under.
A comprehensive answer. Thankyou
I am always intrigued by teetotallers. My eldest daughter is one
As we dropped her off at St Andrews for her first (nervous) weekend at Uni I did worry about how she would cope without booze to overcome her shyness. I asked her why not try just a glass of wine, she said maybe, but "I don't like booze, because I've seen you and Mum"
TBF to me (and not to her Mum) her mum is quite a bad drunk. Gets querulous and nasty and then falls into a sullen sleep. If that was my one main example of a drinker I too might be teetotal
However the daughter is now havering because she's spent long holdays with me and she's seen that I am a benign drunk, I just become more mellow and cheerful as I drink (except on here)
Of course, she might just be the kind of person that simply doesn't like to drink. Like you. And gets by just fine
I do think you are missing out on something, but then non-drinkers would say exactly the same to me. Each to their own!
I think there's a little bit of fear about it as well.
Since university I have friends who drink a lot, 95% of them are the same people sober as they are drunk, but 5% of them turn in to utter arseholes, from looking for a scrap, touching up anyone they fancy, or other twattish behaviour, I don't want to be that 5%.
Most of my friends want to see me drunk to see if my innuendos/jokes get any more shocking.
Yes, I entirely agree on that. And 5% is about right as a proportion of the total, in my opinion
5% of people are "bad drunks" who should never drink
I've met a few, inc my older daughter's mother. One of them, unfortunately, was one of my many stepmothers. She literally tried to stab me with scissors during one of her sessions. And she became evil and deranged almost EVERY TIME she drank. It flipped some Satanic switch in her and her eyes started to roll
Another was a quite famous writer friend of mine, who would start very funny and witty and then, bang, wanted to kill people. He had the self awareness to give up the evil liquor
Do you want to the delicious irony?
It was the not drinking that led to me to fall off the good Muslim wagon.
Being the non drinking guy led me to getting invited many girls' night outs.
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
That's the thing - No company would allow their directors or staff to receive those sort of inducements from third parties...
It'd be interesting to know how many Labour MPs - and the cabinet in particular - have substantial work experience outside the public sector, particularly at high levels.
I don't think working in the public sector for a few years, then going into politics, makes you particularly well-rounded, whatever your class and background.
My guess would be the public sector is even stricter on not receiving lavish entertainment.
More likely, it's the 10K on one side of the velvet rope, the rest of us on the other, and the public/private sector distinction doesn't matter.
We don't see the anonymous top industrialists in the hospitality boxes, because they're anonymous.
(Is there also a distinction between firms with shareholders and those who are totally private? I imagine that the latter really can do whatever they like in a way the former can't.)
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 · 36m Education Sec Bridget Phillipson tells @SkyNews that £14k birthday parties funded by Labour donor Lord Alli were 'in a work context'. I seem to remember someone else trying this defence one...
@cazjwheeler covers our latest polling which shows how quickly the Govt’s honeymoon vanished. 17% of Labour voters regret voting for the Party & the public are slightly more likely to think they are exaggerating the state of public finances than being honest
Ironic because the truth is that rather than exaggerating the state of public finances they are severely understating the problem because it is simply too difficult to fix. The £22bn black hole is largely nonsense but the £100bn black hole of a deficit is undisputed fact. The problem Labour, and the outgoing Tory government had, is that they wanted to pretend that wasn't a problem because the implications for what they wanted to do were simply horrendous.
That’s a game which has been going on ever since the ‘black hole’ metaphor was first adopted (can anyone remember when that was ?).
The truth is that there are bigger questions at stake - ie how does our economy cope with the massive transformation (AI; automation; rise of new industrial powers; energy transformation; demographic shift, etc) that we’re in the middle of.
Debt at 100% of GDP ups the stakes in getting policy right, but in itself isn’t a completely insurmountable problem.
"What is at stake over [the WFA] issue and what needs to be set out politically, practically and rhetorically in the speeches of Reeves and Starmer at the conference this week is: what is the project of the Labour government? It has to be more than balancing the books — if the country had wanted that, they would have appointed book-keepers to take over from the Tories."
"Labour’s mandate at the election was to rebuild public services, not to rebuild the public finances at any cost"
If you want to rebuild public services then cutting unnecessary welfare to those who neither need nor have paid for nor deserve that welfare, and redirecting the expenditure towards public services instead, would surely make sense?
Yes and no. The argument for universal benefits is reduced admin costs and public support. Once a majority don't get the benefit then the amount and eligibility for that benefit are put under pressure. Not an easy political balance to get right.
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
That's the thing - No company would allow their directors or staff to receive those sort of inducements from third parties...
It'd be interesting to know how many Labour MPs - and the cabinet in particular - have substantial work experience outside the public sector, particularly at high levels.
I don't think working in the public sector for a few years, then going into politics, makes you particularly well-rounded, whatever your class and background.
That's true but I would add academia and the third sector to what you say about the public sector.
Until you've had to stress about keeping customers happy and making payroll every month it's very difficult to understand an economy, which is doubtless why Reeves is so useless and socialists generally think of the private sector as one huge ATM for them to plunder.
All my anecdotal evidence from talking to many people is small businesses are really struggling now. This is reflected in the massive drop in consumer confidence.
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
Why is "homosexuality" sinful? I can see arguments for "adultery, gluttony, lying or greed" being sinful, but I can't see how homosexuality can be added to the list?
Well, because God apparently says so. Sin isn't down to what humans think. IIRC, there's a plethora of apparently innocent things which God doesn't like. You might think there is nothing wrong with it, and that view seems entirely reasonable. But that, apparently, isn't the view of a mysteriois supernatural entity who exists outside the normal context of space and time. Though some of those who interpret his views think he might have changed his mind recently on this very particular point.
It's the more procedural type things I have more trouble understanding as sinful than behaviours and thoughts being so, even if I don't agree with the latter being wrong.
It just seems odd that God would sweat over the small stuff.
Well you or I would think that. But apparently God movesin mysterious ways. Remember, this is a guy who once flooded the entire world in a fit of pique. Who ruined a guy's life for a bet. Who demanded a guy kill his own son in order to show how much he liked him. Who - if we are to believe that God is all powerful - is responsible for pretty much every arbitrary little event which happens: the Putinbotswhich turn up on Saturday, my cat being sick in the spare bedroom, the inevitable death of the blameless snail stuck in the green bin. Arbitrary rules on where you can or can't stick your dick, what meats you can eat when, or what clothes can be made of seem perfectly in character.
That’s Old Testament God.
Then he had a mid life crisis. Adair with a married woman. There was a son. Complicated relationship with the son - ended badly.
"What is at stake over [the WFA] issue and what needs to be set out politically, practically and rhetorically in the speeches of Reeves and Starmer at the conference this week is: what is the project of the Labour government? It has to be more than balancing the books — if the country had wanted that, they would have appointed book-keepers to take over from the Tories."
"Labour’s mandate at the election was to rebuild public services, not to rebuild the public finances at any cost"
If you want to rebuild public services then cutting unnecessary welfare to those who neither need nor have paid for nor deserve that welfare, and redirecting the expenditure towards public services instead, would surely make sense?
I agree -- I think part of Labour's problem with the WFA is that it's come across as a single change and not as part of a wider realignment and reassessment of priorities and spending. The latter would certainly still have some people pissed off about losing the money, but it would be easier to make the case for why you did it to the part of public who aren't going to be opposed to it come what may. (Similarly with that story about the funding for the new hospital programme -- you need to be making the case for "we're going to do XYZ for the NHS instead" rather than just "we don't have the money, we're cancelling the new hospitals that hadn't made it to the business-case stage yet".)
As with expenses, it's another sign Starmer does not understand politics. The NHS problem in particular is they need to start by urgently rebuilding the RAAC hospitals.
“The largest organization representing the Christian faith in Ohio issued a scathing letter in defense of Haitian migrants in Springfield.
“The letter released Friday evening by the Ohio Council of Churches (OCC) decried the false statements from Republican vice presidential nominee and U.S. Sen. JD Vance and running mate, former president Donald Trump, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were eating pets and wildlife.”
“The Catholic Conference of Ohio, which represents bishops from diocesan groups across the state, published a letter Thursday asking for the public to treat Haitian immigrants in Springfield with respect and dignity, warning against "unfounded gossip" and "scapegoating."”
Setting the bar for scathing a bit low.
These guys have a biological imperative to eat protein, a religious imperative to sacrifice small animals, and no money. How do *you* think they might solve these problems?
Mercator, the claims of pet-eating Haitians have been thoroughly debunked. It never happened. Republican politicians took someone repeating an urban myth on Facebook and just invented a new blood libel. Why are you holding on to the idea? It is pure racism.
They haven't been debunked, statements have been made that there is "no evidence" for them, misunderstanding the meaning of "evidence." Perhaps you think vodou or the requirement of animal sacrifice is an urban myth? It's an official religion.
Animal sacrifice is huge in the US. I can't say I am particularly fussed, I am irreligious but religion tolerant and if I eat animals I am cool with humanely conducted sacrifice. I also agree that talking about it on US facing social media is an uncontroversially bad thing. But truth is independent of how we would like things to be.
More notably, it’s now more than two weeks after the debate and everyone is still talking about immigration, which can only help the Republicans. The story itself has enough plausibility, and people’s actual experiences don’t match with those saying it’s a racist lie.
What actual experiences? No-one had had an experience of an immigrant eating their pet.
How do you know that?
I refer you to the post I made earlier.
What, some bishops issued a press release about it?
I recommend a basic course in epistemology.
I teach a basic course in epistemology, as it happens.
But, no, the post where I went through how the cat-eating story has been debunked.
That is almost too good to be true.
Can you link to the post?
Look up thread. If that’s beyond you, I don’t know that I can help.
Genuinely baffled. Is it this?
"It has been debunked. We know how the story started. There was a Facebook post: we know who made that Facebook post and on what evidence (a friend of a friend of an acquaintance said… stuff). I.e., nothing. Defenders of the idea then rushed to find evidence. There was the bodycam video of someone being arrested for killing and eating a cat… and this turned out to be some mad woman, not in Springfield, not Haitian, not an immigrant, not a vodou practitioner. There was the photo of a guy with two dead geese… not an immigrant, not a Haitian, not in Springfield, he hadn’t killed the geese but was carrying them away from a car accident and there’s no evidence he was intending to eat them.
What we do have evidence for is how MAGAts have used this falsehood for propaganda and a long history of racist propaganda that takes the same form, othering people by connecting them to some disgusting food source and a threat they pose to the family."
You genuinely don't understand "evidence" do you?
"we know who made that Facebook post and on what evidence (a friend of a friend of an acquaintance said… stuff). I.e., nothing..."
Pretend it's 29 October 2011 and I post on Facebook "I see Savile has snuffed it, kiddy fiddling old creep..." (I didn't, I think lots of people did, but crucially I knew of the rumours) and consider how many links down a chain I am from anyone with first hand experience of Savile. Without diving too deeply into the Meno, I believed on the basis of evidence that Savile was a kiddy fiddler and I was right about it. I am not clear what debunking is and I am surprised at an epistemologist using the term, but I think it goes "this is a homophobic slur strenuously denied by his family and his church and nobody was ever prosecuted and shut up SHUT UP I SAY.
Is that about right?
To be clear, I am not remotely anti Haitian. IF they are eating cats I am merely sorry they are reduced to it and impressed by their self reliance. If I had first hand evidence of it I would suppress that evidence. But we must not distort the facts to accommodate your squeamishness about catophagy.
Is that bondegezou's "brilliant debunking"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
We have plntiful evidence that Voodoo practitioners kill cats as well as goats, chickens, whatever
Here is someone in Benin, West Africa, the ultimate origin of Haitian voodoo (tho they call it Vodun). She has written an entire blog post about protecting her pets from these vodun rituals. Here it is
Presumably @bondegezou think this blogpost was faked by J D Vance at the weekend? -
"In honor of the time when Vodun (Voodoo) is most visible in my community, I thought I’d share how we in Daagbé protect our furry friends from voodoo. First of all, most people don’t have dogs. Pets aren’t friends – they are food, or they eat pests. There’s no sense in sentimentalizing animals that you’re going to eat, or for whom there is a high percentage that they’ll die or disappear. That being said, cats are a relatively common household animal, since they eat mice and rats.
"But cats (among many other animals) are used sometimes in gris-gris. This is the form of voodoo that Americans might call “black magic” – it’s sorcery, used to hurt someone. Most voodoo priests will tell you that this goes against their religion, which is mostly true. But people use it against those suspected of theft or other bad behaviors."
- if you are irreligious/secular, why do you not drink?
This is not a gotcha, I am properly curious. Alcohol, in moderation (heck, in excess, but that's maybe just me) - is one of life's great pleasures. Really really great
Yes it's bad for you in some ways but so is sleeping with dozens of beautiful women, or so I am told by my married and feminist friends
So, why not indulge? You're not going to Islamic hell, there's no one eating up the human-sized kebab skewers, you don't believe in it
It started off as a religious thing, when I arrived at university I fell off the Muslim wagon but I saw people make really bad decisions when drunk.
Then after university I was working 100 plus hours I didn't want any distractions, I would work, go home, watch some sport, sleep.
Then I moved to North Yorkshire and working in Leeds, and had a girlfriend who lived in the Wirral who didn't drive.
I was doing 25,000 miles a year commuting and maintaining a relationship, I was worried about ending up with a drink driving charge because early in my career a colleague ended up with a drink driving conviction despite not drinking much.
I've always managed to have a good time without needing to drink alcohol or consume drugs.
Edit - My mother has forgiven my many transgressions but me being drunk would put her six foot under.
A comprehensive answer. Thankyou
I am always intrigued by teetotallers. My eldest daughter is one
As we dropped her off at St Andrews for her first (nervous) weekend at Uni I did worry about how she would cope without booze to overcome her shyness. I asked her why not try just a glass of wine, she said maybe, but "I don't like booze, because I've seen you and Mum"
TBF to me (and not to her Mum) her mum is quite a bad drunk. Gets querulous and nasty and then falls into a sullen sleep. If that was my one main example of a drinker I too might be teetotal
However the daughter is now havering because she's spent long holdays with me and she's seen that I am a benign drunk, I just become more mellow and cheerful as I drink (except on here)
Of course, she might just be the kind of person that simply doesn't like to drink. Like you. And gets by just fine
I do think you are missing out on something, but then non-drinkers would say exactly the same to me. Each to their own!
I think there's a little bit of fear about it as well.
Since university I have friends who drink a lot, 95% of them are the same people sober as they are drunk, but 5% of them turn in to utter arseholes, from looking for a scrap, touching up anyone they fancy, or other twattish behaviour, I don't want to be that 5%.
Most of my friends want to see me drunk to see if my innuendos/jokes get any more shocking.
Yes, I entirely agree on that. And 5% is about right as a proportion of the total, in my opinion
5% of people are "bad drunks" who should never drink
I've met a few, inc my older daughter's mother. One of them, unfortunately, was one of my many stepmothers. She literally tried to stab me with scissors during one of her sessions. And she became evil and deranged almost EVERY TIME she drank. It flipped some Satanic switch in her and her eyes started to roll
Another was a quite famous writer friend of mine, who would start very funny and witty and then, bang, wanted to kill people. He had the self awareness to give up the evil liquor
I have never drunk, but that is down to finding the smell of alcohol unbearable. Weird genetics - my father couldn't be in the same room as cheese. At least I didn't suffer his peculiar foible. Love cheese.
A lot of people say they don't like it to start with and that I should persevere. But I have an addicitve personality - if I did, it probably wouldn't end well. I'm quite cheery in the company of drunks, although there does get a point where they can be bloody tedious. Usually about two hours before the point where I, their designated driver, is due to take them home....
It's been a while since we've had a politician as poor as Jenrick. He hasn't a single quality to distinguish him: no moral centre, no trace of intellectual substance, no microscopic hint of charisma, no presentational ability.
If Badenoch gets to the final two she wins. And I win my bet of £5 at 11/8.
Lefties well meaning advice to the Tories again - where should we file that?
Jenrick is interesting because he divides the crowd and not in a political way. Even on PB there is a split between those saying Jenrick is a great speaker and those saying he'd cure insomnia.
"If Badenoch gets to the final two she wins. And I win my bet of £5 at 11/8."
Yes. Absolutely she wins. And it seems to me the membership are going to be f-ing furious when the MPs don't put her through.
Tory MPs have a great track record in who they put to the membership. Truss instead of Mordaunt, anyone?
The members get the blame, but plenty of the MPs were just as bad.
The MPs under-estimated the stupidity of their own members, that is all.
Presumably because so many of them couldn’t accept the fact of their own selection as evidence.
Also, the news about rich people leaving the UK is now international, we had dinner with some American friends who are over for the week last night and they brought it up as it's made their news cycle in the last couple of weeks that British millionaires and very high earners are leaving for the US, Dubai and parts of europe. My wife did nothing to disabuse them of that impression when she mentioned that she's begun looking for a house in Switzerland.
If Harris and Walz get in with their tax raising plans for CGT too I would also expect some rich Americans to move to the Bahamas, Dubai, Switzerland, Singapore etc too.
Though as a more Federal system you can also see shift from high tax states like Massachusetts and California to lower tax states like Texas
They have lots of ways to get Americans leaving the US to pay their tax. For a start they... keep taxing them, even though they live overseas. If you're a US citizen you have to pay taxes to the US, to the extent that you're not already paying higher taxes elsewhere. Then there's the exit tax if you leave the US, which basically forces you to realize your capital gains, which is what the Harris proposal would do to a much more limited extent.
What people could do is leave the US and give up their citizenship before they get rich, but generally being in the US is how these people get rich.
"What is at stake over [the WFA] issue and what needs to be set out politically, practically and rhetorically in the speeches of Reeves and Starmer at the conference this week is: what is the project of the Labour government? It has to be more than balancing the books — if the country had wanted that, they would have appointed book-keepers to take over from the Tories."
"Labour’s mandate at the election was to rebuild public services, not to rebuild the public finances at any cost"
If you want to rebuild public services then cutting unnecessary welfare to those who neither need nor have paid for nor deserve that welfare, and redirecting the expenditure towards public services instead, would surely make sense?
Yes and no. The argument for universal benefits is reduced admin costs and public support. Once a majority don't get the benefit then the amount and eligibility for that benefit are put under pressure. Not an easy political balance to get right.
The benefit isn't universal though, it only goes to pensioners.
The most vulnerable based on need to the cold are infants, those aged 0-1 are more vulnerable to the cold than any other age group including pensioners but they don't get the payment of £200-300 so why on earth would you call it "universal"?
If you want it to be universal, it should be universal, which means everyone regardless of age.
If you want it to be based on need, then it should go to those with infants first as the most needy.
But either way the current setup is a broken unjustifiable electoral bribe that costs billions of pounds.
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
Which is all fine and tolerant, so far as it goes.
But your doctrine effectively declares stable, loving relationships ‘sinful’. That’s a doctrine, which in that respect at least, sucks.
Ok ill play devils advocate. A 25 yr old man marries a 13 yr old woman. They are deeply in love and the relationship is stable and loving. It is a stable loving relationship. Would you declare that relationship sinful. Remember you have just said declaring stable loving relationships sinful is a doctrine which sucks.
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
That's the thing - No company would allow their directors or staff to receive those sort of inducements from third parties...
It'd be interesting to know how many Labour MPs - and the cabinet in particular - have substantial work experience outside the public sector, particularly at high levels.
I don't think working in the public sector for a few years, then going into politics, makes you particularly well-rounded, whatever your class and background.
You don’t think working as a doctor or a teacher can make you well-rounded? Anyway…
Helen Hayes worked as a town planner with an architectural practice for several years.
Sharon Hodgson worked for Northern Rock and then as an accounting clerk.
Alison McGovern worked for Network Rail. Does that count?
Emily Thornberry was a barrister for many years.
Sadik Al-Hassan worked as a pharmacist for Boots and then Well Pharmacy.
Samantha Dixon had a long career at Sotheby’s.
Maureen Burke worked for a tie manufacturer.
Andrew Ranger worked in hospitality.
James Naish began at Accenture and later worked at an auctioneer.
It's the sort of vibrancy which Welby and the CoE lack
Pentacostalist worship is certainly fun and celebrational, and in the UK drawing crowds too. There are a number of "Big Shed" churches near me, the retail park being the UK equivalent of the US shopping Mall. It isn't just the African diaspora either. There are fellow travellers too, with Holy Trinity in Leicester getting 500 on a Sunday, CoE though not always approved of by the hierarchy because of its informal liturgy.
Pentacostalism has moved a long way from the homespun Appalachian church in the video clip, to the razzmatazz of modern mega-churches. The key is that personal relationship with Jesus, and an acceptance of modern consumerist lifestyles.
I'm sure there are bits of the hierarchy that wince at what goes on, much like the Anglo-Catholic ordinands I saw the day after they had an educational trip somewhere similar.
But one of Welby's big ideas has been a hefty expansion in That Sort Of Thing, by getting Holy Trinity Brompton (and its children and their children) and others to plant new congregations into struggling parishes.
And one of the people behind that is Paul Marshall. Yes, that Paul Marshall.
Except that HTB and it's network of churches is now on its way out of the CofE sphere over the "Prayers of Love and Faith" (that's CofE speak for gay marriage in church). As are virtually all the evangelicals - which are the only bit of the CofE that isn't in free fall decline.
My CofE church is actually voting today* on whether the congregation agrees with the leadership that we should leave. We're a bit unusual, because we're an old congregation that's not a parish church, and own our own building, so we can pretty much tell the Bishop "so long and thanks for all the fish", but that is true of a lot of the new churches planted by outfits like HTB and St Helens Bishopsgate.
Incidentally, I've no real problem personally with gay people being gay. I think it's sinful, active homosexuals are called to repent like all sexual sinners, but ultimately it's God's job to make them give an account of their lives, at his judgment, not mine.
My problem with the CofE blessing gay marriages is that this is the leadership blessing something their doctrine teaches is sinful. I'd say the same if they wanted in church blessings for adultery, gluttony, lying or greed. It's just that in our context, homosexuality is a fashionable sin, unlike the others.
*actually, electronically, over the next two weeks, starting today
Why is "homosexuality" sinful? I can see arguments for "adultery, gluttony, lying or greed" being sinful, but I can't see how homosexuality can be added to the list?
Well, because God apparently says so. Sin isn't down to what humans think. IIRC, there's a plethora of apparently innocent things which God doesn't like. You might think there is nothing wrong with it, and that view seems entirely reasonable. But that, apparently, isn't the view of a mysteriois supernatural entity who exists outside the normal context of space and time. Though some of those who interpret his views think he might have changed his mind recently on this very particular point.
It's the more procedural type things I have more trouble understanding as sinful than behaviours and thoughts being so, even if I don't agree with the latter being wrong.
It just seems odd that God would sweat over the small stuff.
Well you or I would think that. But apparently God movesin mysterious ways. Remember, this is a guy who once flooded the entire world in a fit of pique. Who ruined a guy's life for a bet. Who demanded a guy kill his own son in order to show how much he liked him. Who - if we are to believe that God is all powerful - is responsible for pretty much every arbitrary little event which happens: the Putinbotswhich turn up on Saturday, my cat being sick in the spare bedroom, the inevitable death of the blameless snail stuck in the green bin. Arbitrary rules on where you can or can't stick your dick, what meats you can eat when, or what clothes can be made of seem perfectly in character.
That’s Old Testament God.
Then he had a mid life crisis. Adair with a married woman. There was a son. Complicated relationship with the son - ended badly.
Since then, God mellowed considerably.
unfortunately his nepo-baby son founded a very odd organisation
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
Politicians are people not drones. I have a friend in California and last year I went to visit them for a week and stay at their property, if I was an MP I'd have to declare it. Are we saying MPs can't have friends?
The difference is if you are staying with a friend or whether that friend offers you a vacant property to use for a holiday
This is ALL about migration/asylum. SF have fucked the mutt
Open Borders, and "Whiteness" being the worst crime there is, are a leitmotif of being on the radical Left.
They couldn't, can't and will never be able to help it.
Sinn Fein's support has actually halved. They were riding high on 37% in mid 2023. An incredible drop. And migration is driving it
When the lost SF support was going to right-wing anti-immigrant independents that did seem like the obvious explanation, but the latest polls show FF and FG doing very well, despite being the government that has made such a huge mess of the immigration issue, and they don't have any policy to attempt to deal with it.
Interesting from @foxy - yes to try and get the appeal of Trump you have to dispense with facts and reason and plunge into the netherworld of primitive brain chemistries.
YES! Voting intention is not rational but emotional or instinctive: people vote with their gut and their head, it isn't necessarily transactional.
"Inside her department Reeves asked for her personal donor to be handed a senior Civil Service job. She compounded the error by failing to declare his donation. The Chancellor also seemingly asked for her former Parliamentary staffer to be promoted. Treasury eyebrows have been raised about her lack of judgement."
First day of the Labour conference going well then!
Who was it who first said that Labour scandals are usually about money, and Tory scandals usually about sex?
They've been in office just 80 days.
Phileas Fogg it ain't.
I dont get the Phileas Fogg reference...
He’s the character from Jules Verne’s Around The World In 80 Days.
Preposterous fiction. It depends on a train from Liverpool arriving in London on time.
It also presents a preposterous vision of international travel.
One that *doesn't* involve spending 6 hours in a grim shopping centre for people who buy giant bottles of cheap spirits, leather belts and very expensive sandwiches.
Does someone end up resigning or are the media going to keep delivering these daily pearl clutching stories until the end of time.
It’s not a good look for Starmer and others but really I’m sure I’m not the only one who is now bored to tears of the whole thing.
And the Tories who are making a huge deal should stfu given what went on during their time in government . Freebiegate is nothing compared to the corruption under Bozo .
The reason this has legs is because Labour came in promising not to be like the last lot and yet here we have them partying away on donor funds who then get plum jobs at the treasury or passes to Number 10 etc...
In fact Labour ran their whole campaign on how they were different to the Tories but to voters they now look just as crooked. If they'd run on policies rather than character it wouldn't be as bad for them, they could just come out and say no more donations from these people and it would be the end of it.
And there was already a terrible, sullen mood in the country that "they are all the same", "just in it for themselves", "nothing gets done" etc etc.
Labour turning out to be exactly as people feared now seriously opens the door to populist challenge of throwing the whole bloody lot of them out.
I think the refusal to admit that, yes, maybe we shouldn't have showered ourselves in donor cash is really hurting them. I understand that the MPs don't want to turn the taps off but they need to do it quickly or the party is finished. They've got a big majority but only 33% of votes, the way down is very, very steep.
The big problem they have, which was in evidence in Rayner’s interview this morning too, is that they’re completely missing the point in the line they’re taking.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
Politicians are people not drones. I have a friend in California and last year I went to visit them for a week and stay at their property, if I was an MP I'd have to declare it. Are we saying MPs can't have friends?
I don’t know about you, but my friends don’t buy my clothes and glasses and put me up in executive boxes at the football every week… there’s a big difference to being hosted at a friends house overseas.
Look, I don’t think anyone’s saying they can’t have friends. But when you’re in the public eye, public perception is important. And maybe when you’re talking about tightening the belt and difficult times ahead, the perception that you are being showered in riches by powerful friends might not be all that smart.
This is ALL about migration/asylum. SF have fucked the mutt
Open Borders, and "Whiteness" being the worst crime there is, are a leitmotif of being on the radical Left.
They couldn't, can't and will never be able to help it.
Sinn Fein's support has actually halved. They were riding high on 37% in mid 2023. An incredible drop. And migration is driving it
When the lost SF support was going to right-wing anti-immigrant independents that did seem like the obvious explanation, but the latest polls show FF and FG doing very well, despite being the government that has made such a huge mess of the immigration issue, and they don't have any policy to attempt to deal with it.
Other things are clearly going on.
Housing is the other major issue in Ireland, which is of course firmly linked to immigration
I imagine people angry about housing but not inclined to vote for the anti-immigrant right would shift to the big trad parties
This is ALL about migration/asylum. SF have fucked the mutt
SNP collapsed in Scotland, Scottish Labour now has more MPs and looks like a Unionist majority in Holyrood next time and SF collapsing in Ireland too. Looks like Unionism is now on the up again, indeed even in NI it is the Alliance making the biggest gains not SF
Well, except that the latest polls all show Scottish Labour plunging again and SNP back in the lead, thanks to Starmer and Co being so fucking awful
Even on the latest Holyrood polls the SNP would still lose their majority with the Greens and the Scottish Conservatives would hold the balance of power under the Holyrood FPTP and PR system. That kills off indyref2 indefinitely even if Swinney stayed FM with Tory support
(When I like a government it's a sure sign that the voters will kill it and bury it in a hole at the first opportunity they get.)
All wind. The current system is already default permission. You have to prove that there are valid reasons why houses should not be built. The issue of course is who decides what reasons are valid.
So this changes absolutely nothing in prcatice whilst sounding like they are doing something.
Other bits are better - high density is good if it means building 4 and 5 stories rather than 2. Copy the Europeans or the way we used to build pre 20th century.
Here in mid-Warks we have street after street of scruffy suburban bungalows built in the 1960s. My modest proposal is to bulldoze them all and replace with five-storey neo-Georgian terraces instead. The sort that sell for a million or two in Islington. Not only a better use of valuable brownfield land, they would actually look nicer as I drive past.
We could solve our entire housing problem by doing this. Flatten the hideous bungalows and similar, and build beautiful high density neo-Georgian terraces
Do the people who live in the bungalows get some warning?
“The largest organization representing the Christian faith in Ohio issued a scathing letter in defense of Haitian migrants in Springfield.
“The letter released Friday evening by the Ohio Council of Churches (OCC) decried the false statements from Republican vice presidential nominee and U.S. Sen. JD Vance and running mate, former president Donald Trump, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were eating pets and wildlife.”
“The Catholic Conference of Ohio, which represents bishops from diocesan groups across the state, published a letter Thursday asking for the public to treat Haitian immigrants in Springfield with respect and dignity, warning against "unfounded gossip" and "scapegoating."”
Setting the bar for scathing a bit low.
These guys have a biological imperative to eat protein, a religious imperative to sacrifice small animals, and no money. How do *you* think they might solve these problems?
Mercator, the claims of pet-eating Haitians have been thoroughly debunked. It never happened. Republican politicians took someone repeating an urban myth on Facebook and just invented a new blood libel. Why are you holding on to the idea? It is pure racism.
They haven't been debunked, statements have been made that there is "no evidence" for them, misunderstanding the meaning of "evidence." Perhaps you think vodou or the requirement of animal sacrifice is an urban myth? It's an official religion.
Animal sacrifice is huge in the US. I can't say I am particularly fussed, I am irreligious but religion tolerant and if I eat animals I am cool with humanely conducted sacrifice. I also agree that talking about it on US facing social media is an uncontroversially bad thing. But truth is independent of how we would like things to be.
It has been debunked. We know how the story started. There was a Facebook post: we know who made that Facebook post and on what evidence (a friend of a friend of an acquaintance said… stuff). I.e., nothing. Defenders of the idea then rushed to find evidence. There was the bodycam video of someone being arrested for killing and eating a cat… and this turned out to be some mad woman, not in Springfield, not Haitian, not an immigrant, not a vodou practitioner. There was the photo of a guy with two dead geese… not an immigrant, not a Haitian, not in Springfield, he hadn’t killed the geese but was carrying them away from a car accident and there’s no evidence he was intending to eat them.
What we do have evidence for is how MAGAts have used this falsehood for propaganda and a long history of racist propaganda that takes the same form, othering people by connecting them to some disgusting food source and a threat they pose to the family.
The women who posted on Facebook about her cat being stolen, who subsequently discovered it alive and well in her basement, is a Trump voter. She’s a better person than either of the shitheads she’ll still vote for, as she has apologised to the immigrants in Springfield.
Comments
Which is why he seems to view the childless in the same way religious obsessives view the non-religious.
Guardian slavishly on side
- if you are irreligious/secular, why do you not drink?
This is not a gotcha, I am properly curious. Alcohol, in moderation (heck, in excess, but that's maybe just me) - is one of life's great pleasures. Really really great
Yes it's bad for you in some ways but so is sleeping with dozens of beautiful women, or so I am told by my married and feminist friends
So, why not indulge? You're not going to Islamic hell, there's no one eating up the human-sized kebab skewers, you don't believe in it
I recommend a basic course in epistemology.
But, no, the post where I went through how the cat-eating story has been debunked.
The idea there are thousands of Haitians perpetually roaming Springfield looking for cats to eat or sacrifice has been debunked but it was never bunked, no one claimed anything that dramatic
Several Springfield residents have made statements about noticing stray cat populations vanish, and actually seeing Haitians snatching ducks in the park
Moreover, we have absolute evidence of Voodoo/Santeria rituals leading to the disappearance and death of domestic animals in America before this
They ask you ˹O Prophet˺ about intoxicants and gambling. Say, “There is great evil in both, as well as some benefit for people—but the evil outweighs the benefit.” surah al Baqarah 219
Bloody right about the "some benefit", but if you are doomed to hell for editing a gambling site it seems perverse to forgo the occasional sharpener.
After a 2.4 mile swim and a 112-mile bike ride, Kat Matthew (GB) and Laura Phillip (Germany) are both in the lead at the start of the run.
Go Kat!
Can you link to the post?
Here's a reference from Foreign Policy:
Carter’s interest in foreign affairs derived in part from his involvement with the Trilateral Commission, where he met and formed an alliance with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who became Carter’s national security advisor. A larger influence on the president, however, was his evangelical faith. Carter’s declaration that he was a born-again Christian had provoked incredulity from the national press corps, but the statement resonated with many Americans, including evangelicals themselves, who looked for integrity in the White House following the scandals of former U.S. President Richard Nixon’s administration. Carter, a Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher, fit the bill.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/22/jimmy-carter-foreign-policy-america-evangelical-christianity/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rd52zl018o
If Harris and Walz win following Starmer's win here in July and the Democrats win at least one chamber of Congress then France would have a government right of both the UK and US for the first time since Sarkozy was in power and Brown and Obama were in office (also right of Germany and its SPD led government). You might also see some wealthy investors move to Paris
Yes. Absolutely she wins. And it seems to me the membership are going to be f-ing furious when the MPs don't put her through.
Ireland, Opinions poll:
FG-EPP: 24% (+5)
FF-RE: 20% (+4)
SF-LEFT: 18% (-9)
SD→S&D: 5% (-1)
LAB-S&D: 4% (+1)
GP-G/EFA: 4% (-1)
PBP/S~LEFT: 3%
AON-*: 2% (-1)
This is ALL about migration/asylum. SF have fucked the mutt
Then after university I was working 100 plus hours I didn't want any distractions, I would work, go home, watch some sport, sleep.
Then I moved to North Yorkshire and working in Leeds, and had a girlfriend who lived in the Wirral who didn't drive.
I was doing 25,000 miles a year commuting and maintaining a relationship, I was worried about ending up with a drink driving charge because early in my career a colleague ended up with a drink driving conviction despite not drinking much.
I've always managed to have a good time without needing to drink alcohol or consume drugs.
Edit - My mother has forgiven my many transgressions but me being drunk would put her six foot under.
My personal prescription (https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4941411#Comment_4941411 ) includes as a key point the use of LDOs to provide key reports up front for an area (or "zone," if you will), so that permission is automatic as long as it complies with a given set of conditions.
And in this paper: Now, they're probably going to need to provide a little funding for this - the various reports still need to be done - but it could both provide almost auto-permissions for development in a given large site (saving time, risk, and money for developers and possibly making it more feasible for smaller developers to get in on the act) AND allow for local control (people get much grumpier about development away from allocated sites than they do at allocated sites, and this would focus development at the latter - because it would be much cheaper and easier).
I've got a lot I'm critical about with this Government, but this might actually be a good move.
I put friends in quotes as they can't be very good friends to want to put me through that.
I've done four sprints now, in far from world-changing time, and an Ironman is essentially eight times the distance. I will try an Olympic distance or two next year, and see if I can get reasonable times. But the problem is the training: it just takes up so much time. Leaving aside all the physical and mental efforts required, I don't know if I can afford the time training per week.
A woman I know from the pool won her age group at an Ironman race in Italy yesterday. I'm in awe.
“Politicians get donations and it’s all in the rules” might be true, by and large, but the wider question that is being asked is should this be happening.
They look really flat footed here. A better response would be that although in the rules, on reflection we can see why this looks wrong and we’re going to stop doing it because we’re all in the hard economic times together etc etc.
(I am wondering (based on no evidence) if the reason they’re having to dance around all this by the way is because Mr Starmer is actually rather keen on making sure he has his executive box at the Emirates, and if ministers are forced to take a line of giving it all up he’ll lose that).
"They had the contents of somebody's pockets, you mean."
He nodded. "The passport was Belgian. It was also bogus, looked to me, so I put it in the furnace. Put the cards in with it. The watch was okay, a Porsche, nice watch."
I don’t see how anyone can get off the bike after four hours, thinking that it’s just three hours of running a marathon to go.
I am always intrigued by teetotallers. My eldest daughter is one
As we dropped her off at St Andrews for her first (nervous) weekend at Uni I did worry about how she would cope without booze to overcome her shyness. I asked her why not try just a glass of wine, she said maybe, but "I don't like booze, because I've seen you and Mum"
TBF to me (and not to her Mum) her mum is quite a bad drunk. Gets querulous and nasty and then falls into a sullen sleep. If that was my one main example of a drinker I too might be teetotal
However the daughter is now havering because she's spent long holdays with me and she's seen that I am a benign drunk, I just become more mellow and cheerful as I drink (except on here)
Of course, she might just be the kind of person that simply doesn't like to drink. Like you. And gets by just fine
I do think you are missing out on something, but then non-drinkers would say exactly the same to me. Each to their own!
Like the Bravo Two Zero patrol, they were Scud hunting behind the lines. Like Our Heros, they got discovered by a goatherd. Etc etc.
The plot forked at the point where their radios worked, they called in air support and went home for tea and medals.
It occurs to me that the U.K. military should invest in goat herds for base security.
I don't think working in the public sector for a few years, then going into politics, makes you particularly well-rounded, whatever your class and background.
I'm interested.
36 hours warning, just pack one suitcase, leave your stupid fucking pets behind. I will walk up and down the streets of Nuneaton in a long leather coat with a big bully XL shouting "schnell, schnell, schnell!!!" just to make everything relaxed and cheerful as people make their long-awaited move, that they were told about 2 hours before
One little girl in a pale pink coat heard
Lay-ee-odl-lay-ee-odl-lay-hoo-hoo
She yodeled back to the lonely goatherd
Lay-ee-odl-lay-ee-odl-ooh
Soon her mama with a gleaming gloat heard
Lay-ee-odl-lay-ee-odl-lay-hmm-hmm
What a duet for a girl and goatherd
Lay-ee-odl-lay-ee-odl-ooh
Happy are they, lay-dee-o-lay-dee-lee-oh
Oh-lay-dee-oh-lay-dee-hay-dee-oh
Soon the duet will become a trio
Lay-ee-odl-lay-ee-odl-ooh
Odl-lay-ee, odl-lay-ee (odl-lay-ee)
Odl-lay-hee-hee (odl-lay-hee-hee), odl-lay-ee (odl-lay-ee)
Odl-lay-odl-lay (odl-lay-odl-lay), odl-lay-odl-lee (odl-lay-odl-lay)
Odl-lay odl-lee (odl-lay-odl-lay)
Odl-lay-odl-lee-odl-lay (woo!)
Since university I have friends who drink a lot, 95% of them are the same people sober as they are drunk, but 5% of them turn in to utter arseholes, from looking for a scrap, touching up anyone they fancy, or other twattish behaviour, I don't want to be that 5%.
Most of my friends want to see me drunk to see if my innuendos/jokes get any more shocking.
They couldn't, can't and will never be able to help it.
It's amazing. An old uni friend of mine competed in Ironman competitions back in the mid-1990s to ~2000, getting very good times. The amount of effort he put in, and his general fitness, was staggering. I admire anyone who does it so much, especially at the sharp end of competing. TBF he put me off even considering triathlon, because I could never be as fit as him.
But at the end of the day, we all race our own races against ourselves. One Ironwoman I've recently met is older than me, and is now officially a paratriathlete after a back injury she suffered. And she's faster than me at the shorter distances. It's amazing she can even run.
(Kat Matthews, who is sharing the lead at the moment, had her own issues three years ago after a crash. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S2Qug8CCUE - NSFW)
Until you've had to stress about keeping customers happy and making payroll every month it's very difficult to understand an economy, which is doubtless why Reeves is so useless and socialists generally think of the private sector as one huge ATM for them to plunder.
But your doctrine effectively declares stable, loving relationships ‘sinful’.
That’s a doctrine, which in that respect at least, sucks.
5% of people are "bad drunks" who should never drink
I've met a few, inc my older daughter's mother. One of them, unfortunately, was one of my many stepmothers. She literally tried to stab me with scissors during one of her sessions. And she became evil and deranged almost EVERY TIME she drank. It flipped some Satanic switch in her and her eyes started to roll
Another was a quite famous writer friend of mine, who would start very funny and witty and then, bang, wanted to kill people. He had the self awareness to give up the evil liquor
They are also comfortable with wealth.
The impression is strong that fundamentalism is pretty selective about what counts.
"It has been debunked. We know how the story started. There was a Facebook post: we know who made that Facebook post and on what evidence (a friend of a friend of an acquaintance said… stuff). I.e., nothing. Defenders of the idea then rushed to find evidence. There was the bodycam video of someone being arrested for killing and eating a cat… and this turned out to be some mad woman, not in Springfield, not Haitian, not an immigrant, not a vodou practitioner. There was the photo of a guy with two dead geese… not an immigrant, not a Haitian, not in Springfield, he hadn’t killed the geese but was carrying them away from a car accident and there’s no evidence he was intending to eat them.
Springfield police investigated and found nothing. Claims that pet-eating is a common feature of vodou are just urban myths. Vodou involves sacrificing familiar food animals, like chickens and goats, but definitely not cats: https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-how-the-stigmatization-of-haitian-vodou-led-to-a-disinformation-campaign/a-70200764
What we do have evidence for is how MAGAts have used this falsehood for propaganda and a long history of racist propaganda that takes the same form, othering people by connecting them to some disgusting food source and a threat they pose to the family."
You genuinely don't understand "evidence" do you?
"we know who made that Facebook post and on what evidence (a friend of a friend of an acquaintance said… stuff). I.e., nothing..."
Pretend it's 29 October 2011 and I post on Facebook "I see Savile has snuffed it, kiddy fiddling old creep..." (I didn't, I think lots of people did, but crucially I knew of the rumours) and consider how many links down a chain I am from anyone with first hand experience of Savile. Without diving too deeply into the Meno, I believed on the basis of evidence that Savile was a kiddy fiddler and I was right about it. I am not clear what debunking is and I am surprised at an epistemologist using the term, but I think it goes "this is a homophobic slur strenuously denied by his family and his church and nobody was ever prosecuted and shut up SHUT UP I SAY.
Is that about right?
To be clear, I am not remotely anti Haitian. IF they are eating cats I am merely sorry they are reduced to it and impressed by their self reliance. If I had first hand evidence of it I would suppress that evidence. But we must not distort the facts to accommodate your squeamishness about catophagy.
Here it would never run so deep, as in ECUSA congregations own their buildings, the issue was the rabbit warren of law by which the central church organisation deemed it had the right take them away.
Here there are a number of exceptions where CofE churches do own their own buildings for historical reasons (may have been eg created privately, be open to the public, but have a licensed Anglican cleric). One set of exceptions are called Propriety Chapels, such as listed here (below). But they may be perhaps 1% or less of all CofE buildings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_chapel
By St Bartholomew, @HYUFD , I assume you mean "the Great" in Smithfield?
It was the not drinking that led to me to fall off the good Muslim wagon.
Being the non drinking guy led me to getting invited many girls' night outs.
We don't see the anonymous top industrialists in the hospitality boxes, because they're anonymous.
(Is there also a distinction between firms with shareholders and those who are totally private? I imagine that the latter really can do whatever they like in a way the former can't.)
The truth is that there are bigger questions at stake - ie how does our economy cope with the massive transformation (AI; automation; rise of new industrial powers; energy transformation; demographic shift, etc) that we’re in the middle of.
Debt at 100% of GDP ups the stakes in getting policy right, but in itself isn’t a completely insurmountable problem.
Then he had a mid life crisis. Adair with a married woman. There was a son. Complicated relationship with the son - ended badly.
Since then, God mellowed considerably.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
We have plntiful evidence that Voodoo practitioners kill cats as well as goats, chickens, whatever
Here is someone in Benin, West Africa, the ultimate origin of Haitian voodoo (tho they call it Vodun). She has written an entire blog post about protecting her pets from these vodun rituals. Here it is
https://katieinbenin.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/keeping-kitties-safe-from-gris-gris/
Presumably @bondegezou think this blogpost was faked by J D Vance at the weekend? -
"In honor of the time when Vodun (Voodoo) is most visible in my community, I thought I’d share how we in Daagbé protect our furry friends from voodoo. First of all, most people don’t have dogs. Pets aren’t friends – they are food, or they eat pests. There’s no sense in sentimentalizing animals that you’re going to eat, or for whom there is a high percentage that they’ll die or disappear. That being said, cats are a relatively common household animal, since they eat mice and rats.
"But cats (among many other animals) are used sometimes in gris-gris.
This is the form of voodoo that Americans might call “black magic” – it’s sorcery, used to hurt someone. Most voodoo priests will tell you that this goes against their religion, which is mostly true. But people use it against those suspected of theft or other bad behaviors."
A lot of people say they don't like it to start with and that I should persevere. But I have an addicitve personality - if I did, it probably wouldn't end well. I'm quite cheery in the company of drunks, although there does get a point where they can be bloody tedious. Usually about two hours before the point where I, their designated driver, is due to take them home....
Presumably because so many of them couldn’t accept the fact of their own selection as evidence.
What people could do is leave the US and give up their citizenship before they get rich, but generally being in the US is how these people get rich.
The most vulnerable based on need to the cold are infants, those aged 0-1 are more vulnerable to the cold than any other age group including pensioners but they don't get the payment of £200-300 so why on earth would you call it "universal"?
If you want it to be universal, it should be universal, which means everyone regardless of age.
If you want it to be based on need, then it should go to those with infants first as the most needy.
But either way the current setup is a broken unjustifiable electoral bribe that costs billions of pounds.
Helen Hayes worked as a town planner with an architectural practice for several years.
Sharon Hodgson worked for Northern Rock and then as an accounting clerk.
Alison McGovern worked for Network Rail. Does that count?
Emily Thornberry was a barrister for many years.
Sadik Al-Hassan worked as a pharmacist for Boots and then Well Pharmacy.
Samantha Dixon had a long career at Sotheby’s.
Maureen Burke worked for a tie manufacturer.
Andrew Ranger worked in hospitality.
James Naish began at Accenture and later worked at an auctioneer.
Samantha Niblett had a long career in IT.
The latter is a gift, which should be declared
Other things are clearly going on.
https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/the-death-of-deliverism/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation
One that *doesn't* involve spending 6 hours in a grim shopping centre for people who buy giant bottles of cheap spirits, leather belts and very expensive sandwiches.
Look, I don’t think anyone’s saying they can’t have friends. But when you’re in the public eye, public perception is important. And maybe when you’re talking about tightening the belt and difficult times ahead, the perception that you are being showered in riches by powerful friends might not be all that smart.
I imagine people angry about housing but not inclined to vote for the anti-immigrant right would shift to the big trad parties
She’s a better person than either of the shitheads she’ll still vote for, as she has apologised to the immigrants in Springfield.