I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
Wouldn’t your Japanese restaurant analogy be more relative to the hotel situation if you said that the couple are still running the Japanese restaurant in the same site but they have just removed the complimentary sake and cut down the menu. It’s still a Japanese restaurant, still furnished the same way and comfortable and pleasant to be in.
You focus on the hotels not being 4* based on certain facilities no longer being available however the hotel is still furnished and positioned in a way that is still 4*, the rooms with en suites that are being occupied are 4* standard - they haven’t taken out the beds and replaced with single prison beds, they haven’t locked the en suites and force the residents to share a communal bathroom.
The facilities are still far better to hundreds of thousands of British people, if not millions, who live in shitty bedsits or HMOs so your attempts to downgrade the 4* hotel issue are disingenuous.
What were 4* hotels have been converted into bare bones accommodation. They are not still furnished in the same way. They are no longer 4* hotels. That is not being disingenuous. That’s just a fact.
But you do concede the FACT that these people are being put in hotels, at tax-payers' expense? Yes?
I stayed in a Travellodge last night after a dinner in Edinburgh. It was clean, tidy, reasonably spacious and boring. There is simply no comparison between a holiday and living in homeless accommodation with no place to call your own. I have nothing but sympathy for those stuck in such circumstances for months and I abhor the underlying racism of those who do.
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
It's not a "boon for the far-right this is a consequence of insisting everyone is bracketed with a racial identity but then suppressing any debate about what that means whatsoever.
My own children are bracketed as White Other, despite both my wife and I wanting them bracketed as White British - because she's European.
On that basis King Charles III is White Other.
But it is, because British is a civic not ethnic identity.
As you've highlighted, many people are being classed as Other who are White British. This feeds a particular narrative of "white decline". The particular mistake here is conflating British with English or Celtic.
I stayed in a Travellodge last night after a dinner in Edinburgh. It was clean, tidy, reasonably spacious and boring. There is simply no comparison between a holiday and living in homeless accommodation with no place to call your own. I have nothing but sympathy for those stuck in such circumstances for months and I abhor the underlying racism of those who do.
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
It's not a "boon for the far-right this is a consequence of insisting everyone is bracketed with a racial identity but then suppressing any debate about what that means whatsoever.
My own children are bracketed as White Other, despite both my wife and I wanting them bracketed as White British - because she's European.
On that basis King Charles III is White Other.
But it is, because British is a civic not ethnic identity.
As you've highlighted, many people are being classed as Other who are White British. This feeds a particular narrative of "white decline". The particular mistake here is conflating British with English or Celtic.
Last time I checked we were supposed to be able to self-identify.
My guess is, regardless of how we cut it, those as White-European or White-Other will self-identify as White British inside 30 years.
Just as Irish and French Hugenot immigrants (hello, family Farage) now do so.
You can self-identify. Your children can tick the White British box on a form if they want to. I tick White British even though one grandparent was Dutch.
It’s the Matthew Goodwins of this world who think your children are a problem. It’s the Daily Telegraph who amplify his nonsense.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
The star rating doesn't matter. It is the principle.
Much of the taxpaying population of this country don't stay in hotels because they cannot afford it; they stay with family, or friends, or at a push in guest houses and airbnbs. Many others work all year to have a week or two in a hotel.
The fact that most of us on PB, and in the media-political establishment, stay in hotels all the time, blinds too many people to the issue IMO
I agree with this.
But the pushing of the "four star hotel" line really puts someone like me off - I don't want to associate myself with people who are blatantly stirring things up rather than trying to fix the problem. The same goes for the grooming gangs - it's a giant, looming scandal but it's too closely associated with people salivating over the prospect of a race war. My legitimate concern about it has been crowded out by twats with an ulterior motive.
(I regularly stay in grand Victorian hunting lodges. They have similarly been converted into 12-bed dorms as part of the SYHA.)
You actually think we GAF you are put off. Just you and Bondy take off your bobble hats and sandals and have a cosy debate about what a 4 * hotel is.
I've never been under the impression you care what I think. It's mutual though .
I certainly have little time for wishy washy lefty liberal dogma
You know what - I do care what you think. E.g. it's telling that Scottish nationalists from both the right and left are regularly bringing up electricity exports to England (particularly on Facebook), including you. That bodes well for indy because it was always reliant on a broad coalition.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
Wouldn’t your Japanese restaurant analogy be more relative to the hotel situation if you said that the couple are still running the Japanese restaurant in the same site but they have just removed the complimentary sake and cut down the menu. It’s still a Japanese restaurant, still furnished the same way and comfortable and pleasant to be in.
You focus on the hotels not being 4* based on certain facilities no longer being available however the hotel is still furnished and positioned in a way that is still 4*, the rooms with en suites that are being occupied are 4* standard - they haven’t taken out the beds and replaced with single prison beds, they haven’t locked the en suites and force the residents to share a communal bathroom.
The facilities are still far better to hundreds of thousands of British people, if not millions, who live in shitty bedsits or HMOs so your attempts to downgrade the 4* hotel issue are disingenuous.
What were 4* hotels have been converted into bare bones accommodation. They are not still furnished in the same way. They are no longer 4* hotels. That is not being disingenuous. That’s just a fact.
But you do concede the FACT that these people are being put in hotels, at tax-payers' expense? Yes?
They are, yes. I’ve never said otherwise.
The huge backlog of asylum seekers housed in hotels is a political failure by the last government.
Morning all. On thread and purely from a tactical standpoint lancing the boil now has only potential upsides - the electoral price was already mostly paid but interest continues to accrue on the residual which they want to pay off and all parties including Reform have a sizeable chunk of people saying right to apologise - obviously theyre not 'getting' those voters, but they might get a few if they are ex tories etc who want to see 'economic sense (lol)' return. Its a purely electorally sensible move to stabilize/sound the ship before rebuilding/repair (as they see it) She tried stuff, stuff blew up. Sorry Liz but even if you think 'it should have worked' , it didnt, so you have to take the blame and they have to distance themselves publically. Youll still get invited to the parties and youll still get jelly and ice cream so stop whining.
Um, no. Opinion is fine, but don't try to rewrite history. The minibudget was never executed. Liz thinks 'it would have worked' not 'it should have worked' and 'it didn't' is because it never happened.
I always know an argument is correct when the opposing side resorts to literally imagined events.
She strangled it at birth by sacking Kwarteng, allowing Hunt to do other things and then resigning. If that was because of market pressure or whatever is irrelevant, if she felt it would have worked she should have implemented it in a way or over a timescsale that allowed it to without the panic and retreat and outcomes that followed.
You'll get no argument from me that politically the Truss Government was a shambles, and that the minibudget episode (though not the minibudget content) was a disaster.
But why it wasn't implemented isn't the issue - it wasn't implemented, and your post implied that it was, and that it failed. That's a Labour attack line and it is a literal, balls out, lie. I don't know where you stand politically, but I think a key thing for the Tories is not to feed such delusions.
No, it wasn't implemented. By 'failed' I guess I mean she chose to/was forced to or whatever strangle the plans at birth and go a different route. They failed by not happening if you like. Indeed most or at least many of the individual mini budget proposals had polling net support and cross party support in the very immediate reaction. She monumentally screwed up trying to do it all in execution and presentation and we all paid for that both via the immediate collywobbles and the route we were forced down by the climbing down and are stuck in now.
Politically I'm homeless. I really don't see hope in anything on offer. The odd thing gets me excited then usually falls apart on closer inspection. I feel we are constantly being told we've never had it so good by the soilman as he dumps this weeks turds into our pit
How to tackle the Truss wound within the context of half the Tory Party wanting to continually kick it for party warfare reasons is a very big and very complex topic.
I suppose that what I think needs to happen is a very very simple (like three word simple if possible, though I don't think that it is) of the truth of the affair. In a world where people have fallen asleep by the time you've got to the I in LDI, and where half of Tories actually like the current Truss narrative because it suits their factional stance, that's hard.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
It's not a "boon for the far-right this is a consequence of insisting everyone is bracketed with a racial identity but then suppressing any debate about what that means whatsoever.
My own children are bracketed as White Other, despite both my wife and I wanting them bracketed as White British - because she's European.
On that basis King Charles III is White Other.
But it is, because British is a civic not ethnic identity.
As you've highlighted, many people are being classed as Other who are White British. This feeds a particular narrative of "white decline". The particular mistake here is conflating British with English or Celtic.
Last time I checked we were supposed to be able to self-identify.
My guess is, regardless of how we cut it, those as White-European or White-Other will self-identify as White British inside 30 years.
Just as Irish and French Hugenot immigrants (hello, family Farage) now do so.
You can self-identify. Your children can tick the White British box on a form if they want to. I tick White British even though one grandparent was Dutch.
It’s the Matthew Goodwins of this world who think your children are a problem. It’s the Daily Telegraph who amplify his nonsense.
You're such a nob.
I was referring to how they were registered at birth on the maternity ward.
I don't need to be schooled on anything by a pompous, self-satisfied and (remarkably) ignorant fool like you.
Your prejudices on the rest are precisely that - yours.
Has anyone here worked with immigrants or benefit claimants or those with mental health issues or even farmers. There is no substitute to getting in and getting the facts first hand. Relying on Social Media or even MSM means you are getting your knowledge through the filter of other people's biases.
It's not difficult to find opportunities to get the information first hand. Then go back and challenge those you want to challenge - based on experience - rather than second/third hand information.
We want politicians who have walked-the-walk rather than those who regurgitate nonsense from so-called think tanks. @Dura_Ace would make a good MP as he'd been there.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
nah, it's handy for identifying racists whose opinion can and should be ignored
roll out the "racist" dog whistle, just like "nazi" one. Handy when you cannot refute reality.
you think reality is asylum seekers living in luxury at the tax payers expense, you deep down the alt-right rabbit hole aleady
I stayed in a Travellodge last night after a dinner in Edinburgh. It was clean, tidy, reasonably spacious and boring. There is simply no comparison between a holiday and living in homeless accommodation with no place to call your own. I have nothing but sympathy for those stuck in such circumstances for months and I abhor the underlying racism of those who do.
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
Smashing the gangs doesn't affect the pull factor. Starmer abandoned the only viable policy that would
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
I feel for you. It's sad when your heroes are revealed to have feet of clay
It must be Rog. But never mind. I'm sure your next leader won't be a clammy, venal charmless lardbucket with all the charisma of a polyester bedsheet.
That's very good! Have you thought about spending your time in mourning giving your right wing buddies a few tips on polemic?
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
I feel for you. It's sad when your heroes are revealed to have feet of clay
It must be Rog. But never mind. I'm sure your next leader won't be a clammy, venal charmless lardbucket with all the charisma of a polyester bedsheet.
That's very good! Have you thought about spending your time in mourning giving your right wing buddies a few tips on polemic?
@Dura_Ace would make a good MP as he'd been there.
I'd be a terrible MP. I'm quite lazy and would have the potential to be quite spectacularly corrupt. Not even because I need the money, I don't, but just because I could and for a laugh.
Has anyone here worked with immigrants or benefit claimants or those with mental health issues or even farmers. There is no substitute to getting in and getting the facts first hand. Relying on Social Media or even MSM means you are getting your knowledge through the filter of other people's biases.
It's not difficult to find opportunities to get the information first hand. Then go back and challenge those you want to challenge - based on experience - rather than second/third hand information.
We want politicians who have walked-the-walk rather than those who regurgitate nonsense from so-called think tanks. @Dura_Ace would make a good MP as he'd been there.
@Dura_Ace would insult, ignore or incinerate his constituents- and I'm not sure I'm joking.
I stayed in a Travellodge last night after a dinner in Edinburgh. It was clean, tidy, reasonably spacious and boring. There is simply no comparison between a holiday and living in homeless accommodation with no place to call your own. I have nothing but sympathy for those stuck in such circumstances for months and I abhor the underlying racism of those who do.
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
There are only two ways to remove the pull factor. One is to change the law so that people arriving without prior permission to remain are legally and forcibly removed back to their home, if necessary without the permission of the home country.
This remains unacceptable to most.
The only other one is to have a global minimum standard of provision for all such, based on how it is in Chad, Kenya or Bangladesh. Tent, UN provided three meals, primary education, basic health care from MSF, ticket home always available. No choice as to where.
I think it is time, sadly, to look seriously at this one.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
Wouldn’t your Japanese restaurant analogy be more relative to the hotel situation if you said that the couple are still running the Japanese restaurant in the same site but they have just removed the complimentary sake and cut down the menu. It’s still a Japanese restaurant, still furnished the same way and comfortable and pleasant to be in.
You focus on the hotels not being 4* based on certain facilities no longer being available however the hotel is still furnished and positioned in a way that is still 4*, the rooms with en suites that are being occupied are 4* standard - they haven’t taken out the beds and replaced with single prison beds, they haven’t locked the en suites and force the residents to share a communal bathroom.
The facilities are still far better to hundreds of thousands of British people, if not millions, who live in shitty bedsits or HMOs so your attempts to downgrade the 4* hotel issue are disingenuous.
What were 4* hotels have been converted into bare bones accommodation. They are not still furnished in the same way. They are no longer 4* hotels. That is not being disingenuous. That’s just a fact.
But you do concede the FACT that these people are being put in hotels, at tax-payers' expense? Yes?
@Dura_Ace would make a good MP as he'd been there.
I'd be a terrible MP. I'm quite lazy and would have the potential to be quite spectacularly corrupt. Not even because I need the money, I don't, but just because I could and for a laugh.
I stayed in a Travellodge last night after a dinner in Edinburgh. It was clean, tidy, reasonably spacious and boring. There is simply no comparison between a holiday and living in homeless accommodation with no place to call your own. I have nothing but sympathy for those stuck in such circumstances for months and I abhor the underlying racism of those who do.
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
Smashing the gangs doesn't affect the pull factor. Starmer abandoned the only viable policy that would
It isn't the only policy. Our grant rate is twice (it could be three times) the rate of France or Germany. Wouldn't you come over the channel if you had twice the chance of being successful?
Get deportations sorted (probably by leaving the ECHR but if a fudge would allow it, fine) so that you can remove failed asylum seekers, and when that's in place, make the criteria massively more strict and drive the grant rate right down, below the European average. Unglamorous, but could work.
Has anyone here worked with immigrants or benefit claimants or those with mental health issues or even farmers. There is no substitute to getting in and getting the facts first hand. Relying on Social Media or even MSM means you are getting your knowledge through the filter of other people's biases.
It's not difficult to find opportunities to get the information first hand. Then go back and challenge those you want to challenge - based on experience - rather than second/third hand information.
We want politicians who have walked-the-walk rather than those who regurgitate nonsense from so-called think tanks. @Dura_Ace would make a good MP as he'd been there.
@Dura_Ace would insult, ignore or incinerate his constituents- and I'm not sure I'm joking.
I've changed my mind. @Battlebus is right. I'd be fucking fantastic.
I stayed in a Travellodge last night after a dinner in Edinburgh. It was clean, tidy, reasonably spacious and boring. There is simply no comparison between a holiday and living in homeless accommodation with no place to call your own. I have nothing but sympathy for those stuck in such circumstances for months and I abhor the underlying racism of those who do.
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
Smashing the gangs doesn't affect the pull factor. Starmer abandoned the only viable policy that would
It isn't the only policy. Our grant rate is twice (it could be three times) the rate of France or Germany. Wouldn't you come over the channel if you had twice the chance of being successful?
Get deportations sorted (probably by leaving the ECHR but if a fudge would allow it, fine) so that you can remove failed asylum seekers, and when that's in place, make the criteria massively more strict and drive the grant rate right down, below the European average. Unglamorous, but could work.
I stayed in a Travellodge last night after a dinner in Edinburgh. It was clean, tidy, reasonably spacious and boring. There is simply no comparison between a holiday and living in homeless accommodation with no place to call your own. I have nothing but sympathy for those stuck in such circumstances for months and I abhor the underlying racism of those who do.
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
Smashing the gangs doesn't affect the pull factor. Starmer abandoned the only viable policy that would
It isn't the only policy. Our grant rate is twice (it could be three times) the rate of France or Germany. Wouldn't you come over the channel if you had twice the chance of being successful?
Get deportations sorted (probably by leaving the ECHR but if a fudge would allow it, fine) so that you can remove failed asylum seekers, and when that's in place, make the criteria massively more strict and drive the grant rate right down, below the European average. Unglamorous, but could work.
“The right to a family life” has become a get out of jail card.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
It's not a "boon for the far-right this is a consequence of insisting everyone is bracketed with a racial identity but then suppressing any debate about what that means whatsoever.
My own children are bracketed as White Other, despite both my wife and I wanting them bracketed as White British - because she's European.
On that basis King Charles III is White Other.
But it is, because British is a civic not ethnic identity.
As you've highlighted, many people are being classed as Other who are White British. This feeds a particular narrative of "white decline". The particular mistake here is conflating British with English or Celtic.
Last time I checked we were supposed to be able to self-identify.
My guess is, regardless of how we cut it, those as White-European or White-Other will self-identify as White British inside 30 years.
Just as Irish and French Hugenot immigrants (hello, family Farage) now do so.
You can self-identify. Your children can tick the White British box on a form if they want to. I tick White British even though one grandparent was Dutch.
It’s the Matthew Goodwins of this world who think your children are a problem. It’s the Daily Telegraph who amplify his nonsense.
You're such a nob.
I was referring to how they were registered at birth on the maternity ward.
I don't need to be schooled on anything by a pompous, self-satisfied and (remarkably) ignorant fool like you.
Your prejudices on the rest are precisely that - yours.
What have I done today to upset you so, Casino? I’m sure your kids are great. I think it’s terrible that Matthew Goodwin is trying to whip up this fear and anger towards them and everyone else he doesn’t count as pure enough.
I stayed in a Travellodge last night after a dinner in Edinburgh. It was clean, tidy, reasonably spacious and boring. There is simply no comparison between a holiday and living in homeless accommodation with no place to call your own. I have nothing but sympathy for those stuck in such circumstances for months and I abhor the underlying racism of those who do.
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
Smashing the gangs doesn't affect the pull factor. Starmer abandoned the only viable policy that would
It isn't the only policy. Our grant rate is twice (it could be three times) the rate of France or Germany. Wouldn't you come over the channel if you had twice the chance of being successful?
Get deportations sorted (probably by leaving the ECHR but if a fudge would allow it, fine) so that you can remove failed asylum seekers, and when that's in place, make the criteria massively more strict and drive the grant rate right down, below the European average. Unglamorous, but could work.
Has anyone here worked with immigrants or benefit claimants or those with mental health issues or even farmers. There is no substitute to getting in and getting the facts first hand. Relying on Social Media or even MSM means you are getting your knowledge through the filter of other people's biases.
It's not difficult to find opportunities to get the information first hand. Then go back and challenge those you want to challenge - based on experience - rather than second/third hand information.
We want politicians who have walked-the-walk rather than those who regurgitate nonsense from so-called think tanks. @Dura_Ace would make a good MP as he'd been there.
@Dura_Ace would insult, ignore or incinerate his constituents- and I'm not sure I'm joking.
I've changed my mind. @Battlebus is right. I'd be fucking fantastic.
I stayed in a Travellodge last night after a dinner in Edinburgh. It was clean, tidy, reasonably spacious and boring. There is simply no comparison between a holiday and living in homeless accommodation with no place to call your own. I have nothing but sympathy for those stuck in such circumstances for months and I abhor the underlying racism of those who do.
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
I doubt anyone on here, of any perspective, would seriously disagree with this. Many asylum seekers are - by definition - genuinely desperate people seeking a better life instead of a terrible life
But - it must be faced - an awful lot are liars. They destroy their own documents so we can’t truly identify and then deport them. Also, they don’t seek asylum in Greece or Belgium - they come all the way to Britain. Why? Because often they are economic migrants, not asylum seekers at all. True asylum seekers would claim asylum in the first safe country
Then we have a very small minority who are actively hostile and malign. The relative numbers are tiny - but they exist and they seek to harm us
It’s a mess. It is unsustainable. The answer is to abandon the outdated concept of asylum and withdraw from the ECHR. Make it illegal to cross the channel in small boats
Then we choose as a country who we will protect. We can’t shelter the world so let’s stop pretending we can - it’s doing enormous damage to the UK
We can still do good. We can, for instance, shelter Hong Kongers and Ukrainians. And others in the future
I stayed in a Travellodge last night after a dinner in Edinburgh. It was clean, tidy, reasonably spacious and boring. There is simply no comparison between a holiday and living in homeless accommodation with no place to call your own. I have nothing but sympathy for those stuck in such circumstances for months and I abhor the underlying racism of those who do.
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
Smashing the gangs doesn't affect the pull factor. Starmer abandoned the only viable policy that would
It isn't the only policy. Our grant rate is twice (it could be three times) the rate of France or Germany. Wouldn't you come over the channel if you had twice the chance of being successful?
Get deportations sorted (probably by leaving the ECHR but if a fudge would allow it, fine) so that you can remove failed asylum seekers, and when that's in place, make the criteria massively more strict and drive the grant rate right down, below the European average. Unglamorous, but could work.
“The right to a family life” has become a get out of jail card.
It is a strange "right" anyway - what justifies it?
I stayed in a Travellodge last night after a dinner in Edinburgh. It was clean, tidy, reasonably spacious and boring. There is simply no comparison between a holiday and living in homeless accommodation with no place to call your own. I have nothing but sympathy for those stuck in such circumstances for months and I abhor the underlying racism of those who do.
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
Smashing the gangs doesn't affect the pull factor. Starmer abandoned the only viable policy that would
It isn't the only policy. Our grant rate is twice (it could be three times) the rate of France or Germany. Wouldn't you come over the channel if you had twice the chance of being successful?
Get deportations sorted (probably by leaving the ECHR but if a fudge would allow it, fine) so that you can remove failed asylum seekers, and when that's in place, make the criteria massively more strict and drive the grant rate right down, below the European average. Unglamorous, but could work.
“The right to a family life” has become a get out of jail card.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
The star rating doesn't matter. It is the principle.
Much of the taxpaying population of this country don't stay in hotels because they cannot afford it; they stay with family, or friends, or at a push in guest houses and airbnbs. Many others work all year to have a week or two in a hotel.
The fact that most of us on PB, and in the media-political establishment, stay in hotels all the time, blinds too many people to the issue IMO
I agree with this.
But the pushing of the "four star hotel" line really puts someone like me off - I don't want to associate myself with people who are blatantly stirring things up rather than trying to fix the problem. The same goes for the grooming gangs - it's a giant, looming scandal but it's too closely associated with people salivating over the prospect of a race war. My legitimate concern about it has been crowded out by twats with an ulterior motive.
(I regularly stay in grand Victorian hunting lodges. They have similarly been converted into 12-bed dorms as part of the SYHA.)
You actually think we GAF you are put off. Just you and Bondy take off your bobble hats and sandals and have a cosy debate about what a 4 * hotel is.
I've never been under the impression you care what I think. It's mutual though .
I certainly have little time for wishy washy lefty liberal dogma
You know what - I do care what you think. E.g. it's telling that Scottish nationalists from both the right and left are regularly bringing up electricity exports to England (particularly on Facebook), including you. That bodes well for indy because it was always reliant on a broad coalition.
Wait, I thought interconnectors allowed for two-way transmission of electricity. Are you suggesting that the power is only going in one direction (insert crack about the erosion of devolution)?
I stayed in a Travellodge last night after a dinner in Edinburgh. It was clean, tidy, reasonably spacious and boring. There is simply no comparison between a holiday and living in homeless accommodation with no place to call your own. I have nothing but sympathy for those stuck in such circumstances for months and I abhor the underlying racism of those who do.
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
There are only two ways to remove the pull factor. One is to change the law so that people arriving without prior permission to remain are legally and forcibly removed back to their home, if necessary without the permission of the home country.
This remains unacceptable to most.
The only other one is to have a global minimum standard of provision for all such, based on how it is in Chad, Kenya or Bangladesh. Tent, UN provided three meals, primary education, basic health care from MSF, ticket home always available. No choice as to where.
I think it is time, sadly, to look seriously at this one.
I'd argue strongly for the global minimum standard of provision, but not based on Chad etc. but perhaps Philippines.
Remove the pull factor by addressing global inequality such that, other than times of war, for the vast majority remaining within your own cultural, ethnic and linguistic sphere is a better life choice than risking your life to travel illegally halfway across the world to chase an imagined reality of milk and honey in a different country.
ETA: my reasoning isn't only ethical; your imagined minimum provision implies that we control the pull factor to a greater extent than we do. Put people in tents, they'll abscond (rightly so imv) into the informal economy. A good friend of mine lived happily and illegally in London for 6 years making a decent wage, before returning to his home country to buy a house. We don't win this by attempting to worsen the experience of migrants to UK imv.
Has anyone here worked with immigrants or benefit claimants or those with mental health issues or even farmers. There is no substitute to getting in and getting the facts first hand. Relying on Social Media or even MSM means you are getting your knowledge through the filter of other people's biases.
It's not difficult to find opportunities to get the information first hand. Then go back and challenge those you want to challenge - based on experience - rather than second/third hand information.
We want politicians who have walked-the-walk rather than those who regurgitate nonsense from so-called think tanks. @Dura_Ace would make a good MP as he'd been there.
@Dura_Ace would insult, ignore or incinerate his constituents- and I'm not sure I'm joking.
He's a misanthrope.
He's not an MP type for me. He strikes me as more of a *gulps* Dominic Cummings figure for defence. Go in and sack everyone and do it right. I'd half be worrying he'd spend the time plotting a revolutionary anarchist coup, but I tend to think his sense a job well done would win out and it would all result in us ruling the waves once more.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
It's not a "boon for the far-right this is a consequence of insisting everyone is bracketed with a racial identity but then suppressing any debate about what that means whatsoever.
My own children are bracketed as White Other, despite both my wife and I wanting them bracketed as White British - because she's European.
On that basis King Charles III is White Other.
But it is, because British is a civic not ethnic identity.
As you've highlighted, many people are being classed as Other who are White British. This feeds a particular narrative of "white decline". The particular mistake here is conflating British with English or Celtic.
Last time I checked we were supposed to be able to self-identify.
My guess is, regardless of how we cut it, those as White-European or White-Other will self-identify as White British inside 30 years.
Just as Irish and French Hugenot immigrants (hello, family Farage) now do so.
You can self-identify. Your children can tick the White British box on a form if they want to. I tick White British even though one grandparent was Dutch.
It’s the Matthew Goodwins of this world who think your children are a problem. It’s the Daily Telegraph who amplify his nonsense.
You're such a nob.
I was referring to how they were registered at birth on the maternity ward.
I don't need to be schooled on anything by a pompous, self-satisfied and (remarkably) ignorant fool like you.
Your prejudices on the rest are precisely that - yours.
Knob. Nob suggests bondegezou is a sprig of the nobility (which may of course be the case but I doubt that’s your point).
I stayed in a Travellodge last night after a dinner in Edinburgh. It was clean, tidy, reasonably spacious and boring. There is simply no comparison between a holiday and living in homeless accommodation with no place to call your own. I have nothing but sympathy for those stuck in such circumstances for months and I abhor the underlying racism of those who do.
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
There are only two ways to remove the pull factor. One is to change the law so that people arriving without prior permission to remain are legally and forcibly removed back to their home, if necessary without the permission of the home country.
This remains unacceptable to most.
The only other one is to have a global minimum standard of provision for all such, based on how it is in Chad, Kenya or Bangladesh. Tent, UN provided three meals, primary education, basic health care from MSF, ticket home always available. No choice as to where.
I think it is time, sadly, to look seriously at this one.
I'd argue strongly for the global minimum standard of provision, but not based on Chad etc. but perhaps Philippines.
Remove the pull factor by addressing global inequality such that, other than times of war, for the vast majority remaining within your own cultural, ethnic and linguistic sphere is a better life choice than risking your life to travel illegally halfway across the world to chase an imagined reality of milk and honey in a different country.
The past forty years have seen a huge improvement in living standards in poor countries, and that makes it easier to travel to rich ones.
@Dura_Ace would make a good MP as he'd been there.
I'd be a terrible MP. I'm quite lazy and would have the potential to be quite spectacularly corrupt. Not even because I need the money, I don't, but just because I could and for a laugh.
Not so long ago this exact mix of qualities took a certain Conservative politician of unruly mien and ample girth all the way to number ten.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
It's not a "boon for the far-right this is a consequence of insisting everyone is bracketed with a racial identity but then suppressing any debate about what that means whatsoever.
My own children are bracketed as White Other, despite both my wife and I wanting them bracketed as White British - because she's European.
On that basis King Charles III is White Other.
But it is, because British is a civic not ethnic identity.
As you've highlighted, many people are being classed as Other who are White British. This feeds a particular narrative of "white decline". The particular mistake here is conflating British with English or Celtic.
Last time I checked we were supposed to be able to self-identify.
My guess is, regardless of how we cut it, those as White-European or White-Other will self-identify as White British inside 30 years.
Just as Irish and French Hugenot immigrants (hello, family Farage) now do so.
You can self-identify. Your children can tick the White British box on a form if they want to. I tick White British even though one grandparent was Dutch.
It’s the Matthew Goodwins of this world who think your children are a problem. It’s the Daily Telegraph who amplify his nonsense.
You're such a nob.
I was referring to how they were registered at birth on the maternity ward.
I don't need to be schooled on anything by a pompous, self-satisfied and (remarkably) ignorant fool like you.
Your prejudices on the rest are precisely that - yours.
What have I done today to upset you so, Casino? I’m sure your kids are great. I think it’s terrible that Matthew Goodwin is trying to whip up this fear and anger towards them and everyone else he doesn’t count as pure enough.
Your conversations are only one-way, and when one engages what one gets back is condescension.
You seem genuinely mortified by this, because you don't have the self-awareness to recognise it in yourself so maybe, yes, you're right I'm being pointlessly harsh on you and it's best to just let it slide.
There are plenty of others here who know full well what they're doing and do it deliberately.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
I feel for you. It's sad when your heroes are revealed to have feet of clay
It must be Rog. But never mind. I'm sure your next leader won't be a clammy, venal charmless lardbucket with all the charisma of a polyester bedsheet.
That's very good! Have you thought about spending your time in mourning giving your right wing buddies a few tips on polemic?
They're not nearly as sharp.
Roger: wrong about everything, all the time.
It's a remarkable piece of performance art.
I'm right on this one. Credit where it's due. Try reading the last thread on HIGNFY. Max in particular. It was almost depressing
I stayed in a Travellodge last night after a dinner in Edinburgh. It was clean, tidy, reasonably spacious and boring. There is simply no comparison between a holiday and living in homeless accommodation with no place to call your own. I have nothing but sympathy for those stuck in such circumstances for months and I abhor the underlying racism of those who do.
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
There are only two ways to remove the pull factor. One is to change the law so that people arriving without prior permission to remain are legally and forcibly removed back to their home, if necessary without the permission of the home country.
This remains unacceptable to most.
The only other one is to have a global minimum standard of provision for all such, based on how it is in Chad, Kenya or Bangladesh. Tent, UN provided three meals, primary education, basic health care from MSF, ticket home always available. No choice as to where.
I think it is time, sadly, to look seriously at this one.
I’m unclear what you are suggesting. Is this for asylum seekers, those in an intermediate state who are having their claims processed? Or is this for those who have been granted asylum after we have judged their claims to be valid? Once we have granted someone asylum, they generally go on to find work, support themselves and pay taxes. Do you want to ban people have been granted asylum from working and make them go back to living in this tent?
@Dura_Ace would make a good MP as he'd been there.
I'd be a terrible MP. I'm quite lazy and would have the potential to be quite spectacularly corrupt. Not even because I need the money, I don't, but just because I could and for a laugh.
Not so long ago this exact mix of qualities took a certain Conservative politician of unruly mien and ample girth all the way to number ten.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
It was my psychiatrist who told me to run for the parish council. She said it teaches you a lot about yourself, makes you come to terms with your limitations and makes you think about how you relate to other people. It really worked and she was entirely right. Being an MP must be that x 1000.
I am a pretty bad council member though because I don't take any of it remotely seriously. We recently had to have official photos taken. I insisted on wearing an AliExpress wig that was an unkempt blonde mullet with TERF bangs.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
Thank you.
For example, say when Nicola Sturgeon was arrested, you could use swear words to describe the situation but not when disagreeing with a fellow PBer.
I stayed in a Travellodge last night after a dinner in Edinburgh. It was clean, tidy, reasonably spacious and boring. There is simply no comparison between a holiday and living in homeless accommodation with no place to call your own. I have nothing but sympathy for those stuck in such circumstances for months and I abhor the underlying racism of those who do.
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
There are only two ways to remove the pull factor. One is to change the law so that people arriving without prior permission to remain are legally and forcibly removed back to their home, if necessary without the permission of the home country.
This remains unacceptable to most.
The only other one is to have a global minimum standard of provision for all such, based on how it is in Chad, Kenya or Bangladesh. Tent, UN provided three meals, primary education, basic health care from MSF, ticket home always available. No choice as to where.
I think it is time, sadly, to look seriously at this one.
I'd argue strongly for the global minimum standard of provision, but not based on Chad etc. but perhaps Philippines.
Remove the pull factor by addressing global inequality such that, other than times of war, for the vast majority remaining within your own cultural, ethnic and linguistic sphere is a better life choice than risking your life to travel illegally halfway across the world to chase an imagined reality of milk and honey in a different country.
The past forty years have seen a huge improvement in living standards in poor countries, and that makes it easier to travel to rich ones.
Huge but hugely variable. We don't, for example, have huge numbers of illegal Chinese migrants do we? (Genuine question) And anyway, I'd say if it's still the case that people are prepared to give up so much to come here, the only sustainable solution is to use more of our wealth, expertise and tech to give opportunities for them to live a dignified life where they are. Every other option ends in disaster imv.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
Thank you.
For example, say when Nicola Sturgeon was arrested, you could use swear words to describe the situation but not when disagreeing with a fellow PBer.
It feels like you're now using my innocent question to further your misanthropy. Surely some mistake?
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
I try not to swear here for long periods and then I get grumpy and it comes out. It's very coarse.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
Thank you.
For example, say when Nicola Sturgeon was arrested, you could use swear words to describe the situation but not when disagreeing with a fellow PBer.
It feels like you're now using my innocent question to further your misanthropy. Surely some mistake?
In short, don't swear/be abusive towards other PBers, that's what I am aiming for.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
It's not a "boon for the far-right this is a consequence of insisting everyone is bracketed with a racial identity but then suppressing any debate about what that means whatsoever.
My own children are bracketed as White Other, despite both my wife and I wanting them bracketed as White British - because she's European.
On that basis King Charles III is White Other.
But it is, because British is a civic not ethnic identity.
As you've highlighted, many people are being classed as Other who are White British. This feeds a particular narrative of "white decline". The particular mistake here is conflating British with English or Celtic.
Last time I checked we were supposed to be able to self-identify.
My guess is, regardless of how we cut it, those as White-European or White-Other will self-identify as White British inside 30 years.
Just as Irish and French Hugenot immigrants (hello, family Farage) now do so.
You can self-identify. Your children can tick the White British box on a form if they want to. I tick White British even though one grandparent was Dutch.
It’s the Matthew Goodwins of this world who think your children are a problem. It’s the Daily Telegraph who amplify his nonsense.
You're such a nob.
I was referring to how they were registered at birth on the maternity ward.
I don't need to be schooled on anything by a pompous, self-satisfied and (remarkably) ignorant fool like you.
Your prejudices on the rest are precisely that - yours.
Is ethnicity put on a birth certificate? I didn't think it was.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
Thank you.
For example, say when Nicola Sturgeon was arrested, you could use swear words to describe the situation but not when disagreeing with a fellow PBer.
It feels like you're now using my innocent question to further your misanthropy. Surely some mistake?
In short, don't swear/be abusive towards other PBers, that's what I am aiming for.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
Thank you.
For example, say when Nicola Sturgeon was arrested, you could use swear words to describe the situation but not when disagreeing with a fellow PBer.
You mean ‘Fucking hell, two blue forensics tents seems excessive while Cameron-ennobled Mone is walking the streets of Monaco without a care in the world’ would be ok?
@Dura_Ace would make a good MP as he'd been there.
I'd be a terrible MP. I'm quite lazy and would have the potential to be quite spectacularly corrupt. Not even because I need the money, I don't, but just because I could and for a laugh.
Not so long ago this exact mix of qualities took a certain Conservative politician of unruly mien and ample girth all the way to number ten.
It's all muscle.
But not anymore. It's all gone to pot since he handed in his lanyard.
I stayed in a Travellodge last night after a dinner in Edinburgh. It was clean, tidy, reasonably spacious and boring. There is simply no comparison between a holiday and living in homeless accommodation with no place to call your own. I have nothing but sympathy for those stuck in such circumstances for months and I abhor the underlying racism of those who do.
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
There are only two ways to remove the pull factor. One is to change the law so that people arriving without prior permission to remain are legally and forcibly removed back to their home, if necessary without the permission of the home country.
This remains unacceptable to most.
The only other one is to have a global minimum standard of provision for all such, based on how it is in Chad, Kenya or Bangladesh. Tent, UN provided three meals, primary education, basic health care from MSF, ticket home always available. No choice as to where.
I think it is time, sadly, to look seriously at this one.
I'd argue strongly for the global minimum standard of provision, but not based on Chad etc. but perhaps Philippines.
Remove the pull factor by addressing global inequality such that, other than times of war, for the vast majority remaining within your own cultural, ethnic and linguistic sphere is a better life choice than risking your life to travel illegally halfway across the world to chase an imagined reality of milk and honey in a different country.
The past forty years have seen a huge improvement in living standards in poor countries, and that makes it easier to travel to rich ones.
Huge but hugely variable. We don't, for example, have huge numbers of illegal Chinese migrants do we? (Genuine question) And anyway, I'd say if it's still the case that people are prepared to give up so much to come here, the only sustainable solution is to use more of our wealth, expertise and tech to give opportunities for them to live a dignified life where they are. Every other option ends in disaster imv.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
I try not to swear here for long periods and then I get grumpy and it comes out. It's very coarse.
Swearing can be useful. eg it’s a proven fact that swearing when you’ve hurt yourself lessens the pain. Mad but true. And a nicely targeted sweary insult can be both funny and effective
But generally we swear too much (me definitely included). A prohibition is healthy
“A 2009 study from Keele University found that people who swore during a cold-water immersion test could keep their hand in icy water 50% longer than those who used neutral words.”
I stayed in a Travellodge last night after a dinner in Edinburgh. It was clean, tidy, reasonably spacious and boring. There is simply no comparison between a holiday and living in homeless accommodation with no place to call your own. I have nothing but sympathy for those stuck in such circumstances for months and I abhor the underlying racism of those who do.
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
There are only two ways to remove the pull factor. One is to change the law so that people arriving without prior permission to remain are legally and forcibly removed back to their home, if necessary without the permission of the home country.
This remains unacceptable to most.
The only other one is to have a global minimum standard of provision for all such, based on how it is in Chad, Kenya or Bangladesh. Tent, UN provided three meals, primary education, basic health care from MSF, ticket home always available. No choice as to where.
I think it is time, sadly, to look seriously at this one.
I'd argue strongly for the global minimum standard of provision, but not based on Chad etc. but perhaps Philippines.
Remove the pull factor by addressing global inequality such that, other than times of war, for the vast majority remaining within your own cultural, ethnic and linguistic sphere is a better life choice than risking your life to travel illegally halfway across the world to chase an imagined reality of milk and honey in a different country.
The past forty years have seen a huge improvement in living standards in poor countries, and that makes it easier to travel to rich ones.
Huge but hugely variable. We don't, for example, have huge numbers of illegal Chinese migrants do we? (Genuine question) And anyway, I'd say if it's still the case that people are prepared to give up so much to come here, the only sustainable solution is to use more of our wealth, expertise and tech to give opportunities for them to live a dignified life where they are. Every other option ends in disaster imv.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
Department Q on Netflix is very sweary including plenty of c words. On one level it’s quite representative of Scottish chat (even in Edinburgh) but feels a bit performative at times.
On topic... there is absolutely no point in the eBay Fukkers apologising for The Last of Truss. It wouldn't be sincere because lots of them liked the policies and would do it again given half a chance. Also they would get exactly zero electoral credit and much mockery for it.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
Thank you.
For example, say when Nicola Sturgeon was arrested, you could use swear words to describe the situation but not when disagreeing with a fellow PBer.
It feels like you're now using my innocent question to further your misanthropy. Surely some mistake?
In short, don't swear/be abusive towards other PBers, that's what I am aiming for.
Hmm. You will have to define “be abusive”
I agree with a swear word ban, as I’ve said, but if we’re not allowed to call each other “a funny little freakaloid with a face like a mandrill’s arse” then the site will get very dull, very quickly
It will just be @foxy and the like trotting out centrist Dad opinions in the voice of Adrian Chiles, for the rest of cosmic time
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
Department Q on Netflix is very sweary including plenty of c words. On one level it’s quite representative of Scottish chat (even in Edinburgh) but feels a bit performative at times.
A dear friend of mine from Derbyshire used to swear every other word. He'd greet you in the morning with "Hi, it's a lovely day, isn't it?" with swear words intertwined. It became like punctuation, and proved easy enough to ignore.
Oddly enough, when he was really annoyed, he'd stop swearing.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
Thank you.
For example, say when Nicola Sturgeon was arrested, you could use swear words to describe the situation but not when disagreeing with a fellow PBer.
It feels like you're now using my innocent question to further your misanthropy. Surely some mistake?
In short, don't swear/be abusive towards other PBers, that's what I am aiming for.
Hmm. You will have to define “be abusive”
I agree with a swear word ban, as I’ve said, but if we’re not allowed to call each other “a funny little freakaloid with a face like a mandrill’s arse” then the site will get very dull, very quickly
It will just be @foxy and the like trotting out centrist Dad opinions in the voice of Adrian Chiles, for the rest of cosmic time
So for the time being swear words directed towards each other is banned, so calling somebody a twat is a no no, so is telling them to have a wank.
They say some have great pensions and some have poor pensions We at Reform say poor pensions for all! Poor pensions, retire later, transfer all your wealth to the spivs
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That makes no sense - day to day spending should be from taxation, borrowing should be capital investment. Micawber’s advice was for day to day spending, Polonus’s doesn’t cover buying something like a house
And that attitude is part of the reason we're here. There's an interview with Nathaniel Fried, the DOGE-UK techie, in today's Times;
Fried said he found “genuinely ancient” IT systems that were “nearly as old as me” and costing the council in wasted staff hours. He said that officials worked incredibly hard but were blighted by antiquated processes and inefficient procurement practices.
Which is very likely true, but a long way from LAZY WFH DESK JOCKEYS or MILLIONS OF FRAUD.
I sit in public buildings and gawp at some of the decrepit crap they are using. In hospital in both Banff and Aberdeen with mum this week. Ceiling lights are ancient, running florescent tube bulbs. You know how much money those things cost to run? You could save an absolute bomb replacing them with LEDs.
Why doesn't that happen? That's right - we can't afford it. So instead of spending a little in capex to replace the lights with ones that collapse the energy bill long term, we "save" that investment and pay a lot more in leccy costs.
It's mind-numbingly stupid.
I am just back from a cruise on Queen Mary 2. Cunard were very pleased to announce that they were using Starlink for their communications but their onboard computers were still using Windows8.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
Thank you.
For example, say when Nicola Sturgeon was arrested, you could use swear words to describe the situation but not when disagreeing with a fellow PBer.
It feels like you're now using my innocent question to further your misanthropy. Surely some mistake?
In short, don't swear/be abusive towards other PBers, that's what I am aiming for.
Hmm. You will have to define “be abusive”
I agree with a swear word ban, as I’ve said, but if we’re not allowed to call each other “a funny little freakaloid with a face like a mandrill’s arse” then the site will get very dull, very quickly
It will just be @foxy and the like trotting out centrist Dad opinions in the voice of Adrian Chiles, for the rest of cosmic time
So for the time being swear words directed towards each other is banned, so calling somebody a twat is a no no, so is telling them to have a wank.
However your suggestion would be fine.
It’s still a minefield and will cramp debate. But, you’re the mod
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
I try not to swear here for long periods and then I get grumpy and it comes out. It's very coarse.
Swearing can be useful. eg it’s a proven fact that swearing when you’ve hurt yourself lessens the pain. Mad but true. And a nicely targeted sweary insult can be both funny and effective
But generally we swear too much (me definitely included). A prohibition is healthy
“A 2009 study from Keele University found that people who swore during a cold-water immersion test could keep their hand in icy water 50% longer than those who used neutral words.”
But did they control for correlation between toughness and propensity to swear? Because it's probably the case that tough nuts swear more than the average. We see that on here.
To do the experiment properly you'd need to have each person doing this ice test both ways. First they emit a stream of bad words eg (no, there's a ban now so I won't), then the second time they can only scream out things like "ooo, golly" and "yikes, that's cold".
Measure the difference each time, aggregate and average across the sample. Bingo.
Actually, I'll click on the link now to see if they did this. Perhaps they did, it being Keele University.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
I try not to swear here for long periods and then I get grumpy and it comes out. It's very coarse.
Swearing can be useful. eg it’s a proven fact that swearing when you’ve hurt yourself lessens the pain. Mad but true. And a nicely targeted sweary insult can be both funny and effective
But generally we swear too much (me definitely included). A prohibition is healthy
“A 2009 study from Keele University found that people who swore during a cold-water immersion test could keep their hand in icy water 50% longer than those who used neutral words.”
But did they control for correlation between toughness and propensity to swear? Because it's probably the case that tough nuts swear more than the average. We see that on here.
To do the experiment properly you'd need to have each person doing this ice test both ways. First they emit a stream of bad words eg (no, there's a ban now so I won't), then the second time they can only scream out things like "ooo, golly" and "yikes, that's cold".
Measure the difference each time, aggregate and average across the sample. Bingo.
Actually, I'll click on the link now to see if they did this. Perhaps they did, it being Keele University.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
Thank you.
For example, say when Nicola Sturgeon was arrested, you could use swear words to describe the situation but not when disagreeing with a fellow PBer.
It feels like you're now using my innocent question to further your misanthropy. Surely some mistake?
In short, don't swear/be abusive towards other PBers, that's what I am aiming for.
Hmm. You will have to define “be abusive”
I agree with a swear word ban, as I’ve said, but if we’re not allowed to call each other “a funny little freakaloid with a face like a mandrill’s arse” then the site will get very dull, very quickly
It will just be @foxy and the like trotting out centrist Dad opinions in the voice of Adrian Chiles, for the rest of cosmic time
So for the time being swear words directed towards each other is banned, so calling somebody a twat is a no no, so is telling them to have a wank.
However your suggestion would be fine.
It’s still a minefield and will cramp debate. But, you’re the mod
Over a decade ago when OGH first asked me to start running the site he told me he was really proud that PB wasn't like Guido where the commentators were really abusive towards each other and I want us to remain like OGH envisioned.
All I am asking for is the we don't swear at each other and specifically don't tell use terms like wanking.
Politics is about passion and emotion as much as it is about reason and argument yet some of the personal animosity towards the likes of Starmer, Sunak and indeed almost every Prime Minister is beyond reason. You may not agree with what they do or say but they aren’t your personal emotional punchbag.
Neither, to be blunt, are the other groups routinely vilified on here such as migrants and public sector pensioners. It’s easy to mouth off at a group (or a race or a creed) but harder when it’s individuals.
Those, for example, advocating cuts to public services may not be the users of the service themselves or know anyone who uses the particular service but that doesn’t make the service any less vital to those who do use it.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
Department Q on Netflix is very sweary including plenty of c words. On one level it’s quite representative of Scottish chat (even in Edinburgh) but feels a bit performative at times.
A dear friend of mine from Derbyshire used to swear every other word. He'd greet you in the morning with "Hi, it's a lovely day, isn't it?" with swear words intertwined. It became like punctuation, and proved easy enough to ignore.
Oddly enough, when he was really annoyed, he'd stop swearing.
I once had a client who used to say “f*ck* as every fourth word.
It made a trainee solicitor start giggling uncontrollably and the client remarked,
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
I try not to swear here for long periods and then I get grumpy and it comes out. It's very coarse.
Swearing can be useful. eg it’s a proven fact that swearing when you’ve hurt yourself lessens the pain. Mad but true. And a nicely targeted sweary insult can be both funny and effective
But generally we swear too much (me definitely included). A prohibition is healthy
“A 2009 study from Keele University found that people who swore during a cold-water immersion test could keep their hand in icy water 50% longer than those who used neutral words.”
But did they control for correlation between toughness and propensity to swear?
F--- and C--- are like God Bless You in the Navy (and even more so in the Royal Marines where I finished my career). I don't even know I'm saying them most of the time. Mrs DA reckons it doesn't grate or offend as much because of RP.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
Thank you.
For example, say when Nicola Sturgeon was arrested, you could use swear words to describe the situation but not when disagreeing with a fellow PBer.
It feels like you're now using my innocent question to further your misanthropy. Surely some mistake?
In short, don't swear/be abusive towards other PBers, that's what I am aiming for.
Hmm. You will have to define “be abusive”
I agree with a swear word ban, as I’ve said, but if we’re not allowed to call each other “a funny little freakaloid with a face like a mandrill’s arse” then the site will get very dull, very quickly
It will just be @foxy and the like trotting out centrist Dad opinions in the voice of Adrian Chiles, for the rest of cosmic time
So for the time being swear words directed towards each other is banned, so calling somebody a twat is a no no, so is telling them to have a wank.
However your suggestion would be fine.
There is a swearing ban, now? Blimey! Ain't that the blooming limit? It's a flipping liberty!
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
Department Q on Netflix is very sweary including plenty of c words. On one level it’s quite representative of Scottish chat (even in Edinburgh) but feels a bit performative at times.
Famously, Battlestar Galactica was told NOT to use the F word in its scripts. So they literally invented a new four letter F word - “frak”
It was effective. It gave the script a unique flavour and it avoided the numbing coarseness of endless genuine swearing
On the other hand, would Succession be as brilliant as it is (or was 😢) without all the swear words? Probably not. But the writers use the words REALLY creatively
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
Department Q on Netflix is very sweary including plenty of c words. On one level it’s quite representative of Scottish chat (even in Edinburgh) but feels a bit performative at times.
Famously, Battlestar Galactica was told NOT to use the F word in its scripts. So they literally invented a new four letter F word - “frak”
It was effective. It gave the script a unique flavour and it avoided the numbing coarseness of endless genuine swearing
On the other hand, would Succession be as brilliant as it is (or was 😢) without all the swear words? Probably not. But the writers use the words REALLY creatively
Indeed
“It was supposed to be choreographed. That was about as choreographed as a dog getting fucked on rollerskates.”
and
“He ate my fucking chicken. What’s next? Stick his cock in my potato salad?”
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
Thank you.
For example, say when Nicola Sturgeon was arrested, you could use swear words to describe the situation but not when disagreeing with a fellow PBer.
It feels like you're now using my innocent question to further your misanthropy. Surely some mistake?
In short, don't swear/be abusive towards other PBers, that's what I am aiming for.
Hmm. You will have to define “be abusive”
I agree with a swear word ban, as I’ve said, but if we’re not allowed to call each other “a funny little freakaloid with a face like a mandrill’s arse” then the site will get very dull, very quickly
It will just be @foxy and the like trotting out centrist Dad opinions in the voice of Adrian Chiles, for the rest of cosmic time
So for the time being swear words directed towards each other is banned, so calling somebody a twat is a no no, so is telling them to have a wank.
However your suggestion would be fine.
It’s still a minefield and will cramp debate. But, you’re the mod
Truthfully it's only a minefield to those who tend to abuse. None of us except perhaps the mods choose what other people say on this site but it determines our experience when we engage with it.
Googles "mishanter". Oh. "A mishap or misadventure". An interesting new word. How is it pronounced please? Is it mish-anter or miss-hanter?
Mish-anter.
I was wondering about that. Coming late to the site this morning I was debating whether to scan back and see if anyone had asked the questions, assume someone had and politely keep quiet or jump with with both boots and inquire.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
Department Q on Netflix is very sweary including plenty of c words. On one level it’s quite representative of Scottish chat (even in Edinburgh) but feels a bit performative at times.
Famously, Battlestar Galactica was told NOT to use the F word in its scripts. So they literally invented a new four letter F word - “frak”
It was effective. It gave the script a unique flavour and it avoided the numbing coarseness of endless genuine swearing
On the other hand, would Succession be as brilliant as it is (or was 😢) without all the swear words? Probably not. But the writers use the words REALLY creatively
As teenagers we were obsessed with the fact that the robot in Battllestar Galactica used to say "Buga-buga-buga-buga". None of the scriptwriters had obviously ever visited Northen England.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
Thank you.
For example, say when Nicola Sturgeon was arrested, you could use swear words to describe the situation but not when disagreeing with a fellow PBer.
It feels like you're now using my innocent question to further your misanthropy. Surely some mistake?
In short, don't swear/be abusive towards other PBers, that's what I am aiming for.
Hmm. You will have to define “be abusive”
I agree with a swear word ban, as I’ve said, but if we’re not allowed to call each other “a funny little freakaloid with a face like a mandrill’s arse” then the site will get very dull, very quickly
It will just be @foxy and the like trotting out centrist Dad opinions in the voice of Adrian Chiles, for the rest of cosmic time
So for the time being swear words directed towards each other is banned, so calling somebody a twat is a no no, so is telling them to have a wank.
However your suggestion would be fine.
It’s still a minefield and will cramp debate. But, you’re the mod
Over a decade ago when OGH first asked me to start running the site he told me he was really proud that PB wasn't like Guido where the commentators were really abusive towards each other and I want us to remain like OGH envisioned.
All I am asking for is the we don't swear at each other and specifically don't tell use terms like wanking.
It shouldn't be difficult.
I sympathise, and I agree. When I last looked (years ago) Guido Below The Line was a sewer of abuse, cussing, nastiness. Unreadable
It’s great that PB has avoided that - we do insult each other but we rein it in, generally - and police those who go too far
Genuine suggestion: perhaps make an actual list of words PBers are not allowed to aim at each other. I imagine it will probably be the top ten Anglo Saxon four letter cusswords. Then we will all know where we stand even if it prevents @Dura_Ace from ever posting again
Politics is about passion and emotion as much as it is about reason and argument yet some of the personal animosity towards the likes of Starmer, Sunak and indeed almost every Prime Minister is beyond reason. You may not agree with what they do or say but they aren’t your personal emotional punchbag.
Neither, to be blunt, are the other groups routinely vilified on here such as migrants and public sector pensioners. It’s easy to mouth off at a group (or a race or a creed) but harder when it’s individuals.
Those, for example, advocating cuts to public services may not be the users of the service themselves or know anyone who uses the particular service but that doesn’t make the service any less vital to those who do use it.
Agreed and it is often seen in the use of the word 'hate' towards politicians
I do not hate any politician, indeed I do not hate anyone, but disagree and dislike most certainly and have a real frustration with the inabilility of most every politician to speak honestly and truthfully
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
Department Q on Netflix is very sweary including plenty of c words. On one level it’s quite representative of Scottish chat (even in Edinburgh) but feels a bit performative at times.
Famously, Battlestar Galactica was told NOT to use the F word in its scripts. So they literally invented a new four letter F word - “frak”
It was effective. It gave the script a unique flavour and it avoided the numbing coarseness of endless genuine swearing
On the other hand, would Succession be as brilliant as it is (or was 😢) without all the swear words? Probably not. But the writers use the words REALLY creatively
Also Norman Mailer forced to replace his profuse ‘fucks’ with ‘fugs’ in The Naked and the Dead. I may adopt it in honour of the great man.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
I try not to swear here for long periods and then I get grumpy and it comes out. It's very coarse.
Swearing can be useful. eg it’s a proven fact that swearing when you’ve hurt yourself lessens the pain. Mad but true. And a nicely targeted sweary insult can be both funny and effective
But generally we swear too much (me definitely included). A prohibition is healthy
“A 2009 study from Keele University found that people who swore during a cold-water immersion test could keep their hand in icy water 50% longer than those who used neutral words.”
But did they control for correlation between toughness and propensity to swear? Because it's probably the case that tough nuts swear more than the average. We see that on here.
To do the experiment properly you'd need to have each person doing this ice test both ways. First they emit a stream of bad words eg (no, there's a ban now so I won't), then the second time they can only scream out things like "ooo, golly" and "yikes, that's cold".
Measure the difference each time, aggregate and average across the sample. Bingo.
Actually, I'll click on the link now to see if they did this. Perhaps they did, it being Keele University.
The science is good. It’s even been replicated
I might try it. No substitute for direct experience.
Googles "mishanter". Oh. "A mishap or misadventure". An interesting new word. How is it pronounced please? Is it mish-anter or miss-hanter?
Mish-anter.
I was wondering about that. Coming late to the site this morning I was debating whether to scan back and see if anyone had asked the questions, assume someone had and politely keep quiet or jump with with both boots and inquire.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
Department Q on Netflix is very sweary including plenty of c words. On one level it’s quite representative of Scottish chat (even in Edinburgh) but feels a bit performative at times.
Famously, Battlestar Galactica was told NOT to use the F word in its scripts. So they literally invented a new four letter F word - “frak”
It was effective. It gave the script a unique flavour and it avoided the numbing coarseness of endless genuine swearing
On the other hand, would Succession be as brilliant as it is (or was 😢) without all the swear words? Probably not. But the writers use the words REALLY creatively
Also Norman Mailer forced to replace his profuse ‘fucks’ with ‘fugs’ in The Naked and the Dead. I may adopt it in honour of the great man.
Private Eye used to adopt "fuggin" in association with Mohamed Al-Fayed's swearing.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
Department Q on Netflix is very sweary including plenty of c words. On one level it’s quite representative of Scottish chat (even in Edinburgh) but feels a bit performative at times.
Famously, Battlestar Galactica was told NOT to use the F word in its scripts. So they literally invented a new four letter F word - “frak”
It was effective. It gave the script a unique flavour and it avoided the numbing coarseness of endless genuine swearing
On the other hand, would Succession be as brilliant as it is (or was 😢) without all the swear words? Probably not. But the writers use the words REALLY creatively
Indeed
“It was supposed to be choreographed. That was about as choreographed as a dog getting fucked on rollerskates.”
and
“He ate my fucking chicken. What’s next? Stick his cock in my potato salad?”
Yes. Genius
Just reading the second example makes me laugh, even now
The writers were British. If nothing else, we British remain undisputed world champions of creative swearing
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
Thank you.
For example, say when Nicola Sturgeon was arrested, you could use swear words to describe the situation but not when disagreeing with a fellow PBer.
It feels like you're now using my innocent question to further your misanthropy. Surely some mistake?
In short, don't swear/be abusive towards other PBers, that's what I am aiming for.
Hmm. You will have to define “be abusive”
I agree with a swear word ban, as I’ve said, but if we’re not allowed to call each other “a funny little freakaloid with a face like a mandrill’s arse” then the site will get very dull, very quickly
It will just be @foxy and the like trotting out centrist Dad opinions in the voice of Adrian Chiles, for the rest of cosmic time
So for the time being swear words directed towards each other is banned, so calling somebody a twat is a no no, so is telling them to have a wank.
However your suggestion would be fine.
It’s still a minefield and will cramp debate. But, you’re the mod
Over a decade ago when OGH first asked me to start running the site he told me he was really proud that PB wasn't like Guido where the commentators were really abusive towards each other and I want us to remain like OGH envisioned.
All I am asking for is the we don't swear at each other and specifically don't tell use terms like wanking.
It shouldn't be difficult.
I sympathise, and I agree. When I last looked (years ago) Guido Below The Line was a sewer of abuse, cussing, nastiness. Unreadable
It’s great that PB has avoided that - we do insult each other but we rein it in, generally - and police those who go too far
Genuine suggestion: perhaps make an actual list of words PBers are not allowed to aim at each other. I imagine it will probably be the top ten Anglo Saxon four letter cusswords. Then we will all know where we stand even if it prevents @Dura_Ace from ever posting again
I'll a think about it later as I am off to family things for the next few hours.
Googles "mishanter". Oh. "A mishap or misadventure". An interesting new word. How is it pronounced please? Is it mish-anter or miss-hanter?
Mish-anter.
I was wondering about that. Coming late to the site this morning I was debating whether to scan back and see if anyone had asked the questions, assume someone had and politely keep quiet or jump with with both boots and inquire.
Whence does the word originate. please?
It's a Scottish word.
It's a good one. I like it almost as much as stramash, for a big row.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Genuine q - is swearing in general allowed? I like a good swear word now and again (obviously not at any of the good burghers but for expressive reasons)
Most swear words are allowed except the C word but the
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
As an inveterate cusser I find myself oddly in agreement with this
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
Department Q on Netflix is very sweary including plenty of c words. On one level it’s quite representative of Scottish chat (even in Edinburgh) but feels a bit performative at times.
Famously, Battlestar Galactica was told NOT to use the F word in its scripts. So they literally invented a new four letter F word - “frak”
It was effective. It gave the script a unique flavour and it avoided the numbing coarseness of endless genuine swearing
On the other hand, would Succession be as brilliant as it is (or was 😢) without all the swear words? Probably not. But the writers use the words REALLY creatively
Indeed
“It was supposed to be choreographed. That was about as choreographed as a dog getting fucked on rollerskates.”
and
“He ate my fucking chicken. What’s next? Stick his cock in my potato salad?”
Yes. Genius
Just reading the second example makes me laugh, even now
The writers were British. If nothing else, we British remain undisputed world champions of creative swearing
Whilst it didn't contain any swearing I needed oxygen after hearing this line.
“The Logan Roy school of journalism. What’s next? The Jack the Ripper Women’s Health Clinic?”
Comments
None of which means that I don’t still think that they should not be here at all. We have created an incredibly strong pull to the shitholes of the world. Make it here and we will protect you, feed you, house you and give you opportunities for a new and better life in a country that broadly still supports the rule of law.
And we are shocked when they come in their tens of thousands. We need to get real and remove the pull factors. Our hypocrisy about how generous we are whilst resenting every penny spent is just pathetic.
Category : White Scottish, feck British bollox.
It’s the Matthew Goodwins of this world who think your children are a problem. It’s the Daily Telegraph who amplify his nonsense.
The huge backlog of asylum seekers housed in hotels is a political failure by the last government.
I suppose that what I think needs to happen is a very very simple (like three word simple if possible, though I don't think that it is) of the truth of the affair. In a world where people have fallen asleep by the time you've got to the I in LDI, and where half of Tories actually like the current Truss narrative because it suits their factional stance, that's hard.
I was referring to how they were registered at birth on the maternity ward.
I don't need to be schooled on anything by a pompous, self-satisfied and (remarkably) ignorant fool like you.
Your prejudices on the rest are precisely that - yours.
It's not difficult to find opportunities to get the information first hand. Then go back and challenge those you want to challenge - based on experience - rather than second/third hand information.
We want politicians who have walked-the-walk rather than those who regurgitate nonsense from so-called think tanks. @Dura_Ace would make a good MP as he'd been there.
They're not nearly as sharp.
It's a remarkable piece of performance art.
He's a misanthrope.
This remains unacceptable to most.
The only other one is to have a global minimum standard of provision for all such, based on how it is in Chad, Kenya or Bangladesh. Tent, UN provided three meals, primary education, basic health care from MSF, ticket home always available. No choice as to where.
I think it is time, sadly, to look seriously at this one.
Best ignore.
Get deportations sorted (probably by leaving the ECHR but if a fudge would allow it, fine) so that you can remove failed asylum seekers, and when that's in place, make the criteria massively more strict and drive the grant rate right down, below the European average. Unglamorous, but could work.
But - it must be faced - an awful lot are liars. They destroy their own documents so we can’t truly identify and then deport them. Also, they don’t seek asylum in Greece or Belgium - they come all the way to Britain. Why? Because often they are economic migrants, not asylum seekers at all. True asylum seekers would claim asylum in the first safe country
Then we have a very small minority who are actively hostile and malign. The relative numbers are tiny - but they exist and they seek to harm us
It’s a mess. It is unsustainable. The answer is to abandon the outdated concept of asylum and withdraw from the ECHR. Make it illegal to cross the channel in small boats
Then we choose as a country who we will protect. We can’t shelter the world so let’s stop pretending we can - it’s doing enormous damage to the UK
We can still do good. We can, for instance, shelter Hong Kongers and Ukrainians. And others in the future
https://x.com/Simone_Biles/status/1931129527679308054
Are you suggesting that the power is only going in one direction (insert crack about the erosion of devolution)?
Remove the pull factor by addressing global inequality such that, other than times of war, for the vast majority remaining within your own cultural, ethnic and linguistic sphere is a better life choice than risking your life to travel illegally halfway across the world to chase an imagined reality of milk and honey in a different country.
ETA: my reasoning isn't only ethical; your imagined minimum provision implies that we control the pull factor to a greater extent than we do. Put people in tents, they'll abscond (rightly so imv) into the informal economy. A good friend of mine lived happily and illegally in London for 6 years making a decent wage, before returning to his home country to buy a house. We don't win this by attempting to worsen the experience of migrants to UK imv.
There's far too much abuse on PB directed towards other posters recently, so I am going to nip this in the bud from now on.
No swearing at other PBers, including asterisked out words and no such comments as telling others to have a wank.
The spam trap will be updated shortly, so if you get banned automatically you have been warned.
PB is a place for robust discussions but not being abusive towards each other.
Nob suggests bondegezou is a sprig of the nobility (which may of course be the case but I doubt that’s your point).
You seem genuinely mortified by this, because you don't have the self-awareness to recognise it in yourself so maybe, yes, you're right I'm being pointlessly harsh on you and it's best to just let it slide.
There are plenty of others here who know full well what they're doing and do it deliberately.
1) The swearing must not be directed at other PBers
2) Use of the swear words should be rare.
Ah, my coat.
I am a pretty bad council member though because I don't take any of it remotely seriously. We recently had to have official photos taken. I insisted on wearing an AliExpress wig that was an unkempt blonde mullet with TERF bangs.
We don't, for example, have huge numbers of illegal Chinese migrants do we? (Genuine question)
And anyway, I'd say if it's still the case that people are prepared to give up so much to come here, the only sustainable solution is to use more of our wealth, expertise and tech to give opportunities for them to live a dignified life where they are. Every other option ends in disaster imv.
There is too much swearing, generally. In life, on screen, all around
I noticed this as I was watching Seth Rogan’s otherwise-brilliant comedy The Stage. Every tenth word - or so it feels - is either F or F-ing. That may be how some Hollywood insiders talk, but the overall effect is numbing, and coarsening. It also dilutes the impact of a good F bomb, well aimed
A ban on these words will force PBers to be more verbally inventive. Someone should tell Seth Rogan the same
But generally we swear too much (me definitely included). A prohibition is healthy
+++++
Swearing as an analgesic:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/jul/12/swearing-pain-scientific-research-keele
“A 2009 study from Keele University found that people who swore during a cold-water immersion test could keep their hand in icy water 50% longer than those who used neutral words.”
That's actually higher than I expected, but perhaps not as a proportion of population.
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1931274592863019425
I agree with a swear word ban, as I’ve said, but if we’re not allowed to call each other “a funny little freakaloid with a face like a mandrill’s arse” then the site will get very dull, very quickly
It will just be @foxy and the like trotting out centrist Dad opinions in the voice of Adrian Chiles, for the rest of cosmic time
Oddly enough, when he was really annoyed, he'd stop swearing.
However your suggestion would be fine.
They say some have great pensions and some have poor pensions
We at Reform say poor pensions for all!
Poor pensions, retire later, transfer all your wealth to the spivs
There you go, used up my swearing allowance for today.
To do the experiment properly you'd need to have each person doing this ice test both ways. First they emit a stream of bad words eg (no, there's a ban now so I won't), then the second time they can only scream out things like "ooo, golly" and "yikes, that's cold".
Measure the difference each time, aggregate and average across the sample. Bingo.
Actually, I'll click on the link now to see if they did this. Perhaps they did, it being Keele University.
This one trick PB moderators hate…..
All I am asking for is the we don't swear at each other and specifically don't tell use terms like wanking.
It shouldn't be difficult.
Politics is about passion and emotion as much as it is about reason and argument yet some of the personal animosity towards the likes of Starmer, Sunak and indeed almost every Prime Minister is beyond reason. You may not agree with what they do or say but they aren’t your personal emotional punchbag.
Neither, to be blunt, are the other groups routinely vilified on here such as migrants and public sector pensioners. It’s easy to mouth off at a group (or a race or a creed) but harder when it’s individuals.
Those, for example, advocating cuts to public services may not be the users of the service themselves or know anyone who uses the particular service but that doesn’t make the service any less vital to those who do use it.
It made a trainee solicitor start giggling uncontrollably and the client remarked,
“What does that f*cker find so f*cking funny?”
Blimey! Ain't that the blooming limit? It's a flipping liberty!
It was effective. It gave the script a unique flavour and it avoided the numbing coarseness of endless genuine swearing
On the other hand, would Succession be as brilliant as it is (or was 😢) without all the swear words? Probably not. But the writers use the words REALLY creatively
“It was supposed to be choreographed. That was about as choreographed as a dog getting fucked on rollerskates.”
and
“He ate my fucking chicken. What’s next? Stick his cock in my potato salad?”
Whence does the word originate. please?
It’s great that PB has avoided that - we do insult each other but we rein it in, generally - and police those who go too far
Genuine suggestion: perhaps make an actual list of words PBers are not allowed to aim at each other. I imagine it will probably be the top ten Anglo Saxon four letter cusswords. Then we will all know where we stand even if it prevents @Dura_Ace from ever posting again
I do not hate any politician, indeed I do not hate anyone, but disagree and dislike most certainly and have a real frustration with the inabilility of most every politician to speak honestly and truthfully
Just reading the second example makes me laugh, even now
The writers were British. If nothing else, we British remain undisputed world champions of creative swearing
“The Logan Roy school of journalism. What’s next? The Jack the Ripper Women’s Health Clinic?”