Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
Does he have an alternative name. It’s not been mentioned recently
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
So... you lied about inspiring a right-wing mass-murderer?
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
Never trusted him. Pretending he's an Anglo-Saxon warlord from the 11th century. Pff!
I might suggest it's the sort of poster who claims to have had posts removed from this forum because they were so embarrassing for his career, and one who keeps on getting banned and coming back with a new name.
The sort of fascist shit who lies about his writing inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer. Because that's the sort of thing fascist shits do. He does much worse as well, as can be ascertained from his historic posts.
Farage or Corbyn? Forced choice. No alternative. One or t'other, and you have to vote. No absentions, no drawing dogs' penises on the ballot, @IanB2
For me it's obviously Farage, I've already voted for him multiple times in EU elex, and will likely vote for him in 2029 in the GE
What about the rest of PB? Farage or Corbyn. Forced choice. Show your working
All politics is relative. Farage. More likely than Corbyn to accept the rule of law, the separation of powers and free and fair elections every five years. More likely (though not very) to avoid further bankrupting the country. More likely to support our friends and not back our enemies. Better understanding of the balance of private enterprise and the state's role in society.
We are constantly told it is the right, or indeed the far right, that is angrily on the rise, boots laced. And yes there is evidence for that, of course
But much of the real foam-flecked spitting anger comes from the Left, or the centrists - on here - and out there? Also the BLM marches and the Palestinian marches were much more violent than the Tommy March
"Cyberattacks which have crippled Heathrow and European airports bear 'hallmarks of Putin' and the timing after NATO airspace incursions is 'suspicious' says expert"
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
So... you lied about inspiring a right-wing mass-murderer?
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
Never trusted him. Pretending he's an Anglo-Saxon warlord from the 11th century. Pff!
I might suggest it's the sort of poster who claims to have had posts removed from this forum because they were so embarrassing for his career, and one who keeps on getting banned and coming back with a new name.
The sort of fascist shit who lies about his writing inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer. Because that's the sort of thing fascist shits do. He does much worse as well, as can be ascertained from his historic posts.
Do you ever do cheerful happy comments? To while away an afternoon? All this anger. Bad for the soul
Frequently.
I am not angry. far from. I've spent the morning with my son as we climbed a local church tower, and he got to ring a church bell. You see, spending time with your children when they are kids is great. Abandoning your kids when they are kids is less so. I can only imagine how someone who abandoned his kids as kids, and has only got to really know them when they are older, might turn to the far right and start criticising centrist dads. Because he missed out on being a dad.
You see, that's a cheerful, happy comment.
Can you say anything that isn't a bad attempt to be an edgelord?
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
So... you lied about inspiring a right-wing mass-murderer?
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
Never trusted him. Pretending he's an Anglo-Saxon warlord from the 11th century. Pff!
I might suggest it's the sort of poster who claims to have had posts removed from this forum because they were so embarrassing for his career, and one who keeps on getting banned and coming back with a new name.
The sort of fascist shit who lies about his writing inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer. Because that's the sort of thing fascist shits do. He does much worse as well, as can be ascertained from his historic posts.
Do you ever do cheerful happy comments? To while away an afternoon? All this anger. Bad for the soul
Frequently.
I am not angry. far from. I've spent the morning with my son as we climbed a local church tower, and he got to ring a church bell. You see, spending time with your children when they are kids is great. Abandoning your kids when they are kids is less so. I can only imagine how someone who abandoned his kids as kids, and has only got to really know them when they are older, might turn to the far right and start criticising centrist dads. Because he missed out on being a dad.
You see, that's a cheerful, happy comment.
Can you say anything that isn't a bad attempt to be an edgelord?
Does that mean you've gone from ringing a bell to winding up a bell e...well, anyway?
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Very zeitgeisty that there’s a pub game of snogg Jezza or Tommeh, even if it’s suggested by the most usual of suspects. Should I assume there’s no point in speculating who would be your beau?
It’s like the game of “you can have dinner with anyone famous dead or alive” and my favourite answer I saw was “Putin, dead.”
Putin, dead, at the other end of one of his reaaaaaally long tables.
I'd quite like Putin to go to the Hague and get prosecuted for war crimes. His punishment is jail; but every Saturday he is taken out of his cell, put in stocks, and people can pay to throw rotten fruit at him. The money paid will be put in a fund for Ukrainian children. I'd pay a few thousand to throw some rotten tomatoes at him.
Then on Sunday, it can be Netenyahu's turn in the stocks.
I’ve always preferred the idea that Putin is buggered to death by a Randy pig whilst his eyes are forced open and head angled so he has to watch it on a screen in front of him. I’m nice like that.
Would love to know which sensitive soul was upset enough about Putin meeting a grim end to have flagged this.
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Which side do you pick, PB?
Very zeitgeisty that there’s a pub game of snogg Jezza or Tommeh, even if it’s suggested by the most usual of suspects. Should I assume there’s no point in speculating who would be your beau?
It’s like the game of “you can have dinner with anyone famous dead or alive” and my favourite answer I saw was “Putin, dead.”
Putin, dead, at the other end of one of his reaaaaaally long tables.
I'd quite like Putin to go to the Hague and get prosecuted for war crimes. His punishment is jail; but every Saturday he is taken out of his cell, put in stocks, and people can pay to throw rotten fruit at him. The money paid will be put in a fund for Ukrainian children. I'd pay a few thousand to throw some rotten tomatoes at him.
Then on Sunday, it can be Netenyahu's turn in the stocks.
I’ve always preferred the idea that Putin is buggered to death by a Randy pig whilst his eyes are forced open and head angled so he has to watch it on a screen in front of him. I’m nice like that.
Would love to know which sensitive soul was upset enough about Putin meeting a grim end to have flagged this.
Well, I'm not thrilled with that comment, if I'm honest. I'm thinking it's rather unfair on the unfortunate pig.
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
So... you lied about inspiring a right-wing mass-murderer?
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
Never trusted him. Pretending he's an Anglo-Saxon warlord from the 11th century. Pff!
I might suggest it's the sort of poster who claims to have had posts removed from this forum because they were so embarrassing for his career, and one who keeps on getting banned and coming back with a new name.
The sort of fascist shit who lies about his writing inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer. Because that's the sort of thing fascist shits do. He does much worse as well, as can be ascertained from his historic posts.
Do you ever do cheerful happy comments? To while away an afternoon? All this anger. Bad for the soul
Frequently.
I am not angry. far from. I've spent the morning with my son as we climbed a local church tower, and he got to ring a church bell. You see, spending time with your children when they are kids is great. Abandoning your kids when they are kids is less so. I can only imagine how someone who abandoned his kids as kids, and has only got to really know them when they are older, might turn to the far right and start criticising centrist dads. Because he missed out on being a dad.
You see, that's a cheerful, happy comment.
Can you say anything that isn't a bad attempt to be an edgelord?
The level of ad homimen is just pathological. It's also fascinating. You are so bitterly angry about.... something. Do continue, I think of you as a case study
Here's a fun game for a slightly grey Saturday afternoon. I did it with some leftwing friends over Highgate drinks last night
Imagine Britain has been entirely radicalised and polarised. Your choices at the next elections are
1. A party led by Jeremy Corbyn
or
2. A party led by Tommy Robinson
There are no alternatives. That's it. If you really want to juice it up, pretend we are in an incipient civil war and the two factions are the Corbynites versus the Sons of Tommy
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
So... you lied about inspiring a right-wing mass-murderer?
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
Never trusted him. Pretending he's an Anglo-Saxon warlord from the 11th century. Pff!
I might suggest it's the sort of poster who claims to have had posts removed from this forum because they were so embarrassing for his career, and one who keeps on getting banned and coming back with a new name.
The sort of fascist shit who lies about his writing inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer. Because that's the sort of thing fascist shits do. He does much worse as well, as can be ascertained from his historic posts.
Do you ever do cheerful happy comments? To while away an afternoon? All this anger. Bad for the soul
Frequently.
I am not angry. far from. I've spent the morning with my son as we climbed a local church tower, and he got to ring a church bell. You see, spending time with your children when they are kids is great. Abandoning your kids when they are kids is less so. I can only imagine how someone who abandoned his kids as kids, and has only got to really know them when they are older, might turn to the far right and start criticising centrist dads. Because he missed out on being a dad.
You see, that's a cheerful, happy comment.
Can you say anything that isn't a bad attempt to be an edgelord?
Does that mean you've gone from ringing a bell to winding up a bell e...well, anyway?
I've probably been up a couple of dozen church towers around the country, and have never got to ring a bell. My son goes up his third, and gets to ring a bell. He loved it. And we also got some great views over the Great Ouse valley. One smaller girl actually did get slight lift-off as the rope went off, but a volunteer restricted that movement.
It was another volunteer-run event, and confirmed something that I thought whilst writing a post this morning: so much of this country relies on volunteers.
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
So... you lied about inspiring a right-wing mass-murderer?
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
Never trusted him. Pretending he's an Anglo-Saxon warlord from the 11th century. Pff!
I might suggest it's the sort of poster who claims to have had posts removed from this forum because they were so embarrassing for his career, and one who keeps on getting banned and coming back with a new name.
The sort of fascist shit who lies about his writing inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer. Because that's the sort of thing fascist shits do. He does much worse as well, as can be ascertained from his historic posts.
Do you ever do cheerful happy comments? To while away an afternoon? All this anger. Bad for the soul
Frequently.
I am not angry. far from. I've spent the morning with my son as we climbed a local church tower, and he got to ring a church bell. You see, spending time with your children when they are kids is great. Abandoning your kids when they are kids is less so. I can only imagine how someone who abandoned his kids as kids, and has only got to really know them when they are older, might turn to the far right and start criticising centrist dads. Because he missed out on being a dad.
You see, that's a cheerful, happy comment.
Can you say anything that isn't a bad attempt to be an edgelord?
The level of ad homimen is just pathological. It's also fascinating. You are so bitterly angry about.... something. Do continue, I think of you as a case study
I want to protect my wife, family and friends from fascists. I see pointing out the many personal failings of fascists as God's work. It makes me very happy.
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
So... you lied about inspiring a right-wing mass-murderer?
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
Never trusted him. Pretending he's an Anglo-Saxon warlord from the 11th century. Pff!
I might suggest it's the sort of poster who claims to have had posts removed from this forum because they were so embarrassing for his career, and one who keeps on getting banned and coming back with a new name.
The sort of fascist shit who lies about his writing inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer. Because that's the sort of thing fascist shits do. He does much worse as well, as can be ascertained from his historic posts.
Do you ever do cheerful happy comments? To while away an afternoon? All this anger. Bad for the soul
Frequently.
I am not angry. far from. I've spent the morning with my son as we climbed a local church tower, and he got to ring a church bell. You see, spending time with your children when they are kids is great. Abandoning your kids when they are kids is less so. I can only imagine how someone who abandoned his kids as kids, and has only got to really know them when they are older, might turn to the far right and start criticising centrist dads. Because he missed out on being a dad.
You see, that's a cheerful, happy comment.
Can you say anything that isn't a bad attempt to be an edgelord?
Does that mean you've gone from ringing a bell to winding up a bell e...well, anyway?
I've probably been up a couple of dozen church towers around the country, and have never got to ring a bell. My son goes up his third, and gets to ring a bell. He loved it. And we also got some great views over the Great Ouse valley. One smaller girl actually did get slight lift-off as the rope went off, but a volunteer restricted that movement.
It was another volunteer-run event, and confirmed something that I thought whilst writing a post this morning: so much of this country relies on volunteers.
Although the National Trust seems to be testing that theory to destruction.
(incidentally, on the story in question, it seems on digging around that the real problem is that the regional organisation is more bankrupt than Donald Trump, so they are cutting back on everything. And while volunteers are cheaper than paid staff, they're not cheaper than letting the gardens run wild completely.)
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
So... you lied about inspiring a right-wing mass-murderer?
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
Never trusted him. Pretending he's an Anglo-Saxon warlord from the 11th century. Pff!
I might suggest it's the sort of poster who claims to have had posts removed from this forum because they were so embarrassing for his career, and one who keeps on getting banned and coming back with a new name.
The sort of fascist shit who lies about his writing inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer. Because that's the sort of thing fascist shits do. He does much worse as well, as can be ascertained from his historic posts.
One note on the Russian incursion into Estonian airspace is that they have even less of an air force than Ireland do - just a couple of transport aircraft, trainers, and helicopters.
They have decent G2A systems, but that is probably pointed at the land border.
I'm really quite surprised that this incursion didn't result in shot down Migs.
That fact it didn't should worry the Baltics. And by extension Eastern Europe....
I think the answer is that we have never shot down Russian/Soviet aeroplanes even during the Cold War simply escorted them out of NATO airspace. Whereas they would have certainly shot ours down.
Also, this happens fairly often in this bit of airspace as it is pretty close to international waters. It's not as if they flew low over Tallinn and Tartu.
So probably a boiling the frog exercise, one step up from the Polish drone incursion but designed not to elicit a response. In peaceful times it would probably not be seen as anything more than annoying, and rules of engagement probably reflect that.
But we are really not doing very well at calling Putin's bluff. My favourite response to the Polish drones would be to give the Ukrainians the kit they need to destroy the Yelabuga drone plant and watch it burn. But that probably depends on the Americans.
Or shoot down Russian drones over Poland or Romania when they are on their way to another bit of Ukraine, and when the Russians complain, invite the Ukrainians to target Koenigsberg and then sit back and watch the drones fly "oh I thought we weren't supposed to shoot them down"
As you can see, I think we should respond to each test with a slightly disproportionate response.
I do wonder if we have an agreement with the Russians dating to the Cold War, as surely Putin wouldn't have risked S31s if he thought there was any real chance of losing them.
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
So... you lied about inspiring a right-wing mass-murderer?
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
Never trusted him. Pretending he's an Anglo-Saxon warlord from the 11th century. Pff!
I might suggest it's the sort of poster who claims to have had posts removed from this forum because they were so embarrassing for his career, and one who keeps on getting banned and coming back with a new name.
The sort of fascist shit who lies about his writing inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer. Because that's the sort of thing fascist shits do. He does much worse as well, as can be ascertained from his historic posts.
Talking of banned has pagan2 phoenixed yet ?
I emailed him on Sept 2. No reply so far.
I never minded him. But once when I said I didn’t like driving in Cornwall his reaction was most odd. You’d think I’d slaughtered his first born !!
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
So... you lied about inspiring a right-wing mass-murderer?
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
Never trusted him. Pretending he's an Anglo-Saxon warlord from the 11th century. Pff!
I might suggest it's the sort of poster who claims to have had posts removed from this forum because they were so embarrassing for his career, and one who keeps on getting banned and coming back with a new name.
The sort of fascist shit who lies about his writing inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer. Because that's the sort of thing fascist shits do. He does much worse as well, as can be ascertained from his historic posts.
Do you ever do cheerful happy comments? To while away an afternoon? All this anger. Bad for the soul
Frequently.
I am not angry. far from. I've spent the morning with my son as we climbed a local church tower, and he got to ring a church bell. You see, spending time with your children when they are kids is great. Abandoning your kids when they are kids is less so. I can only imagine how someone who abandoned his kids as kids, and has only got to really know them when they are older, might turn to the far right and start criticising centrist dads. Because he missed out on being a dad.
You see, that's a cheerful, happy comment.
Can you say anything that isn't a bad attempt to be an edgelord?
Does that mean you've gone from ringing a bell to winding up a bell e...well, anyway?
I've probably been up a couple of dozen church towers around the country, and have never got to ring a bell. My son goes up his third, and gets to ring a bell. He loved it. And we also got some great views over the Great Ouse valley. One smaller girl actually did get slight lift-off as the rope went off, but a volunteer restricted that movement.
It was another volunteer-run event, and confirmed something that I thought whilst writing a post this morning: so much of this country relies on volunteers.
Although the National Trust seems to be testing that theory to destruction.
(incidentally, on the story in question, it seems on digging around that the real problem is that the regional organisation is more bankrupt than Donald Trump, so they are cutting back on everything. And while volunteers are cheaper than paid staff, they're not cheaper than letting the gardens run wild completely.)
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
F1: I always make decisions for the race the morning before (unless it's a very early start) but looking at the grid it's going to be hard telling the difference between a great long shot and something very daft. Hamilton for pole each way could've come off. But he starts 12th.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
WRT @Leon 's question, I would find Robinson more threatening than Corbyn. Corbyn is more threatening than Farage.
Farage seems to directly admire both Trump's lack of respect for the law., and at other times, endorse Putin. A dangerous prospect, I would say altogether.
A few years back he had even described Putin as the world leader he most admited.
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
So... you lied about inspiring a right-wing mass-murderer?
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Is it similar to Catherine Nixey?
No idea, I'm afraid. From memory (weirdly, this popped up on my Twitter feed, probably because Eastern Roman stuff overlaps a lot with early Christianity) it seemed complaints revolved around the notion Christianity was all about grabbing power, whereas pre-Constantine it was more about trying not to be persecuted by Decius et al. Being adopted as the state religion obviously led to an increase in both religious dominance and secular authority, but until Theodosius there was far more tolerance, and it was the imperial decision to promote an exclusive approach that led to the end of paganism rather than anything a patriarch did.
Theodosius was rather unimpressive, I think, but there we are.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Wait till I get my Unitarian Fundamentalist movement off the ground.
Vague ecumenical niceness and cups of tea, enforced with brutal totalitarianism.
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
Does he have an alternative name. It’s not been mentioned recently
One note on the Russian incursion into Estonian airspace is that they have even less of an air force than Ireland do - just a couple of transport aircraft, trainers, and helicopters.
They have decent G2A systems, but that is probably pointed at the land border.
I'm really quite surprised that this incursion didn't result in shot down Migs.
That fact it didn't should worry the Baltics. And by extension Eastern Europe....
I think the answer is that we have never shot down Russian/Soviet aeroplanes even during the Cold War simply escorted them out of NATO airspace. Whereas they would have certainly shot ours down.
Also, this happens fairly often in this bit of airspace as it is pretty close to international waters. It's not as if they flew low over Tallinn and Tartu.
So probably a boiling the frog exercise, one step up from the Polish drone incursion but designed not to elicit a response. In peaceful times it would probably not be seen as anything more than annoying, and rules of engagement probably reflect that.
But we are really not doing very well at calling Putin's bluff. My favourite response to the Polish drones would be to give the Ukrainians the kit they need to destroy the Yelabuga drone plant and watch it burn. But that probably depends on the Americans.
Or shoot down Russian drones over Poland or Romania when they are on their way to another bit of Ukraine, and when the Russians complain, invite the Ukrainians to target Koenigsberg and then sit back and watch the drones fly "oh I thought we weren't supposed to shoot them down"
As you can see, I think we should respond to each test with a slightly disproportionate response.
I do wonder if we have an agreement with the Russians dating to the Cold War, as surely Putin wouldn't have risked S31s if he thought there was any real chance of losing them.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Mind you those nationalists last Saturday seem very keen on the cross of St George, a decent Christian + nationalism combo. I agree it’s largely empty cosplay and these people are likely to think Christian doctrine involves having a wee prayer before seeing your gp, but that doesn’t mean various scumbags aren’t willing to co-opt the symbols for their poundshop putsches.
Here's a better idea: every data centre you build, you build enough renewable energy to power it, and you supply the waste heat from your cooling system to power homes and businesses nearby. Simple. Common sense. And fair. https://x.com/carla_denyer/status/1968600428787949695
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Mind you those nationalists last Saturday seem very keen on the cross of St George, a decent Christian + nationalism combo. I agree it’s largely empty cosplay and these people are likely to think Christian doctrine involves having a wee prayer before seeing your gp, but that doesn’t mean various scumbags aren’t willing to co-opt the symbols for their poundshop putsches.
St George, ofcourse, having just been yet another of those Greeks from the coast of what later became Turkey. In the Tommy mythology, he's a pink-skinned wild man, pint in his hand, and sitting on a charger.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Wait till I get my Unitarian Fundamentalist movement off the ground.
Vague ecumenical niceness and cups of tea, enforced with brutal totalitarianism.
Eddie (now Suzie) Izzard used to say that if the Church of England had an Inquisition, it would go on the lines of : "You MUST have a biscuit with your cup of tea."
One note on the Russian incursion into Estonian airspace is that they have even less of an air force than Ireland do - just a couple of transport aircraft, trainers, and helicopters.
They have decent G2A systems, but that is probably pointed at the land border.
I'm really quite surprised that this incursion didn't result in shot down Migs.
That fact it didn't should worry the Baltics. And by extension Eastern Europe....
I think the answer is that we have never shot down Russian/Soviet aeroplanes even during the Cold War simply escorted them out of NATO airspace. Whereas they would have certainly shot ours down.
Also, this happens fairly often in this bit of airspace as it is pretty close to international waters. It's not as if they flew low over Tallinn and Tartu.
So probably a boiling the frog exercise, one step up from the Polish drone incursion but designed not to elicit a response. In peaceful times it would probably not be seen as anything more than annoying, and rules of engagement probably reflect that.
But we are really not doing very well at calling Putin's bluff. My favourite response to the Polish drones would be to give the Ukrainians the kit they need to destroy the Yelabuga drone plant and watch it burn. But that probably depends on the Americans.
Or shoot down Russian drones over Poland or Romania when they are on their way to another bit of Ukraine, and when the Russians complain, invite the Ukrainians to target Koenigsberg and then sit back and watch the drones fly "oh I thought we weren't supposed to shoot them down"
As you can see, I think we should respond to each test with a slightly disproportionate response.
I do wonder if we have an agreement with the Russians dating to the Cold War, as surely Putin wouldn't have risked S31s if he thought there was any real chance of losing them.
Turkey waves hello!
During the Cold War, the theory was that not shooting
1) demonstrated a strength. If they aren’t an imminent threat, that needs to be killed *right now*, they aren’t scaring us. 2) less chance of escalation 3) look chill and sensible to third parties.
Plus, if the Soviet aircraft insisted on not playing nice, one of the chase planes would line up directly behind them. So, among other things, pointing an M61 at them. 100 20mm shells per second - you’d be dead in the first quarter of second. So the Soviet pilots knew that they were alive purely from the courtesy and restraint of the NATO pilots.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Traditionally not but it is growing in the UK, especially amongst Reform and Advance supporters as a counterweight to Islam
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
So... you lied about inspiring a right-wing mass-murderer?
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
Never trusted him. Pretending he's an Anglo-Saxon warlord from the 11th century. Pff!
I might suggest it's the sort of poster who claims to have had posts removed from this forum because they were so embarrassing for his career, and one who keeps on getting banned and coming back with a new name.
The sort of fascist shit who lies about his writing inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer. Because that's the sort of thing fascist shits do. He does much worse as well, as can be ascertained from his historic posts.
Do you ever do cheerful happy comments? To while away an afternoon? All this anger. Bad for the soul
Frequently.
I am not angry. far from. I've spent the morning with my son as we climbed a local church tower, and he got to ring a church bell. You see, spending time with your children when they are kids is great. Abandoning your kids when they are kids is less so. I can only imagine how someone who abandoned his kids as kids, and has only got to really know them when they are older, might turn to the far right and start criticising centrist dads. Because he missed out on being a dad.
You see, that's a cheerful, happy comment.
Can you say anything that isn't a bad attempt to be an edgelord?
Does that mean you've gone from ringing a bell to winding up a bell e...well, anyway?
I've probably been up a couple of dozen church towers around the country, and have never got to ring a bell. My son goes up his third, and gets to ring a bell. He loved it. And we also got some great views over the Great Ouse valley. One smaller girl actually did get slight lift-off as the rope went off, but a volunteer restricted that movement.
It was another volunteer-run event, and confirmed something that I thought whilst writing a post this morning: so much of this country relies on volunteers.
I used to be quite an active bell ringer. I drifted away from it when I had children and opportunities to leave the house alone disappeared for a few years. But it's a good hobby. Gets you around the country a bit. You meet an interesting cross-section of people. You learn new things. It's good exercise. Good luck to him if he takes it up.
Here's a better idea: every data centre you build, you build enough renewable energy to power it, and you supply the waste heat from your cooling system to power homes and businesses nearby. Simple. Common sense. And fair. https://x.com/carla_denyer/status/1968600428787949695
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Wait till I get my Unitarian Fundamentalist movement off the ground.
Vague ecumenical niceness and cups of tea, enforced with brutal totalitarianism.
Eddie (now Suzie) Izzard used to say that if the Church of England had an Inquisition, it would go on the lines of : "You MUST have a biscuit with your cup of tea."
At St [censored for residual anonymity]'s that's pretty much what happens anyway.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
Does he have an alternative name. It’s not been mentioned recently
Here's a better idea: every data centre you build, you build enough renewable energy to power it, and you supply the waste heat from your cooling system to power homes and businesses nearby. Simple. Common sense. And fair. https://x.com/carla_denyer/status/1968600428787949695
Given the P&I Bill has been objected to by all the wildlife organisations (RSPB, Wildlife Trust, Friends of the Earth etc etc) and the professional body for ecologists (CIEEM), with comments such as the biggest attack on nature in recent times, a licence to kill wildlife and even the the Office for Environmental Protection saying it will reduce the current environmental protection, would you really expect the Green Party to support this? Part 3 would allow developers to bulldoze badger setts, killing all the animals inside, by paying a small fee that doesn't even require them to even look for any protected species in advance, be that red squirrels or golden eagles. Labour relies on Greens and Lib Dems lending their vote. Can't see it happening with the current trajectory of this government.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
But Alice Roberts is not a historian. She is a scientist who came into history via paleontology and then archeology. Historian reviewers have found a number of inaccuracies in her work.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
I think one of the main problems is bad manners - her book is clearly riffing on Tom Holland's well-regarded "Dominion". (Dominion - Domination - geddit??) However, she doesn't reference his book - she refutes many of his claims, to the best of her undoubted ability, but by not referencing it she is appearing to be a bit academically arrogant. Trash his book by all means, but don't try to deride it and ignore it at the same time.
Incidentally, I understand that a new Anglican volume is going to be added to make a trilogy. It's going to be called "Denominatiion"......
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Mind you those nationalists last Saturday seem very keen on the cross of St George, a decent Christian + nationalism combo. I agree it’s largely empty cosplay and these people are likely to think Christian doctrine involves having a wee prayer before seeing your gp, but that doesn’t mean various scumbags aren’t willing to co-opt the symbols for their poundshop putsches.
Yes. "Christian Nationalism" is a long way from Christianity as usually observed in the UK. It is an American import ala Charlie Kirk strongly aligned with US Culture Wars on things like abortion, homosexuality, the role of women etc etc.
It has very little interest in charity, social justice, or other Christian concerns in Britain.
Here's a better idea: every data centre you build, you build enough renewable energy to power it, and you supply the waste heat from your cooling system to power homes and businesses nearby. Simple. Common sense. And fair. https://x.com/carla_denyer/status/1968600428787949695
Given the P&I Bill has been objected to by all the wildlife organisations (RSPB, Wildlife Trust, Friends of the Earth etc etc) and the professional body for ecologists (CIEEM), with comments such as the biggest attack on nature in recent times, a licence to kill wildlife and even the the Office for Environmental Protection saying it will reduce the current environmental protection, would you really expect the Green Party to support this? Part 3 would allow developers to bulldoze badger setts, killing all the animals inside, by paying a small fee that doesn't even require them to even look for any protected species in advance, be that red squirrels or golden eagles. Labour relies on Greens and Lib Dems lending their vote. Can't see it happening with the current trajectory of this government.
Indeed, it's a pathetic attempt at a "gotcha" that ignores the fact the bill has many other provisions that they may be opposed to.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
Funny you mention the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I just finished re-reading Marc Morris' The Norman Conquest which looks at various differences between C, D, and E versions, among other sources.
And yes, different views are of course 'allowed'. But they still need grounding in facts and reasonable conclusions drawn from available evidence. When someone's revisions to history coincide perfectly with their own personal opinion it's legitimate to wonder whether this is simple bias.
You can't support Trump and Ukraine, part 43785435:
"WASHINGTON, Sept 20 (Reuters) - Pentagon officials sat down with a group of European diplomats in late August and delivered a stern message: The U.S. planned to cut off some security assistance to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, all NATO members bordering Russia."
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Depends how one defines it. One of us on PB is very definitely a nationalist Tory who sees the UK as being founded in Divine will through the Crown, and adamantly declines to separate State and Official Religion, albeit there is none of the latter outwith England.
Though tbf I'm sure he fully takes part in his local branch's deployment of coffee mornings as a key weapon in its role as the ideological arm of the English State.
Meanwhile, in "Trump can't possibly charge $100k for tech visas" news,
Critical part of the President's new $100,000 charge for H1-B visas: The Administration can also offer a $100,000 discount to any person, company, or industry that it wants. Replacing rules with arbitrary discretion.
Want visas? You know who to call and who to flatter.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
Funny you mention the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I just finished re-reading Marc Morris' The Norman Conquest which looks at various differences between C, D, and E versions, among other sources.
And yes, different views are of course 'allowed'. But they still need grounding in facts and reasonable conclusions drawn from available evidence. When someone's revisions to history coincide perfectly with their own personal opinion it's legitimate to wonder whether this is simple bias.
That's the point I'm making: many of the revisions to history coincided perfectly with the personal opinions of the monks that wrote them. And those opinions would be favourable to their church, their patrons, and their wide religion. In other words, simple bias.
Yet now most of us see that as acceptable. Fact, in fact.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Depends how one defines it. One of us on PB is very definitely a nationalist Tory who sees the UK as being founded in Divine will through the Crown, and adamantly declines to separate State and Official Religion, albeit there is none of the latter outwith England.
Though tbf I'm sure he fully takes part in his local branch's deployment of coffee mornings as a key weapon in its role as the ideological arm of the English State.
The fact you mention ONE person on pb rather proves the point.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
But Alice Roberts is not a historian. She is a scientist who came into history via paleontology and then archeology. Historian reviewers have found a number of inaccuracies in her work.
I suppose ‘tv historian’ Neil Oliver isn’t a great precedent. Apparently dabbling in this area can send you mad.
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
Does he have an alternative name. It’s not been mentioned recently
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Mind you those nationalists last Saturday seem very keen on the cross of St George, a decent Christian + nationalism combo. I agree it’s largely empty cosplay and these people are likely to think Christian doctrine involves having a wee prayer before seeing your gp, but that doesn’t mean various scumbags aren’t willing to co-opt the symbols for their poundshop putsches.
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
Does he have an alternative name. It’s not been mentioned recently
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Mind you those nationalists last Saturday seem very keen on the cross of St George, a decent Christian + nationalism combo. I agree it’s largely empty cosplay and these people are likely to think Christian doctrine involves having a wee prayer before seeing your gp, but that doesn’t mean various scumbags aren’t willing to co-opt the symbols for their poundshop putsches.
They always start with the young.
I assume this is an AI's idea of what a roundabout looks like? Check what's going on with the bars in the middle.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Depends how one defines it. One of us on PB is very definitely a nationalist Tory who sees the UK as being founded in Divine will through the Crown, and adamantly declines to separate State and Official Religion, albeit there is none of the latter outwith England.
Though tbf I'm sure he fully takes part in his local branch's deployment of coffee mornings as a key weapon in its role as the ideological arm of the English State.
Even then, there's a massive difference between a Christianity that sits itself in a nation state (e.g. I vow to Thee, my country veering off into a different country at the end) and nationalism dressing itself in the robes of Christianity without noticing the consequences of its teaching in any meaningful way.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Mind you those nationalists last Saturday seem very keen on the cross of St George, a decent Christian + nationalism combo. I agree it’s largely empty cosplay and these people are likely to think Christian doctrine involves having a wee prayer before seeing your gp, but that doesn’t mean various scumbags aren’t willing to co-opt the symbols for their poundshop putsches.
Meanwhile, in "Trump can't possibly charge $100k for tech visas" news,
Critical part of the President's new $100,000 charge for H1-B visas: The Administration can also offer a $100,000 discount to any person, company, or industry that it wants. Replacing rules with arbitrary discretion.
Want visas? You know who to call and who to flatter.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Mind you those nationalists last Saturday seem very keen on the cross of St George, a decent Christian + nationalism combo. I agree it’s largely empty cosplay and these people are likely to think Christian doctrine involves having a wee prayer before seeing your gp, but that doesn’t mean various scumbags aren’t willing to co-opt the symbols for their poundshop putsches.
They always start with the young.
I assume this is an AI's idea of what a roundabout looks like? Check what's going on with the bars in the middle.
What's going on with the bars anywhere? They bear no relation to the roundabout bit.
I've got a dental appt next Weds. To kill two birds with one stone I thought I'd go to BFI Southbank to see Black Hawk Down as part of their Ridley Scott season. But I dont really do posh so I'm struggling. Do you just rock up on the day and buy a ticket, or is it one of those cases where you have to do it online, get an image sent to your phone, and all that gubbins?
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Mind you those nationalists last Saturday seem very keen on the cross of St George, a decent Christian + nationalism combo. I agree it’s largely empty cosplay and these people are likely to think Christian doctrine involves having a wee prayer before seeing your gp, but that doesn’t mean various scumbags aren’t willing to co-opt the symbols for their poundshop putsches.
They always start with the young.
George looking suspiciously gender specific there.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
Funny you mention the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I just finished re-reading Marc Morris' The Norman Conquest which looks at various differences between C, D, and E versions, among other sources.
And yes, different views are of course 'allowed'. But they still need grounding in facts and reasonable conclusions drawn from available evidence. When someone's revisions to history coincide perfectly with their own personal opinion it's legitimate to wonder whether this is simple bias.
That's the point I'm making: many of the revisions to history coincided perfectly with the personal opinions of the monks that wrote them. And those opinions would be favourable to their church, their patrons, and their wide religion. In other words, simple bias.
Yet now most of us see that as acceptable. Fact, in fact.
Everyone has a bias, but propagandist history is not good history. And, there have always been writers of history who are reasonably objective, and honest. One can usually see through the fabrications of monks who attribute the downfall of those that they loathe to the will of God.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Mind you those nationalists last Saturday seem very keen on the cross of St George, a decent Christian + nationalism combo. I agree it’s largely empty cosplay and these people are likely to think Christian doctrine involves having a wee prayer before seeing your gp, but that doesn’t mean various scumbags aren’t willing to co-opt the symbols for their poundshop putsches.
They always start with the young.
You know we are not allowed to post AI images?
This is not a request that you be banned. I hate all bannings. Just a note. You are also quite new here and are likely unaware, so you get a pass anyway
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
But Alice Roberts is not a historian. She is a scientist who came into history via paleontology and then archeology. Historian reviewers have found a number of inaccuracies in her work.
I suppose ‘tv historian’ Neil Oliver isn’t a great precedent. Apparently dabbling in this area can send you mad.
It’s a shame really, you watch his documentaries on prehistoric Orkney etc and he really clearly loves the subject and doesn’t try and crowbar in any issues just presents largely the history and the archaeology with obvious passion for it.
I remember when he first appeared in Two Men in a Trench as well and he was good value in a fun but interesting tv show.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
Funny you mention the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I just finished re-reading Marc Morris' The Norman Conquest which looks at various differences between C, D, and E versions, among other sources.
And yes, different views are of course 'allowed'. But they still need grounding in facts and reasonable conclusions drawn from available evidence. When someone's revisions to history coincide perfectly with their own personal opinion it's legitimate to wonder whether this is simple bias.
That's the point I'm making: many of the revisions to history coincided perfectly with the personal opinions of the monks that wrote them. And those opinions would be favourable to their church, their patrons, and their wide religion. In other words, simple bias.
Yet now most of us see that as acceptable. Fact, in fact.
Everyone has a bias, but propagandist history is not good history. And, there have always been writers of history who are reasonably objective, and honest. One can usually see through the fabrications of monks who attribute the downfall of those that they loathe to the will of God.
Alice fecking Roberts does not compare to Tom Holland
Tom H (I know him vaguely) writes brilliant books, at his best. Genuinely important histories
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
Funny you mention the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I just finished re-reading Marc Morris' The Norman Conquest which looks at various differences between C, D, and E versions, among other sources.
And yes, different views are of course 'allowed'. But they still need grounding in facts and reasonable conclusions drawn from available evidence. When someone's revisions to history coincide perfectly with their own personal opinion it's legitimate to wonder whether this is simple bias.
That's the point I'm making: many of the revisions to history coincided perfectly with the personal opinions of the monks that wrote them. And those opinions would be favourable to their church, their patrons, and their wide religion. In other words, simple bias.
Yet now most of us see that as acceptable. Fact, in fact.
Everyone has a bias, but propagandist history is not good history. And, there have always been writers of history who are reasonably objective, and honest. One can usually see through the fabrications of monks who attribute the downfall of those that they loathe to the will of God.
Alice fecking Roberts does not compare to Tom Holland
Tom H (I know him vaguely) writes brilliant books, at his best. Genuinely important histories
She's a pretty glib and trivial TV presenter
I've read Rubicon, Dynasty, and Persian Fire, and thought they were outstanding.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
Funny you mention the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I just finished re-reading Marc Morris' The Norman Conquest which looks at various differences between C, D, and E versions, among other sources.
And yes, different views are of course 'allowed'. But they still need grounding in facts and reasonable conclusions drawn from available evidence. When someone's revisions to history coincide perfectly with their own personal opinion it's legitimate to wonder whether this is simple bias.
That's the point I'm making: many of the revisions to history coincided perfectly with the personal opinions of the monks that wrote them. And those opinions would be favourable to their church, their patrons, and their wide religion. In other words, simple bias.
Yet now most of us see that as acceptable. Fact, in fact.
Everyone has a bias, but propagandist history is not good history. And, there have always been writers of history who are reasonably objective, and honest. One can usually see through the fabrications of monks who attribute the downfall of those that they loathe to the will of God.
But AIUI the differences with things like the ASC are not like that. Each version may make a believable story of history; it's just that this version misses out a battle that was lost by the local tribe to the monks; this version does not mention Aethelflaed who was notable in the battle; this version insists that they won the battle, not the other.
In other words, every version of the ASC was propaganda; both for God, the church, and the local patrons.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
Funny you mention the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I just finished re-reading Marc Morris' The Norman Conquest which looks at various differences between C, D, and E versions, among other sources.
And yes, different views are of course 'allowed'. But they still need grounding in facts and reasonable conclusions drawn from available evidence. When someone's revisions to history coincide perfectly with their own personal opinion it's legitimate to wonder whether this is simple bias.
That's the point I'm making: many of the revisions to history coincided perfectly with the personal opinions of the monks that wrote them. And those opinions would be favourable to their church, their patrons, and their wide religion. In other words, simple bias.
Yet now most of us see that as acceptable. Fact, in fact.
Everyone has a bias, but propagandist history is not good history. And, there have always been writers of history who are reasonably objective, and honest. One can usually see through the fabrications of monks who attribute the downfall of those that they loathe to the will of God.
Alice fecking Roberts does not compare to Tom Holland
Tom H (I know him vaguely) writes brilliant books, at his best. Genuinely important histories
She's a pretty glib and trivial TV presenter
I've read Rubicon, Dynasty, and Persian Fire, and thought they were outstanding.
Yep, all those are great. His best. There is one more at that level - In The Shadow Of The Sword. Brilliant history of aggressive Islam (got him into trouble)
I love narrative history like his, he tells important stories and delivers deep ideas, but does it with the pace and detail of a great novelist. Possibly my favourite kind of book
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
Funny you mention the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I just finished re-reading Marc Morris' The Norman Conquest which looks at various differences between C, D, and E versions, among other sources.
And yes, different views are of course 'allowed'. But they still need grounding in facts and reasonable conclusions drawn from available evidence. When someone's revisions to history coincide perfectly with their own personal opinion it's legitimate to wonder whether this is simple bias.
That's the point I'm making: many of the revisions to history coincided perfectly with the personal opinions of the monks that wrote them. And those opinions would be favourable to their church, their patrons, and their wide religion. In other words, simple bias.
Yet now most of us see that as acceptable. Fact, in fact.
Everyone has a bias, but propagandist history is not good history. And, there have always been writers of history who are reasonably objective, and honest. One can usually see through the fabrications of monks who attribute the downfall of those that they loathe to the will of God.
Alice fecking Roberts does not compare to Tom Holland
Tom H (I know him vaguely) writes brilliant books, at his best. Genuinely important histories
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
I think one of the main problems is bad manners - her book is clearly riffing on Tom Holland's well-regarded "Dominion". (Dominion - Domination - geddit??) However, she doesn't reference his book - she refutes many of his claims, to the best of her undoubted ability, but by not referencing it she is appearing to be a bit academically arrogant. Trash his book by all means, but don't try to deride it and ignore it at the same time.
Incidentally, I understand that a new Anglican volume is going to be added to make a trilogy. It's going to be called "Denominatiion"......
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
Funny you mention the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I just finished re-reading Marc Morris' The Norman Conquest which looks at various differences between C, D, and E versions, among other sources.
And yes, different views are of course 'allowed'. But they still need grounding in facts and reasonable conclusions drawn from available evidence. When someone's revisions to history coincide perfectly with their own personal opinion it's legitimate to wonder whether this is simple bias.
That's the point I'm making: many of the revisions to history coincided perfectly with the personal opinions of the monks that wrote them. And those opinions would be favourable to their church, their patrons, and their wide religion. In other words, simple bias.
Yet now most of us see that as acceptable. Fact, in fact.
Everyone has a bias, but propagandist history is not good history. And, there have always been writers of history who are reasonably objective, and honest. One can usually see through the fabrications of monks who attribute the downfall of those that they loathe to the will of God.
Alice fecking Roberts does not compare to Tom Holland
Tom H (I know him vaguely) writes brilliant books, at his best. Genuinely important histories
She's a pretty glib and trivial TV presenter
She looks OK, mind.
The years have slightly faded her? But I don't wish to be ungallant. Yes she is pretty. But no, not an important historian
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Depends how one defines it. One of us on PB is very definitely a nationalist Tory who sees the UK as being founded in Divine will through the Crown, and adamantly declines to separate State and Official Religion, albeit there is none of the latter outwith England.
Though tbf I'm sure he fully takes part in his local branch's deployment of coffee mornings as a key weapon in its role as the ideological arm of the English State.
Christian nationalism is found most strongly in the evangelical churches of the USA or Putin's Orthodox church, neither the US nor Russia have an established church
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
But Alice Roberts is not a historian. She is a scientist who came into history via paleontology and then archeology. Historian reviewers have found a number of inaccuracies in her work.
I suppose ‘tv historian’ Neil Oliver isn’t a great precedent. Apparently dabbling in this area can send you mad.
It’s a shame really, you watch his documentaries on prehistoric Orkney etc and he really clearly loves the subject and doesn’t try and crowbar in any issues just presents largely the history and the archaeology with obvious passion for it.
I remember when he first appeared in Two Men in a Trench as well and he was good value in a fun but interesting tv show.
His madness seemed a bit binary to me: he was good in various TV shows, and I liked him. I didn't like him much in Coast, preferring Nicholas Crane. But then he suddenly appears with a very different personae, spouting all sorts of rubbish.
The obvious answer was that he was always like that, and the format of the TV shows prevented him from giving his own views.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
Funny you mention the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I just finished re-reading Marc Morris' The Norman Conquest which looks at various differences between C, D, and E versions, among other sources.
And yes, different views are of course 'allowed'. But they still need grounding in facts and reasonable conclusions drawn from available evidence. When someone's revisions to history coincide perfectly with their own personal opinion it's legitimate to wonder whether this is simple bias.
That's the point I'm making: many of the revisions to history coincided perfectly with the personal opinions of the monks that wrote them. And those opinions would be favourable to their church, their patrons, and their wide religion. In other words, simple bias.
Yet now most of us see that as acceptable. Fact, in fact.
Everyone has a bias, but propagandist history is not good history. And, there have always been writers of history who are reasonably objective, and honest. One can usually see through the fabrications of monks who attribute the downfall of those that they loathe to the will of God.
Alice fecking Roberts does not compare to Tom Holland
Tom H (I know him vaguely) writes brilliant books, at his best. Genuinely important histories
She's a pretty glib and trivial TV presenter
She looks OK, mind.
The years have slightly faded her? But I don't wish to be ungallant. Yes she is pretty. But no, not an important historian
OK fairy nuff. How about JAMES Holland being better than Tom?
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Depends how one defines it. One of us on PB is very definitely a nationalist Tory who sees the UK as being founded in Divine will through the Crown, and adamantly declines to separate State and Official Religion, albeit there is none of the latter outwith England.
Though tbf I'm sure he fully takes part in his local branch's deployment of coffee mornings as a key weapon in its role as the ideological arm of the English State.
Christian nationalism is found most strongly in the evangelical churches of the USA or Putin's Orthodox church, neither the US nor Russia have an established church
But Putin has since before his ascendancy sought to tie the Orthodox Church to his person and he to them, to the point that the Church blessed the SMO. He acknowledges the power of religion and harnesses it.
Comments
We are constantly told it is the right, or indeed the far right, that is angrily on the rise, boots laced. And yes there is evidence for that, of course
But much of the real foam-flecked spitting anger comes from the Left, or the centrists - on here - and out there? Also the BLM marches and the Palestinian marches were much more violent than the Tommy March
Or maybe it's just that EVERYONE is angrier
Bonnie Blue 'bang bus' to visit Oxford next week.
From the comments:
park and ride suddenly takes on a whole different meaning
https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15117189/Cyberattack-Heathrow-airports-Putin-NATO-expert.html
I am not angry. far from. I've spent the morning with my son as we climbed a local church tower, and he got to ring a church bell. You see, spending time with your children when they are kids is great. Abandoning your kids when they are kids is less so. I can only imagine how someone who abandoned his kids as kids, and has only got to really know them when they are older, might turn to the far right and start criticising centrist dads. Because he missed out on being a dad.
You see, that's a cheerful, happy comment.
Can you say anything that isn't a bad attempt to be an edgelord?
A polar bear would be better.
The level of ad homimen is just pathological. It's also fascinating. You are so bitterly angry about.... something. Do continue, I think of you as a case study
It was another volunteer-run event, and confirmed something that I thought whilst writing a post this morning: so much of this country relies on volunteers.
"We need to be very clear about this.
Rising Christian nationalism is a threat to us all."
https://x.com/theAliceRoberts/status/1968953193771016434
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
(incidentally, on the story in question, it seems on digging around that the real problem is that the regional organisation is more bankrupt than Donald Trump, so they are cutting back on everything. And while volunteers are cheaper than paid staff, they're not cheaper than letting the gardens run wild completely.)
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Also, this happens fairly often in this bit of airspace as it is pretty close to international waters. It's not as if they flew low over Tallinn and Tartu.
So probably a boiling the frog exercise, one step up from the Polish drone incursion but designed not to elicit a response. In peaceful times it would probably not be seen as anything more than annoying, and rules of engagement probably reflect that.
But we are really not doing very well at calling Putin's bluff. My favourite response to the Polish drones would be to give the Ukrainians the kit they need to destroy the Yelabuga drone plant and watch it burn. But that probably depends on the Americans.
Or shoot down Russian drones over Poland or Romania when they are on their way to another bit of Ukraine, and when the Russians complain, invite the Ukrainians to target Koenigsberg and then sit back and watch the drones fly "oh I thought we weren't supposed to shoot them down"
As you can see, I think we should respond to each test with a slightly disproportionate response.
I do wonder if we have an agreement with the Russians dating to the Cold War, as surely Putin wouldn't have risked S31s if he thought there was any real chance of losing them.
1997
https://www.itv.com/watch/1997-election-night-special/10a7060a0005B
1979
https://www.itv.com/watch/general-election-1979-the-nation-decides/10a7060a0003B
https://tswyatt.substack.com/p/the-canticle-of-indignation
"Zarah Sultana consults defamation lawyers after spat with Jeremy Corbyn over party funds"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/20/zarah-sultana-consults-defamation-lawyers-after-spat-with-jeremy-corbyn-over-party-funds
A few years back he had even described Putin as the world leader he most admited.
Theodosius was rather unimpressive, I think, but there we are.
Vague ecumenical niceness and cups of tea, enforced with brutal totalitarianism.
I agree it’s largely empty cosplay and these people are likely to think Christian doctrine involves having a wee prayer before seeing your gp, but that doesn’t mean various scumbags aren’t willing to co-opt the symbols for their poundshop putsches.
https://x.com/carla_denyer/status/1968600428787949695
Carla & her party voted against Labour's Planning & Infrastructure Bill, which would have made this possible.
https://x.com/dc_lawrence/status/1969375728379551778
1) demonstrated a strength. If they aren’t an imminent threat, that needs to be killed *right now*, they aren’t scaring us.
2) less chance of escalation
3) look chill and sensible to third parties.
Plus, if the Soviet aircraft insisted on not playing nice, one of the chase planes would line up directly behind them. So, among other things, pointing an M61 at them. 100 20mm shells per second - you’d be dead in the first quarter of second. So the Soviet pilots knew that they were alive purely from the courtesy and restraint of the NATO pilots.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
I failed.
Labour relies on Greens and Lib Dems lending their vote. Can't see it happening with the current trajectory of this government.
Incidentally, I understand that a new Anglican volume is going to be added to make a trilogy. It's going to be called "Denominatiion"......
It has very little interest in charity, social justice, or other Christian concerns in Britain.
And yes, different views are of course 'allowed'. But they still need grounding in facts and reasonable conclusions drawn from available evidence. When someone's revisions to history coincide perfectly with their own personal opinion it's legitimate to wonder whether this is simple bias.
"WASHINGTON, Sept 20 (Reuters) - Pentagon officials sat down with a group of European diplomats in late August and delivered a stern message: The U.S. planned to cut off some security assistance to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, all NATO members bordering Russia."
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/after-diplomatic-blitz-ukraine-gaza-trump-moves-passenger-seat-2025-09-20/
Though tbf I'm sure he fully takes part in his local branch's deployment of coffee mornings as a key weapon in its role as the ideological arm of the English State.
Critical part of the President's new $100,000 charge for H1-B visas: The Administration can also offer a $100,000 discount to any person, company, or industry that it wants. Replacing rules with arbitrary discretion.
Want visas? You know who to call and who to flatter.
https://bsky.app/profile/justinwolfers.bsky.social/post/3lzbixn6xnn2k
Yet now most of us see that as acceptable. Fact, in fact.
I imagine if I trawled her X-files I would not find a similar warning about Islam or Islamism
This is not a request that you be banned. I hate all bannings. Just a note. You are also quite new here and are likely unaware, so you get a pass anyway
I remember when he first appeared in Two Men in a Trench as well and he was good value in a fun but interesting tv show.
Tom H (I know him vaguely) writes brilliant books, at his best. Genuinely important histories
She's a pretty glib and trivial TV presenter
In other words, every version of the ASC was propaganda; both for God, the church, and the local patrons.
I love narrative history like his, he tells important stories and delivers deep ideas, but does it with the pace and detail of a great novelist. Possibly my favourite kind of book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_(Sansom_novel)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Domination
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
The obvious answer was that he was always like that, and the format of the TV shows prevented him from giving his own views.
THE
GANGS!